Policing Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a few questions around this. Although it didn’t get the kind of scrutiny at select committee that the intelligence gathering did, it still is a relatively significant power.

Starting at the beginning with clause 5, which amends the interpretation section, it just strikes me that this new definition of “accessible area” is actually really, really wide. If it’s an area that it is physically possible for a motor vehicle to enter, then it’s almost everywhere, right? Obviously, it could be The Warehouse car park—we’ve seen the ads—but, equally, it could be my own property or a farm, because if you’ve got a farm gate and it’s open into a paddock, then that area is accessible by motor vehicle.

I guess it’s a pretty short question: is it an area which a member of the public can lawfully enter in a motor vehicle? The Warehouse car park would actually fit that definition because it is an open invitation to any member of the public to drive in. Or is it an area which any member of the public can physically enter? Your farm paddock is one where you’re not allowed to go and drive your car on there; that’s not what the paddock’s for, and there’s no invitation to do so. If the definition is the broad definition, then this is very far-reaching indeed, because you could have, for example, a farmer who’s having a wedding that’s going to be a pretty feisty affair, and the police are like, “Oh, we don’t really like that. We think that it’s going to be disruptive to the neighbours, so we’re going to shut it down.”

That’s my question in short, and the farm paddock’s a really good example of it. Is it a, “You can physically access it by motor vehicle one way or another”; or is it, “You are legally entitled to enter this area as a member of the public, such as a public roadway, a car park, and a shopping centre, or the like”?

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just very quickly. Basically, with the amendment bill that I brought forward with the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Act 2026, which hadn’t been passed at the time that the Justice Committee were actually considering this bill, and so now, basically, this carries over the accessible area closure power that sits inside the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Act, not the broad definition.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got some questions in relation to the definitions as well, and I wondered if I might also just refer to the Minister of Police’s Amendment Paper too. I’ll just stick with clause 5 to start with. I have a couple of questions about that. Other people may have questions on accessible areas, but I just had a kind of policy question that it seems to apply to both public and private areas from the way it’s defined. I appreciate the Minister’s comments on the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Act, but I just had a policy question in relation to—is that true? Public or private, it’s just if it’s accessible?

But the main questions I wanted to ask was that I was trying to match up the Amendment Paper and this bill, and I can see the deletion of the definition of “vehicle” there; I just can’t see where “traffic” is. I can see “traffic” in clause 5 of the Amendment Paper as it’s listed. I can see “traffic” as a definition in clause 6 of the bill, which we haven’t come to yet, but I just wondered if the Minister could just point me to—in his Amendment Paper, it states that the definition of “traffic” is repealed in section 4. That’s in clause 5, and it might be that I’m just misreading it, and I’ve been picked up for my reading of legislation this week already by some other members so it could be my fault, but that’s just a genuine question. I just can’t find where that is in clause 5 of the bill, so I’d be really grateful to know the answer to that.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister of Police, I originally had a question for clause 5, but you actually answered it in your response to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, so thanks for that. I’ll move on to clause 6, which is replacing section 35, and I just wanted to address section 35(1) in particular. I’m a car enthusiast and, over the years, I’ve attended plenty of car shows and cruise events and community gatherings involving—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): And this is where you’re spending your Saturday night.

Absolutely, and it’s actually the Kaikoura Hop this weekend, and I’m in the Chamber tonight; but back to the question. The overwhelming majority of people at those events are law-abiding New Zealanders, and they’re hobbyists who invest a huge amount of time and money into their vehicles and contribute positively to their communities. My concern with clause 6 is that while it’s clearly aimed at antisocial road use, the powers are drafted broadly enough to allow police to close an accessible area where they believe certain behaviour may occur. I want to make sure we don’t end up in a situation where responsible enthusiasts are treated the same way as people engaged in dangerous or destructive behaviour.

That distinction matters because most people attending these organised car events have no interest in things like burnouts, racing, or causing problems and things like that. So I was just wondering, Minister, if you could explain what safeguards do exist to ensure that legitimate car clubs, organised car shows, and gatherings of responsible motoring enthusiasts are not caught up by these closure powers simply because they involve modified vehicles and a large number of cars. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Actually, I’ve just got some thoughts going through my head about antisocial road use too. I live in West Auckland.

💬 Steve Abel: All the best people do.

All the best people do.

💬 Hon Chris Penk: That’s right.

Oh, Mr Penk. There’s a fair amount of interesting road behaviour that goes on there, shall we say, notably at the intersection just outside our house, which happens to be quite a steep rose coming up and then a T-intersection. It turns out to be a favoured spot for the local lads doing burnouts and things like that.

💬 Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Malcolm.

Ha, ha! He’s a bit old for it.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Sure it’s not Dan Rosewarne?

Ha, ha! Yeah, who knew you were visiting all the time, Dan. But I mean, it’s West Auckland, it happens. It is somewhat antisocial, and it’s not a heavy-use intersection, but it does go to a section of the community which is not the only route out but perhaps the most used route out. I’m wondering just how the police are going to balance this up; the need to balance the antisocial road use to stop that kind of road use versus the need to keep roads open so that ordinary citizens can just access them as they need to and get up to the dairy to grab that litre of milk they need for their late-night Milo, and so on. There’s a balancing of those two things.

Committee of the whole House

Well, I’d hope that the member Deborah Russell is not engaging in loss of traction when she’s going up to the corner dairy to get her milk at night. Quite simply, the answer to that is to stick to the rules. We have rules on our roads to keep people safe. We’re trying to drive our death toll down, and, basically, the boy-racer legislation is there to target the boy racers. They cause a lot of chaos and stress and anxiety in the communities when they come out and they perform. By the way, one car doing lots of traction and burnouts can be as bad as half a dozen. My expectation is that, if they’re breaking the law and the laws are very prescriptive, then the police will take action on it. But on saying that, the police also have got discretion. I just want to say that our New Zealand Police, I think, is one of the best police forces in the world and has demonstrated decade after decade of actually being very good judicious users of that discretion.

I guess, coming back to the member Dan Rosewarne, it’s the same. I remember when we brought in the gang legislation and people were saying, “What about the legitimate bike clubs that want to display their bike’s emblem? Will they be caught by the legislation?” The answer was quite simply no. You have to be already identified on the gang list as a gang that’s engaging in some type of criminal activity or harm. The same would apply to people that are coming out to cause harm and create issues in the communities that they love.

Coming back, also, to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb—the question was around, does it apply to public or private places?

💬 Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Yeah, and there were two questions there.

Yeah. So it only applies to private places that the public has access to—e.g., the example is something like a supermarket car park.

And coming back to the honourable member Camilla Belich, the definition of traffic; is it repealed in the Amendment Paper? The definition of traffic has been removed in the Amendment Paper, so it’s actually been taken out.

Committee of the whole House

I am loathe to go to new section 35, because we might have had the questions earlier, but given there’s conversations about antisocial road use, it’s a thought that comes to mind.

I noticed on page 44 of the regulatory impact statement, in terms of expanded grounds for closing public and private areas, there’s examples of what may be deemed as antisocial road use: street racing, drag racing, drifting or burnouts, driving in an intimidating convoy, dirt bike gatherings at public parks, a vehicle damaging a playing field, gatherings of vehicles, and siren battles. I wonder, in terms of new section 35(1)(e), “a person is operating, or may reasonably be expected to operate, a motor vehicle at or near the place in a way that—(i) creates, or is likely to create, noise that, having regard to all the circumstances, is excessive”—now, I guess we all probably have a pretty good idea of what we would envisage was excessive noise, and as Deborah Russell has rightly pointed out, it is a quite familiar reality of living in certain urban parts of New Zealand and, perhaps, rural parts of New Zealand that we hear excessive noise late at night and we curse those who create it. And then we probably in our more conciliatory minds go, “Well, we can put it down to young larrikins doing what young people do,” as we probably all did to some extent.

💬 Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Ah, no.

I thought you were a Westie, Deborah. I don’t mean to be distracted. One of the things that I increasingly observe in the noise space happens by day in built-up traffic areas, and it’s to do with very loud sound systems in cars. Now, I would caution those people who have those extremely large subwoofers in cars that make not just their own car rattle but all those adjacent to them that they’re doing terrible and permanent damage to their ears, and I would advise against them doing it.

I wonder if that would be captured, Minister, and if it’s not already captured; and whether you envisage that the police might find themselves obliged to pull over somebody with a large subwoofer in their car who was causing adjacent cars to rattle; and whether that would be the best use of police time, notwithstanding that it might be something of a nuisance and notwithstanding that the person doing it might be doing harm to themselves and even those adjacent to them for that temporary period.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. To be honest with you, I’ve never heard one of these, but they’ve got these things called siren battles, where they come out and—

💬 Steve Abel: Yeah. I haven’t heard them, either.

Yeah, I mean, they’re extremely disturbing, not just for the neighbours but actually the whole area—you know, the wider community. And so new section 35(1)(e) responds to the siren battles, and this was carried over from the boy-racer legislation.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thanks for the Minister of Police’s answer to my question. I still can’t find, exactly, if this Amendment Paper 668 has it written in the right place. I did check the primary bill, as well, and I also couldn’t find it in there. I’m just looking to see, is the Amendment Paper referring to where traffic is in the right place? Maybe he can get some advice on that.

The main contribution I wanted to make, and I did want to move on to clause 6, is there is quite a significant issue, a serious issue, which I wanted to get some reassurance from the Minister on. If we look at new section 35(1)(a), the definition of when the police can close accessible areas is when “public disorder exists or is an imminent at or near [a] place”. One of the things that came up in our submission process is that there were some concerns by people like the civil liberties organisation that the provisions in Part 2 would be used to prevent lawful protest. I know that we’ve touched on that briefly in Part 1 in relation to protest tours who might be followed or surveilled, but this is a different point. This is in relation to the closure of areas.

You might have a situation we have a big hīkoi or you have a big protest, as we’ve seen in the past, and I think we’ve already traversed today—

💬 Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Groundswell.

Yeah, that’s true—and it can be, as Dr Duncan Webb says, either political persuasion who might want to do a big march down the road. But is this something that the Minister was envisaging would be covered by “public disorder exists”? It’s almost inherent in a large group of people doing anything that there is a risk of public disorder, especially if it’s on a subject matter, which is a motive. That’s often why police are present, because there inherently is a little bit of a risk.

We did have, I think, the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties put forward a submission at select committee, and they actually recommended changing this new section 35 to look at something similar to the Crimes Act, where this right may not be invoked when someone is involving themselves in protest. I think they suggested the Crimes Act, section 78AAA(5)(b). This is a genuine question: is this meant to be included or is it not? And if it’s not meant to be included—and I know it’s a bit late and that’s as much on us as a select committee and people that can put forward amendments as anyone else—would the Minister be open to specifically stating that it’s not to apply when there’s a protest situation? Because I don’t think that’s the Minister’s intention, but certainly it’s been something that was raised in select committee and was suggested that might be changed, and it is something that I know that people are concerned about in terms of the increased powers under this section.

So, genuinely, would there be an opportunity to clarify whether that is the intention of this legislation and maybe other parts, as well, which may be relevant to that?

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I take the member Camilla Belich’s point completely, but I think that in the type of scenarios that were given, a hikoi or a planned protest or—and we’ve just seen one with the protest on horseback come out of the East Coast—what’ll happen there is the police will engage with them. There’ll be some traffic plans, and there will be lots of talking. There’ll be agreements to make sure everyone’s kept safe, and then the protest happens. This legislation wouldn’t kick in unless the protest descended into some sort of chaotic behaviour or breaking the law or not sticking to the rules, and I’d expect the police, then, to look at what legislation is available to them and what powers they have to be able to deal with that.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you very much. That’s an excellent starting question, Camilla, and I have a follow-up to that. I can give a very specific example, Minister, that might assist in expressing concerns around this—the power that police have. You just outlined that in an instance such as a hīkoi or the horse hīkoi that we recently had that there would be an attempt to liaise with the group to find a shared understanding of the interests of protecting public safety, whether it’s protesters or what have you. I know, because I’ve had this experience many times, that when you are organising a protest in an urban setting or wherever it is, when it’s a scheduled protest, you have to deal with the council, and some councils have quite an extensive and extravagant—over time, it’s gotten worse—expectations of what information has to be provided.

They, in recent times, have started to apply costs, costs of the imposition, on the event and started to treat a protest event as like a parade, when, of course, the parade is not a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act expression—

💬 Hon Dr Duncan Webb: It is.

A protest is. What, a parade? Is the Santa Parade in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? I’m not sure. I think, under protest right, one should not have to ask permission so much.

Now, this is a very important distinction, because, as with all of our rights, we should be able to express them, by definition, without seeking permission. That doesn’t mean to say that we shouldn’t seek to reasonably liaise with authorities in the public good and the public interest. Certainly, in my experience over many years, that has always been the intention of protesters, where there’s an opportunity to communicate with the police about what our intentions are and how the police might be concerned or authorities might be concerned to protect the public. There’s a conversation that should be able to happen, but there is definitely a tension that arises in where the boundary sits on reasonable protest action.

I’ll give you a very specific example some years ago now, probably the better part of a decade ago, in Taranaki, where there was a regular annual conference of the oil and gas industry at venues—actually, it occurred around the country. Those who wished to protest those conferences would turn up and gather around those conferences to protest. Now, there was a back and forth, and there was a constant tension to be managed between the right of people to participate in those conferences, which we recognise is a right, and the right of the public to protest against that conference. This is a reality of our free democratic society.

I can envisage a problem arising with too much leeway being placed on, or too much of an option for, the police having to deem that there is public disorder—as in section 35(1)(a), replaced by clause 6—and exercise a right to shut down public spaces to, in that instance, protect the interests of the conference-goers over the interests of the protesters to protest. That is where I have red flags rising and alarm bells going, because too much leeway in that regard on the police would, I think, risk that right of protest.

I concur with the proposition of my colleague Camilla Belich that it would be, I think, very helpful for you to make it clear that the real intention of this part and this section and those clauses is to deal with antisocial behaviour that is not related to legitimate protest behaviour; it’s to do with misuse of vehicles or, as you have outlined, antisocial behaviour, which we recognise is a problem, and the police should have jurisdiction to deal with that, but not to impact protest.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, firstly, I just want to reassure the member Steve Abel that no, this legislation is not designed to suppress legitimate protest at all. That’s not the purpose for it. In terms of the protesters that you might have been talking to that are having issues around red tape and compliance issues, we don’t like red tape and compliance issues, either.

Look, the reality of it is, as we spoke about earlier, it’s a fundamental right in the open democracy that we have and that we should cherish—the ability to come out and engage in peaceful protest—but there is a caveat to that: there is a social contract around making sure that that peaceful protest doesn’t impede the rights of other people as well.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. I do think this is actually a critical point, and I’m wondering. I was just looking previously at—I can’t even remember what the legislation was called—the Summary Offences (Demonstrations Near Residential Premises) Amendment Bill. That’s actually quite instructive. That’s one of the 58 bills that went through the Justice Committee this term. That’s actually about stopping protests outside people’s houses, but it sets a test of reasonableness. I guess my point is this, and I’m wondering if the Minister of Police would consider an amendment that we’re going put together, I hope, that actually identifies that, when in section 35(1)(e)(ii), it says, “unreasonably interferes”, in fact, when you come to ask what’s unreasonable, the fact that it is a protest means that the threshold is a bit higher.

If you’ve got a procession of cars—and I’m actually talking about something that Mr Abel might have done before when he was with Greenpeace, I think, when you don’t ask permission, because you don’t always ask for permission, right? Sometimes the whole point is that you’re being disruptive. If, for example, the plan is to stop your cars in the middle of a main thoroughfare to make a political point, that does interfere, but the question is whether it’s unreasonable. Now, you might reach the conclusion that, even though it’s a political protest, it’s unreasonable, but I guess my argument is that it’s less unreasonable if it’s a political protest than if it’s just a group of larrikins who think it’s a laugh, right?

I guess that, firstly, I’d be interested in the Minister’s thoughts as to what Police’s operational guidelines should be in terms of addressing what’s reasonable and what’s unreasonable and whether those rights implications should be taken into account. If he does agree that it is a relevant consideration that people are expressing political views, then, rather than kind of saying, “Well, it’s inherent” or “It’s implied”, wouldn’t it be much more appropriate to say that this is a relevant consideration in terms of what’s reasonable and what’s unreasonable?

I think we all know that, if it’s a whole lot of larrikins who are just trying to make trouble, make life difficult, that is unreasonable. Even if you don’t like what they’re doing—you know, the tractors from Groundswell slowly going through saying, “We don’t like three waters reforms.” It’s highly inconvenient, and I got plenty of emails saying that it was inconvenient and disruptive. But, at the same time, I was like, well, they’ve got a point of view; I don’t particularly like it, but they’ve got a right to express it in the way they want to. I don’t think they did cross the line. They weren’t doing something dangerous, even though it was an interference with the use and enjoyment of that road by the public road users.

I would be very interested if the Minister would be interested in just making it clear, because I think it’s important, particularly with New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues, to not just say, “Well, it’s the vibe of the thing”, and actually spell it out and say that, when you’re exercising a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act right, that’s a relevant consideration in determining what’s reasonable.

Committee of the whole House

I think the member the Hon Dr Duncan Webb would actually have a good argument if you took section 35(1)(e)(ii) in isolation, but it’s not actually in isolation. If you actually look at section 35(1)(e): “a person is operating, or may reasonably be expected to operate, a motor vehicle at or near the place in a way that—(i) creates, or is likely to create, noise that, having regard to all the circumstances, is excessive; and (ii) unreasonably interferes, or is likely to unreasonably interfere, with use and enjoyment of the place by the public or a section of the public; and (iii) causes, or is likely to cause, damage to, or destruction of, either or both of the following: (A) the place: (B) amenities or features in the place:”. I think that, had it only been subparagraph (ii) in isolation, yes, there might have been an argument, but it’s not; there’s actually subparagraphs (i) and (iii) there as well.

Very quickly, the definition of “public disorder”—quite simply, public disorder is part of a longstanding temporary closure circumstance that is in the current Policing Act. It means a situation where normal public peace and order are disrupted or are likely to be disrupted in a way that could affect people’s safety or the proper use of public spaces, and this allows Police to intervene before or during to prevent things from escalating, such as when crowds become aggressive, fights are likely to break out, or tensions in public places arise.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thanks to the Minister of Police for engaging in this committee stage. It is genuinely good engagement, I think. I did put in an amendment, and it was just based on what, actually, the Council for Civil Liberties suggested, so just adding in a new section 35G. Hopefully, the House Office can have that tabled in due course. Basically, the wording is really just to say that, when it is in relation to a protest—or industrial action, which is another thing that I didn’t raise earlier—you would not be able to rely on these sections. I think that’s the Minister’s intention. It’s really helpful to have that on the record. I did put that on the Table just so there’s an option there if we want to clarify it so it’s extra clear. I think it would be a good idea. I don’t think the Minister’s intention is to include protest or industrial action in this bill. Anyway, that’s there. It’d be good to know if the Minister is supportive of it.

The other question I have—and I might just move along slightly to new section 35A, which is inserted by clause 6. This gives a constable the ability to tell people that they can’t leave—or, basically, to close off an accessible area or part of that area, so a person may not leave or enter. Now, recently, the Minister will be aware we’ve been dealing with the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill. We were talking about what happens when people are moved on, and we have an extensive process in place when that happens. What I’m just kind of wondering with this new section 35A is what the process would be that would be in place usually, in that type of situation, and what a constable would do to make sure there was any kind of objection to that, in new section 35A? What would be the first, initial steps that are taken to prevent people coming into an area?

Additionally, in terms of access, if blocking off the accessible area prevents someone from getting to, say, their home or their place of work or—what other examples would there be?—their doctor, some other place that they needed to be, is it acceptable for people to, say, direct that issue to the constable, and will they be allowed passage through that area if they do need to access it for some important reason?

Committee of the whole House

I’ll wait for part of your initial question, for the officials. The last part of the question—look, I think that it’s very operational, but, at the end of the day, if police are closing the area for public safety, they’ll use their discretion, whether or not it’s safe for a resident to get access to their own home. They can use their discretion to allow people through. Of course, they would respond to anyone that needed to get to a medical facility or hospital or something like that. If they take this sort of action, it’s always around public safety, around keeping the public safe, but they do have flexibility, and there are many, many examples of this where police will use their discretion if they need to, to allow people to have access to an area that they have closed.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I don’t want to belabour this point. I concur with my colleague Camilla Belich that the Minister of Police has engaged really positively on these questions, and it’s much appreciated.

I do want to make a final bid for the value of making crystal clear that you have articulated it in the actual legislative wording that it’s not meant to apply to protest. You very usefully pointed out, in replacement section 35(1)(e)(i), (ii), and (iii), inserted by clause 6, that it’s the combination of those three things that could trigger the application of that. It’s because of the “ands” on each of those.

I do think, just to be clear, that—the Groundswell protest is a good example, actually. The noise of the vehicles, perhaps there were horns tooting—I know there were horns tooting—could trigger subparagraph (i). It could be reasonably construed to be unreasonable interference with people’s ability to get around. I happened to be in Invercargill on the day of that first Groundswell protest, and it definitely completely gummed up the middle of town for a good couple of hours. It would not be difficult to trigger that for that protest.

To the third one, I think there’s a couple of instances where there could have been inadvertent or intentional impact on places or amenities or features that were consequential of a protest. That means you could, even in the context of a protest, trigger those three things. Therefore, I think there’s value in ruling it out, so making it very clear that that’s not the intention of the Minister or the legislation.

I want to give one final example of where it’s important that we understand the tension between what we would construe as proper use of public spaces and public disorder and traditional civil disobedience. Now, civil disobedience is the thing that we don’t see that much of in New Zealand in the traditional sense—we see more conventional protest—but there is a long tradition of civil disobedience which is non-violent, which is peaceful. The most well-known example is probably Gandhi’s Salt March, where on mass people turned up in Gujarat, where it was actually illegal under the British regime for people to collect salt from the beaches even though it piled up in mounds there. Gandhi intentionally broke the law and was arrested by the British. It was an act of civil disobedience in protest against the British regime. It was part of the campaign to end British colonial rule, and, of course, it infamously succeeded. It was a successful civil disobedience campaign.

The other one we’d be very familiar with from overseas, of course, is Martin Luther King’s acts of civil disobedience against the segregation rules and laws in the southern states of America, where, for example, there were sit-ins; people would go to places where it was illegal for Black people to be and sit down and refuse to leave. Those are acts of civil disobedience where, actually, the law is broken by those acts, but they are done for a greater good of expressing protest and fighting for freedom. Here there is a fundamental tension in the law, because acts of civil disobedience will involve lawlessness—i.e., the breaking of laws—but, if they’re done in a tradition of non-violence, which is usually what they are done in, they intentionally force an issue, and there are examples in New Zealand of that.

I want to just be really clear that there is huge value, I believe, in making it very clear that the police should not in any way be considering applying any part of these laws to protest action. That would be a useful clarification, I think, both for the implementation of the law and for making it clear to the public that that’s not the Government’s intention.

Committee of the whole House

Yes, so, again—and I can respond to the honourable member Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment as well.

I hear what the member Steve Abel is saying. This legislation is not designed, nor is its purpose, to deal with lawful protest or suppress lawful protest. There are other rules and regulations that allow the safe delivery of lawful protests in our country. This is not what this legislation is designed to do. I’ll just say that we will see that, from a policing perspective, it is a balancing act in terms of trying to balance for always allowing peaceful protests as long as they remain peaceful and the rights of other people going about their daily rights. There’s always a bit of tension that sits in there. It’s really hard to get it perfect. It’s really hard to get it perfect every time. There’s always going to be someone that’s a bit upset or a bit put out, but the reality of it is that this legislation is not designed for, nor would it be dealing with, those situations.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Tangi Utikere): No, not yet. I agree that the exchange between the Minister of Police and members is very fulsome, and the Minister is addressing issues that have been raised. We have somewhat exhausted components of proposed section 35, so I am looking to move this to other parts of the clause or the Part.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I will move on. Obviously that New Zealand Bill of Rights issue was one well worthy of fulsome debate. Two things: I want to just understand from the Minister how the stopping will work, but one thing I’m a little confused about, like my colleagues, is in the Amendment Paper, in clause 5, you’ve repealed the definition of “traffic”. It actually says repeal the definition of traffic, but you don’t repeal something that’s not passed into law. Are we talking about the definition of “traffic” in this bill or are we talking about the definition of “traffic” somewhere else?

The bill says the “traffic means all traffic (including pedestrian traffic).”, which is kind of an unusual way to define traffic. If you could just clarify what’s going on with “traffic” and whether the definition of traffic in this bill remains; that would be really useful. Then section 35A inserted by clause 6 talks about the direction to leave. I’m interested in how this actually operates because it doesn’t give a whole lot of mechanics around it. One of the interesting things about this framework is it appears that a single officer can make a snap decision on the basis of section 35 and then, all of a sudden, you know, kind of scarily put up his hand and say, “I’m stopping you and I’m directing you to leave.” Is that direction a simple—will it be sufficient for the officer, constable to simply wave someone down and say, “I’m closing this road, off you go.”? Or will they have to do something more formal than that?

It doesn’t appear that there’s any kind of notice requirements or anything like that, and yet I would assume they would have to at least say, “I’m closing this road because of my powers.”, and at least identify the power, because if you’re driving home and you’re going your usual way and the office is like, well, “You can’t come here.”, it would strike me that you should at least expect the officer to be able to say, “I have closed this road under my powers under the Policing Act, section 35.” Otherwise, there’s a question of authority. Most people, when a police officer says “You can’t come down here.” will take it at face value, but there are those that will say, “Well, who do you think you are? This is a public road and I’m going to do this.”

Obviously, you’ve got the ability to stop, and police have always had an ability to stop, and section 35B adds this as an additional ability to stop, to notify someone. I’m particularly interested to understand exactly when that kicks in, because, obviously, if you haven’t been notified, then going through this closed area isn’t going to be an offence but if you’ve been told you can’t go down there, but you haven’t been told on what authority that exists, I’m unclear as to whether that would be in breach of these provisions or not.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just for the honourable member Camilla Belich, in relation to your Amendment Paper, I just wanted to address that. Sorry, your Amendment Paper—I’ll come back to that one. Your Amendment Paper: the bill does not empower police to suppress lawful protests and other lawful gatherings, and so your Amendment Paper around this section may not be invoked where any person is engaged in protests, advocacy, or dissent, or where it is part of an industrial action; does not apply because the purpose and design of the legislation is not to deal with that.

The other question that you raised is the antisocial road-user legislation inserted a definition of “traffic” under section 4 of the Policing Act but it is not yet in force, so it won’t be showing in the primary legislation. The Amendment Paper will remove the definition and traffic for the purpose of section 35, as defined in subsection 4.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thanks to the Minister of Police. I’m disappointed that he won’t accept my Amendment Paper, which I think was a good one, especially because I had to write it by hand. At the same time, it’s really good to have that clarified that it won’t apply to protest action or industrial action. I think just the fact that we have that on the Hansard is actually super helpful, so thank you for engaging with that and thanks to the House Office and the Clerk for assisting me with that.

I do have some questions before we move on to infringement offences. Thank you also for the definition; I’m glad that we clarified that because we just couldn’t make sense of it, but if it’s not actually in the primary statute; that makes a lot more sense. The questions I had—and I was looking at this; I know I mentioned move-on orders before, but these provisions in relation to infringement offences are actually very similar to what is in that legislation, so it has just kind of brought to mind a few of the issues that we considered, going through that legislation.

CHAIRPERSON (Tangi Utikere): Can I just check that you’re at clause 9?

I’m at clause 7.

CHAIRPERSON (Tangi Utikere): Thank you.

The point I wanted to make in 35BA(3), inserted by clause 7, when we say “address”. Now, in the move-on orders, when the House put address in, they said “if any”. That’s because some people, specifically with move-on orders, applied to rough sleepers. I’m just wondering about the possibility of maybe if someone doesn’t have an address, would they have to provide that information if they didn’t have an address? It just was an issue that came up. If you look at the move-on order legislation, it’s, basically, identical apart from that, because we have “if any” as well for electronic address. So we are allowing for people not to have emails, but, of course, some people don’t have a permanent house. Maybe that’s not so much of a concern with this legislation but something to consider.

The other thing that I wanted to know: another thing that came up when we were considering move-on orders, and I’m just specifically looking around when people can be detained because they won’t provide information; I’m looking now at clause 8. In the move-on orders legislation, we had a number of suggestions from submitters around a time limit for that. I don’t think there is one, actually, in that legislation now, but a suggestion was that there should be a time limit so that person can’t be detained indefinitely or for an unreasonable period of time. What I was wondering is: would that be a consideration for this legislation, in that a time limit just might mean that there was more clarity as to how long the police could reasonably detain someone for a relatively minor issue, which is not providing the address that they have been requested to under the previous clause?

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. I just thought we haven’t touched on infringement offences at all, so I just—

CHAIRPERSON (Tangi Utikere): Can I interrupt the member? I had indicated that I was not taking the closure motion previously because there was good engagement from the Minister of Police, but also I’d asked people to consider moving on from what was clause 6. My assessment is that is exactly what the committee is doing.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. Yes, so I just think it is important that we talk a little bit about the infringement offences because this is obviously when, to use the term, the rubber hits the road for people who are breaching this particular piece of legislation. This is when we are looking at an infringement fee of $1,000 or a fine imposed by the court, not exceeding $3,000. I just wondered, again: these figures that have been landed on—I don’t believe we covered this at the Justice Committee; members will tell me. Are these figures comparable to other similar infringement offences? I think I recall $1,000 being quite similar to—

💬 Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Yes, the move-on orders, wasn’t it?

Yeah, I think there was an—and trespass order is I think about $1,000, but I’m just wondering how the $3,000 was landed on as a fine imposed by the court.

Obviously, we don’t have a term of imprisonment that I can see as the highest offence either. Those are just some questions I have. I wouldn’t mind if the Minister of Police was able to just explain the process, and that’s going over quite a few clauses. I think we’ve got how it’s issued, and then what it must contain. That’s all listed out in how it must be served, but I wouldn’t mind if the Minister did have an idea of how that process would usually be in place and if he could give some explanation to that.

Also, we have a provision for reminder notices. If a reminder notice is sent, what happens if that’s not complied with? That’s under clause 9. So, yeah, moving on for a few other ones there. I know there’s another offence also that maybe some colleagues have some questions about, but I don’t.

Committee of the whole House

I’ll try and catch up with some of those. Detained time limit: it’s not needed as it will depend on the circumstances in terms of how the interaction is and the compliance. Section 35C, amended by clause 8, requires that a person is detained for no longer than reasonably necessary. By the way, this is something that police deal with every day. You get people that give false addresses, they don’t want to give their address, and, of course, you do have the odd case where they have to try and track down an address from where the person is from; but if no address, police will try and find an address the person is connected to, otherwise, the person will be listed as having no fixed abode. The infringement level matches the penalty for the infringement offence imposed through the boy racers Act.

CHAIRPERSON (Tangi Utikere): Before I take the next call, given that there are Opposition members and Government members seeking the call, and the indication that I already have given, I hope that Government members are not seeking to attempt a closure motion.

💬 Hon Matt Doocey: You’re a tough Chair.

💬 Steve Abel: You should follow the legislation, mate. We’ve got a way to go.

Committee of the whole House

Just a short question, if I may, Mr Chair and Minister of Police. It is around the infringement framework. This is more practical than legislative, but one of the real concerns about this is implementation, right. As we understand it, the infringement framework of the police is pretty much at capacity already, and we’ve now got move-on orders and we’ve got the shoplifting one as well—that’s an infringement notice as well—and now you’ve got another infringement notice framework here. I guess it’s a very short question, but are you confident that the police—because these are provided electronically, if I’ve got it right. Yeah, the notice may be served by delivering it, by leaving it, or electronically—that’s new section 46F, inserted by clause 9—and, of course, we know that there’s a desire to default to electronic addresses. My first question is, is it up to scratch?

Then the other one is new section 46F(e), “by sending it to—(i) an electronic address that the person has given to the constable;”. I get that if you’re stopped and you’re like, “Well, my address is Duncan Webb, but I won’t tell you what it is because I don’t want you to know.”, and so on, that’s all well and good. But the other one is subparagraph (e)(ii), “if the person has not given an electronic address to a constable, the person’s last known electronic address.” Someone might say, “I’m not giving you my email.”, and so they go back and they’re like, “Oh, well, we pulled him over two years ago and we gave him a ticket to this address.”

There’s no evidence that it’s live, and yet you’ve got this electronic address and all the legal consequences that flow from that because it’s conclusively presumed to be served. That’s a real problem. Paragraph(2)(b) says, “an infringement notice is sent to have valid electronic address”. Now, it might still be valid, but they might have just decided to not use that account. They don’t like Hotmail anymore because they get too much spam. So in terms of that particular one, sending it to an address where they have no idea whether it’s still live—it might be valid, but it might not be live—is kind of problematic if, when they don’t pay their fine, they then get a court summons. We know the kind of slippery slope from there once you get a court summons, and when you don’t turn up or whatever, it can get very messy indeed. I’d be interested in any comments on that.

Committee of the whole House

Mr Chair, in relation to an infringement notice that’s not paid and how it’s managed; new section 46G, inserted by clause 9, states that a reminder notice is issued to the person. If the infringement fee is not paid within 28 days, then a reminder notice is issued. The matter is then transferred to the courts.

In terms of implement—sorry, it’s been a long night—implementation and the ability for police to manage the infringements; police will be able to enforce the new infringement offence when it comes into force. The bill has been drafted to ensure that the infringement offence and related provisions in Part 2 will commence by Order in Council or no later than the second anniversary of the Royal assent.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for your engagement, Minister of Police. The Hon Dr Duncan Webb just kind of prompted me to ask this question, so I’ll just crack on. It’s around clause 7, “New section 35BA inserted”, and it’s interesting because it creates a new power allowing police to require a person to provide their name, address, date of birth, and electronic address for the purpose of issuing an infringement notice. I understand the practical need for that, but what I’m trying to understand is where the boundaries of this power sit in practice.

For example, it’s not uncommon for large groups of motorcyclists to take part in organised charity rides and memorial rides, or club rides and things like that, and those events can involve dozens or even hundreds of riders, in some cases, travelling together entirely lawfully. I’m just wondering, if an area is closed under new section 35, inserted by clause 6, a significant number of ordinary people may suddenly find themselves subject to police directions despite having committed no antisocial behaviour themselves. I was just wondering if the Minister could explain the circumstances in which a person who has committed no offence themselves can be required to provide their biographical details under this clause and what safeguards prevent this power being used more broadly than is necessary to issue an infringement notice.

Committee of the whole House

In my experience, gang members are obnoxious when they use the roads on their bikes, but actually genuine motorcycle clubs are very respectful, they’re well organised, and they stick to the rules. This legislation here is not designed at all to deal with motorbike clubs that are out doing a poker run or something like that. If, for some reason, the police have had to close a public area because they are dealing with a situation under this legislation, then it’s in the best interest of all members of the public, including members of a biking club that are out riding, to avoid that area.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Committee of the whole House

Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Tangi Utikere): Is this new information?

Yeah, it is.

CHAIRPERSON (Tangi Utikere): We’re just about there.

We’ve only really done clauses 7 and 8, but I’m going to move on to 9. That’s not going to upset anyone, obviously. This might be a query and it might betray my lack of knowledge of how law works in this regard, but in new section 46F, “How infringement notice may be served. (1) An infringement notice may be served to the person who the constable believes is committing or has committed the infringement offence,”. Paragraph (b) of that says it can be left “for the person at the person’s last known place of residence with another person who appears to be of or over the age of 14 years; or (c) leaving it for the person at the person’s place of business or work with another person;”.

I’m just very interested to note that 14 years: is that a standard age where it’s regarded that somebody is sufficiently old that they can carry the responsibility of delivering an infringement notice to, presumably, an elder in their residence. Why is 14 years acceptable and why it wouldn’t be required that it be left with an adult?

Committee of the whole House

Mr Chair, I’ll just wait for the officials to deal with the 14 years issue, but just very quickly to wrap up what sounds like the last couple of questions that were in relation to an address. Police will use the address that the person gave to police, and the notice will go to this address even if they have changed it subsequently.

CHAIRPERSON (Tangi Utikere): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 668 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 31

New Zealand Labour 21; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Tangi Utikere): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 6, new section 35(1)(a), deleting the words “or is imminent” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 31

New Zealand Labour 21; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Tangi Utikere): Members, Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendments to clause 6, new section 35(1)(b), (d), (e), and (f), to delete the words “or may reasonably be expected” lend themselves to being grouped. I will put a single question on them, unless members indicate that they wish to vote differently on a specific amendment.

The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendments to clause 6, new section 35(1)(b), (d), (e), and (f), to delete the words “or may reasonably be expected” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 31

New Zealand Labour 21; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Tangi Utikere): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 6 inserting new section 35(2) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 31

New Zealand Labour 21; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Tangi Utikere): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 6, new section 35(4), inserting a definition of “accessible area” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 31

New Zealand Labour 21; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Tangi Utikere): Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 6 inserting new section 35(5) is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendments to delete clauses 7 to 12 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 31

New Zealand Labour 21; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 31

New Zealand Labour 21; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Tangi Utikere): Members, we now come to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 to 3—“Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”.