Hudson BrettLOCAL GOVERNMENT (FREEDOM OF ACCESS) AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingBRETT HUDSON (National): I move That the Local Government (Freedom of Access) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.I'd like to begin by acknowledging the member who introduced this bill into the ballot and should it progress through further stages will be in charge of the bill: Mr Jonathan Young MP for New Plymouth. He has put a great deal of effort into addressing issues that he has both seen within his own electorate and observed across New Zealand. This is a delicate sort of a measure that seeks to strike a balance around the often competing rights between parties in the exercise of democracy.Freedom of speech is a critical foundation of our democracy and it must be protected. In The Friends of Voltaire Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Those words speak to the very essence of freedom of speech—that such freedom is neither bound nor constrained in its exercise by the agreement to it by others. That essence notwithstanding there are times when in the pursuit of one's goals people can step and have stepped beyond the line where their pursuit of freedom has impinged upon the freedom of others and that is what this bill is about. This bill seeks to better balance the rights of councils to protect property from being interfered with and to ensure that communities have freedom of access to lands that councils are responsible for administering while ensuring the rights of members of the public to express their opinions in the form of protests and demonstrations on such land.The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 guarantees citizens the rights to seek receive and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly. Those rights can be limited only if doing so is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. The exercise of such rights by protesters who erect structures and tents on council-administered land has been seen by some councils as akin to camping something that not only prohibits the freedom of others to access the affected areas but also may present a health hazard. Such councils have in some instances resolved that that should not be permitted behaviour through by-laws.Unfortunately there is some ambiguity in the enforcement of such by-laws and trespass notices particularly in instances where freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly are involved and I will offer a couple of examples. Firstly—Matt Doocey: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I just raise a procedural matter? I've just been advised by the Clerk around where this member's bill will go. We've got an issue that the speaker at the moment—if he sits down without correcting this issue it's very hard to unwind so that's why I've taken this point of order now. I just want to clarify from the speaker whether this member's bill will go to the Governance and Administration Committee which the Clerk has been advised or the Justice Committee which he instructed at the start of his contribution.BRETT HUDSON: Speaking to the point of order may I have please a moment just to confer with my colleague which may help to resolve this matter?ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Again I'll take some advice.BRETT HUDSON: I'd just like to confirm for the House that the committee that I have nominated in my speech is the committee that is intended.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Can you repeat that?BRETT HUDSON: The committee that I nominated for consideration which was the Justice Committee is the committee that is intended.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The member will need to seek a point of order to change the original statement.BRETT HUDSON: No I said it in the speech.Matt Doocey: That is the original—the Clerk just raised it.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry.BRETT HUDSON: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. So again on the example—the Dunedin City Council issued a trespass notice against Occupy Dunedin participants in early November 2011. The police issued—Hon Ruth Dyson: Is Governance and Administration poorly chaired? Is that the problem with it?BRETT HUDSON: Well I don't trust the chair of that committee Ms Dyson! We need impartiality in this matter. Dunedin City Council issued a trespass notice against Occupy Dunedin participants in early November 2011. The police issued a statement the following day and I will quote "Any power to trespass people protesting in a public place must be exercised reasonably and balance rights and freedoms. These are the issues we are currently working through with the council." The area commander said that. He also said "We understand the wider community's frustration and recognise the competing interests who use this space. However we live in a democracy and we need to be sure that any power to trespass people protesting in a public space is exercised reasonably and lawfully."In a similar vein—around the same time actually—there was also an Occupy protest in Wellington. A protest that was supposedly to last only a week lasted for over 100 days and took over one month to resolve after the Wellington City Council issued the first notice to have those particular protesters move on. The real point here is that the uncertainty of the application and enforcement of law particularly council by-laws and trespass notices in this area impedes authorities maintaining the balance of rights and freedoms for all parties.The purpose of the bill is to ensure communities have freedom of access to land that councils are responsible for administering by preventing persons from obstructing impeding or preventing an enforcement officer or local authority agent from carrying out their statutory functions duties or other tasks required of them including by refusing to provide particulars or providing false or insufficient particulars and to widen the scope in which any enforcement officer may remove or seize property.It is important to note despite interjections from across the other side that this bill does not infringe on the right to peacefully protest. It ensures the right of members of the public to express their opinions in protests and demonstrations but enables councils to prevent protests from becoming long-term live-in occupations where tents and structures impede the use of the land by other citizens potentially causing property damage and health hazards.I do note that the Attorney-General has issued a report that concluded that the bill does appear to have some inconsistency with section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act "Liberty of the person" such that cannot be justified under section 5 of the Act on the basis that the power to arrest is arbitrary and that it appears to be without reasonable cause. The Attorney-General says "In the absence of judicial supervision for example through issuing a warrant for arrest [he] cannot conclude that appropriate safeguards exist to mitigate against disproportionality." I would also note that the Attorney-General goes on to say that the inconsistency could be remedied through limited amendment to the bill. This is clearly an area that the select committee could and should investigate further.In conclusion the bill seeks to address a delicate balance between the right to protest and the right for citizens to enjoy their public environment in a safe and peaceable manner. This will be an interesting bill to work through should it go to select committee and I would expect and trust that we would receive a wide range of views at that committee. I ask that parties across this House will send this bill to the select committee so that New Zealanders can have their say. I commend this bill to the House."