Move on orders may slow courts: A ‘price we are willing to pay’, justice minister says
Wednesday, 3 June 2026
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith is prepared for move-on orders to slow down the district courts, saying “some minor additional pressures” are a price the Government is willing to pay to “reclaim” streets and city centres.
Documents released under the Official Information Act reveal the Government was warned the new powers could add hundreds of extra cases to an already stretched court system every year and that costs are likely to outweigh the benefits.
But Goldsmith did not plan to seek extra funding. Instead, internal advice says the extra cases will be absorbed by slowing the progression of cases through the district courts.
“Some minor additional pressures on the court system is a price we are willing to pay, to deal with disorderly behaviour in public places,” Goldsmith told The Post.
Read more:
Moving on: The controversial plan to shift people from Auckland city’s streets
Auckland’s homelessness has almost doubled, says council report
“This is about reclaiming our streets and our city centres for the enjoyment of everybody.
“Our streets and town centres have endured unprecedented levels of disruption in recent years. Many people no longer want to be there. Businesses, residents and visitors are paying the price.”
But the move appears to be at odds with the Government’s push to make court timeliness a central plank of its justice agenda - the minister has previously said court delays are unacceptable and has set targets to reduce the number of serious criminal cases waiting more than a year for a jury trial.
The proposed move-on orders would allow police to order people to leave a public place for up to 24 hours for behaviour including disorderly or intimidating conduct, obstructing access to businesses, begging, rough sleeping, or behaving in a way that indicates an intent to inhabit a public place.
Breaching an order would be a criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment or a fine of up to $2000.
Officials estimated between 9000 and 15000 people would receive a move-on order each year. With a modelled 20% breach rate, that could add 202 and 818 cases annually to the courts.
In advice prepared for Goldsmith to anticipate some of his colleagues questions about the financial impact of the new orders, officials suggested he say that he would not seek additional funding to increase court capacity.
“I will not be seeking additional funding to increase capacity of the courts,” the response said.
“Rather, I anticipate that any additional cases will impact court timeliness by slowing the progression of cases through the District Court.”
The answer, released under the OIA, was included in an appendix summarising key concerns raised during ministerial and agency consultation on the move-on order proposal.
The prepared response said there were tools to help those in need, but limited options to deal with disorderly behaviour.
“It means many disruptive, distressing, and potentially harmful acts can occur before police officers have any means of intervention. This legislation changes that,” the advice said.
But Treasury warned the costs were likely to outweigh the benefits and the proposal was unlikely to represent value for money. It later recommended the proposal be deferred until fully costed.
Treasury advice said police, courts and corrections were already facing significant cost pressures and ministers needed to understand what other services might be deprioritised if the policy was funded from existing agency budgets. It also said costs should be expressed in dollar terms, not generalities.
The Ministry of Justice told Treasury the impact on courts had not been expressed as a dollar cost because it was being measured as a timeliness impact.
Treasury also questioned whether justice officials had been realistic about compliance because their modelling assumed most people would follow the orders.
Treasury said that assumption seemed, 'at first blush', unlikely to withstand scrutiny and pointed to practical barriers including having nowhere else to go, limited transport, mobility constraints, personal safety concerns and the possibility of overlapping orders across neighbouring areas.
It also said remand impacts needed to be considered because many people subject to move-on orders may not have viable bail addresses, meaning some people awaiting trial could be remanded in custody while waiting for their cases to be heard.
Corrections’ modelling projected the prison population could increase by six people a year at the high estimate within two years of enactment.
At $120,000 per prisoner per year, that would equate to $720,000 a year in operating costs.
A separate draft line put the estimated indicative increase in annual costs to corrections at $1.05 million by mid-2028, including prison population, home detention, intensive supervision and community detention.
But Corrections warned the larger risk was prison capacity. Even a small increase in the prison muster, combined with other policy changes, could trigger the need for significant additional infrastructure investment costing at least $300m.
The prison network had limited capacity and low resilience and any new infrastructure to accommodate additional prisoners would take an average of four to eight years to build and implement, corrections officials said.
The court-timeliness issue is one of several warnings raised across the public service about the Government’s move-on order policy, including from housing officials warning the proposal risked criminalising homelessness, particularly if rough sleeping and passive begging were captured.
Last week’s budget included $391m to support frontline policing, $512m for Corrections and $224m for the Ministry of Justice - but Goldsmith’s office did not answer questions about whether any of that funding was specifically tagged to move-on order implementation or the expected court impact.