In brief

• Police documents reveal hundreds of officers deployed for gang funerals, while far fewer are assigned to protect free speech at public events.
• Despite police willingness to support “Rainbow Storytime” in Rotorua, the organisers felt the security was inadequate and cancelled the event.
• Released emails indicate that the police’s approach to handling protests and protecting free speech lacks consistency and clear guidelines.

Disparity in Resource Allocation 

Without a more transparent and consistent policy to policing public events, there is a risk of perceived favouritism and political bias in the police’s approach to protecting free speech rights. Is their policy, when they react at all, to “eject” protestors or simply wall them off?

Varying responses 

Documents obtained under the Official Information Act (OIA) expose the ongoing uncertainty about whether the police are prepared to defend freedom of speech consistently. 

When it comes to gang funerals, hundreds of officers are deployed at short notice. 

For example, the police assigned 172 officers for the funeral of Killer Beez member Hone Kay-Selwyn, 26 officers for Mongrel Mob member Nicholas Berkland’s funeral, and 102 officers for Headhunters member Sam Rasmussen. They assigned 204 officers for Headhunters member Charles Pongi over two days.

In stark contrast, far fewer resources are dedicated to protecting free speech at public meetings called to discuss controversial political and cultural issues like “trans rights” or the meaning of Te Tiriti in a modern democracy.

Inadequate security for free speech events 

The “Rainbow Storytime” event in Rotorua was offered 12 officers for security. This was deemed inadequate by the event’s organisers, leading to its cancellation. 

Yet, there was a massive police response to the vandalism of a rainbow crossing in Gisborne and another in Auckland, indicating a strong reaction to attacks on LGBTQ+ symbols.

Similarly, although 33 officers were eventually deployed to Albert Park during Posie Parker’s 2023 event (which was nearly a riot), only 15 were originally assigned. The number of police present was insufficient to manage the crowd, raising questions about their preparedness and priorities.

Inconsistent guidelines and a lack of clear policy

If police can throw resources and taxpayer money at gang events, why are so many free speech events cancelled on “health and safety” grounds? A clear policy would help.. 

Free speech is a hollow right if police are unable to manage safety concerns in a public space.

Case study – Rainbow Storytime event 

Despite the police’s willingness to support the “Rainbow Storytime” event in Rotorua, released emails reveal a lack of clear and consistent guidelines in the police’s approach to handling protests and protecting free speech.

Senior Sergeant Simon Betchetti’s communications with Rotorua Library director Julianne Wilkinson highlight the police’s struggle to provide sufficient security for the “Rainbow Storytime” event. 

Betchetti’s email, dated 15 March, warned of potential protest action and outlined the police’s limited capacity to ensure safety.

“Police have received anecdotal information that indicates possible protest action at the Library next Thursday in relation to a book reading or event the library is running this day,” Betchetti wrote. “If this is news to you, I don’t intend to create panic. Police will attend in a pre-emptive observation role if required.”

The library’s response indicated significant interest in the event, but also noted increased threats and vitriol directed at it. “Up until this point, there has been a significant amount of positive interest in the event alongside some concerns and negative feedback too,” wrote the library.

Various security measures, including “bringing Coco and Erika [drag queen performers] by unmarked vehicle into the back entry to the Library,” were discussed. These also included maintaining a police presence and having additional Watchdog Security support. However, the event was cancelled by Rotorua Lakes Council due to their lack of confidence that safety concerns could be mitigated adequately.