📋 Expanding police surveillance and recording powers
← All policiesAuthorises police to film and audio-record people in public places, and on private property whenever they're "lawfully present", for purposes including an undefined "intelligence" category and a catch-all for "any other lawful purpose tied to Police activities". This reaffirms the position police believed they already had, before the Supreme Court's Tamiefuna v R [2025] NZSC 40 decision found otherwise. Also expands powers to close public areas to pedestrians and traffic, and to compel identification.
Critics - the Free Speech Union among them - flagged that the bill places no limits on how long collected information can be kept, and includes no audit or oversight requirements.
This follows a recurring pattern: the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Act 2011 and the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (also tagged here) likewise expanded police surveillance powers - the 2011 Act specifically to reverse a Supreme Court ruling (Hamed v R) that found existing covert surveillance practice unlawful, much as this 2026 bill responds to Tamiefuna v R.
How each party has stood on this policy over time. On a 🔄 Aye = against vote, whoever voted Aye is shown as opposing the policy, not supporting it. 🙋 Conscience vote rows show which way most of that party's MPs voted, plus what % voted Aye in the House.
📚 References
- Policing Amendment Bill would let police film you, detain you, and demand your name at any public gathering - Free Speech Union
- Hamed v R - Wikipedia
- Policing Amendment Bill to reaffirm police can record images, sounds in some places - The Lawyer
- Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Act 2011 - Wikipedia
- Search and Surveillance Act 2012 - Wikipedia