Real-life stories of homelessness shared at move-on orders select committee hearings

Opposition to the government’s controversial move-on orders bill was strong on the first day of Justice Committee hearings.

The verdict from submitters in Monday’s all-day justice committee hearing was near unanimous: it’s time for the government to move on the move-on orders legislation. Oral submissions heard on the Summary Offences (Move-On Orders) Bill largely opposed the “shameful” law, with advocacy groups and individuals ranging from youth workers and lawyers to concerned pensioners and those with firsthand experience of homelessness speaking in front of the marathon hearing.

The first was Bindy, who made a submission against the bill with Te Whānau Nui o Whakamaru, a community ukulele band within Wellington City Mission. She described homelessness as “like taking your last breath” – what homeless people needed more than move-on orders was adequate housing, 24-hour support services and empathy, Bindy said.

“It’s like when you bring home a baby; you need to nurture that baby,” Bindy said. “It’s the same thing [as being homeless] – all we need is compassion. Let us breathe.”

Later, the committee heard from Wellingtonian Pat Metham, a former tennis coach who became homeless after an injury ended his career. In his submission against the bill, Metham told the committee his experience “taught me just how quickly someone’s circumstances can change, and just how difficult it is to get help when you need it”. The dangerous conditions within his night shelter and the realities of rough sleeping changed “my mentality to purely surviving each day”.

“This is the daily fear, suffering and uncertainty that many people experiencing homelessness face every day,” Metham said. “Will I still be alive tomorrow? Why is the suffering so bad when I’ve done my best to try and get help?”

Metham told the committee that if the bill should progress, an amendment should be made to ensure only those who are causing “genuine harm” are subjected to move-on orders. He reminded the committee that aggressive behaviour can stem from a lack of support. “We must take ownership for this problem, and that it has been created by ineffective and inefficient policies to help our most vulnerable,” Metham said.

‘An act of performative cruelty’

Throughout the day, the committee heard a number of perspectives. Speaking against the bill for Auckland Community Housing Trust, Richard Northey also reflected on his experience as a former chair of the Problem Gambling Foundation in his submission. Northey told the committee that, through the years, he had met many New Zealanders who had lost homes, relationships and their finances due to gambling, yet struggled to access emergency housing because they had “contributed to their own homelessness” in the eyes of the state.

Northey reflected on the number of “501” deportees he had dealt with over the years, who were expelled from Australia only to end up rough sleeping in Aotearoa due to lack of support in their new country. He quoted former Australian home affairs minister Peter Dutton’s infamous reference to deportees as “taking out the trash”. “We now have New Zealand ministers promoting this law so that people on cruise liners don’t have to see the rough sleepers in Auckland,” Northey said. “They obviously see it as tidying away the garbage, instead of responding to their needs as human beings.”

Individual submitter Robert Epiha offered some moderate support for the bill, and shared with the committee his concerns for public safety. Epiha told the committee his daughter, who lives in Auckland, has had to avoid using certain ATMs due to homeless people sleeping near them. “Straight away, it’s harassment,” Epiha said of the intimidation his daughter experienced.

Christchurch Homeless Collective’s Brenda Lowe-Johnson told the committee her experience in advocacy work had informed her decision to submit against the bill. Homeless people were “victims of systemic failures” who had already suffered “years of broken promises” before the government decided to just move them on.

“The answer is not to move people on. The answer is to move people into housing, support employment and stability,” Lowe-Johnson said. “My experience has shown that this can be achieved without stripping people of their mana.”

Former Dunedin mayor Aaron Hawkins submitted against the “simplistic, unworkable and unnecessary” bill on behalf of Housing Alliance Otago. Hawkins told the committee that this bill, alongside the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill, demonstrated a government knowingly drafting laws which will “make the situation worse for those at the most acute end of housing need”.

“The proposed legislation isn’t remotely interested in improving the lives of those with the least to lose,” Hawkins said. “It’s an act of performative cruelty to appease certain voices in the retail lobby.”

Auckland Rainbow Church’s chair Peter Lineham and board member Inura Fernando submitted against, and spoke of the bill’s possible effects on the LGBT community. Fernando told the committee that LGBT people already experienced a “high risk” of homelessness, and the move-on orders risked creating “an access point for them into the justice system”.

The “law is not the same if it’s a rich white, privileged person, as opposed to a gay person. There’s intersectionality that you have to consider,” Fernando said. They acknowledged that LGBT, especially trans youth, were particularly vulnerable to homelessness if they lived in an unsupportive household, and their experiences of rough sleeping can differ greatly. “Young trans people frequently face hostile treatment,” Lineham told the committee, “and on the streets, they find themselves peculiarly vulnerable.”

Police Association casts doubts

In one of the final appearances of the day, NZ Police Association president Steve Watt submitted against the bill. Watt told the committee the association had “serious concerns” about the bill’s lack of guidance for officers, the pressure it would put on police resources and the onus on “managing the visible effects of homelessness… Rather than addressing the underlying causes”.

Watt questioned the practicality of the orders, suggesting that some cities could see a “cycle of repeated enforcement” which could see officers moving on the same people daily. Watt raised concerns around the lack of “realistic or safe accommodation” in areas such as central Auckland, and the operational impacts of enforcing these orders. “Repeated move-on orders could divert frontline officers from core policing functions such as prevention, response and investigations,” Watt said. “We do question what policing priorities will be displaced if resources are redirected to the move-on orders.”

Watt’s recommended amendments to the bill included a clearer threshold for issuing move-on orders and protections for young people. The bill’s inclusion of children as young as 14 years old conflicted with youth justice principles of rehabilitation and welfare, Watt said, and police needed stronger guidance in handling mental distress and addiction, as well as more referral pathways.

Asked by Justice Committee members and Labour MPs Camilla Belich and Dan Rosewarne whether the bill risked turning homelessness and begging into a policing issue in the eyes of the public, Watt agreed. Police have already been gradually withdrawing from mental health callouts over the last few years, and the move-on orders would “draw us back into that whole social problem that doesn’t really sit with police”.

The Justice Committee will resume hearings on Friday.