Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Will Move-On Orders Improve Public Safety?
by paige stephens and wendy zhang
I Introduction
For some, it is the sight of a town centre “blighted” by disorder; for others, it is the sound of a person simply trying to survive. On May 14, 2026, the National-led coalition government published its legislative response to this tension: “nationwide move-on” orders that grant police the power to banish individuals as young as 14 from public spaces for up to 24 hours. While Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith frames the law as a vital tool to “reclaim” our streets from “unprecedented levels” of disruption, official police data reveals a disconnect. Public order proceedings have actually hit a ten-year low, plummeting nationwide from 1,663 in December 2015 to 428 in late 2025.
As the Bill is fast-tracked toward the 2026 General Election with no external consultation, Aotearoa faces a significant legal and ethical question: are we truly cleaning up our streets, or are we simply rebranding the struggle of homelessness as a criminal act? This policy risks codifying a systemic punishment for being impoverished that our most marginalised cannot afford to pay.
II What are move-on orders — how do they work?
Under proposed changes to the Summary Offences Act 1981, police will receive authority to direct a person aged 14 or over to leave a specified area for a specified amount of time, requiring the person to move a ‘reasonable distance,’ as determined by the police officer.
The bill targets a wide scope of behaviours, including “disorderly or threatening” acts, but also begging, rough sleeping, and the “display of behaviour which indicates an intent to inhibit a public place.” The penalty for a breach of the orders is a maximum fine of $2000 or up to 3 months' imprisonment.
Though the exact execution of the orders cannot yet be determined as the bill is still yet to be introduced, the proposed foundations of the orders introduce many issues. This includes implementation legitimacy, actual contribution to New Zealand's homelessness issue, and human rights concerns.
III The criminalisation of homelessness?
By grouping survival behaviours under the same enforcement umbrella as aggressive or disorderly conduct, the state has effectively institutionalised what critics describe as a “penalty of poverty”. This creates a significant statutory redundancy as any genuinely dangerous conduct is already comprehensively criminalised under the Crimes Act 1961. More specifically, s 3 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 already criminalises offensive, threatening, or disorderly behaviour likely to cause violence, while s 39 provides the existing power to arrest for such conduct. Because the current legal framework already provides for public security, the introduction of these move-on orders appears to target the individual's visibility rather than the legality of their actions.
On Auckland’s Karangahape Road, the reality of this tension is clear, as while the public rightly expects protection from active threats, this law uses the same tools to target a person merely holding a sign for alms. By conflating a public presence with a public threat, the government prioritises the public comfort over the human dignity of those with nowhere else to go.
Therefore, the primary outcome of these orders appears to be displacement. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has admitted that without integrated support, the orders may do little more than “bounce [people] around the city”. Forced relocation without a stable base does not reduce the homeless population — it severs fragile community ties and makes the displaced more vulnerable. Until we address the root causes of poverty, these move-on orders remain a simple solution that punishes the most vulnerable for the ‘crime’ of having nowhere else to go.
IV Human Rights Concerns
The right to exist in a public place is a foundational principle. So how can it be that not everyone is entitled to be in a public place? The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act outlines the rights to Freedom of Movement, Peaceful Assembly, and Freedom of Expression, all of which New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties consider are hard to consider without the right to exist in public.
The coalition is yet to employ advice from external sources on the ethical and legal questions raised by the bill. The Ministry of Justice suggested that 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.
V Implementation Concerns
Furthermore, Police Association boss Steve Watt cites concerns about the police's ability to get people off the streets and into a social agency, given the police's limited resources. Watts also suggests that laws already exist to address disorderly behaviour, yet the scope of this bill encompasses a range of issues, including mental health. So, the question is: Are the police the correct agency to be dealing with it? Watts’ suggestion is in line with Kieran McAnulty’s statement that arresting people for being homeless will not solve the issue; instead, we should be investing in housing, mental health, addiction support, and early intervention.
A major problem which seems to be currently overlooked is the potential expansive police discretion required for the performance of the orders. Currently, it is unclear whether these powers would be explicit or highly discretionary. However, as the ‘crime’ requires no proof of an actual criminal act in order for an order to be issued, it seems that the police would require highly discretionary power for the orders to work, which may further expose marginalised groups to unfair incarceration. So while the powers may be legal, they may face significant controversy for placing disadvantaged people under the control of the police.
VI Disproportionality Concerns
The disproportionality of punishment is also raising eyebrows. RNZ makes the uncanny comparison between a $4,500 fine or three months imprisonment as the maximum penalty for careless driving causing death. Yet, for a crime as minor and based on pure survival needs, such as “rough sleeping”, one may face the same prison time as reckless driving causing death, or a lesser but still significant fine of $2,000. A further issue with the proposed punishment is the inability for those charged with move-on orders to pay a fine for a breach. This Bill targets some of Aotearoa's most economically constrained people — those who, if they had the ability to throw away $2,000, probably wouldn’t be on the streets.
Furthermore, the Ministries of Social Development & Housing and Urban development voiced concerns that the bill, in its current form, may further distance people experiencing homelessness from essential services and accommodation. These concerns particularly surround circumstances in which breaching an order may be necessary to secure a safe sleeping area. The ministries also voice points concerning the disproportionality of the punishment, lack of effectiveness of the orders in addressing public safety, and disproportionate impact on minority groups.
The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development is working with the Ministry of Justice to mitigate harm to groups that may be disproportionately impacted by the broad scope of these orders. Māori form a disproportionate amount of rough sleepers due to the adverse impacts of historical dispossession. The Ministries are therefore concerned that Māori may receive disproportionately more move-on orders than other minority groups.
VII Global Perspectives
While Aotearoa’s proposed law focuses on temporary removal, international models demonstrate that shifting from policing to prevention and support yields more enduring results. Nations like Finland and Japan have established statutory obligations that treat homelessness as a social crisis rather than a criminal nuisance.
Finland is the only EU nation with a consistently declining homelessness population, recording a 75% reduction over three decades. This is driven by the ‘Housing First’ ideology, which treats permanent housing as an unconditional human right provided without prerequisites such as sobriety or employment. To operationalise this right, the state requires cities to ensure that at least one-quarter of all housing stock is designated as affordable social units. By collaborating with major NGOs like The Y-Foundation, the government ensures that a stable home serves as the foundation for all subsequent social support.
Since the 2002 enactment of the Act to Provide Special Measures for the Support of the Self Reliance of the Homeless (Law No. 105), Japan has seen an 84% decrease in unsheltered homelessness. Experts attribute this success to a system defined by “generality” (accessible to anyone based on financial need rather than narrow categories), “comprehensiveness” (the automatic integration of housing and medical care into the welfare package), and “expeditiousness” (a streamlined process where applications are typically decided within 14 days). Unlike a simple move-on power, this framework acknowledges the constitutional responsibility to uphold “minimum standards of wholesome and cultured living” and mandates national funding for the local organisations that deliver these services.
VIII The Aotearoa Gap
The success of these international stories highlights the impact of deep state-sector integration, yet Aotearoa’s progress remains hindered by significant structural and ideological obstacles. Paul Gilberd, Chief Executive at Community Housing Aotearoa, contends that the persistence of Aotearoa’s housing crisis is not a matter of limited capacity, but rather a “political choice” made by successive governments that have failed to prioritise housing security for their citizens. Gilberd cites the Treasury's mindset, which often treats social infrastructure spending as a fiscal liability rather than a long-term economic investment. By viewing housing as a debt burden, the state overlooks the massive downstream savings to the health and justice systems that come from providing stable, warm homes.
Driven by this caution, Aotearoa has endured four decades of cumulative undersupply, during which the construction of modest, affordable housing has consistently fallen short of the volume required to house its people. Research from the NZ Infrastructure Commission shows that while housing was once abundant, our building rules have become increasingly restrictive and complex since the 1970s. This has resulted in Aotearoa’s house prices growing faster than those of any other developed OECD nation. Consequently, homelessness has climbed to historic peaks, leaving vulnerable individuals to fall through the gaps of a fragmented support system. Fundamentally, Aotearoa’s policy environment lacks the core value that underpins Finland’s success: the legal recognition of housing as an inherent human right. Instead, the current approach often relies on small “tweaks” such as enforcement-led move-on orders, which experts argue are “totally and utterly ineffective" in achieving the system transformation needed to end poverty.
Transitioning away from policies that merely shift the visibility of poverty requires a national strategy rooted in a paradigm shift – a fundamental change in how we think about the problem. This requires moving the state’s role from merely ‘managing’ rough sleepers to actively ending homelessness through structural change, beginning with changing the right to housing from a matter of charity into a binding state obligation. To address the 40-year deficit, housing must be treated as essential social infrastructure, with targets such as “3,000 new social and affordable homes to be built each year for the next decade” to ensure supply matches actual need. However, these developments must be “deeply affordable”, priced specifically for those currently surviving on the street who cannot simply afford standard affordable rents. To gain political support, Aotearoa could pursue a “symbiotic transformation”, which involves reframing housing as a tool to boost economic productivity by ensuring essential workers can afford to live near their jobs.
Effective reform also necessitates mandatory early intervention – specifically, preventing institutions like hospitals and prisons from discharging individuals directly into homelessness without prior arrangements. Once residency is secured, individuals require access to unconditional wraparound support – including mental health and addiction services – to provide a stable foundation for long-term recovery. For such a strategy to last, it requires a bipartisan commitment that extends beyond an election cycle. Crucially, solutions must be locally driven and tailored, with dedicated support for Māori and Pacific-led housing approaches to address the systemic inequities that leave these communities disproportionately affected by hardship. By replacing policing with proactive investment, Aotearoa can begin to tackle the root causes of poverty rather than just shifting its presence from our town centres.
IX Conclusion
When the struggle for survival is treated as “disorderly behaviour”, the law ceases to be a tool for public safety and becomes a mechanism for marginalisation. As the Bill moves toward the 2026 election, this policy functions as a “quick, visible concession” to frustrated business communities, but it ultimately offers no real relief to those living on the pavement.
A city’s safety should not be measured by how effectively it hides the poor, but by how it builds pathways out of poverty. Until Aotearoa adopts collaborative support structures as seen abroad, we are merely normalising displacement under the guise of public order. True safety will never be achieved by legislating to make the vulnerable invisible — it will only be found when we start legislating to make them secure.