Coalition at odds over move-on orders changes, but pushes ahead anyway

As previously reported by RNZ, the select committee has recommended lifting the age of people move-on orders could apply to - along with a range of other changes.

By Russell Palmer for RNZ

However, the Justice Minister has indicated National is unhappy with some of those other changes.

Instead of applying to begging, the terminology is changing to "unreasonable begging", fines for those who fail to move on are being halved to $1000, and a loophole that may have excluded freedom campers from any prosecution is being closed.

The Greens continue to oppose the bill and call for it to be scrapped, while Labour wants further changes to resolve its concerns about the criminalisation of begging and rough sleeping.

The legislation – as it was introduced to Parliament – would give police the power to order people as young as 14 to move elsewhere if they were being disorderly, begging or rough sleeping. If the order was refused, the person would face a fine or a possible jail sentence.

RNZ reported on Wednesday that was set to be watered down, with the age limit raised from 14 to 18.

The Justice Select Committee's final report back to Parliament after consideration of the legislation for months was tabled in Parliament the next day, and confirms that change along with others.

While the report is still undergoing proofing and was expected to be available online from Friday, Parliamentary staff provided an unproofed hard copy.

"We recommend ... specifying that a move-on order would only apply to a person who is aged 18 years or older," the report said.

The committee highlighted findings from Attorney-General Chris Bishop that the legislation's inclusion of begging and rough sleeping would be inconsistent with the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of movement.

"In his view, the effect is broader than it needs to be to fulfil the bill's purposes. The Attorney-General considers that there are ways to achieve the bill's aims without limiting this right."

As a result, the terminology of begging is expected to change to "unreasonable begging". In part this was to avoid having move-on orders apply to things like busking, street performance and fundraising.

"In determining whether begging is unreasonable, a constable must consider the time and location of the begging, the duration of the begging, and the effect of the begging on the enjoy-ment of public spaces by other people."

People would also only be penalised for returning to the area they had been moved on from if they were doing so to continue the same behaviour that prompted the move-on order in the first place.

As introduced, the bill would allow penalties of up to $2000 or three months in prison for those who disobeyed move-on orders, but the committee found that would be equivalent to the penalties for carrying knives in a public place or indecent exposure.

The committee recommended lowering the penalty to a fine of up to $1000, "comparable to the penalty for the offence of obstructing a public way".

Concerns were also raised that freedom campers could avoid being penalised under the move-on orders legislation.

"Because of the bill's drafting as introduced, a person who is behaving in a disorderly, disruptive, or threatening manner or breaching the peace while legally freedom camping would be exempt from being issued with a move-on order. We consider that this should not be the case," the report said.

The solution was that freedom camping under the Freedom Camping Act "would not be considered as a ground for issuing a move-on order on the basis of rough sleeping".

"This amendment would mean that a constable could issue a move-on order for any of the grounds listed in section 8A(1)(a) to (e), even if the person subject to the order is legally freedom camping."

Other minor changes included that the police commissioner would be required to include information about move-on orders including the number issued in annual reports, and that the justice minister be required to review the legislation after three years.

Police officers issuing move-on orders would also only be liable for a criminal offence where the information provided was actually false or misleading, rather than based on a constable's reasonable belief that it was false.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said National was comfortable with the changes around ages, reduced fines, freedom camping and a review after three years.

However, the change to the definitions around begging and returning to the area "we're not pleased with".

"I think that will make it harder to enforce the legislation, and I'm disappointed that the ACT party have chosen to align themselves with Labour and the Greens and Te Pāti Māori on that issue."

"It would force the police to try and figure out why they were coming back to a particular area. We think it's much simpler just to have a simple move-on order. You have to leave that place, and and so it just complicates it."

Goldsmith confirmed that without ACT's support the bill would not have had the votes to progress, so the majority view as stated in the select committee report would be what the legislation ended up with.

He said the government still intended to get the legislation passed before the election.