Opinion: Should they stay, or should they go

By Dr John Battersby

The occupation of Parliament’s grounds emerges from a fusion of discontent compounded over time and encouraged by overseas experience. Claims that protestors do not represent the majority of New Zealanders are irrelevant – protestors seldom do. We have MP’s belonging to political parties who do not represent the majority of New Zealanders, but we accept their occupation of seats in Parliament.

Protest and dissent have always been about minority voices, which likely fringe concerns many of us have, though we are less willing to act on them. Despite the diversity of the protestors, a core concern is the mandated restrictions currently in place. Change those, and the glue holding this plethora of protest groups together may well begin to dissolve. Why not change the restrictions? Other countries have. If this was an outcome of the protest – would it not represent the desires of many other New Zealanders?

There are calls for negotiation – but with whom? There is noticeable lack of cohesion and leadership among the protestors, a distinct feature that will confound rational approaches to resolve it. But there is no cohesion amongst authorities either – the police are marking time managing what is in front of them, the Wellington City Council seems reluctant to enforce by-laws, the Government will not talk to protestors, and the Speaker of the House is on his own tangent defying any logic. If the objectives of the protestors are unclear to us – the objective of authorities is equally so to them. If we just want the protestors to go away, this will treat a symptom but will not resolve the issues at the heart of the protest.

For negotiations to work there needs to be something to be gained by both parties cooperating, and a consequence for the parties not doing so. As things stand the protestors have the upper hand here – they are creating a frustrating and ongoing inconvenience at little cost to themselves. If they do not achieve their objectives, they can simply remain as other occupiers at Ihumatao and Shelly Bay have done.

Authorities should be at an advantage with the ability to impose a consequence on those unwilling to cooperate via their lawful monopoly on the use of force – as they have done in Australia and Canada. But in the recent past New Zealand Police have proved reluctant to use force, creating a reasonable assumption they will not use it here either. Herein lies the legacy of past decisions. All the same, using force just to make the protestors go away will not stop them coming back, or going somewhere else. The cause of the protestors discontent needs to be the focus of attempts at resolution.

Then there are those who do not agree with the protest method, regardless of whether it is the irrational Left or the irrational Right, or this combination of all-comers at Parliament now. Why are those who block public streets, park and camp illegally, and who curtail the freedoms of those living and working around Parliament not being punished? Where is the reward for being a good citizen when offending ones are sought out to be negotiated with, offered free parking elsewhere and effectively rewarded for their illegal behaviour? Any negotiated solution needs to consider the reasonable folk and be palatable to those who have paid the heaviest price for other people’s right to protest. So often we walk over the silent and well-behaved as if they are irrelevant. A reluctance to use force will disenchant those who reasonably expect it to be used when the law is broken.

The Prime Minister has called for a review of the rules of protest at Parliament. Treatment of another symptom. A review nationally of what protests may legally consist of everywhere is surely due – not just where it inconveniences MP’s the most. In recent years police action against protest occupations has been reluctant, or if assertive has been reversed by the Courts, which have often forgiven flag burning, intentional and criminal damage, assaulting and resisting police and trespass. Protests where incidents of violence or threats create fear among people trying to do their daily activities clearly depart from the realm of peaceful protest. They occur more often than we think and should be dealt with consistently everywhere – not just because they mess up the front lawn at Parliament.

Dr John Battersby is a Teaching Fellow in the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at Massey University, and a specialist on terrorism and counter-terrorism. He is Managing Editor of National Security Journal and Fellow of the Commonwealth Security Group, London.