Explainer | Surveillance, Public Safety, and Police Powers: Understanding the Policing Amendment Bill

Written by Adam Frazer

The Government’s proposed Policing Amendment Bill has sparked ongoing debates surrounding the balance between public safety and civil liberties in New Zealand. Portrayed by the Government as a necessary clarification to existing Police powers, the Bill would significantly expand the Police’s authority to gather intelligence, record members of the public, and temporarily shut down public spaces in response to anticipated disorder. 

Those in favour argue the legislation is necessary to restore certainty to policing powers. Those opposing the Bill, however, warn of the risks that come with dramatically expanding surveillance powers while, in turn, weakening privacy protections, protest rights, and public accountability. 

Why is the Bill deemed necessary? 

The Bill’s emergence is largely in response to the Supreme Court decision in Tamiefuna v R (Policing Amendment Bill, 2026). The case involved a photo taken of Mahia Tamiefuna when his car was impounded for not having his license, which was later used to identify Tamiefuna in an unrelated crime 3 days earlier. The court found that taking the photo was unlawful and unreasonable, as the officer was not investigating a specific crime when it was taken. Further, uploading and keeping the photo were also unlawful and unreasonable (Allen-Franks, 2025). 

The explanatory note in the Bill provides further clarification of its basis. What is relevant is that there is increased uncertainty about the Police’s lawful authority to record images and sounds in public and private places where the Police are lawfully permitted to do so. It is deemed that the Police now face significant restrictions on their ability to undertake routine information collection, leaving them with fewer rights than the public to record images. 

Furthermore, the Police Association spoke up in support of the Bill’s two parts. Police Association’s Steve Watt says it gives clarity and the right tools, as well as providing the Police with firmer ideas and expectations of what and where they can do things (Pennington, 2026). 

What does the Bill entail? 

The contentious points in the Policing Amendment Bill appear to be as follows. 

Part 1 (45A-45E): This amends the Policing Act 2008 to allow 

• The Police to collect or record information that may be used now or in the future for any lawful purpose, including for intelligence purposes, to the extent that it supports a policing function. 

This formulation significantly broadens the scope of permissible information collection, particularly through its inclusion of prospective or anticipatory intelligence gathering. 

Part 2 (Section 35 Replaced) Subsection 2 applies if a constable believes on reasonable grounds that 1 or more of the following apply in relation to a place 

1. Public disorder exists or is imminent at or near the place

2. Danger to a member of the public exist or may reasonably be expected at or near the place

These powers extend beyond roads to a wider range of public spaces, including parks, beaches, reserves, and other publicly accessible areas. This point has brought much contention, as discussed below. 

What do critics say about the Bill 

Part 1 

The Government insists that the Bill is simply put in place to restore powers that Police have historically relied upon. Police Minister Mark Mitchell furthered this at the first reading of the Bill, stating that “This Bill will not provide additional powers to Police that could be construed as enabling mechanisms for mass surveillance” (Pennington, 2026). Critics strongly dispute this. 

Privacy Commissioner Michael Webster has warned that the legislation could enable the bulk collection of information about ordinary people going about their lawful daily lives. His concerns centre on how much information is good policing, and when it oversteps (Pennington, 2026). Furthermore, Webster argued that the Bill’s lack of clear limits and meaningful oversight creates the appearance of absence, expressing his concern that its breadth will further erode public trust in the Police. In Webster’s submission on the legislation, he expresses these concerns: “if individuals are aware that Police can record them going about their everyday day lives, based only on an officer’s belief that the information could be useful for broad policing purposes, this could have a chilling effect on the exercise of other rights” (Daalder, 2026). 

Chairperson for Civil Liberties Thomas Beagle furthers concerns as to the argued vagueness of the act, listing facial recognition, automated number plate recognition, and live surveillance as technologies that the Council for Civil Liberties believed the Police would deploy more if the Bill is passed, believing that there are no limits, and that the Bill embodies the view that the Police will never misuse or abuse their powers (Pennington, 2026). 

The concerns addressed are particularly significant in light of the rapid development of AI-assisted policing systems. Because of New Zealand’s fragile relationship with the Police over the last few years, clarity would ensure that trust is present. 

Part 2 

The expansion of Police to close public areas has become a politically sensitive topic. Concerns have been raised that Part 2 of the Bill, allowing the Police to temporarily close all public and private areas accessible to the public by vehicles (including parts, river catchments, beaches, reserves, golf courses, and car parks) goes too far in disrupting lawful protest.

The Law Society has been vocal on this matter, warning that these powers creep into the area of lawful protest (Pennington, 2026). This concern was furthered by Paul Rishworth KC in helping write The Law Society’s submission, stating that the introduction of Part 2 needs to be reconsidered as to how it applies to public protests. 

Views from Australia have further heightened concern about the application of the amendments in New Zealand. Timothy Roberts, president of the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, has found a clear parallel between legislation introduced in Australia and the Policing Amendment Bill, where NSW protest restriction laws were recently struck down after violent clashes between Police and protestors in Sydney (Pennington, 2026). Furthermore, his worries link with other concerns of general vagueness of the amendments, which, rather than creating more certainty, may restrict the rights of those lawfully protesting. 

However, Police Association President Steve Watt rejected the idea that this part goes too far, defending it under the Lens that the reforms are necessary to help the Police respond to public disorder, antisocial driving, retail violence, and emerging security threats (Pennington, 2026). 

Conclusion 

Ultimately, the debate over the Policing Amendment Bill extends beyond photographs and traffic stops. 

It reflects a broad tension in New Zealand between security and people’s liberty in a world of digital surveillance. In the world we live in today, policing relies on data collection. However, the technologies that help prevent crime can also dramatically increase the state’s power to monitor citizens. 

Tamiefuna v R demonstrated that the courts are willing to place constitutional limits on Police surveillance powers, and the Government’s response raises the overarching question: should Parliament expand those powers in the manner of the Policing Amendment Bill, and if so, do there need to be more safeguards present? 

The answer to this question will be clearer when the select committee reports back to Parliament on the Bill on the 27^th of July. 

References

Allen-Franks, A. (2025, May 13). Police in the wrong over unlawful photo. University of Auckland. https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/news/2025/05/13/Police-in-the-wrong-over-unlawful-photo.html 

Daalder, M. (2026, May 1). Controversial Police Bill faces surveillance backlash, but Mitchell pushes ahead. Newsroom. https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/05/01/controversial-Police-Bill-faces-surveillance-concerns-backlash-but-mitchell-pushes-ahead/ 

Pennington, P. (2026, April 20). Bill giving Police new powers needs stricter limits, Privacy Commisioner says. Radio New Zealand. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/crime-and-justice/592872/Bill-giving-Police-new-powers-needs-stricter-limits-privacy-commissioner-says. 

Pennington, P. (2026, May 8). Law Society worried Policing Amendment Bill could lead to clampdown on political protest. Radio New Zealand. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/crime-and-justice/594590/law-society-worried-policing-amendment-Bill-could-lead-to-clampdown-on-political-protest 

Pennington, P. (2026, May 12). Policing Amendment Bill – ‘Massive amount of risk’ of data mismanagement, MPs told. Radio New Zealand. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/594904/policing-amendment-Bill-massive-amount-of-risk-of-data-mismanagement-mps-told 

Policing Amendment Act, Part 1. 

Policing Amendment Act, Part 2.