Law Society worried Policing Amendment Bill could lead to clampdown on political protest

Source: Radio New Zealand

Is New Zealand about to get its own version of a law that caused uproar in New South Wales, clashes in Sydney’s streets and that has now been thrown out?

The Law Society here is worried the Policing Amendment Bill which is making its way through Parliament with strong police backing will clamp down on political protest.

“It’s a clear parallel,” said Timothy Roberts, president of the New South Wales Council of Civil Liberties.

There is evidence behind the concern – the Independent Police Conduct Authority last year found police exhibited a lot of uncertainty and inconsistency about the limits of lawful protest and what the restrictions should be, and called for explicit laws to protect protesters’ rights.

But the government on Wednesday said: “Our police have a strong, long-standing track record of upholding civil liberties and human rights.”

Last month New South Wales’ top court threw out a law enacted after the Bondi Beach terror attack.

The public assembly restriction declaration or PARD scheme expanded police powers to restrict protests in certain areas.

In such a zone in Sydney in February, police clashed with people protesting the visit of Israel’s president.

The city’s mayor Clover Moore said, “Seeing the unrestrained force used to impose those demarcations was disturbing.”

Roberts said the new law had a lot to do with it.

“The police were completely inflexible. So they could have released the crowd to march on from the area peaceably. But because of the political pressure, the legislative framework, they didn’t.

“And that inflexibility led to some really serious violence,” Roberts told RNZ.

Like Roberts, Samantha Lee saw parallels between the PARD and the New Zealand bill. Lee is assistant principal lawyer at Redfern Legal Centre which is working to get criminal charges against Sydney protesters dismissed.

“What the court found is that this executive power is a breach of the constitution in terms of the political freedom of communication and that what it was really doing is stopping the right to protest,” Lee said.

“Protesting has a long history in Australia, as it does there in New Zealand. And the court did say a lot about that, that police should not remove a person’s ability to bring governments to account, even if they’re protesting against against matters that the police don’t like,” Lee said.

The NSW law was rushed in. The New Zealand bill was hurriedly drafted without public consultation.

Police Minister Mark Mitchell said he was open to feedback on any bill, “which is exactly why it goes through the select committee process so New Zealanders can have their say and ensure that it’s fit for purpose”.

The bill’s first part would expand police intelligence-gathering powers; its second part would expand their powers to declare areas off-limits ahead of time in case of imminent public disorder. It would extend the power beyond roads to many public places, and add an instant $1000 infringement fee for someone who entered or did not leave a zone, plus adding a new offence of failing to give police identifying details.

Most reporting has focused on the first part.

The Law Society is pushing the select committee to amend both parts of the bill.

“The difficulties in enforcement and the desirability of ‘closing’ a space are acknowledged, as is the prospect that disturbances may involve other areas (parks etc, other public spaces such as river beds) which are not roads,” it said.

“Against this, however, there are also valid concerns regarding the risks of undue expansion, in that political protests involving disorder may lead to closure of roads and accessible places, and thus prohibitions on entry and potential arrests.”

The bill made “vague” references to “public safety objectives” that could trigger closure, risking “creep in their use into the field of legitimate protest”, the society said.

Paul Rishworth KC helped write its submission.

“It needs to be reconsidered as to how it all applies to public protest,” Rishworth said.

“An example would be that if a protest of some sort is happening or is planned for the following day, and there is either actual counter-protest or the threat of counter-protest, that might be seen as producing disorder or likely to produce disorder, then that might be a reason for closing it down.”

There were existing powers police had to deal with boy racers, he added.

The bill was not a direct parallel with PARD but was in the same universe, and at the very least should be amended to require regular reporting back by police on how they were using the new powers, Rishworth said.

Also, the Law Society wanted preconditions on closures to be added, and the infringement offences removed since the offence of obstruction already existed.

However, Police Association president Steve Watt rejected that part two went too far.

“What it’s aimed to do is increase public safety around those public places where disorder and other events like boy racers might tend to congregate,” said Watt.

“The police are, you know, extremely well-versed when it comes to lawful protests from members of the public.

“I can’t see police using this law as a method of shutting down lawful protests.”

Mitchell said the bill as a whole was about “reinstating police’s ability to lawfully collect and record information to keep communities safe, not introducing new powers”.

“I’ve seen the concerns raised and will consider any sensible changes which improve clarity, but my focus is on restoring the tools police need to keep Kiwis safe.”

Police consulted about part one of the bill with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, but not about part two.

The bill’s regulatory impact statement talked about police working through the issues as they implemented it.

Last year, after a two-year investigation, the Independent Police Conduct Authority found both the law, and police practices and understanding, were lacking around protesters’ rights.

It called for explicit legislation to protect them.

“Without such a legislative regime, the preservation of fundamental rights is likely to come under increasing threat,” it said.

Documents attached to the policing bill did not mention the IPCA investigation. The authority declined to comment while the bill was before Parliament.

The bill sees the IPCA and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner as the main watchdogs over how police used it.

However, the authority recently told MPs it lacked resources, and the Commissioner has put out several statements opposing the bill, saying the level of oversight was inadequate.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand