Dear New Zealand Transport Agency,

This is a request for information made under the Official Information Act 1982.

I request the following information held by Waka Kotahi / NZ Transport Agency relating to public statements made about the safety risks of protests and pedestrian access on the Auckland Harbour Bridge.

This request arises from statements made by NZTA and NZ Police, reported in national media, asserting that proposed protest activity on the Auckland Harbour Bridge posed unacceptable safety and structural risks. Refer NZ Herald:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckland/a...

1. Safety and Risk Assessments

Please provide copies of all risk assessments, engineering reports, technical analyses, modelling, expert advice, memoranda, briefings, or internal assessments relied upon by NZTA in forming the view that protest activity on the Auckland Harbour Bridge is unsafe, including but not limited to:

a. Assessments relating to pedestrian loading, vibration, oscillation, sway, or dynamic loading of the bridge and clip-on structures
b. Assessments addressing structural integrity, fatigue, or long-term damage risk
c. Any comparative analysis between protest activity and other permitted events involving pedestrians or vehicles
d. The dates, authors, qualifications, and commissioning instructions for each assessment

2. Decision-Making and Risk Thresholds

Please provide:

a. The criteria, standards, guidelines, policies, or thresholds used by NZTA to determine whether pedestrian or protest activity on the Auckland Harbour Bridge presents an unacceptable safety risk
b. Any internal decision records, approval notes, or risk matrices applied when declining permission for protest activity
c. Any documentation distinguishing between “controlled” and “uncontrolled” events, and how this distinction is defined and applied

3. Permits, Applications, and Comparators (1 January 2024 – present)

For the period 1 January 2024 to the date of this request, please provide:

a. A list of all applications, requests, or notifications received by NZTA seeking access to the Auckland Harbour Bridge or motorway network for protests, marches, demonstrations, convoys, or public events
b. For each, whether approval was granted, declined, or not required
c. The reasons for approval or refusal and the supporting safety rationale
d. Copies of any permits, conditions, or refusals issued

This includes (but is not limited to) protests, marches, convoys, and major events such as the Auckland Marathon.

4. Auckland Marathon and Other Approved Events

In relation to the Auckland Marathon and any other permitted events involving pedestrian or event access across the Auckland Harbour Bridge, please provide:

a. The risk assessments and safety evaluations relied upon to approve such access
b. Any load, crowd density, or movement modelling undertaken
c. Any post-event safety or structural reviews
d. Any documentation explaining why these events were assessed as acceptable when protest activity was not

5. Communications With Other Agencies

Please provide copies of correspondence, briefings, or joint planning documents between NZTA and:

a. New Zealand Police
b. Auckland Council and/or Auckland Transport

relating to protest activity, enforcement planning, safety risk, or access decisions concerning the Auckland Harbour Bridge.

6. Unauthorised or Unpermitted Activity

Please provide:

a. Records identifying any marches, protests, or events during the last 12 months that proceeded without NZTA approval on or near the Auckland motorway network
b. Any assessments or reports on safety outcomes arising from those events
c. Any guidance or criteria used to determine when enforcement action is recommended or required

Public Interest

There is a strong public interest in transparency where restrictions are placed on freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, particularly where those restrictions are justified on safety grounds. Disclosure of the evidence relied upon by NZTA is necessary to enable informed public scrutiny of whether such restrictions are proportionate, evidence-based, and applied consistently.

Yours faithfully,

John Armstrong