The government is confident police will apply move on orders fairly. Here's what police had to say about them

Tuesday, 7 July 2026

Government ministers have insisted that police will know how to apply move on orders, but documents show police did not support applying them “survival behaviours”.

Police tried to steer ministers away from targeting homelessness and towards “aggressive” anti-social behaviour, and raised fiscal concerns with the final policy design.

Select committee submissions for the government's move on orders bill closed on Thursday.

**More than 600 pages of documents about the Government’s proposed move on orders have been made public under the Official Information Act, exposing emails sent between agencies and draft advice prepared as officials sought to design a ban that satisfied the Minister’s goals. Stuff’s political reporter Emma Ricketts *looked through them* to bring you the highlights. First up**, here’s what Police had to say.

Draft advice and emails sent while the Government’s move-on orders policy was being developed show that Police tried to steer ministers away from targeting homelessness and towards “aggressive” anti-social behaviour.

That ultimately failed, with proposed amendments to the Summary Offences Act applying to anyone aged 14 or older who is found behaving in a disorderly, intimidating, threatening or disruptive manner, breaching the peace, obstructing access to businesses, begging or rough sleeping.

The inclusion of begging and rough sleeping went against officials’ advice, and has been criticised by some as criminalising homelessness. But Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith have consistently denied that and held Police up as capable of fairly enforcing the orders.

“The Government has no policy to criminalise homelessness,” Goldsmith told Stuff last month. “Only people who refuse those orders will face prosecution.”

While Luxon said last week: “In much the same way, you pushed us hard with respect to police wouldn’t be able to implement gang patches, it’s the same thing here.

“Police will build up operating procedures and practices. They have well-established relationships with many of social service providers across our cities, and are very good at providing people with those services.”

A Police spokesperson told Stuff that it would be inappropriate to comment on the bill while it is still before Parliament, but a look at what they said before it got there shows they too had concerns.

Police insert ‘aggressive’ in draft advice

In August 2024, staff from the policy team at Police replied to a request for consultation from the Ministry of Justice.

The ministry was preparing advice for Goldsmith, titled ‘Options for new tools to address anti-social behaviour in city centres’, and had provided Police with the draft document.

Police policy staff added tracked changes and comments before sending it back.

Notably, these changes included inserting the word “aggressive” before any mention of “anti-social behaviour” in the pages.

The changes meant that this line: “Having more powers to address anti-social behaviour in city centres would enable Police to tailor their response to the circumstances of individual cases”, became: “Having more powers to address aggressive anti-social behaviour in city centres would enable Police to tailor their response to the circumstances of individual cases”, for example.

A side comment noted why the changes were suggested.

“Adding aggressive to anti-social because police is interested in a power that would enable officers to require an individual to leave an area and not return where there is a real risk of offending occurring, eg aggressive begging, intoxicated aggression,” it read.

A few pages down, another addition made their views on the scope of the policy clear: “Police does not support criminalising rough sleeping and non-aggressive begging. Although this can be a nuisance for retailers, these behaviours are at the low end of the spectrum of anti-social behaviours,” they wrote.

“Police resource should be focussed on anti-social behaviour that has a real risk of escalating into offending such as aggressive begging, intoxicated aggression and fighting.”

The draft document was sent back to the Ministry, along with a note: “The proposal for a move-on power should not result in criminalisation of … behaviour that is a result of mental health and social need (rough sleeping, non-aggressive begging, yelling or other behaviour that is not directed at the public).

“It should be an additional prevention tool for police to address low level offending and aggressive anti-social behaviour before it progresses to offending that results in harm to the public and the individual, and potentially criminal charges.”

Police reiterate that move-on orders should not cover survival behaviours

In September 2025, Police policy staff once again provided comments on draft advice prepared by the ministry.

By this point, the scope of the advice had expanded to cover two potential new offences: one for assaulting, threatening, or abusing retail workers, and one for begging within 15 metres of a ‘relevant area’.

Both had been recommended by the ministerial advisory group on retail crime.

But Police and the ministry were aligned on those - officials did not recommend proceeding with either offence.

Offences for assaulting, threatening, or abusing people already existed and there was no clear reason why retail workers should attract harsher penalties, they said.

Meanwhile a ban on begging in certain areas that does not distinguish between general and aggressive or threatening begging “essentially criminalises homelessness and survival behaviour”,“ they warned.

Move-on orders were recognised in the advice as a potential useful tool, but “Police, councils, and social service agencies agree that move-on orders should not be used to address survival behaviours associated with homelessness, like rough sleeping, general begging, or people experiencing mental health distress,” the advice read.

Police identify ‘significant risk in terms of potential fiscal implications’

Two months later, Goldsmith issued a direction that begging should be included in the list of behaviours that could warrant a move on order.

Officials shifted to drafting advice that took his direction into account immediately. Just two days later, a draft Regulatory Impact Statement was emailed to Police.

The ministry staff member thanked Police officials for taking a look “at short notice”.

“It has become increasingly focused on policing and we'd hugely appreciate your input on how we characterise the problem ministers are concerned about, police's role in managing public places, and what powers they have and/or need,” the email read.

A response came within two hours.

“It could be problematic signalling begging out as one particular behaviour that gives cause for police to move people on. It then also provides a defence eg a person states I was given this for begging but was not doing that etc,” a senior policy advisor from Police wrote.

Ten days later, the Police policy advisor sent a more fulsome response questioning the policy’s proportionality, and also raising fiscal concerns.

“We can see merit in the use of move-on orders to address behaviours that meet offending thresholds. However, we consider operationalising move on orders for behaviours that do not meet offence thresholds will be challenging,” they wrote.

Begging and rough sleeping are not offences - meaning they do not meet offending thresholds.

They also provided a paragraph to be included in the Cabinet paper that went ministers. “Police has identified a significant risk in terms of fiscal implications of the proposals,” it read.

“We expect significant costs, including National Intelligence Application implications, operational costs, and development and delivery of training for staff. If move-on orders are to be developed within baseline, as proposed, then there could be significant impacts on the delivery of other core Policing functions.”

In December, an aide-mémoire was sent to Goldsmith, warning him of the officials’ concerns.

“Police generally sees merit in move-on powers, but many relevant agencies are not supportive of the proposal in its current form. … The key concerns were centred on the behaviours to which move-on orders could be applied, particularly begging and other behaviours that may capture people experiencing homelessness,” it read.

The memo listed the agencies that expressed concerns with his policy: Treasury, Crown Law, Corrections, Police, Ministry for Social Development, Ministry for Housing and Urban Development, and Oranga Tamariki.