Occupation of Parliament is over – New Zealand now needs new laws to protect ‘the epicenter of its democracy’

New Zealand is no stranger to protest or protest violence. But what happened inside the precincts of Parliament for 23 days in February and March was unique – and, ultimately, extreme.

A country that cringes against the unruly freedom camping by tourists ended up with an unapproved campsite in one of the least suitable places imaginable. And that ended violently.

How the government and parliament react to what happened is important both for the future of legitimate protests and for the security of parliament itself.

A review of security features for parliament has already been reported, but the nature and funding of the protest itself also requires careful consideration. Overall, a legislative change specific to the Parliamentary Precinct may be required.

Keep the ground open

There is no specific legal right to protest. Rather, it is a manifestation of the broader rights to freedom of movement, association and peaceful assembly. Internationally, these are protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its related framework of human rights treaties, and domestically by New Zealand’s Bill of Rights Act.



Read more: From ‘pretty communist’ to ‘Jabcinda’ – what’s behind the vitriol directed at Jacinda Ardern?


In practice, the right to protest is evident in the country’s history. The events that shaped generations and made New Zealand one of the freest and most liberal democracies happened both outside of parliament and inside the legislative chamber.

From women’s rights and redressing injustices done to Maori, to workers’ rights and foreign policy reform, the grounds of Parliament have been a forum for dissent. Indeed, if there was room for another sculpture in the park, it would have to be ordinary people delivering a petition to lawmakers.

It is therefore essential to keep the land as open and unfenced as possible. A new bespoke law for the parliamentary precinct – including clear pathways for lawful and orderly protest – should be created.

Parliament grounds are being repaired after damage caused during the 23-day occupation by anti-government protesters.
Getty Images

Rules with consequences

It is important to remember that the right to protest is not absolute. There is no right to violent or illegal demonstrations. But while the existing laws to prosecute offenders are adequate, there are obvious shortcomings.

First, New Zealand has more laws on respect the flag than to protect the epicenter of its democracy. Even at the symbolic level, this must change.



Read more: Extremism visible at Parliament protest has been growing in New Zealand for years – is enough being done?


A starting point would be to place the parliament next to Te Pitowhenua, the site of the Treaty of Waitangi, as national historic monument. Citizens should be encouraged to view the capital of the nation’s political and legal history with equal respect.

Currently, the grounds of parliament are vested in the queen under the effective control of Speaker of the Chamber, whose job it is to authorize and moderate protests. The rules prohibit various actions, including:

  • damage lawns and flower beds

  • blocking traffic and driving on the ground

  • climbing the main steps of parliament or interfering with the use of the parliament buildings

  • excessive amplified sound and erection of structures such as tents

  • widespread breaches of public order and demonstrations that last more than eight hours or late into the night.

To enforce the rules, the speaker may issue a notice under the Trespass Law. But the ineffectual nature of these powers was laid bare during the occupation, with protesters largely indifferent to weak penalties.

Any new legislation specific to the parliamentary precinct should maintain the existing right and ability to protest lawfully and peacefully, but increase penalties for non-compliance.

Riot police intervene to put an end to the occupation of the grounds of the Parliament and the surrounding streets.
Getty Images

Foreign funding and interference

Beyond the behavior of the protesters, their ideological origins and funding need to be better understood. Similar ‘anti-warrant’ protests elsewhere are believed to have received foreign funding. Did this happen in New Zealand?

This is an important and difficult question. The flow of charitable support across borders for lawful purposes is a good thing. But charitable or other financial support is not always benign.



Read more: How protesters demanding ‘freedom’ from COVID restrictions ignore how freedom really works


There is already laws protect New Zealand’s elections from foreign interference by prohibiting foreign donations to political parties and candidates. This concern must extend to foreign interests that attempt to foster lawless or extremist behavior within New Zealand protest movements.

Such transparency will necessarily involve examining events in Parliament (and other places of protest) as a starting point, to see if groups and individuals, here and/or abroad, have attempted to “incite, procure or encourage violence, lawlessness or disorder” under the Crimes Act, or breached diffusion standards and The advertisement codes. There are also civil law issues, as if there has been wrongdoing by registered charities.

And beyond the legal considerations, there is the thorny question of how misinformation has spread as fast as the COVID virus itself.



Read more: Protesting during a pandemic: New Zealand’s balance between a long tradition of protests and COVID rules


defend dissent

None of this is simple. And in the past, New Zealand has sometimes reacted harshly to protests or dissent – ​​for example after the hunger marches in 1932 and the waterfront lock from 1951.

At other times, wiser advice prevailed when it came to mending the social fabric. An example is the creation of Independent Police Ethics Authority in the decade following the 1981 Springbok tour protests.

The challenge for lawmakers this time is to find deeper solutions that address the importance of protest, but also the problem of little respect and defense for the epicenter of our democracy. At the same time, it will be important to understand how this manifestation was different.

Suppressing future protests is not the answer. Likewise, it is urgent to prevent another episode like the one the country has just experienced.

Michael A. Bynum