ANALYSIS: Unruly behaviour on our streets is a growing issue across the country, and equipping police with 'move-on orders' is the Government's planned solution. But as the new law, introduced yesterday, moves a step closer to being implemented, Mava Moayyed asks whether it distinguishes between threatening behaviour and pure survival tactics by those facing homelessness and abject poverty.
The national debate about the Government’s planned ‘move-on’ powers for police has become a muddy tug-of-war.
Currently before Parliament, with its first reading next week and a stated goal of implementation before the election, the law change would allow police to order anyone aged 14 and over to leave a public place for 24 hours. It targets intimidating and aggressive behaviour – but also those simply sleeping rough and passively begging. It requires no proof of a crime. Refusal to move can lead to heavy fines or jail time.
Basic logic dictates that moving people on won’t ‘fix’ anything. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon acknowledged that in an interview with Newstalk ZB, conceding: “The problem is what do you do with the people? You just bounce them around the city.” Despite this, the orders were announced without an accompanying solution.
But it is unlikely these orders are intended to fix the root causes of homelessness and rough sleeping. The Government says it has other levers for that, like new social housing, and funding for support services. Instead, the policy functions as a quick, visible concession to a frustrated business community.
The planned law has its critics. At best, it's seen as a clumsy law that confuses a public presence with a public threat. At worst, a disingenuous attempt to rebrand poverty as ‘bad behaviour’ in order to put the poor out of sight.
The case for safety
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith argues our streets are "blighted" by unchecked bad behaviour. According to Retail NZ, while several categories of crime dropped in 2024, “public nuisance” rose by 3%.
Recently, on Auckland’s Karangahape Rd, we witnessed the reality of this: a steak knife pulled on a barista, an arrest outside a bar, and innocent members of the public being screamed at, all before lunchtime. On one padlocked door, a notice explained the business had simply given up.
A business owner on the busy street told us she is done with the inaction. She argues that critics of the new law are disconnected from the daily toll of destructive behaviour in and around local shops. She believes the move-on order is a “great tool” for police and the community.
Indeed, police have told the Government they are currently limited; they often have to wait for a crime to occur before they can act. They see a potential benefit in a tool that lets them intervene before aggression escalates. This speaks directly to a public that feels increasingly uneasy and businesses fed up with inaction.
Here's the catch: if the goal is stopping the person screaming in the public’s faces, why does the law also target the person sitting quietly with a begging cup?
The penalty of poverty
By including rough sleepers and passive beggars in a law ostensibly designed to tackle “bad” behaviour, the Government has ensured that any discussion about public safety is subsumed by a debate over basic decency.
Perhaps the most damning argument against the law’s current form comes from the very people expected to enforce it. Internal documents reveal that New Zealand Police did not support the inclusion of survival behaviours such as rough sleeping and passive begging, stating that existing tools are already sufficient and that law enforcement is not an effective way to deal with homelessness or poverty.
The Ministry of Justice was even more explicit in its warning. Officials advised the Government to limit the use of these move-on orders to aggressive intoxication or aggressive begging – behaviours that compromise safety. Instead, the Government pushed ahead with a scope that includes rough sleeping and passive begging.
While some claim rough sleeping is a magnet for nuisance, social agencies warn against lumping survival in with crime. They point out that being homeless isn't the same as being a threat.
As the Ministry of Justice noted, using police powers this way not only raises significant human rights concerns but risks making homelessness worse by further marginalising those already at the bottom.
Then there is the issue of the “stick”. If a person refuses to move, they face a criminal offence with a penalty of up to three months in jail or a $2000 fine.
By way of contrast, the maximum penalty in this country for careless driving causing death is three months imprisonment or a $4500 fine.
The result is a national debate where no group appears to be talking to another. On one side, we have business owners desperate for a reprieve from violence and intimidation. On the other, advocates horrified by the potential for state-sanctioned cruelty against the poor.
By refusing to separate "anti-social behaviour" from "survival," the Government has created a policy that risks becoming both a blunt instrument and a hollow solution.
Until the law can distinguish between a person wielding a steak knife and a person wielding a cardboard sign, both sides of the argument will speak past each other and those living and working in town centres across the country will be no closer to a real solution.
'You can't stop people from surviving' – Watch this story on TVNZ+.
SHARE ME