‘Move-on’ orders good idea with right mitigation

Friday, 22 May 2026

Martin van Beynen is a Press journalist and regular opinion contributor.

Proposed police powers to “move on” rough sleepers, beggars, and those displaying disorderly behaviour in public spaces risks transferring the problem to suburbs not able to cope with them, Martin van Beynen writes. (File photo)

OPINION: I live in a lovely middle-class area near urban Christchurch but one day a week I spend the day in a fairly rough part of the city.

It’s not without its interest, charms and salt-of-the-earth people. It has good parks and a mix of different level retail and hospitality venues. Some of its main attractions are a Salvation Army op-shop and a more upmarket second-hand shop.

It also, strangely, hosts a New World supermarket which means shopping trolleys are often parked on road verges, bus stops and footpaths because customers use them to take their shopping home and then can’t be bothered to return them. Add litter, ragged men cruising around on unsuitable bikes and some desperate characters on the main drag, and it can feel seedy.

What it doesn’t have is beggars waylaying pedestrians and rough sleepers clogging up the pavement. The shopping trolleys dotted around the place are not receptacles for someone’s belongings. Streeties prefer the central city. But this could change due to an Amendment to the Summary Offences Act which was introduced in parliament last week.

It grants police the power to “move on” rough sleepers, beggars, and those displaying disorderly behaviour in public spaces. The recipients of the orders are not allowed back in the area for 24 hours. The rules apply nationwide and are designed to keep town centres and high-foot-traffic areas clear of people who create a nuisance, often by their very presence. A move-on order is not a criminal charge but targets are subject to a fine not exceeding $2000 or three months’ jail for non-compliance. As a deterrent, fines, it must be said, seem a bit hopeful.

Compared to Auckland and some North Island centres, Christchurch doesn’t currently have a huge problem with rough sleepers and beggars but they are a presence (and a nuisance) nonetheless.

It seems highly likely that areas like the one I inhabit one day a week, which is not too far from the city centre, will be a destination of choice once police issue their “move-on” orders. These areas don’t need any more problems.

The debate has been fairly predictable.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says New Zealanders’ fair-mindedness should not mean we should accept “our city centres, particularly our showcase tourist spots, becoming places of intimidation, and dysfunction”.

Critics argue the law change will penalise homelessness and infringe rights of freedom of movement. Agencies like the Police and Corrections worry about the costs and practicalities. No-one wants the extra work.

A letter, signed by 21 Wellington leaders, described the move as a 'superficial and unhelpful' approach.

I haven’t heard any detractors say nothing should be done but they believe shifting the problem is not the answer.

Housing is one solution to the issues addressed by move-on orders, but it may be just shifting the problem unless they are surrounded by services designed to deal with the problems that led to homelessness, Martin van Beynen writes. (File photo)

In my view, the proposed “move-on” orders will make a difference and will make town centres more appealing and welcoming. It’s all very well saying such orders are superficial but retailers and pedestrians deserve better than earnest hand-wringing and calls for underlying causes to be addressed.

This is a long-standing and intractable issue and the people who bear the brunt of the problem can’t wait endlessly for housing or mental health solutions to come to the rescue.

However I worry about the impact on areas, like the one I have described, outside the city centres. With the right strategies that impact could be mitigated. For instance the various agencies, volunteers and outreach workers could be organised and funded to provide an alternative location for those told to move on. It might be a camp for homeless, single men run by agencies best equipped to deal with difficult customers. Jail seems like the worst and most expensive option.

Cheap and plentiful housing is, of course, one answer for those who have reached the end of the road. For many of the rough sleepers, this will need to be housing that presents no barriers to poor previous renting records, addiction, mental disorders and anti-social behaviour.

Putting a problem person in a housing complex, even if the rent is cheap, is also just shifting the problem unless they are cocooned by all the services designed to deal with the complex problems that led to homelessness. That requires continued funding and commitment which, in today’s frugal government spending climate, seems like wishful thinking.

Then you have those with serious mental health problems. Are we doing these people any favours by letting them roam the streets where they are difficult to contact and treat? A more hard-headed approach is needed and institutionalisation may be the best of many bad options.

We will be hearing a lot from the educated liberal left about these law changes but you can bet they live in areas not directly affected by street people and don’t have livelihoods impacted. Move-on orders are not a bad idea but at the very least the authorities need to make sure the problem doesn’t land on areas already struggling.