Vague and broad: Bill to restrict protest near homes risks limiting speech

07 October 2025
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Vague and broad: Bill to restrict protest near homes risks limiting speech

The Government bill seeking to restrict demonstrations near residential premises is vague, broad, and goes beyond what is necessary to protect residential privacy. It risks limiting legitimate peaceful protest and leaves too much open to interpretation by police and the courts. The Free Speech Union has submitted concerns and recommendations, urging the Government to focus on genuinely coercive behaviour and enforcing the law that already exists, says Stephen Franks, Chair of the Free Speech Union. 

“We accept that protests which cross the line from expression into coercion can legitimately be restricted, but this bill opens the door to limiting peaceful protest. Undefined and subjective language such as “near” and “unreasonable disruption” creates uncertainty for protestors, police, and the courts.

“Existing laws already address genuinely coercive conduct, including harassment, trespass, intimidation, and excessive noise. We are not satisfied that the Government has identified a legislative gap that justifies creating a new offence. Authorities should focus on illegal actions, rather than seeking to limit Kiwis' speech rights. 

“The Bill’s ‘ought to know’ clause means people could face criminal charges even if they never intended to cause disruption, simply because authorities believe they should have known their protest might disturb someone. This should ring alarm bells. We should not introduce laws that others can weaponise against speech they merely find offensive or inconvenient.

“Our submission’s recommendations include that key terms are narrowly defined, the Bill’s scope is limited to intentional or reckless behaviour and ensures that non-threatening activities such as brief vigils or displays of dissent remain protected. Free speech is the lifeblood of democracy, and we cannot accept vague laws that risk this fundamental freedom.”

ENDS

Note to editor: Find our submission here.