[This was submitted in September 2025 but was not posted to our website.]

Introduction

1. In its 2025 report, Freedom House reported “Freedom declined around the world for the 19th consecutive year in 2024. People experienced deterioration in their political rights and civil liberties in 60 countries”. Here in New Zealand we have seen a raft of legislation which gives the police more powers and removes our civil liberties. This bill is just the latest manifestation of this dangerous tendency. It should be resisted by MPs, and this bill should not be passed.
2. This bill does the opposite of defending our freedoms, by giving the Police additional powers, which they clearly do not need, and increasing penalties. The Bill of Rights Act (BORA) vet of the bill notes that “Conventional penalties have proved insufficient to deter antisocial road use.” It states that additional penalties such as impounding and forfeiture of vehicles have been introduced previously before stating, “However the explanatory note to this Bill records that Police report some of these offences are nonetheless growing in frequency and sophistication.” In other words, the deterrent approach has not worked. There is little reason to believe harsher penalties will deter people from behaving in this way, and in the course of introducing them, the bill also includes dangerous powers for the Police to hinder freedom of peaceful assembly, movement, and association.
3. The Council sympathises with the disruption and upset caused to people by others failing to meet their responsibilities as road users. We believe a large part of the problem comes from those concerned having little understanding of the impact of their actions, or empathy for those it affects. They may also be drawn to antisocial activities because there are few pro-social alternatives that interest them. An intelligent and freedom-respecting approach would be to use education and training, with punishment as the last resort.
4. However, this Bill appears to be law-making for the sake of the performance of toughness to the public rather than being a meaningful attempt to deal with the problem. There is no educational activity foreseen in the legislation, and comments by ministers at the bill’s first reading suggest that the government is simply relying on word-of-mouth following prosecutions to disseminate knowledge of the additional powers and penalties. The Bill of Rights Act (BORA) vet of the bill notes that “Conventional penalties have proved insufficient to deter antisocial road use.” It states that additional penalties such as impounding and forfeiture of vehicles have been introduced previously before stating, “However the explanatory note to this Bill records that Police report some of these offences are nonetheless growing in frequency and sophistication.” In other words, the deterrent approach has not worked. There is little reason to believe harsher penalties will deter people from behaving in this way,
5. Many of the activities that this Bill aims to stop are already illegal. The Council feels that it is important to remind the Committee that the bill does not amend section 22A of the Land Transport Act and that conspiracy to commit a crime already exists as an offence under section 66(2) of the Crimes Act. The issue seems to be not that there are gaps in the law, but rather that the Police either choose not to or feel unable to enforce existing laws, as explained on page 5 of the Regulatory Impact Statement government (RIS). 
6. The Council agrees with the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) that there is no reason to believe that these powers will be effective for the bill’s stated purposes. We also note that the quality assurance of the RIS says that it does not meet quality standards. The RIS’s assessment of the options is summarised on page 16, and again on page 17, with the sentence “All evidence is of low certainty”. In other words, this bill asks us to part with our rights and liberties so that the government and Police can try out an idea when they have no idea if it will work.
7. While the Council is sceptical that this bill will improve the problem of antisocial road use, we are confident that it can be used to undermine our democracy. The Council does not believe that it is a coincidence that Police are being given powers that would be very useful to prevent another hīkoi, like the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Hīkoi, so soon after last year’s Hīkoi mō Te Titiri drew over 80,000 participants.

Freedom of Movement, Peace Assembly and Association

8. Clause 42 of the bill replaces section 35 of the Policing Act 2008 and inserts a new section 35A. These broaden the powers of the Police from being able to close public access to a road, to also being able to close access to “a place (which may, but need not, be an accessible place)” allows Police to close “accessible places” means “a place that is capable of being used, or is being used, by the public for motor vehicle access”. This definition seems broad enough to empower the Police to go well beyond closing a road, and the BORA vet states that “If this power is exercised any person in that area may be required to leave and will commit an infringement offence if they fail to do so without reasonable excuse.”
9. While new section 35A only provides the power to close a place because of anti-social road use, the re-written section 35 is not limited to anti-social road use. This means the Police may close access to a road or place because they have reasonable grounds to believe any of the following:
   1. public disorder exists or is imminent at or near the place; or
   2. danger to a member of the public exists or may reasonably be expected at or near the place; or
   3. an offence punishable by 10 or more years’ imprisonment has been committed or discovered at or near the place.
10. Paragraphs (a) and (b) could be used with regard to a protest, rally or march, and therefore interfere with our Bill of Rights Act (BORA) section 16 right toFreedom of Peaceful Assembly, section 17 right to Freedom of Association, and section 18 right to Freedom of Movement.
11. The Council is sceptical of the reliance on the perfection of Police performance demonstrated in paragraph 30 of the Attorney General’s BORA Compliance Report:

“…we do not consider that Parliament is being asked to approve powers that will necessarily give rise to a breach of the Bill of Rights Act nor create a high risk of such a breach. Constables have training and experience in the maintenance of public order through their ordinary duties. They are expected to be sensitive to the rights and freedoms they are limiting and use them only where it is necessary and do so in a manner that is consistent with reasonable limitation of the freedoms.”

12. There is daily news coverage from the USA and UK of law enforcement agencies breaching people’s rights and failing to use their powers ‘sensitively’. Every time a government seeks powers which restrict people’s rights and liberties, the public and Members of Parliament should be asking ‘What could the worst people do with these powers?’ instead of assuming benign and restrained use of them.

Pre-Crime

13. Clause 42 establishes the power for Police to interfere with our freedoms of peaceful assembly, movement and association without any offence having occurred. Police merely need to believe that public disorder is imminent.
    
14. The effect is to punish people for crimes that they might commit. This is unacceptable in a rights-based society. 

Recommendations

• Remove “or is imminent” from section 35(1)(a)
• Remove “or may reasonably be expected” from 35(1)(b)
• Remove “, or may reasonably be expected to be committed,” from 35A(1)(a)
• Remove “, or may reasonably be expected to operate,” from 35A(1)(b)
• Remove “, or may reasonably be expected to cause,” and “, or is likely to be created,” from 35A(1)(c)

Conclusion

15. The Council disagrees that this bill can be justified in a free and democratic society.
    
16. This bill is bad law making. It has been rushed without good reason and the government has yet again decided to truncate the select committee stage of this bill, requiring it report back more quickly than normal. The Committee should send it back to the Ministry with instruction to start over from the beginning, with public consultations on the definition of the problem and suitable, evidence-based solutions.
    
17. The Council thanks members of the Committee for their time and consideration of our submission.