The Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill passed its first reading in Parliament on Wednesday night following hours of heated debate, sending the legislation to the Justice Committee even as Attorney-General Chris Bishop’s own Section 7 report warned that key provisions are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
The bill, championed by Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, would give police the power to issue move-on orders requiring a person to leave a specified area for up to 24 hours. The orders would apply to anyone aged 14 or over who, in the view of an officer, is displaying disorderly, disruptive, threatening or intimidating behaviour. They would also apply to people who are obstructing access to a business, breaching the peace, begging, rough sleeping, or showing behaviour that indicates an attempt to inhabit a public place. Refusing an order would carry a maximum penalty of three months in prison or a $2,000 fine.
Goldsmith told the House the measure was about restoring order to high streets and town centres. “Our focus is ensuring that we reclaim those streets and those town centres,” he said, citing complaints from retailers about anti-social behaviour. ACT MP Simon Court and New Zealand First’s Casey Costello supported the bill, arguing it gave police a practical tool to prevent escalation and protect shop staff and older residents who feel unsafe in central city areas.
In the public gallery, around 80 people watched the debate. Outside the chamber the legislation has already drawn sharp criticism from both inside and outside Government.
Bishop’s Section 7 report, delivered in his capacity as Attorney-General, concluded that the provisions targeting begging and rough sleeping go further than necessary to achieve the bill’s purpose and unjustifiably limit freedom of expression and freedom of movement. He gave the example of a person rough sleeping near the only shop in a small town. Under the proposed regime that person could be excluded from the whole area for 24 hours and unable to buy food, fill a prescription or see a doctor during that period. Bishop wrote that the scope of the begging ground was too wide and suggested narrowing it to aggressive begging or conduct that interferes with another person’s freedom.
The Attorney-General’s advice does not stop a bill becoming law, but the report from a senior National minister adds unusual weight to the Bill of Rights concerns the Ministry of Justice raised in earlier policy work. Officials warned that the legislation as drafted risks further marginalising those already at the bottom and creates significant human rights questions.
New Zealand Police’s own submission was sceptical of the wider scope. Officials told ministers that existing offences and tools were already sufficient to deal with genuine threats to public order, and that law enforcement was not an effective way to deal with homelessness or poverty. The Government chose to include the rough sleeping and begging grounds anyway.
That decision drove much of the opposition during the debate. Labour deputy leader Carmel Sepuloni called the bill “purely ideological” and rejected the Justice Minister’s argument that it does not criminalise homelessness. “You stand up in this House and say you’re not criminalising, despite the fact if they don’t move on they can be fined or they can be sentenced,” she said.
Green MP Tamatha Paul drew attention to the practical problem at the heart of the regime, asking, “Where exactly are they supposed to move on?” She told the House she was particularly worried about the prospect of 14-year-olds being drawn into the justice system through repeated breaches of move-on orders issued for sleeping rough.
Labour MP Willie Jackson reminded the House that Goldsmith had advocated similar measures during his time as an Auckland councillor almost two decades ago, and sarcastically congratulated him on finally getting his wish.
The policy fight sits on top of an uncomfortable economic backdrop. Income data from Stats NZ shows the bottom fifth of households paying a record share of disposable income on housing, while emergency housing places have been steadily wound back over the past 18 months. Local council rough sleeping counts in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch have all risen in that period. Advocacy groups argue the bill addresses the visible symptoms of a housing affordability crisis without changing any of the underlying drivers, which sit with the housing market, benefit settings and the supply of supported accommodation rather than with policing.
The next step is the Justice Committee. Goldsmith pushed for the committee to report back by 3 September, a faster timetable than the usual six months, arguing the Government wants the law in place quickly. Parliament has not yet agreed that deadline and the debate on the report-back motion will continue next Tuesday.
The committee will hear public submissions over the coming weeks. With the Attorney-General’s own warning on the record, submitters will have unusually clear ammunition to argue that the begging and rough sleeping grounds should be carved back, or scrapped, before second reading.
For voters wanting to see where each party sits ahead of the election, Newswire’s voting tool lets you compare the line-up at a glance.
What do you think — does the Move-on Orders Bill give police a tool they need, or does it punish people for being poor? Tell us in the comments.
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