“Discomfort Is Not Harm”: Rights Group Slams Bill To Jail Peaceful Protesters To Shield Politicians – Rights Aotearoa

A Government bill that would see peaceful protesters jailed for up to three months represents a dangerous attack on democratic accountability and will disproportionately silence marginalised communities, Rights Aotearoa warned today.

The human rights organisation has submitted a comprehensive legal analysis to the Justice Committee urging outright rejection of the Summary Offences (Demonstrations Near Residential Premises) Amendment Bill, calling it “a solution in search of a problem” that criminalises democracy itself.

“This Bill hands elected officials a tool to silence dissent when they find public accountability uncomfortable,” said Paul Thistoll, Chief Executive of Rights Aotearoa. “Discomfort is not harm. Inconvenience is not intimidation. And the price of living in a democracy is that those who wield power must face the consequences of their decisions—including peaceful protests outside their homes.”

The Bill’s Explanatory Note reveals its true purpose, stating that residential protests “have the potential to deter elected officials from taking stands on contentious issues.” Rights Aotearoa says this fundamentally misunderstands democracy.

“If Ministers are deterred from unpopular decisions because they fear public protest, that’s democracy functioning as intended,” Mr Thistoll said. “The alternative—elected officials insulated from public reaction to their policies—is authoritarianism.”

Existing law already covers harassment and intimidation

The submission comprehensively demonstrates that existing legislation—including the Summary Offences Act, Harassment Act, Trespass Act, and Crimes Act—already prohibits intimidation, harassment, threats, trespass, and excessive noise.

“The Government has not identified any gap in the law that justifies this Bill,” Mr Thistoll said. “What existing law doesn’t do is protect politicians from being confronted with the human consequences of their decisions. And it shouldn’t.”

Vague language guarantees discriminatory enforcement

The Bill criminalises demonstrations “near” residential premises that cause “unreasonable disruption”—terms left entirely undefined. Unlike safe access zone legislation, which specifies precise distances, this Bill provides no guidance on what constitutes illegal conduct.

“Protesters cannot know in advance whether they’re breaking the law. Police officers will make subjective, on-the-spot decisions about what’s ‘unreasonable,'” Mr Thistoll said. “We know from decades of research that vague laws are enforced discriminatorily against marginalised communities and unpopular causes.”

Rights Aotearoa predicts the Bill will be disproportionately enforced against Māori sovereignty protesters, climate activists, disability rights advocates, union members, and LGBTIQ+ communities, while more socially powerful groups receive greater tolerance.

The chilling effect will silence those who can least afford it

The submission warns that even if never enforced, the Bill’s existence will silence marginalised voices through its chilling effect.

“Communities already facing systemic oppression cannot afford the risk of criminal records or imprisonment,” Mr Thistoll said. “For many marginalised communities, direct protest is the only avenue for holding power to account. We don’t have the institutional access or resources to influence policy through lobbying or private meetings with Ministers. This Bill forecloses our only meaningful avenue for democratic participation.”

Three months imprisonment for peaceful protest is grossly disproportionate

The Bill imposes a penalty of up to three months’ imprisonment or a $2,000 fine for conduct that involves nothing more than peaceful assembly and expression near a residential property.

“No comparable democracy imprisons people for peaceful protest that doesn’t involve violence, threats, or harassment already criminalised under general law,” Mr Thistoll said. “This Bill places New Zealand outside international norms for the protection of fundamental freedoms.”

The Bill fails the constitutional test for limiting rights

Rights Aotearoa’s legal analysis demonstrates that the Bill fails every component of the section 5 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act proportionality test. The submission argues the Bill:

• Is not rationally connected to its objective because existing law already addresses the identified harms
• Does not minimally impair rights—multiple less restrictive alternatives exist
• Is grossly disproportionate in prioritising convenience over constitutional rights
• Uses excessively vague language that violates rule of law principles

“The Bill targets the expressive nature of protest itself, not underlying harmful conduct,” Mr Thistoll said. “It criminalises demonstrations based on location and perceived inconvenience, not because they involve any conduct that would otherwise constitute an offence.”

Rights Aotearoa calls for outright rejection

The organisation urges the Justice Committee to recommend Parliament reject the Bill entirely, rather than attempting to fix its fundamental flaws through amendment.

“This is not a good idea, poorly executed. It is a bad idea that is fundamentally incompatible with New Zealand’s constitutional commitment to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly,” Mr Thistoll said. “The chilling of dissent is not a price worth paying for the comfort of the powerful.”