The Parliamentary Service has told MPs that their use of available security support has been underwhelming, even as it confirms a steady increase in threats and abuse against elected representatives across the country. The frank assessment was given to Parliament’s Petitions Committee in response to a petition by former political staffer Sam Fisher, who asked Parliament to formally investigate the scale and nature of abuse and intimidation targeting women MPs and local body representatives.
According to RNZ’s report on the committee response, the Parliamentary Service told MPs it has noticed an increase in threats and abuse directed at members both online and in the community, and that two issues are now holding back its ability to keep elected representatives safe. The first is resourcing. The second, in the Service’s own word, is “underwhelming” engagement by MPs themselves with the security advice and protective measures already on offer.
That is a remarkable thing for a parliamentary agency to say in writing. The Service has effectively told the Petitions Committee that even when funding allows it to offer training, threat assessments and physical security upgrades, too few MPs take up what is available. The result is that resourcing pressures are made worse by the fact that some of what is on the table is going unused.
Fisher’s petition argued that aggressive behaviour and violent threats are now actively discouraging women from entering politics and serving in local government, and asked Parliament to look at the scale and nature of the problem. The committee acknowledged the concerns but declined to launch a separate inquiry, telling Fisher in its response that it is already well established that threats and abuse towards elected representatives, particularly women, is a serious issue requiring attention. The committee said a forthcoming Ministry for Women report would give parliamentarians a chance to consider many of the same questions Fisher had raised, and that opening a parallel inquiry was not necessary at this stage.
The committee’s decision will frustrate some campaigners, who note that previous reports and media coverage have not yet translated into a measurable change for politicians on the ground. Justin Barry Walsh, clinical lead at the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre, told the committee the problem was both “concerning” and “wicked”, in the technical policy sense of a problem with no clean solution. He warned against treating it as a personal matter for each MP. “I would not underestimate the harm that this causes, both to the public figures and their staff, but also I would suggest to our communities and our society,” Walsh told the committee, in remarks reported by Scoop.
The numbers behind the story are striking. A mid-2025 Local Government New Zealand survey found that 91 per cent of women in elected local body roles and 83 per cent of men reported having experienced bullying or harassment in the course of their work. Women were more likely to report sustained social media abuse and unwanted approaches in everyday settings, including in supermarkets, at community events and at their homes, sometimes while their children were present. Most respondents, the survey found, took no formal action when those incidents occurred, often because they did not believe a complaint would lead to a meaningful response.
Members of the public sometimes assume the situation is largely about online trolling, but Parliamentary Service material made clear that the in-person side is at least as serious. Some abuse, the Service noted, is essentially unavoidable for anyone running for office, because campaigning by definition requires being visible in public. That makes the question of how MPs and councillors are supported once they are elected, rather than whether they should appear in public, the central one.
The political backdrop is unusually charged. Parliament has spent the past two years debating police powers, protest law and online harms legislation, and the country is heading into a 2026 general election that has already produced sharp exchanges between the coalition and the opposition. Several MPs have spoken publicly about needing to install home security upgrades, and Parliamentary Service has previously confirmed that personal threat assessments are now a routine part of the role for ministers and high-profile backbenchers alike. Against that backdrop, the Service’s complaint that MPs are not making full use of available help is not a small administrative point. It suggests that some elected representatives are still treating their own safety, and that of their families and staff, as a private inconvenience rather than as a structural part of the job.
The Petitions Committee has signalled it will return to the issue once the Ministry for Women report is in front of Parliament, which is expected later this year. In the meantime, the practical question is whether Parliamentary Service can be funded to do more, and whether MPs themselves will lift their engagement with what is already on offer. The committee’s response to Fisher leaves both questions hanging. What it has done is put on the public record, in unusually direct language, that the people elected to make laws about safety are not yet making full use of the safety help that has been quietly built around them.
For Newswire readers heading into election year, the broader question is whether Parliament wants politics in this country to remain a job that ordinary people, and especially women in local government, can realistically take on. If you have a view on what should change, leave a comment below. And if you are still working out where you stand for the 2026 vote, our Newswire voting tool walks you through the policy areas that matter to you.
This article was written by AI, briefed to report the facts, hopefully without some of the bias people bring to the job 🙂
Leave a Reply