The state of civic space in New Zealand is rated as ‘open’ by the CIVICUS Monitor. Civil society groups are able to form and operate without restrictions, freedom of expression is respected and protected and there are rarely restrictions on protests. However, there have been some incidents of arrest and prosecution of protesters.
In recent months, there have been plans to introduce a bill to ban social media for those under the age of 16. A Policing Amendment Bill could expand police power to collect intelligence and to clamp down on protest. A law to criminalise disruptive demonstrations outside private homes is before parliament.
Expression
Plans to introduce bill to ban social media for those under the age of 16
In August 2026, the Prime Minister’s National Party said it was planning to introduce a bill seeking to ban under-16s from using social media. Under the the Online Safety Bill, platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat and Facebook will have to take steps to check whether users are over 16, and platforms that fail to meet their obligations could face fines of up to 10 percent of their global revenue. No penalties are proposed for children, parents or caregivers for breaches of the ban.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said social media was exposing children to "harmful content, addictive technology and pressures they are not equipped to deal with". Luxon said social media was affecting children's family life, mental health, sleep and education.
It is unclear if the bill will get enough votes to pass however, after both the Act and New Zealand First (NZF) parties - which are coalition partners in the government - said they would oppose it.
The New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties (NZCCL) said it opposed the bill to ban social media sites for people under the age of 16. They argued “the right to freedom of expression including to seek, send and receive information, and this applies to people under the age of 16 too”. They also pointed to youth-led political movements which all use social media to organise political campaigns.
Amnesty International New Zealand also opposed the social media ban for under-16-year-olds, because it did not address the root causes of harm. They said banning social media for young people placed the burden of safety on young people and parents while allowing platforms to continue their business models.
Irene Khan, the former UN special rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression has said that such bans are a “blind and blunt response”. She further added that the “real issue is social media companies being compelled to ensure that these spaces are safe for children – that is where the government should be focused.”
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk has also cautioned that such bans can be easily circumvented and risk pushing children towards riskier, less monitored spaces.
Concerns around bill to expand police powers to gather intelligence
Concerns have been raised about the Policing Amendment Bill introduced in March 2026, which would extend police powers to gather intelligence.
During the Justice Select Committee hearings in May 2026, the Law Association said that the bill had too few protections around the data collected, especially with the spread of AI. Most of the groups that appeared at the select committee laid out fears this was police "over-reach" - that the bill was too vague and broad; set few limits on collecting data or what the personal information could then be used for.
In July 2026, Privacy Commissioner Michael Webster renewed his call for the government to drop the bill, saying suggested changes that are designed to add more safeguards do not go far enough. He said the bill gives law enforcement too much discretion, warning that it sets a low bar for police to capture images and video of people for intelligence purposes, meaning an officer needs only to believe that the information “may or will support the police in performing a function”.
Peaceful Assembly
Policing Amendment Bill could lead to clampdown on protest
There are also concerns that the Policing Amendment Bill could be used to restrict protests.
The bill's second part would expand their powers to declare areas off-limits ahead of time in case of imminent public disorder. It would extend the power beyond roads to many public places and add an instant NZ$1000 (USD 588) infringement fee for someone who entered or did not leave a zone, plus adding a new offence of failing to give police identifying details.
According to the NZCCL this bill enables police to break up any gathering, remove people from any location, and detain people on suspicion that they might return. These locations include everywhere accessible by road including every home, school, or church, as well as undoubtedly any place used for political protest.
It further added that “we are confident that it can be used to undermine our democracy. There are already too many laws that allow police to limit public protest. Police are already well empowered to keep the peace during protests. No suggestion has been made that these powers need to be expanded”.
Bill in parliament that could criminalise protests outside private homes
On 24th August 2026, it was reported that the Summary Offences (Demonstrations Near Residential Homes) Bill is currently awaiting its second reading in parliament.
As previously documented, there are concerns about the introduction in the bill of a new offence for engaging in disruptive demonstrations outside private homes. Human rights groups have argued that the bill is too vague and that there are existing laws sufficient to cover such offences. Further, such a bill may be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 which protects fundamental freedoms.
In November 2025, Greenpeace Aotearoa said in a submission that this bill seeks to criminalise protest, a vital democratic right that has shaped Aotearoa’s history and identity. This Bill risks silencing the public voice. It would punish people for what it terms “targeted and disruptive demonstrations” near residential premises. These terms are so vague and broad that almost any peaceful protest could fall within them.
They added that if the purpose of this bill is to manage protests that get out of hand, there are already extensive laws to deal with protest that crosses the line into intimidation, harassment, or public disorder, such as the Summary Offences Act, the Trespass Act and the Harassment Act. Greenpeace Aotearoa also stated that the bill’s drafting is vague and broad and that it invites overreach.