Too Much Protest, methinks (Part 1)

Independent Police Conduct Authority Policing and the Bureaucracy of Public Protest

This is Part 1 of a three-part series considering the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) report on public protest.

Part 1 (This part) considers a history of protest activity from 1946 to 1981 and describes some of the actions of the Police in dealing with it. In the discussion there will be a discussion of the facts of a couple of cases from the mid-1960’s which are examples of the way the Police dealt with protest in those days.

Part 2 considers protest activity from after the 1981 Springbok Tour through to various other forms of protest in the 1980s and 1990s along with the Police responses. The impact of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the exercise of protest activity will be considered. Part 2 will close with a discussion of the phenomenon of counter-protest and the treatment of the “heckler’s veto” by the Courts.

Part 3 examines the approach of the IPCA Report which suggests that the current legal framework – if one could call it that – is inadequate and that there should be specific legislative provision to enable the Police to respond in an orderly and constructive way. The impact and advisability of these proposals will be considered leading to a conclusion that better education and training is required within the Police rather than a bureaucratic structure which may constrain protest, the freedom of association, assembly and expression.

Taking to the Streets – 1946 – 1981

The period from 1945 to 1981 in New Zealand was one of profound social, political, and economic change. In the aftermath of World War II, New Zealand society underwent rapid transformation. Increasing urbanization, changing labour relations, and a growing awareness of global issues contributed to a vibrant climate of protest.

From industrial disputes and anti-war demonstrations to emerging Māori rights and environmental activism, protest movements became a key mechanism for expressing dissent and advocating change.

The role of the police was central in these struggle —tasked with maintaining public order, they often found themselves at the crossroads of conflicting societal expectations and government policies.

The Post-War Context and Early Protest Activity

In the immediate post war era, New Zealand, like many other countries, was focused on reconstruction and economic stability. While the early 1950s were marked by a general consensus on rebuilding, underlying tensions simmered beneath the surface. Labour disputes and industrial actions emerged as workers began to assert their rights in a rapidly modernizing society.

A seminal event during this period was the 1951 waterfront dispute. This industrial conflict, one of the largest of its kind in New Zealand’s history, highlighted the rising power of organized labour and the deep divisions between workers and management.

The dispute was not only a struggle over wages and working conditions but also a battleground for ideas about workers’ rights and state intervention.

The police played a critical role in this conflict, often acting on behalf of a conservative establishment intent on preserving order and stability. Their intervention—marked by firm tactics and a readiness to arrest dissenters—set the tone for how state authorities would handle protest movements in the years to come.

The 1960’s: Global Influences and Domestic Awareness

The 1960s brought with it the influence of global protest movements. As the civil rights movement, anti war demonstrations, and youth counterculture took hold around the world, New Zealand’s younger generation began to question the status quo. Although the early 1960s in New Zealand were still characterized by a largely conformist society, seeds of dissent were being sown.

Students and intellectuals started to organize informal gatherings and debates about social justice, civil rights, and government policies. The era saw a gradual shift from isolated labour disputes to a more diverse array of protest actions. Even as these early protests were relatively modest compared to later developments, they signaled a broader willingness to challenge established norms.

The police, in turn, were adapting to this new environment—struggling to reconcile traditional notions of law enforcement with the emerging demands for civil liberties. Their response was cautious; while eager to prevent disorder, they were often unprepared for the ideological fervor and spontaneous organization of these movements.

A Couple of Examples

I was at Auckland University Law School from 1965 – 1969 as protest activity – especially against the Viet-Nam war began to ramp up. At the same time “peaceful” protests against certain societal norms began to develop. One that I recall was a form of “occupation” of Albert Park – a fairly innocuous gathering by today’s standards but radical at the time. No applications for permits, nor approvals by the City Council and, amazingly, no arrests.

In 1968 in a course on jurisprudence we explored the law relating to protest activity and the way that the Court responded. I won’t go too deeply into this other than to observe that offences such as disorderly conduct were used by the Police to justify the arrest of protesters. But the facts of the cases that we studied provide examples of the behaviour that led to the arrest and charging of the protesters.

The first case was that of Melser and Others v Police [1967] NZLR 437. The facts are taken from the judgment.

On Sunday, 20 February (1966) , at about 8.20 a.m. the four appellants were found by the police to be chained to the pillars at the entrance to Parliament House immediately overlooking the main steps leading to the main entrance to the building. The chains were not only round the pillars but were round their bodies and padlocked in such a way that it was impossible for them to be released from the pillars without the padlocks being unlocked or the chains cut.

They stated that they were demonstrating against the visit of the Vice-President of the United States who was due to arrive at 4 p.m. that day to visit the Prime Minister of New Zealand. They stated that they did not have the keys to the padlocks and intended to stay there until after the Vice-President had arrived.

When requested to move they not only said that they could not do so but that they did not intend to do so until after the Vice-President's arrival. They further stated that they were an independent group making a passive demonstration on their own account.

They were not demonstrating vocally nor acting in any offensive way, but just standing there quietly, chained to the pillars.

The centre pillars were about 12 feet 6 inches apart while the side pillars were 9 feet 6 inches apart; but the Vice-President could not have entered Parliament House by the main steps without passing between them. There was a small crowd during the morning in Parliament grounds in front of the steps, which swelled during the afternoon to between 200 and 300 people, many of whom carried banners protesting against American participation in the Vietnam War.

The police did not interfere in any way with these demonstrators except to make sure that they stood sufficiently back from the steps to enable persons entering Parliament Buildings reasonably to use the steps. Had the four appellants been content to join these demonstrators the police would have taken no action against them.

However at 4.30 p.m. the police again asked the appellants to join the crowd of demonstrators in front of the steps and when they refused they were arrested.

The police then cut the chains with bolt cutters and took the appellants away in a police van.

They were charged with disorderly behaviour. They were found guilty and on appeal the Court of Appeal upheld that finding.

One of the Judges – McCarthy J – made some observations about the right to protest which I recall were discussed in class. He said:

Unquestionably, freedom of opinion, including the right to protest against political decisions, is now accepted as a fundamental human right in any modern society which deserves to be called democratic. Its general acceptance is one of the most precious of our individual freedoms.

It needed no Charter of the United Nations to make it acceptable to us ; it has long been part of our way of life. But a democracy is compounded of many different freedoms, some of which conflict with others, and the right of protest, in particular, if exercised without restraint may interfere with other people's rights of privacy and freedom from molestation.

Freedom of speech, freedom of behaviour, academic freedom, none of these is absolute. The purposes of a democratic society are only made practicable by accepting some limitations on absolute individual freedoms.

All this, of course, is rather elementary.

The task of the law is to define the limitations which our society, for its social health, puts on such freedoms. Sometimes the law defines with precision the boundaries of these limitations ; often the definition is stated only in general terms. In these latter cases, the Courts must lay down the boundaries themselves, bearing in mind that freedoms are of different qualities and values and that the higher and more important should not be unduly restricted in favour of lower or less important ones.

The ringing endorsement by McCarthy J of freedom of opinion and the right to protest however contains a note of relativism that has been a part of the approach to the exercise and development of freedom in New Zealand. More on this later.

The second case was that of Wainright and Butler v Police [1968] NZLR 101. The facts in that case were as follows:

Both appellants are members of a group which meets from time to time to discuss questions of the day. At such a meeting on Sunday, 23 April (1967), a small group which included both appellants decided that on Anzac Day, 25 April, they would attend the wreath laying ceremony at the Cenotaph in Wellington and lay a wreath for the dead and dying in Vietnam. Mr Wainwright bought the basic materials, he and Mr Butler collected some laurel leaves, and they got a girl who had had some previous experience to make a wreath for them. It consisted of the leaves 50 and some flowers but the predominant and, as I think, significant feature was the centrepiece which the Magistrate fairly described as a piece of rough cardboard 10½ by 7 inches in diameter displaying in handwritten block capitals about one inch high the words: "To the dead and dying " of all sides in Vietnam. Must their blood pay the price of our mistakes ? " The appellants with some companions took this to Parliament grounds and from there carried it behind some parties of children, who were laying wreaths just before an organised wreath laying ceremony by official persons began, to the steps of the Cenotaph.

An official of the Returned Services Association, who had some part in organizing the proceedings, caught a glimpse of the appellants' wreath and formed the opinion that it was a " flower adorned placard ". He ushered the appellants to the side of the Cenotaph where they remained while the official wreath laying was carried out and a service was conducted.

Another R.S.A. official gave evidence, which the Magistrate accepted, that while the official wreath laying was proceeding the appellants and their companions held up their wreath and its inscription and passed it amongst themselves from hand to hand to draw it to the attention of the official wreath layers who included diplomatic representatives and other important personages. The R.S.A. official thought that this might lead to a public demonstration.

After the ceremony had ended Mr Wainwright and another of his party followed by Mr Butler and a fourth companion went up to the Cenotaph and laid their wreath. They were followed by another R.S.A. official who picked up the wreath and carried it off, followed by the appellants who were protesting. They were then joined by Sergeant Houston of the police and a discussion took place in the immediate vicinity of the Cenotaph, with a crowd of the other persons present beginning to gather.

The sergeant suggested that the group move across the street. As they did so people pressed on them with various remarks and one lady, according to the sergeant's evidence which the Magistrate accepted, held Mr Wainwright by the arm and said," why don't you leave us alone and let us have our ceremony in peace ? "

In the course of the discussion the sergeant told Mr Wainwright that if they laid their wreath it would cause trouble and upset somebody.

Mr Wainwright said that it would not upset him: the only thing that would do that would be a punch on the nose. The sergeant replied that that was exactly why he did not want them to lay the wreath.

Thereupon he gave the appellants three choices : they could go to the police station to discuss the matter, they could go home, or, if they laid the wreath he would arrest them because he thought there would be a breach of the peace. The appellants nevertheless laid the wreath, whereupon a by-stander rushed up and tore off the inscription.

The sergeant then arrested the appellants and told them that they would be charged with disorderly behaviour.

The charge of disorderly behaviour was found proven by the Magistrate and on appeal that finding was upheld. Another charge of obstructing the Police was dismissed on appeal.

I have sued these cases because they provide examples of the circumstances that led to the arrest of the protesters. I have not gone into the legal discussion that provided a rationale for the findings of the Courts on appeal because events have overtaken that reasoning which is no longer valid law.

The 1970s – Increased Activism and Different Protest Tactics

By the 1970s, protest activity in New Zealand had entered a new phase. Two major strands of dissent emerged during this decade: opposition to the Vietnam War and growing activism among Māori communities.

Anti Vietnam War Protests

As New Zealand found itself implicated in the global controversy over the Vietnam War, opposition to military involvement intensified. The conflict was seen not only as an international crisis but also as a reflection of domestic policy choices that were increasingly out of step with public sentiment.

Anti war demonstrations became more organized and visible, drawing in students, peace activists, and a broader section of society concerned with human rights and ethical governance.

Police responses to these protests varied. In some instances, authorities adopted a strategy of containment, attempting to prevent marches from devolving into violence by imposing strict controls on protest routes and gathering sizes.

In other cases, proactive measures—including arrests and the use of crowd control tactics—were employed. These interventions were often criticized by protestors as heavy handed, yet they underscored the challenge faced by law enforcement in balancing the right to protest with the mandate to maintain public order.

Māori Protest and Indigenous Rights

Parallel to the anti war movement, the 1970s witnessed a resurgence of Māori activism. Discontent over historical grievances, land alienation, and the erosion of treaty rights spurred a series of protests that sought to reclaim cultural identity and assert indigenous rights.

The Māori Land March of 1975

This march was led by the revered activist Whina Cooper. The march was emblematic of a broader indigenous renaissance—a call for recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi and for justice in land distribution and cultural preservation.

The police response to Māori protests was complex. On one hand, there was a recognition of the legitimacy of historical grievances; on the other, law enforcement agencies were often caught in the bureaucratic and political machinery of a state reluctant to challenge established power structures. While many Māori protests were peaceful, the mere act of public assembly was sometimes met with stringent security measures, surveillance, and, in rare cases, confrontations that left lasting impressions on the community.

The Bastion Point Occupation 1977 – 78

Bastion Point overlooks Waitematā Harbour in the northwestern part of the North Island. Bastion Point was Māori ancestral land belonging to the Ngāti Whātua iwi (tribe), but the New Zealand government began confiscating it in the mid-19th century.

Unable to get the land back, a group of Ngāti Whātua spent 506 days occupying Bastion Point in a nonviolent protest to bring attention to the issue.

In May 1978, the government won a court injunction to remove the occupiers. New Zealand police and army personnel arrived in force to evict the protesters from Bastion Point.

They surrounded the camp and made 222 arrests for trespassing. The protest and the subsequent government handling of the occupation brought international attention to the Māori land situation.

Nine years later, in 1987, the government accepted the Waitangi Tribunal’s decree that Bastion Point was Māori land and should be returned.

Other Emerging Movements

The 1970s also saw the germination of other protest movements. Environmental concerns, feminist issues, and early calls for nuclear disarmament began to coalesce into organized campaigns. Though not as immediately confrontational as anti war or Māori protests, these movements contributed to a diversifying protest landscape.

For example in 1978, protesters camped in tōtara tree canopies in Pureora Forest to prevent logging, leading to significant changes in native forest management.

The police’s role in many of these latter protests was more reactive than proactive, as they sought to adapt traditional crowd control measures to a rapidly evolving societal context. The challenge was not only to manage the logistics of large-scale protests but also to address the underlying demands for systemic change.

Policing Strategies and Responses

Over this period, New Zealand police underwent a transformation in both philosophy and practice. In the immediate post war years, policing was rooted in a conservative approach: maintaining order through visible authority and strict enforcement of laws. This often meant that protests—especially those perceived as threatening social stability—were met with swift, decisive action.

As protest movements diversified and became more ideologically driven in the 1960s and 1970s, the limitations of a purely repressive approach became apparent.

In some instances, police actions were criticized for infringing on civil liberties and stifling legitimate dissent. The heavy handed tactics used during the waterfront dispute and certain anti war demonstrations left an indelible mark on public perception, fueling further demands for accountability and reform within law enforcement agencies.

The evolution of protest activity compelled the police to adapt. New training regimes, a gradual embrace of community policing, and a more nuanced understanding of protest dynamics began to emerge.

However, this transition was neither linear nor universally accepted within the ranks of the police force. The tension between maintaining law and order and respecting the right to protest continued to be a central theme in debates over policing policy.

Critics argued that while some measures were necessary to prevent chaos, the response to protests often reflected an underlying reluctance to engage with the substantive issues raised by activists.

The Evolution of the Police Response

The police response to protests during this period evolved from relatively passive observation to more active intervention. For example in the 1955 Nelson Railway Protest police initially allowed the sit-in to continue for 10 days before making arrest.

As protests became more frequent and larger in scale, police tactics became more confrontational. This was evident in the forceful eviction of protesters from Bastion Point in 1978.

By the late 1970s and early 1980s, police responses began to include more specialized units and equipment for crowd control. Militarisation began to become apparent with the formation of the Red Squad during the 1981 Springbok tour (see below)

Social Drivers for Protest

There are several factors that inspired protest action in New Zealand between 1946 and 1981. Some of these factors are:

Labor Rights and Economic Conditions: Post-war economic challenges and labor disputes were significant drivers of protest. The 1951 waterfront dispute, one of the largest industrial confrontations in New Zealand's history, was driven by workers' demands for better wages and working conditions.

Civil Rights and Social Justice: The 1960s and 1970s saw a rise in civil rights movements, including protests against racial discrimination and for Māori land rights. The Bastion Point occupation (1977-1978) was a notable example, where Māori activists protested against the government's plans to develop their ancestral land.

Anti-Nuclear and Environmental Movements: The anti-nuclear movement gained momentum in the 1960s and 1970s, with protests against nuclear testing in the Pacific and the presence of nuclear-powered ships in New Zealand waters.

Anti-Apartheid Protests: The opposition to apartheid in South Africa was a major driver of protest, culminating in the 1981 Springbok rugby tour protests. New Zealanders demonstrated against the South African rugby team's presence due to the apartheid regime, leading to widespread and intense protests.

Vietnam War Opposition: The Vietnam War sparked significant anti-war protests in New Zealand, particularly in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Demonstrators opposed New Zealand's involvement in the war and called for peace.

These social drivers reflect the diverse and evolving nature of protest movements in New Zealand during this period, highlighting the country's dynamic and often contentious path towards social justice and equality.

The 1981 Springbok Tour

The tour of New Zealand by the South African rugby team the Springboks marked a high-water mark in New Zealand’s protest history. The protesters were seeking the end of the tour and of sporting contacts with apartheid South Africa. They were met by a Government which supported the tour and rugby fans who argued that politics and sport should not mix.

A classic confrontation between protesters and counter-protesters took place at rugby grounds around the country.

Over 150,000 people participated in more than 200 demonstrations across 28 centers. The tour saw unprecedented levels of civil unrest, with violent clashes between protesters, police, and rugby supporters.

The police response escalated significantly, with the widespread use of batons and the formation of specialized squads.

The tour deeply divided New Zealand society, pitting anti-apartheid protesters against rugby supporters and raising questions about national identity and lasting effects on New Zealand's social and political landscape, influencing future approaches to protest and policing.