The Police Association is supporting proposed changes to the Policing Act, while also pushing back against claims the reforms risk mass surveillance and saying the Bill would restore much-needed certainty for frontline officers.

In a submission to Parliament’s justice select committee, the association supported the Policing Amendment Bill 2026, arguing that it strikes “an appropriate balance between operational effectiveness and civil liberties”.

Association president Steve Watt says the proposed changes are about giving members clarity around what information they could lawfully collect and retain while carrying out policing duties.

“Ultimately, what it does is give our officers certainty and assurance around the information they can and cannot collect and store and the confidence to perform their intelligence-gathering duties and functions appropriately.”

Frontline clarity

The Bill follows the 2025 Supreme Court decision in “Tamiefuna v R”, which narrowed police powers to photograph and retain images taken in public places for intelligence purposes. The ruling led to a robbery conviction being quashed after the court found a photo taken during an unrelated traffic stop breached the Bill of Rights Act.

The association submission says the decision went too far and left officers with “less ability than members of the public to take photos in public, despite policing responsibilities”.

Steve says the ruling led to some frontline staff being hesitant in carrying out lawful policing activities. “Police have always relied on lawful intelligence gathering to prevent offending, identify suspects and protect communities. Our members need the confidence that when they are acting lawfully and professionally, the law supports them.”

Under the proposed amendments, police would be explicitly authorised to record images and sounds in public places and in private places where officers are lawfully present, provided it is for lawful policing purposes. The Bill would also confirm that police can collect information for intelligence purposes where it may support policing functions.

Privacy debate

The proposed legislation has attracted criticism from privacy advocates, including Privacy Commissioner Michael Webster, who warned that it could create overly broad intelligence-gathering powers and have a “chilling effect” on civil liberties.

But the association says important safeguards and oversight mechanisms remain in place, including scrutiny by the courts, the Independent Police Conduct Authority and the Privacy Commissioner.

Its submission also points to major changes already made by Police following earlier criticism of photographing practices involving rangatahi Māori, including key policy reforms and implementing controls around photography and privacy obligations.

Steve says members understand the importance of maintaining public trust while still being able to do their jobs effectively.

“We absolutely acknowledge the importance of privacy protections and public trust. But there also needs to be recognition that frontline staff are operating in increasingly complex environments where intelligence can be critical to solving serious crime and preventing harm.”

The Bill is not about giving officers unchecked powers, he says, but restoring clarity around practices Police had long treated as lawful operational policing. 

Public disorder

The association also strongly backs expanded temporary closure powers allowing Police to shut down roads, car parks, reserves, parks, beaches and other public spaces during dangerous antisocial vehicle events or major disorder incidents.

Its submission describes illegal street racing and dirt-bike gatherings as a growing nationwide public-order problem that places officers and the public at risk while also consuming huge policing resources. 

“It takes very little, if any, research to open a relentless sequence of reported ‘boy-racer’ incidents… each mimicking the other in terms of noise, danger, damage, injuries and, of course, the repetitive need for police to clear it all away, and tax and ratepayers to fork out to repair the damage done to public assets,” the submission says. 

Examples cited included officers being attacked with bottles and fireworks, patrol cars being rammed and large-scale damage to public spaces.

“[This is not] about expanding routine policing into everyday conduct. We are asking for a targeted response to a narrow category of repeat, high-impact behaviour that has demonstrably resisted resolution through existing mechanisms,” it says.