Ban on protesting outside homes rebalances freedom of expression and privacy rights
Photo:
RNZ / Mark Papalii
The government's ban on protesting outside someone's home will rebalance the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy, a law professor says.
But another academic has questioned whether a new law is necessary, and says police may struggle to enforce it.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith
announced on Friday
protesting outside someone's home would become an offence, punishable with a fine or jail time.
While it would apply to all residences, Goldsmith said there had been increased reports of demonstrations targeting the homes of public figures like MPs, judges and other officials.
Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis said current laws around protests only related to public settings.
"Protests that take place outside someone's home really do intrude into a sort of domestic sphere where people usually feel they should be able to exist unperturbed and unthreatened," he said.
"So this particular change in the law will help to restrike that balance."
Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis.
Photo:
RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly
Geddis said the change would plug a legal gap highlighted by a Supreme Court ruling nearly two decades ago.
The 2007 case, Brooker v Police, involved a man who was convicted of disorderly behaviour for standing outside a police officer's house playing the guitar and singing protest songs against her, he said.
But the Supreme Court found his behaviour was not disorderly.
"The Supreme Court said that disorderly behaviour only applies to the public consequences of your behaviour, how that affects the public place.
"And just because it's intruding into someone's private home, that's not a consideration as to whether the protest is covered by disorderly behaviour," he said.
It meant the balance between people's rights within their home and people's rights to protest in public was "out of whack", Geddis said.
One of the judges noted the court's finding could lead to more protests outside people's homes, and Parliament would need to consider that at some point, he said.
"It turns out he was right."
Victoria University law professor Steven Price said police may find it hard to enforce the new law.
Goldsmith said it would be tightly targeted and prohibit "unreasonable disruptions", but Price said the independent police watchdog's
review of policing protests
found officers struggled to make a call on that.
"What the IPCA had to say about that ... is that police have trouble on the ground having to make fine distinctions about what's an unreasonable disruption and what's not, and that seems a fair point to make," he said.
"But on the face of [Goldsmith's] press release, it doesn't really solve the problem."
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
RNZ News
19 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Mediawatch: RNZ flags changes to claw back listeners
Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly It's not news that RNZ National has been losing listeners in recent years. It's been mostly downhill year-on-year since 2019 when over 616,000 people a week were tuning in. This year it has dropped to below 470,000. This week RNZ staff were told that efforts to shore that up have not worked so far - and now there's a new plan underway. "We now need to take a different approach," RNZ chief executive Paul Thompson said. RNZ is appointing a Chief Audio Officer to oversee it and targeting half a million RNZ National listeners by November next year - and another 20,000 one year later. RNZ's target audience will now be "broadly 50-69, male and female" and RNZ National staff will be given data to "better tailor the station to their preferences," Thompson said. "Growing the presence in Auckland" is also a key part of the new strategy. RNZ is moving its Auckland operation into TVNZ's central Auckland premises later this year and now plans to host more radio and production roles there. The new plan is in part influenced by a review carried out by former head of news Richard Sutherland, who left RNZ in July 2023. "I asked him to be frank and robust, and that is what has been delivered," Thompson said when RNZ released it this week after Official Information Act requests. Sutherland certainly has. He warned that if people stop listening it "feeds the idea RNZ is sliding into irrelevance." "Irrelevant stuff gets switched off," he added. He said Auckland must be treated as "the strategic centre of gravity" rather than Wellington. "While the capital remains politically important, the views and preferences of its residents are the tail wagging the RNZ national dog," he wrote. Sutherland's good news for RNZ that he said it has "strengths that provide a foundation for renewal". He cited credible news, trust, and recognition - and public service commercial-free content that's available on many platforms and shared with other media. But he said there was a lack of understanding of the audience within RNZ National as well as a lack of cohesion and urgency. After candid 'no notes' conversations with around 50 staff, he concluded there was "blameshifting" and "low ambition" among staff. He also cited a widespread belief that live listening was a "sunset activity" - and that needed to be stamped out from the top at RNZ. He concluded RNZ National was "trying to please everyone" but it should target people over 50, and primarily 50-69 year olds. "Nuance can wait," Sutherland said, recognising that approach sounded blunt. Sutherland also said - very bluntly - "some people should not be on air". He didn't say who, but he did say RNZ needs one front-rank daytime host from outside urgently - and also an "urgent audit" of its on-air staff. Sutherland's review says key RNZ National time slots should be refreshed "where existing presenters don't align with the target audience." RNZ has told staff there will be "a strong focus on lifting on-air standards" and it is expanding presentation training and running more 'air checks' of the existing output. While some of Sutherland's recommendations align with RNZ's new strategy, RNZ said it was "just one input". The yet-to-be appointed Chief Audio Officer will determine whether Sutherland's other urgings are actioned. But not for nothing did RNZ pay $30,000 for what Thompson - also RNZ's editor-in-chief - described as "an actionable high-level blueprint to turn the station around". RNZ's briefing to staff also said the plan is "not about reducing kaimahi numbers". But it also said "every part of RNZ National needs to work for the available audience - and will be reviewed to ensure that is the case". "This may mean that some programmes or shows are discontinued." Sutherland's review recommended Morning Report and key staff should relocate fully to Auckland, something RNZ said was already underway. On-air changes introduced to Morning Report this month include shorter news bulletins, more conversational treatments of sport, rural and business news, a weekly chief executive officer interview and sports discussion panel, and a head-to-head with opposing MPs every Wednesday. The programme now features fewer recorded and live news interviews, though that varies depending on when news breaks and develops. A sign of further things to come elsewhere on air under the new audio plan, perhaps. Sutherland urged RNZ's top brass to ignore the criticism and opposition his sweeping changes would inevitably spark. Mediawatch asked to speak to Sutherland about his blunt review of his former employer. He deferred to Thompson who also declined. Storm Day, Accenture Song's NZ Lead. Photo: supplied More than ever, broadcasters seeking to retain or boost audiences need to give them what they want. But what people expect is harder to gauge now that people can choose from public and commercial radio networks, commercial TV channels, social media platforms, and global video streaming giants like Netflix and Disney+. Consultancy business Accenture Song has just released its second annual Brand Experience Gap study putting numbers on the gap between what 80 different New Zealand businesses promise - and what the punters reckon they deliver. Out of six different sectors, media and entertainment companies recorded the biggest gap - 79 percent - in the survey of 1500 people. "The gap is the difference between what a brand promises and what customers actually experience. When the gap is small customers feel valued and are more loyal. And when that gap is wide, trust erodes and people just walk away," Accenture Song's New Zealand lead Storm Day told Mediawatch . The survey does not name specific media outlets or individual scores for them, but Day told Mediawatch it covered streaming services, pay TV, free-to-air broadcasters, online news publishers, and radio audio streaming providers. "The sample is representative of all the major players in New Zealand," she said. "The industry average across all sectors is sitting at 72 percent - so I'm afraid the media and the entertainment sector is our worst performing one. Seventy-nine percent say that media providers are not delivering on their promises, which is pretty scary." Most surveys of trust in news and media are based on peoples' perceptions. Respondents' disapproval of specific practices - such as oft-cited 'sensationalism' - seems to sour their opinion of the entire media. Likewise, those who get news mixed in with other content via social media are much less likely to trust the news overall. "I think that's always at play. Audiences don't always separate the ecosystem in the same way that the industry does," Day told Mediawatch . "If they have a bad experience, whether it's with a regulated newsroom or a global online platform, it really does colour how they view the whole sector. It means that regulated media can't rely on standards alone. "To protect their reputation, they have to keep proving value and trust through the experience they deliver every day. "That's why it's even more important that we actually deliver on trust and think about the customer, not just standards or regulations." Day said regularly refreshing content, offering high quality exclusive content, and ease of access across devices were things people cited for securing their loyalty. A higher number of people said they were getting high quality stuff from our media companies. But the survey also recorded an 81 percent gap in belief that media outlets report with fairness and impartiality. "The biggest gap was people feeling valued and recognised, which tells us that audiences feel quite anonymous and not engaged. Trust was also really fragile. There was an 84 percent gap around acting with honesty, integrity, and keeping promises. "For an industry built on credibility, that's a major risk. But it's also a place where decisive action can make a big difference. Things like clickbait and transparency are really key things to address." Could big changes at RNZ end up widening the 'brand experience' gap? "Purpose... is a great way to galvanise a business reset. Secondly, so is moving beyond just delivering content to actually genuinely recognising audiences. You can use technology in service of that... to genuinely personalise what we're putting out there and actively engage with people. "AI can be used to personalise content and discovery - and flag relevant content and programming. And for local broadcasters especially, making your contribution to New Zealand really visible. Telling people what you're doing and how you're doing it... needs to work hand in hand to build that trust and connection with people." Dr Merja Myllylahti and Dr Greg Treadwell from the AUT's Centre for Journalism, Media and Democracy. Photo: RNZ / Jeremy Ansell Does the Accenture Song survey show the media's reputation rises and falls together - and no one outlet could buck the trend on its own anyway? "I think this sector has had a really tough year. Economic climate as well has a massive influence on the gap. When people are kind of under stress, they really are much more selective about where they spend their money, where they spend their time." But this week, the authors of the most comprehensive survey of trust in New Zealand media said it shows news media can't simply blame 'bad times' and general cynicism for slumping results. "News isn't just another institution like the state, a corporation or a non-profit organisation," said Greg Treadwell and Merja Myllylahti from Auckland University of Technology's Centre for Journalism, Media And Democracy. "We found the trajectories of trust levels for other social institutions - governments, business, NGOs - showed clear links to each other as they rose and fell, more or less in sync, over time. "Trust in news however, has been in its own lane. A fall in trust in government and politics, in other words, is not a predictor of a fall in trust in news," they wrote in The Conversation . "Survey respondents tell us they perceive the news to be politically biased (both left and right), and because too much seems to be opinion masquerading as news. "It seems the trust problems democracies have with their news services need to be addressed on their own terms, not as part of an overall picture." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
19 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Mediawatch: Palestinian statehood push vexes media
Pro Palestinian protesters gather in Wellington on 16 August 2025 as part of nationwide demonstrations. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii "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-Allen 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-Allen'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. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Two arrested after armed threats in Christchurch
Police - with armed officers in attendance - cordoned off an address on Marshland Road and two people were taken into custody. File picture. Photo: RNZ / Marika Khabazi Two people are facing charges following reports of threatening behaviour with a firearm in Christchurch overnight. Emergency services were called to a group of people holding a firearm and making threats from a vehicle in Shirley around 1.20am. Police - with armed officers in attendance - cordoned off an address on Marshland Road and two people were taken into custody. A 32-year-old man will appear in Christchurch District Court on Monday facing multiple charges, including unlawful possession of a firearm, ammunition and possession of cannabis plant for supply. A 28-year-old man was also charged with obstructing police, and will appear the following week. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
