Policing Amendment Bill

2.1. Are there any publicly available inquiry, review or evaluation reports that have informed, or are relevant to, the policy to be given effect by this Bill?

YES

Part 1

Part 1 of the Policing Amendment Bill responds to the findings of the following judgments and report:

·       Title: Tamiefuna v R – [2025] NZSC 40

Authoring Body: Supreme Court of New Zealand, 2025

Accessible: Tamiefuna v R [2025] NZSC 40 — Courts of New Zealand;

·       Title: Tamiefuna v R – [2023] NZCA 163

Authoring Body: Court of Appeal of New Zealand, [2023]

Accessible: Tamiefuna v R [2023] NZCA 163 — Courts of New Zealand

·       Title: Joint inquiry into Police photographing of members of the public  

Authoring Body: Independent Police Conduct Authority and Office of the Privacy Commissioner, 2022

Accessible: Joint inquiry into Police photographing of members of the public

2.2. Does this Bill seek to give effect to New Zealand action in relation to an international treaty?

NO

2.2.1. If so, was a National Interest Analysis report prepared to inform a Parliamentary examination of the proposed New Zealand action in relation to the treaty?

N/A

2.3. Were any regulatory impact statements provided to inform the policy decisions that led to this Bill?

YES

A Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS): Amendments to the Policing Act 2008 which was developed by New Zealand Police (Police) and finalised on 11 September 2025, was provided to Cabinet on 17 and 22 September 2025.

The RIS is accessible at:

·       Regulatory Impact Statement: Amendments to the Policing Act 2008 | Ministry for Regulation

·       Proposed changes to the Policing Act 2008 to give Police tools to prevent, disrupt and address crime and other harms | New Zealand Police

Part 1

Some information that refers to Tamiefuna v R [2025] has been withheld due to legal privilege.  

Part 2

Some information that refers to processing the proposed new infringement offence, and undertaking any enforcement action at pages 5, 69 and 70 of the RIS, has been withheld.

2.3.1. If so, did the Ministry for Regulation provide an independent opinion on the quality of any of these regulatory impact statements?

NO

The Ministry for Regulation agreed to a joint Regulatory Impact Assessment quality assurance panel to review the RIS composed of a Ministry of Justice official as chair, and two Police officials. The Panel considered that the information and analysis summarised in the RIS partially meets the Quality Assurance criteria. While the RIS is clear, and limitations are articulated, it is constrained by limited consultation and supporting evidence. The timeframes of policy development prevented public consultation on the proposals in the Bill.

2.3.2. Are there aspects of the policy to be given effect by this Bill that were not addressed by, or that now vary materially from, the policy options analysed in these regulatory impact statements?

YES

Part 1

In the drafting of the Bill, it was determined that no exclusions from the Privacy Act Information Privacy Principles (IPPs) will be required (as previously considered and sought though recommendations 5, 6 and 9 of CAB-25-MIN-033).   

The Bill also no longer provides for a regulation-making power to provide for the recording of images. Thus, the regulatory impact of these particular aspects of reform varies from the RIS and are no longer relevant.

The Bill now provides for some limited continuous recording of images and/or sounds for intelligence purposes alone, where both the purpose and the duration are reasonable in the circumstances.

It was always the intention to allow for some limited form of continuous recording for intelligence purposes only. This is reflected in paragraph 27 of CAB-25-SUB-0333, which stated that “the taking of short, targeted video clips for intelligence purposes only would be allowed.”

Part 2

The drafting of this part has carried over most of the proposed changes to the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill, which was reported back to the House by the Justice Committee on 15 December 2025. Two exceptions to this are:

·       reference to a “frightening and intimidating” convoy offence in the definition of an antisocial road use offence in new section 35(4) – as this offence does not currently exist in the Land Transport Act 1998; and

·       widening the definition of an electronic address, which has the same definition used in the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007.

2.4. Has further impact analysis become available for any aspects of the policy to be given effect by this Bill?

NO

2.5. For the policy to be given effect by this Bill, is there analysis available on:

(a)   the size of the potential costs and benefits?

YES

(b)   the potential for any group of persons to suffer a substantial unavoidable loss of income or wealth?

YES

Part 1

In relation to 2.5 (a) above, the potential costs and benefits for the policy are available at pages 37-40 of the RIS. Part 1 does not have any implications for 2.5 (b).

Part 2  

The scale of potential costs and benefits for the policy are available at page 67 of the RIS. Part 2 has implications for 2.5(b) as it includes three offences that carry financial penalties. These may create a significant financial burden if they are imposed on some population groups (for example young people, and/or people on low incomes).

2.6. For the policy to be given effect by this Bill, are the potential costs or benefits likely to be impacted by:

(a)   the level of effective compliance or non-compliance with applicable obligations or standards?

YES

(b)   the nature and level of regulator effort put into encouraging or securing compliance?

YES

Part 1

The principal objective of Part 1 is to clarify Police’s ability to record images and sounds for lawful purposes connected to Police’s functions and/or activities, including for intelligence purposes. This clarification is important to meet public expectations and maintain trust and confidence.

While there are no direct fiscal costs with Part 1, there will be some privacy impacts for people (as Police continues to collect and retain personal information and recommences a wider range of recording images and/or sounds in public and/or in private places where Police is lawfully allowed to be). Police will also continue to consider ways in which current information management systems and settings can be enhanced, which may require some level of future investment.

Part 2

The principal objective of Part 2 of the Bill is to enable the effective removal of people (including bystanders) from a temporarily closed area (within specified circumstances). This is through an escalated pathway of enforcement/penalties for non-compliance. These proposals will support Police’s ability to undertake its lawful functions, specifically maintaining public safety, keeping the peace, law enforcement, crime prevention, and community support and reassurance. This benefits the public’s trust and confidence in Police and helps maintain community safety.

The Bill ensures there are powers to enforce road closure directions, and to respond to non-compliance once a temporary area closure is put in place. 

The Commissioner of Police is responsible for providing appropriate internal guidance for the deployment of these powers. This includes ensuring that police officers have training and experience in the maintenance of public order through their ordinary duties. Police officers are also expected to be sensitive to the rights and freedoms they are limiting when using some powers, and to do so only where it is necessary in a manner that is consistent with reasonable limitation of the freedoms.

The Bill contains a limited set of circumstances in which these powers may be exercised. These decisions will still be subject to external scrutiny, including from the courts, and the Independent Police Conduct Authority.

3.1. What steps have been taken to determine whether the policy to be given effect by this Bill is consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations?

Special protections for children and young people continue to apply, in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). No specific issues were identified in the policy process that may have implications for New Zealand’s international obligations.

3.2. What steps have been taken to determine whether the policy to be given effect by this Bill is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?

Time pressures have limited a consideration of proposals through a Treaty of Waitangi lens.

Limited consultation has constrained Police’s ability to identify any specific effects of the Bill on Māori victims, offenders, and communities. However, it is widely recognised that that Māori are overrepresented in the criminal justice system, and are therefore likely to be impacted by the Bill. The potential impacts for both Part 1 and Part 2 are acknowledged in the RIS.

Police consulted Te Puni Kōkiri during the policy approvals phase, who alongside noting the likely impacts for Māori, raised concerns that the lack of public consultation, including with iwi, hapū and Māori, has not enabled testing of the social licence Police may have to undertake the activities in the Bill, or for improving trust and confidence in Police – of which, Māori have lower levels of compared to other ethnicities.

Police will continue to consider and give effect to its obligations to Māori and the Treaty of Waitangi, including ways in which any disproportionate impacts to Māori (including exposure to the criminal justice system) can be appropriately mitigated.

3.3. Has advice been provided to the Attorney-General on whether any provisions of this Bill appear to limit any of the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?

YES

Advice provided to the Attorney-General by the Ministry of Justice, or a section 7 report of the Attorney-General, is generally expected to be available on the Ministry of Justice’s website upon introduction of a Bill. Such advice, or reports, will be accessible on the Ministry’s website at https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/constitutional-issues-and-human-rights/the-bill-ofrights-act/advice/

3.4. Does this Bill create, amend, or remove:

(a)   offences or penalties (including infringement offences or penalties and civil pecuniary penalty regimes)?

YES

(b)   the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal (including rights to judicial review or rights of appeal)?

NO

Part 2  

New section 46A creates an infringement offence for a person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a direction to leave, or not to enter, a closed accessible area.

A person who commits this offence is liable to an infringement fee of $1,000; or a fine imposed by a court not exceeding $3,000.

New section 54A creates an offence for a person if they fail, without reasonable excuse, to provide their name, address, date of birth, and electronic address (if any) when required to do so by a constable exercising a power to obtain biographic details, that are used for the purpose of serving an infringement offence (under new section 46A).

New section 54 of the Policing Act creates an offence for a person who:

·       fails to stop for Police as soon as practicable when required to do so by an enforcement officer, for the purpose of stopping a motor vehicle and giving a direction to leave, or not to enter, a closed accessible area; and

·       knows or ought reasonably to know that the person exercising the power is an enforcement officer.

A person who commits an offence under new section 54 or 54A is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine imposed by a court not exceeding $2,000.

3.4.1. Was the Ministry of Justice consulted about these provisions?

YES

Police consulted with the Ministry of Justice during the policy development and drafting stages. This ensured that:

·       The offences and penalties are proportionate.

·       Police’s information collection, including for intelligence purposes, is proportionate, consistent with the Privacy Act 2020 Information Privacy Principles (IPPs), and have appropriate safeguards and oversight.  While the Ministry of Justice recommended bespoke safeguards beyond the continued application of IPPs, as the Bill is not intended to displace any IPPs, or confine the Privacy Commissioner’s ability to assess compliance against IPPs, these were deemed unnecessary.

The Ministry of Justice also recommended including bespoke regulations, but it was determined that the existing regulation-making power in section 102(1)(f) of the Policing Act provides sufficient authority to make any regulations that may be required.

The Ministry of Justice also maintained a preference for including a definition of intelligence purposes in the Bill. This has not been included due to the lack of a well-defined definition, including an absence of definition in other existing statutes (such as the Intelligence Security Act).

·       Police has appropriate powers to enforce laws related to temporary closures, whilst maintaining safeguards that unjustifiable limits on relevant rights and freedoms in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

3.5. Does this Bill create, amend or remove any provisions relating to the collection, storage, access to, correction of, use or disclosure of personal information?

YES

Part 1  

New sections 45A to 45E of the Bill reaffirm Police’s longstanding ability to record images and sounds in public places and private places where Police is lawfully allowed, and to collect personal information for lawful purposes, including intelligence, when connected with a function and/or activity of Police.

The Bill also introduces a specific lawful purpose ‘that may promote the safety and or integrity of police officers, or other policing functions or associated activities’ as a basis for continuous recording.

Police will continue to be governed by the requirements of the Privacy Act 2020 and all Information Privacy Principles, and internal guidance reflecting these Principles.

Part 2

New section 35BB of the Bill gives Police the power to require a person to provide biographical details, for the purpose of issuing an infringement notice (new section 46A). Collecting biographical information for this purpose is an established process.

A person who commits an offence in new sections 54 and 54A will engage the existing requirements sections 32 (Identifying particulars of person in custody) and 33 (Identifying particulars for summons), if a constable considers this enforcement action is necessary.

Section 24 of the Privacy Act 2020 is engaged in all of these circumstances.

3.5.1. Was the Privacy Commissioner consulted about these provisions?

YES

Police undertook significant consultation with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner on Part 1 of the Bill during the policy development and drafting stages.

This engagement helped shaped Police’s policy recommendations for Cabinet and design of the Bill, including refining decisions around the application of the Information Privacy Principles and instructions provided to the Parliamentary Council Office on the drafting of the Bill.

Police will continue to engage with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner through the implementation of the Bill to ensure Police’s obligations for the collection, use and storage of information are met.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner was only consulted on Part 2 of the Bill during the agency consultation stage of the Cabinet paper development.

Police will engage with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner on the implementation of Part 2 where required.

3.6. Has there been any external consultation on the policy to be given effect by this Bill, or on a draft of this Bill?

YES

Police undertook agency consultation during the policy development stage and drafting stage of the Bill. Further detail on the extent and nature of consultation is included in Appendix One.

3.7. Have the policy details to be given effect by this Bill been otherwise tested or assessed in any way to ensure the Bill’s provisions are workable and complete?

YES

Police has undertaken internal consultation with legal and technical experts to test the operational workability of the proposals and to understand the requirements to effectively implement the Bill.   

4.1. Does this Bill contain any provisions that could result in the compulsory acquisition of private property?

NO

4.2. Does this Bill create or amend a power to impose a fee, levy or charge in the nature of a tax?

NO

4.3. Does this Bill affect rights, freedoms, or impose obligations, retrospectively?

NO

4.4. Does this Bill:

(a)   create or amend a strict or absolute liability offence?

NO

(b)   reverse or modify the usual burden of proof for an offence or a civil pecuniary penalty proceeding?

NO

4.5. Does this Bill create or amend a civil or criminal immunity for any person?

NO

4.6. Does this Bill create or amend a decision-making power to make a determination about a person’s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law, and that could have a significant impact on those rights, obligations, or interests?

YES

Part 2

New section 35 gives a constable the power to temporarily close to traffic (including pedestrians and bystanders) an accessible area or part of an accessible area to traffic. This includes areas leading to or from the place or in the vicinity of the place. This may prevent members of the public from accessing public/private property, while any of the circumstances listed in this provision apply. However, the Bill does not grant Police an express power of entry to, or temporary closure of, private land.

4.7. Does this Bill create or amend a power to make delegated legislation that could amend an Act, define the meaning of a term in an Act, or grant an exemption from an Act or delegated legislation?

NO

4.8. Does this Bill create or amend any other powers to make delegated legislation?

YES

Part 2

Section 2 of the Bill enables some provisions in Part 2 (relating to offences and penalties), to commence by Order in Council, or no later than the second anniversary of Royal assent.

The Bill necessitates making regulations under section 102 of the Policing Act, in order to provide the form for infringement notices issued where persons, without reasonable excuse, fail to comply with a direction to leave, or not to enter, the temporarily closed accessible area or the part of the accessible area.

4.9. Does this Bill contain any provisions (other than those noted above) that are unusual or call for special comment?

YES

Part 2

New section 35C gives a constable, who has good cause to suspect a person, has without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with a direction to leave, or not to enter a closed accessible area the power to use reasonable force, if necessary to:

·       move the person to any place outside the accessible area or the part of the accessible area that is temporarily closed:

·       detain the person at any place outside the accessible area or the part of the accessible area that is temporarily closed for the purpose of preventing them from re-entering it.

A constable must not detain a person for longer than is reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

This bespoke power deters uncooperative behaviour (for example, a person who refuses to leave a temporarily closed area after an infringement notice has been issued to them, or enable Police to respond safely and quickly to large groups of non-compliant people).