New Zealand

The person posts on a public social-media account, under their own name, that the Holocaust did not happen and the gas chambers are a fabrication. The post contains no threat, no call to violence, and names no living individual.

New Zealand has no Holocaust-denial offence. Human Rights Act 1993 s131 makes it a crime (max 3 months or a $7,000 fine) to publish 'threatening, abusive, or insulting' written matter with intent to excite hostility or contempt against a group on grounds of race or ethnic origin, and Jews are an ethnic group under King-Ansell v Police (1979); prosecution needs the Attorney-General's consent (s132). The Royal Commission on the Christchurch attack found only one prosecution has ever been brought under the provision (King-Ansell). A civil complaint under s61 is also possible, and a post could be taken down if the Classification Office found it objectionable, but no enforcement against Holocaust denial was found.

Sources: Human Rights Act 1993 (ss 61, 131-132) · Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch attack: Hate speech, ss 61 and 131 Human Rights Act

The person posts a public rant using slurs against an ethnic or religious group, saying the group is inferior and unwelcome in the country. No threat, no call to violence, no named individual.

Human Rights Act s131 (max 3 months or a $7,000 fine, Attorney-General consent required) covers insulting matter published with intent to excite hostility on grounds of colour, race, or ethnic or national origin, but not religion; s61 creates civil liability before the Human Rights Commission and Review Tribunal without proof of intent. The Royal Commission records a single s131 prosecution ever and notes that Wall v Fairfax made s61 liability hard to establish. A slur-laden rant could draw a Human Rights Commission complaint, but criminal charges are essentially unknown. The 2021 hate-speech reform proposals were not enacted.

Sources: Human Rights Act 1993 (ss 61, 131-132) · Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch attack: Hate speech, ss 61 and 131 Human Rights Act

At a lawful, peaceful protest in a public square, the person burns a national flag they own and a copy of the dominant religion's scripture they own. No fire-safety rule is broken.

Blasphemous libel was repealed in 2019 (Crimes Act s123). Destroying the NZ flag 'with the intention of dishonouring it' is a fine-only offence (Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act s11(1)(b), s24: up to $5,000), but Hopkinson v Police (2004) read 'dishonour' as 'vilify' under the Bill of Rights and quashed a protest flag-burning conviction. In Morse v Police [2011] NZSC 45 the Supreme Court quashed an offensive-behaviour conviction (Summary Offences Act s4, $500 fine) for burning a flag at an Anzac dawn service, holding the offence requires a disturbance of public order. Residual risk remains only where the act vilifies the flag or disrupts public order.

Sources: Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981 (ss 11, 24) · Hopkinson v Police [2004] 3 NZLR 704 (HC) · Supreme Court media release: Morse v Police [2011] NZSC 45

The person posts that the head of state is a criminal and a pedophile. They have no evidence and present it as their opinion of the leader.

There is no lese-majeste or insult-of-officials offence: seditious offences were repealed in 2008 and criminal libel (Crimes Act ss211-216) in 1993 by Defamation Act 1992 s56. The King or a politician could sue in civil defamation; honest opinion requires the opinion to be genuine and grounded in facts (Defamation Act ss9-11), so a baseless claim of paedophilia is likely to lose. In practice no NZ head of state or prime minister has sued an ordinary poster over such insults.

Sources: Defamation Act 1992 · Crimes Act 1961

The person prints and hands out a pamphlet praising an organisation the state has banned as terrorist or extremist, saying its cause is just. The pamphlet urges no specific act, and the person has no contact with the group.

The Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 has no glorification offence: s13 (14 years) requires participating in a group to enhance its ability to carry out terrorist acts, and other offences cover financing, recruitment and material support. A pamphlet is caught only if the Classification Office deems it objectionable; s3(3)(d) weighs whether it 'promotes or encourages criminal acts or acts of terrorism', and knowingly distributing an objectionable publication carries up to 14 years (s124). Praise of a cause that urges no act is unlikely to be classified objectionable, and no prosecutions of this kind were found; the realistic outcome is seizure or a takedown notice (s119C) if classified.

Sources: Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 · Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 (ss 3, 119C, 124)

The person repeatedly refers to a named transgender public figure by their former pronouns and name in public posts, with no threats and no contact with the figure.

Misgendering is not itself an offence, and the Human Rights Act's hate-speech provisions do not cover gender identity. Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 s22 punishes posting a digital communication intended to cause, and causing, 'serious emotional distress' to a victim (max 2 years or a $50,000 fine), with repetition a listed factor; the District Court can also order takedowns. No case applying s22 or the HDCA civil regime to misgendering of a public figure was found, so in practice the realistic outcome is a Netsafe complaint or platform action.

Sources: Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 (s 22)

A blogger writes that a named local businessman (a private figure) is a fraud. The claim is false, but the blogger honestly believed it after reading a news report.

Defamation is civil only (criminal libel repealed by Defamation Act 1992 s56). The defendant bears the burden of proving truth (s8); honest belief is no defence, but Durie v Gardiner [2018] NZCA 278 created a defence of responsible communication on a matter of public interest, which may help a blogger who relied on a news report. Damages awards are moderate by UK standards, and costs follow the event on a scale that only partly covers actual costs.

Sources: Defamation Act 1992 · Duncan Cotterill: Durie v Gardiner [2018] NZCA 278

A journalist accurately reports, with evidence, that a sitting politician is having an extramarital affair. The politician sues for defamation and invasion of privacy.

Truth is a complete defence to defamation (Defamation Act s8). Hosking v Runting (CA 2004) created a tort of publicising private facts whose disclosure is highly offensive, with a defence of 'legitimate public concern', and said a public figure's reasonable expectation of privacy shrinks as public status grows. A sitting politician's affair is likely to fall within legitimate public concern, so the journalist should win, but only after litigation with partial costs recovery.

Sources: Hosking v Runting [2005] 1 NZLR 1 (CA) · Defamation Act 1992

A foreign billionaire sues a local critic in local courts over a harsh but clearly opinion-based review of their business conduct.

New Zealand has no anti-SLAPP statute. Honest opinion is a defence if the opinion is genuine and the facts it rests on are true or privileged (Defamation Act ss9-11), and clearly opinion-based reviews can be struck out, but often only after pleadings fights. Foreign claimants can sue in NZ courts; costs follow the event on a scale, so a winning critic recovers only part of the outlay.

Sources: Defamation Act 1992

The person wants to buy a common centrefire semi-automatic rifle (e.g. an AR-15 pattern rifle with a 30-round magazine) and keep it at home.

Under the Arms Act 2026 (mostly in force 23 September 2026) centrefire semi-automatic rifles are 'restricted firearms', and magazines like a 30-round AR-15 magazine are restricted magazines. Possession needs a licence endorsement made specific by a permit to possess; possessing one without authority carries up to 7 years (s32(4)). Endorsements go to bona fide collectors, heirloom holders, museums, businesses and pest controllers, not to an ordinary owner. The 2019 post-Christchurch ban is carried over.

Sources: Arms Act 2026 · Firearms Safety and Education NZ: The Arms Act 2026

The person wants to buy a 9mm handgun and keep it loaded at home for self-defence.

Pistols need a firearms licence plus an endorsement and a permit to possess (Arms Act 2026 s21). Endorsements are available to pistol-club members for target shooting, collectors and heirloom holders; self-defence is not a ground, and licence holders must follow secure-storage rules. Unauthorised possession of a pistol carries up to 7 years (s21(6)).

Sources: Arms Act 2026

The person wants to carry a loaded handgun, concealed, in everyday public places.

There is no carry licence. A pistol may not be carried beyond the curtilage of the holder's dwelling except under the endorsement's conditions (Arms Act 2026 s258), which cover travel to a club or range. Carrying a pistol in a public place without lawful purpose carries up to 3 years (s257), and without a lawful, proper and sufficient purpose up to 5 years (s254); self-defence is not an accepted purpose.

Sources: Arms Act 2026

The person wants to carry pepper spray, or a folding knife with a 9 cm locking blade, in public for self-defence.

Pepper (OC) spray is a restricted weapon under the Arms Act, which Police say cannot be possessed; unauthorised possession of a restricted weapon carries up to 7 years (Arms Act 2026 s21(6)). A knife in a public place without reasonable excuse carries up to 3 months or a $2,000 fine (Summary Offences Act s13A), or up to 3 years under Crimes Act s202A(4)(a). Police may search on reasonable grounds to suspect a weapon offence, and knives are seized even when only a warning is given.

Sources: NZ Police FAQ: Am I allowed to use, import or possess mace or OC spray? · Summary Offences Act 1981 (s 13A) · NZ Police Manual: Offensive weapons, knives and disabling substances

The person wants to own a machine gun, or a destructive device such as an artillery piece or a grenade launcher with live rounds.

Machine guns are restricted firearms under the Arms Act 2026; possession without authority carries up to 7 years (s32(4)). A bona fide collector, heirloom holder or museum can apply for an endorsement to possess restricted firearms and magazines, and the chief executive may impose conditions such as rendering items inoperable. This discretionary route exists for few private owners. Live explosive ordnance falls under separate explosives law.

Sources: Arms Act 2026

At night, a stranger armed with a knife breaks into the person's home. The person shoots and kills the intruder with a lawfully held gun.

Crimes Act s48 justifies force that is reasonable in the circumstances as the defender believes them to be. There is no castle doctrine, no presumption for householders and no civil immunity. Police generally investigate a killing in the home, and a homeowner can be charged if the force looks excessive. Firearms law also does not accept self-defence as a reason to hold a gun, so using one may risk the licence. No recent conviction of a householder for killing an armed intruder was found. The August 2026 Crimes Amendment Act widened citizen's-arrest powers but left s48 unchanged.

Sources: Crimes Act 1961 · NZ Police: Keep safe when out and about (self-defence law) · Beehive: Enhanced citizens' arrest powers pass into law (6 August 2026)

On the street, a stranger attacks the person with fists. The person could safely walk away but instead punches back once, breaking the attacker's nose.

Crimes Act s48 imposes no formal duty to retreat, but the jury judges whether the force was reasonable, and the chance to walk away is part of that. Police advise that the idea is 'to defend yourself, not to cause injury or get revenge'. A single punch back that breaks an attacker's nose is usually treated as reasonable, though both parties may be questioned and occasionally charged.

Sources: Crimes Act 1961 · NZ Police: Keep safe when out and about (self-defence law)

The person wants to buy a course of amoxicillin for a sinus infection without seeing a doctor.

Amoxicillin is a prescription medicine under the Medicines Act 1981, and selling it without a prescription is an offence for the seller, not the buyer. Prescriptions are easy to get from GPs, telehealth services or pharmacist prescribers. Personal import of prescription medicines needs a NZ prescriber's letter or prescription (up to 3 months' supply), and Customs may detain parcels until this is verified.

Sources: Medicines Act 1981 (s 29) · Medsafe: Personal importation of medicines

The person wants to take a drug approved by the EMA or FDA but not approved in their own country, for a non-terminal condition.

An individual may import up to 3 months' supply of a prescription medicine, including one Medsafe has not approved, with a NZ prescriber's letter or prescription authorising the import. Customs may detain it until this is verified. Under Medicines Act s29, a doctor, nurse practitioner or pharmacist prescriber can also obtain an unapproved medicine for a patient under their care. The 2025 'consent by verification' pathway speeds approval of medicines approved by recognised overseas regulators, but it is open to sponsors, not patients.

Sources: Medsafe: Personal importation of medicines · Medicines Act 1981 (s 29)

A terminally ill patient wants a drug that has passed Phase 1 trials but is not approved anywhere, and the manufacturer is willing to supply it.

Medicines Act s29 lets a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner or pharmacist prescriber obtain any unapproved medicine, including one approved nowhere, for a patient under their care, with the supply reported to the Director-General rather than approved in advance. So a dying patient with a willing manufacturer and a willing doctor can get a post-Phase-1 drug without regulator permission. Access in practice depends on finding a doctor willing to take clinical responsibility.

Sources: Medicines Act 1981 (s 29)

The person wants to sell one of their kidneys to a willing recipient, with surgery by licensed surgeons.

Human Tissue Act 2008 s56 prohibits giving or accepting financial or other consideration for human tissue, punishable by up to 1 year or a $50,000 fine. Living donors may receive compensation for lost earnings and expenses under the Compensation for Live Organ Donors Act 2016, but not payment. No prosecutions were found; in practice paid donation is blocked by transplant-unit screening.

Sources: Human Tissue Act 2008 (s 56)

An adult declines a vaccine the state recommends or mandates for adults (score the strictest adult mandate in force in the last 5 years).

The strictest adult measures in the last 5 years were COVID-19 vaccination orders under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 covering health, education, Police, Defence, corrections and border workers, with dismissal for refusal, plus My Vaccine Pass entry rules for many venues until 4 April 2022. In Yardley v Minister [2022] NZHC 291 the High Court struck down the Police/Defence mandate as an unjustified limit on rights. From April 2022 mandates were narrowed to health, aged care, corrections and border workers, and all have since lapsed. There was no forced vaccination.

Sources: Franks Ogilvie: Yardley v Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety [2022] NZHC 291 · Beehive: Post-peak plan (23 March 2022)

A competent adult with a terminal illness and under 6 months to live asks their doctor for lethal medication to take themselves.

The End of Life Choice Act 2019 (in force November 2021) allows assisted dying for a citizen or permanent resident aged 18+ with a terminal illness likely to end life within 6 months, an advanced state of irreversible decline in physical capability, unbearable suffering and decision-making competence (s5). Two practitioners must agree, and the medication is administered or ingested with the practitioner available. More than 1,200 people had used it by August 2025, though the 2024 statutory review flagged workforce shortages.

Sources: End of Life Choice Act 2019 (s 5) · ACT: End of Life Choice Bill strengthened and reintroduced (25 August 2025)

A competent adult with unbearable but non-terminal suffering (e.g. advanced multiple sclerosis) asks their doctor for the same.

End of Life Choice Act s5 requires a terminal illness likely to end life within 6 months, so non-terminal suffering is excluded. A doctor who helps faces Crimes Act s179 (aiding and abetting suicide, max 14 years); the Act's protection (Crimes Act s48(2)) covers only lawful assisted dying. An ACT member's bill to widen eligibility has been lodged but is not law.

Sources: End of Life Choice Act 2019 (s 5) · Crimes Act 1961 · ACT: End of Life Choice Bill strengthened and reintroduced (25 August 2025)

A layperson gets lethal medication for a competent friend who has clearly asked to die, and is present when the friend takes it. No payment.

Aiding or abetting suicide carries up to 14 years (Crimes Act s179), and there is no published policy against prosecuting compassionate lay helpers. Police have investigated such cases intensively: in the Susan Austen case they bugged an Exit meeting at her home; she was acquitted of aiding suicide in 2018 but convicted and fined $7,500 for importing pentobarbitone. Helpers who are prosecuted typically get a conviction with a non-custodial or short sentence.

Sources: Crimes Act 1961 · Stuff: Susan Austen convicted and fined for importing suicide drug (10 May 2018)

The person is found with 5 grams of cannabis for personal use.

Cannabis is a Class C drug; possession carries up to 3 months or a $500 fine, and courts may not impose custody for Class C possession absent exceptional circumstances (Misuse of Drugs Act s7(2)). Since 2019, s7(5) says a possession prosecution should not be brought unless required in the public interest. Police data show 83% of first-time adult possession cases now end in a warning or other alternative action and 17% in prosecution; 58% of adults with prior offences are prosecuted. Cannabis makes up 63% of possession cases.

Sources: Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 (ss 6, 7) · NZ Police: The Policing of Drugs in New Zealand (2023)

The person is found with one personal dose of psilocybin mushrooms or MDMA.

MDMA is Class B (possession max 3 months or $500); psilocybin is Class A (max 6 months or $1,000) (Misuse of Drugs Act s7(2)). The s7(5) presumption against prosecution applies to all possession, and Police report 83% of first-time adult possession cases end in warnings or other alternative actions. Outcomes for non-cannabis drugs are harsher than for cannabis, and possession is still a ground for search.

Sources: Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 (ss 6, 7) · NZ Police: The Policing of Drugs in New Zealand (2023)

The person sells 30 grams of cannabis to another adult.

Selling cannabis to an adult is dealing under Misuse of Drugs Act s6(1)(e), punishable by up to 8 years for a Class C drug (s6(2)(c)). There is no legal retail market; the 2020 cannabis referendum failed. A one-off 30 g sale typically brings a conviction with a community-based sentence or short home detention rather than prison.

Sources: Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 (ss 6, 7)

Two adults agree to have sex for money, in private, with no third party involved.

The Prostitution Reform Act 2003 decriminalised sex work: private paid sex between two adults is legal for both parties, and small owner-operated brothels need no licence. The only condition is that both must take all reasonable steps to use a condom or barrier (s9), an offence punishable by a fine. Temporary-visa holders may not work in the industry, but this does not affect citizens.

Sources: Prostitution Reform Act 2003 (s 9)

Three consenting adults want to live together as a family, share property, and make binding arrangements for inheritance, medical decisions and parenting.

Cohabitation by three adults is lawful; bigamy (Crimes Act s205) applies only to a second marriage or civil union. Contracts, wills and enduring powers of attorney cover most arrangements, though Family Protection Act claims can override wills. A child has at most two legal parents, but a parent's partner can be appointed an additional guardian, and courts can appoint guardians (Care of Children Act 2004), so a third adult can share legal parenting responsibilities.

Sources: Crimes Act 1961 · Care of Children Act 2004

Parents want to homeschool their 10-year-old using their own curriculum.

Parents need a Certificate of Exemption from the Ministry of Education (Education and Training Act 2020 s38). The Ministry assesses whether the proposed programme will teach the child 'at least as regularly' and 'as well as' a registered school; applying is free and takes 4-6 weeks. Parents set their own curriculum, and the certificate lasts until age 16 with no periodic testing. Refusals come with reasons and can be reviewed.

Sources: Ministry of Education: Apply to home educate your child

The state wants to read the person's end-to-end encrypted messages, although they are suspected of no serious crime.

Police need a warrant or warrantless power to search a device, and can then require a person to provide access information such as passwords (Search and Surveillance Act s130). Refusing carries up to 3 months' imprisonment (s178), though the privilege against self-incrimination is preserved for information that is itself incriminating. Intelligence warrants targeting New Zealanders need approval from the Minister and a Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants, and there is no backdoor mandate for end-to-end encrypted apps.

Sources: Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (ss 130, 178)

The person wants a prepaid SIM card and an internet connection without giving their identity.

New Zealand has no SIM-registration law for individual customers, so prepaid SIMs can be bought and activated without ID. Fixed broadband contracts require a name and payment details like any contract. There are no real-name rules for online services. The source is a commercial telecom blog, used because no government statement exists for a law that does not exist.

Sources: Baztel: Australia and NZ SIM registration laws

The person wants to pay a dealer 15,000 USD (or the local equivalent) in cash for a used car.

Since 11 May 2023, AML/CFT Act s67A bars anyone in trade from buying or selling motor vehicles (and jewellery, precious metals and boats) for cash of NZ$10,000 or more, including linked payments. A dealer who breaches it faces a civil penalty of up to $200,000 or a criminal offence carrying up to 2 years. The buyer is not the target, but a US$15,000 (about NZ$25,000) cash purchase from a dealer cannot lawfully happen.

Sources: DIA: AML/CFT information for high-value dealers · MinterEllison: Prohibition on certain cash transactions to activate (2023)

The person wants to found a new religion, or an association, and hold weekly meetings without registering it.

The Bill of Rights Act protects freedom of religion, its manifestation, and association (ss13, 15, 17). No registration or permission is needed to found a religion or association or to hold meetings. Incorporation as a society or registration as a charity is optional and confers legal personality or tax status. The only banned groups are designated terrorist entities.

Sources: New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (ss 13-17)

The person organises a protest of 50 people in a public square with one day's notice to nobody. It is peaceful.

Bill of Rights Act s16 protects peaceful assembly, and no national law requires notice of, or a permit for, a static protest in a public square. Councils' bylaws may require bookings for events or road closures, and Summary Offences Act provisions on obstruction and disorder apply only to disruptive conduct. A peaceful 50-person rally is normally left alone.

Sources: New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (ss 13-17) · Summary Offences Act 1981 (s 13A)

The person publicly announces they have left the country's dominant religion, or Islam, and criticises it.

Blasphemous libel was repealed on 12 March 2019 (Crimes Amendment Act 2019 s5, removing Crimes Act s123). There is no apostasy law, and family law attaches no consequences to religious choice. The Bill of Rights Act protects freedom of religion and belief, including the right not to hold one (s13).

Sources: Crimes Act 1961 · New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (ss 13-17)

The person wants to move abroad permanently, taking 1 million USD of savings and shares.

New Zealand has no exit tax, no general capital gains tax and no capital controls. An emigrant becomes non-resident once they have no permanent place of abode in NZ and have been away more than 325 days in any 12 months; only NZ-sourced income stays taxable. Cash of NZ$10,000 or more carried across the border must be declared.

Sources: Inland Revenue: Leaving New Zealand

The person, who already holds another citizenship, wants to renounce this one.

An adult who holds another citizenship and has full mental capacity can renounce by application and witnessed declaration, with a fee of NZ$542 (about US$315). The Minister can refuse if the applicant lives in New Zealand or NZ is at war, and NZ residents must give a statutory declaration explaining why. There is no tax clearance or military-service condition.

Sources: Govt.nz: Giving up your NZ citizenship

Police find 20,000 USD in cash in the person's car at a traffic stop. They charge no crime.

Under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, the High Court makes a forfeiture order if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that property is tainted, with no conviction needed (s50), after a court restraining order. Since 2023, failing to comply with a disclosure-of-source order creates a presumption that the property is tainted. Police can seize cash at a stop as evidential material on reasonable grounds, and the owner must litigate to recover it.

Sources: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (s 50)

The person is arrested for a non-violent offence carrying up to 2 years in prison. They have a home and a job.

A defendant charged with an offence carrying under 3 years' imprisonment is bailable as of right (Bail Act 2000 s7(2)), except for assault on a child or family-violence assault and for people with prior convictions punishable by imprisonment (s7(4)). Arrested people must be brought before a court as soon as possible (Bill of Rights Act s23), usually the next court day, and money bail is not used. A first-time non-violent defendant with a home and job is normally released on police bail or court bail with conditions.

Sources: Bail Act 2000 (s 7) · New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (ss 13-17)

The person wants to build a 20 m² wooden shed on their own rural land.

Building Act 2004 Schedule 1 clause 3A exempts from building consent a single-storey detached building of 10-30 m² built from lightweight products to Acceptable Solution B1/AS1, with no sanitary facilities, at least 1 m from boundaries and residential buildings; no licensed builder is required. A 20 m² wooden shed therefore needs no building permit. District-plan rules under resource-management law may still impose setbacks or site-coverage limits, but sheds are normally permitted in rural zones.

Sources: Building Act 2004, Schedule 1 (clauses 3, 3A)