Protesting at people's private homes to be outlawed
Photo:
RNZ / Mark Papalii
Protesting outside someone's home is set to be made an offence, with the government introducing new legislation carrying fines or jail sentences if people target private residences.
While it will apply to all residences, the justice minister said there had been increased reports of demonstrations targeting the homes of public figures like MPs, judges and other public officials.
Paul Goldsmith said the right to protest was valued, and would remain that way.
"The public's ability to demonstrate is a cornerstone of our free and democratic society. It is a key way for citizens to express themselves and engage in political activity."
However, he said the right to privacy was also valued.
"Everyone in New Zealand, and their families, should be able to expect peace and privacy in their own home, no matter what their daytime job is," he said. "Unreasonable intrusions into people's privacy are simply unacceptable."
The law will only apply to demonstrations directed at a person in their home, and will consider factors like the time of day, duration, the demonstrators' actions, noise levels and distance to the premises.
It will carry a maximum penalty of three months in jail or a fine up to $2000.
The ability to protest is protected under the Bill of Rights Act, and would not change. But Goldsmith said all rights were subject to reasonable limitations, and this change was considered reasonable.
Earlier this year, The Post
reported
Goldsmith was in discussions with Parliament's Speaker on legislative changes to protect MPs' safety.
Parliamentary Service and Parliament's internal security services have been working with the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet since the end of last year on the issue.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter
curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
8 hours ago
- Scoop
Mediawatch: Palestinian Statehood Push Vexes Media
Article – RNZ An media debate over New Zealand recognising Palestinian statehood was partly overshadowed by party political rows and claims it would only be a gesture. , Mediawatch Presenter 'New Zealand is fast becoming one of the last Western democracies to recognise Palestine as a state,' Corin Dann told Morning Report listeners on RNZ National last Tuesday. While there was a bit of cognitive dissonance in fast becoming one of the last, the roll call of those who have been more decisive was comprehensive. 'Australia, Canada, the UK, France, and 147 other countries have made similar declarations as the world responds to the ongoing destruction and famine in Gaza,' he added. Just a couple of weeks ago, news organisations were prevaricating over whether they could say 'famine' was happening in Gaza or not, but not so much now. The previous evening, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Winston Peters, put out a statement that said the government would 'carefully weigh up its position … over the next month'. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told reporters recognition was 'not a race'. But back on Morning Report on Tuesday, former prime minister Helen Clark told Dann she thought it really was urgent. 'I've seen victims of the war in the hospital in a nearby town. I've seen the trucks turned around carrying food and medicines which were unable to enter Gaza. This is a catastrophic situation. And here we are in New Zealand somehow arguing some fine point about whether we should be adding our voice,' she said, after a trip to the Rafah border crossing. But in the media here, party political tensions were overshadowing debate about New Zealand's official response. When Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick condemned what she saw as government's spinelessness in the House, it led the ZB news soon after – followed by points of order about MPs accessories from ACT leader David Seymour. And Swarbrick's eventual expulsion led TVNZ's 1News at Six soon after that. But on Newstalk ZB, the hosts overwhelmingly declared that declaring Palestinian statehood was just a gesture. 'Two groups determined to wipe each other off the face of the earth will never stop until one wins. Definitively recognising one as a state will not make a jot of difference,' Mike Hosking insisted on his breakfast show on Tuesday. Later on her ZB Drive show, Heather du Plessis-Allan reckoned it was just a distraction – one that had already distracted the media. 'For every minute and every column inch that we dedicate to talking about whether we should or should not support the state of Palestine in September, we are not spending … talking about getting aid into kids who need food,' she said. 'I'm sorry, but recognising Palestine right now while this war between Hamas and Israel is ongoing is rewarding Hamas for what they did on October 7th,' she added. Half an hour later, du Plessis-Allan's partner Barry Soper backed her up. 'Is that going to stop the war? Is Hamas going to finally put down the arms. They can see it as a badge of honour if they did do that.' Neither of them were convinced by Child Fund chief executive and politics pundit Josie Pagani. 'The only way that we're going to get any movement forward on this is to recognise a two state solution,' she said on the same show 24 hours earlier. 'The purpose of recognising Palestinian statehood is not to instantly magic up a happy ending to the misery in Gaza. It's to preserve the viability of a two-state solution,' The Herald's senior political correspondent Audrey Young wrote in response. Clark had also told Morning Report that she'd just been talking to Egypt's foreign minister about plans. 'There's elaborate plans which don't include Hamas. So I think it's all a bit of a red herring now to be talking about Hamas. There are credible plans for moving forward,' Clark said The same day University of Auckland international relations professor Maria Amoudian – on Jesse Mulligan's Afternoons show on RNZ National – said Palestinian statehood would not just be symbolic. 'It would mean they would get a seat at the United Nations. A better voice in UNESCO, diplomatic relations among countries which could evolve into economic support and trade. Also legal rights over territorial waters, airspace and sovereignty over their own territory,' she said. On RNZ's Midday Report the same day, Otago University professor Robert Patman said that our government's current position not only 'lacked moral clarity,' it was actually inconsistent with our own recent actions and statements. International law was being 'trashed on a daily basis by Israel,' Patman said. 'In Gaza, cameramen and journalists from Al Jazeera were assassinated by the Netanyahu government. It raises issues which go right to the heart of our identity as a country. I think most Kiwis are very clear. They want to see a world based on rules.' Meanwhile, political reporters here sensed that we were international laggards on this because partner parties in the Coalition were putting the handbrake on. In his online newsletter Politik, Richard Harman pointed out ACT MP Simon Court had said in Parliament there cannot be progress towards a Palestinian state until all Israeli hostages are returned and Hamas is dismantled. He said it was also the position of the foreign minister, though Peters himself had not actually said that. And Luxon had said on Monday Hamas held hostages that should be released. 'We are thinking carefully about all of the different sides … rather than trying to prove our own moral superiority over each other, which the likes of Chlöe Swarbrick have just been doing,' ACT's David Seymour told ZB when asked if ACT was holding up Cabinet support for recognition of Palestine. Seymour gave a similar response to the Parliamentary Press Gallery reporters. It was later posted to ACT's YouTube channel as 'David versus the media. David Seymour WARNS against rushing Palestine'. He repeated his worry that Hamas might benefit. But when a reporter pointed out a Palestinian state means more than just Gaza, and that Hamas doesn't control the West Bank, that episode of 'David versus the Media' came to an end. 'Right now everyone is focused on Gaza. And no one, if you recognise any kind of state – is going to think that this is about the West Bank. That's where the image of every country is going to be judged,' he said. 'Talk to you about domestic politics tomorrow,' Seymour said in closing. On TVNZ's 1News, Simon Mercep highlighted another practical problem. 'All five permanent members of the UN Security Council. – America, Russia, China, France and the UK – have to agree on statehood. 'Israel's major ally, the US, does not agree. It used its veto as recently as last year.' It wasn't much mentioned in the media this past week, but the veto right is something that New Zealand has long opposed. Back in 2012, foreign minister Murray McCully called on the five permanent members to give up their veto rights issues involving atrocities. He said the inability to act in Syria had 'cost the UN credibility in the eyes of fair-minded people around the world'. Three years later, he said that the Security Council was failing to prevent conflict – and during a stint chairing the Security Council later that year (when New Zealand was a non permanent member for two years) McCully criticised it again. The government paid for New Zealand journalists to travel to the UN at the time to watch sessions chaired by New Zealand. In late 2016, New Zealand co-sponsored a UN resolution that said Israeli settlements in the occupied territories had no legal validity – and were dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-state solution.' The resolution passed, Israel withdrew its ambassador here – and the incoming President Trump said 'things will be different in the UN' after his first inauguration. 'The position we adopted is totally in line with our long established policy on the Palestinian question,' McCully said at the time, stuck to his guns. Back then he also said he hoped the attitude of Israel would eventually soften. Eight years later, it's the attitude of New Zealand's government – and its clarity on two-state solution – that seems to have diluted.
RNZ News
12 hours ago
- RNZ News
Tenancy Tribunal orders landlord's widow to pay ex-tenant $6500 over unlawful eviction
By Catherine Hutton, Open Justice reporter Wellington of A tenant has been awarded $6500 after the Tenancy Tribunal found he had been unlawfully evicted from a substandard home (file photo). Photo: Supplied/ Unsplash -Sandy Millar A tenancy that soured over accusations of unpaid rent escalated into a legal battle between the former tenant and the landlord, with one firing claims of drug abuse and the other of squalid living conditions. The conflict, which began more than two years ago, has now been examined by the Tenancy Tribunal and a ruling has been made that the landlord, Ben Po Ching, rented the man a leaky, substandard home. Before the ruling was made, Po Ching died and his widow has been left to cough up the thousands of dollars the tribunal ordered must be paid to the former tenant. According to the tribunal's recent decision, matters came to a head in April 2023, when Po Ching told the tenant, whose name is suppressed, he owed rent on the Wellington property. Po Ching followed up with a text saying he'd consulted with the tribunal, and the man had 10 days to pay the rent arrears and 48 hours to leave the house, if the money wasn't paid. Later that month, Po Ching served the tenant with a trespass notice, refusing to let him back into the house, because of rent arrears. The tenant said he only became aware of the notice after receiving a text from another tenant, saying his belongings would be boxed and left on the street for him to collect. Five days later, Po Ching again texted the tenant, telling him he wasn't allowed back into the house. The tenant then turned to the tribunal, applying for compensation and exemplary damages, claiming the house wasn't in a reasonable condition, there were no grounds to end the tenancy and his belongings had disappeared at the end of the tenancy. The landlord counterclaimed for rent arrears, compensation and exemplary damages, alleging the tenant had used drugs at the house. To support his claim of illegal drug use at the house, Po Ching provided photos of the tenant's room. The photo showed syringes, drug utensils, marijuana, pills and "a bag of white powder" sitting on top of a dressing table, beside the bed in the tenant's room. The decision said Po Ching called the police. However, charges were not laid, because "the tenant was not there when the drugs were found and because it was a shared house", the decision said. Po Ching also claimed he had the room tested for meth, which he said reported "high results". He then discarded the tenant's belongings, claiming it was for "everyone's safety", but the tenant said the drugs and utensils were not his, and he did not use drugs while at the house. He also said he was suspicious of the timing of the photos, saying the drugs "appeared" in his room, when Po Ching was trying to get him to move out. The tribunal found there was no supporting documentation that the tenant's room was contaminated with methamphetamine. "What is most surprising is that the police did not charge any of the tenants, even though there was a dressing table full of what appear to be illegal drugs," the decision said. It dismissed the landlord's claims that the tenant used the premises for an unlawful purpose and the associated claim for compensation. In turn, the tenant argued the landlord failed to meet his obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act by renting a house that wasn't in a reasonable state of cleanliness or repair, and it failed to meet Healthy Homes standards. To support his claim, the tenant provided photos and a video showing water dripping through a light fitting in the living room when it rained, leaving the lounge carpet wet and smelly. There was a hole in the door to his bedroom, the shower was mouldy and broken, there were issues with the toilet and there were no smoke alarms. The tribunal found there was insufficient evidence to support the tenant's claim of uncleanliness when he moved in, but agreed the house was not in a reasonable state of repair. It also found the home failed to meet Healthy Homes Standards, noting from the photos that it seemed most likely the house was "draughty". The tribunal found there were also issues relating to stormwater, surface water, groundwater and ventilation, and there were no extractor fans in the bathroom or kitchen. The tenant said Po Ching was well aware of the state of the house, which he visited frequently. In response, Po Ching maintained that the house was "liveable". Po Ching's lawyer told the tribunal the house was only meant to be "transitional accommodation" for the tenant. He submitted it was reasonable to stay in for a short period and because it was an informal arrangement, no tenancy agreement was signed. The lawyer said Po Ching always intended to renovate the house and that was done after the tenant moved out, but the tenant denied it was explained to him that the tenancy was intended to be short-term and he'd lived there almost six months, paying $170 a week. The tribunal found the Residential Tenancies Act applied to the tenancy, noting that even if they accepted the landlord's submissions in full, there are no exclusions under the act that allowed Po Ching to charge rent for a substandard house because it was only short-term. Po Ching most likely knew the condition of the house, and breached his duty to repair and maintain the house, it found. "The decision to charge rent and take a bond from a tenant in exchange for a house that leaked and did not meet Healthy Homes standards requirements must have been intentional. It seems unlikely to me that Mr Po Ching, who was in the building trade, did not know about the Healthy Homes standards. "The effect for the tenant was that he felt trapped, because the house was a depressing place to live." The decision also found the landlord had ended the tenancy without grounds, noting he had acted intentionally, and caused the tenant stress and panic, because he was no longer able to access his belongings. Finally, the tribunal found Po Ching had prevented the tenant from collecting his belongings, because of his belief the tenant owed him rent. The tenant told the tribunal the loss of his items had been devastating. He said he lost tools and personal items, and had only managed to retrieve his television, which he collected three days before the trespass notice was issued. However, because the tenant was unable to provide evidence of the $16,300 he claimed in losses, he was only awarded $1000 for exemplary damages in regard to this claim. The tribunal ordered Po Ching to pay the tenant $6500, less $971 for rent arrears. This included $2000 each in exemplary damages for the lack of maintenance and terminating the tenancy early, as well as the $1000 for his belongings. Because Po Ching died last year, the tribunal ruled the order could be enforced against his widow. * This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald . Photo: Open Justice
RNZ News
14 hours ago
- RNZ News
Violence and riots now common in New Zealand prisons, staff union says
Prison guards and staff now face more and more violent incidents and riots, with prisoners more concentrated, their union says a day after a riot at Waikato's Spring Hill facility. Photo: Corrections / Chai Patel Violence and riots in prisons are now increasingly common as a result of higher prison populations, a group representing Corrections staff says, a day after a fiery prison riot in Waikato. On Saturday afternoon a group of prisoners refused to leave an exercise yard at Spring Hill Corrections Facility south of Meremere, damaging property and lighting fires, resulting in the prison going into lockdown. Firefighters and ambulance crews were sent to the facility and a specialist Advanced Control and Restraint team was dispatched. President of the Corrections Association, the union for Corrections workers, Floyd du Plessis told RNZ their staff were facing more and more violent incidents, and outdated staffing levels were compounding the problem. "It's a very dangerous situation. Anytime when you've got a number of prisoners threatening harm, reports of potential weapons, it's definitely a dangerous situation for staff, and it's only through the training and fast thinking of staff that [they are] able to bring it to a close relatively quickly and safely." The events on Saturday had been isolated to the yard and contained by staff, he said: "There was no risk of it spreading further in the way that the staff managed to deal with it and bring it to a close." Riots were not uncommon in New Zealand prisons, du Plessis said, and they were increasing. "We have events like this that happen on a regular basis across the country. There's just some of them that tend to become public knowledge and shared wider. But it's actually more common than people realise. "Spring Hill itself is one of those prisons that do hold quite a number of high profile prisoners, volatile prisoners. And so you do have these incidents that do tend to come at that higher level. "The reality is these situations are getting more common, they are becoming more violent, and the reality is it's something that we do need to urgently address." The association had been campaigning for improved security measures to help shut down disorder quicker and more safely, he said. "We have been lobbying for that. We need better safety equipment. And that's something that we are going to continue to push. "The other factor is we need more staff. Our prisons are staffed based on a ratio that was developed many, many years ago ... [the] problem is prisons have become far more violent than they used to be. And so those calculations just aren't fit for purpose. "So in places like Spring Hill, for high security prisoners, you're talking about two staff managing up to 30 prisoners. That's just not safe. These are the most violent people in our country and we expect two staff to manage them without incident. That's just not realistic. "We need to re-look at it and we need more staff in the prisons and we need to give them tools to safely operate." Du Plessis said more prisoners were being packed into the same spaces, there were not enough beds to manage the situation and staffing levels were too low. "What we're doing then is we're condensing more and more of these people into tight spots. We have a serious problem with available beds. So across the country, we're jam packing everyone in as tightly as we can. "And what that means is it ... doesn't give us room to move people around or to manage the people better. And so unfortunately that does create tension, which leads to violence. We urgently need more beds across the country and staff to staff them." Staff also want access to other safety measures, du Plessis said, such as PepperBall ranged weapons which are promoted as non-lethal. "That's something that we can use at a distance that can quickly bring these things to a close. But we need the government to work with us to change legislation and put them in place." RNZ has contacted Corrections and the Minister of Corrections for comment. On Saturday, Custodial Services Commissioner Leigh Marsh praised Corrections staff who contained the Spring Hill riot without any injury to staff or prisoners. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
