‘Bullying’, ‘draconian’ homeless move-on orders questioned

An Auckland councillor is calling them draconian and heartless, the advocacy group for retailers doubts they will work long term, and a man on the streets says it’s bullying.

But the government says its move-on orders announced on Sunday are part of reclaiming main streets and town centres.

The orders target people as young as 14 and give Police powers to move on rough sleepers, disorderly people or beggars for up to 24 hours.

Breach an order, and it risks a fine of up to $2000 or three month jail term.

“We understand that in certain cities around New Zealand it is a significant problem,” Retail NZ chief executive Carolyn Young said.

“There’s antisocial behaviour and a lot of drug taking and drinking, and it’s pretty unpleasant and it’s quite difficult for people to want to come into the city.”

She welcomes new tools for police, but doubts their long term usefulness.

“The problem we see with it is that if you move someone on, you’re moving them to just another area where they’ll be a problem for somebody else,” she said.

“The move-on orders are for 24 hours, they may just come back again the next day, the question is how many times will it take to move them on before we break the cycle and give relief to those businesses in that region and then it’ll be the same problem somewhere else.”

Young said without wider social support, Retail NZ didn’t believe they would make a difference in the long run.

“And we know that the police do a really great job and they are already stretched, and so it’s hard to know how this is a solution,” she said.

“It’s probably a break in the circuit… it’s how often do you have to break the circuit before you’ll change behaviours.”

Some people on Auckland’s streets who spoke with RNZ after the announcement also had doubts.

“It’s a bully tactic,” Kenneth Dahl said.

He’s 50, and has been on and off the streets since he was 18.

“It’s pushing people into a corner… and as for them moving us into accommodation, they’re forcing us to live in places we do not want to live,” he said.

“It’s a bully tactic right there.”

Dahl currently has provided motel accommodation.

“But I choose not to be there because as soon as I look out the window all I see is grey and white, there’s no greenery whatsoever, nothing, no vegetation or anything around, it’s not a home, it’s a cell or a prison cell.”

The streets, he said, were where he felt most at home.

Benny Ngata was with him in the central city and expected the orders to lead to more crime.

“And they’re trying to move them out of the town to make themselves look better or something… but when it comes to it, how about help those people to advance themselves and give them a place, because the government’s housing is lacking, that’s why people are on the street,” he said.

“And not only that, people who live on the street, those who have mental illnesses or with addictions, so then how about help them… not by kicking them away.

“Because at the end of the day, that’s going to cause more trouble,” he said.

Ngata said it would just end up costing the government money to put people in jail.

“So at the end of the day, the government is going to lose,” he said.

“If you want to be a government, work with the people… how about get off your fat arse and help them.”

Ngata was asked if help was there at the moment.

“No, there’s nothing there, that’s why people are sleeping on the streets, that’s why people are homeless, because the government doesn’t care.”

Auckland councillor Richard Hills posted on Facebook it was earlier government changes that had dramatically increased homelessness.

“These heartless, draconian ‘move on orders will not deliver positive outcomes for people, but they will make the Govt look tough in an election year,” he wrote.

Community Housing Aotearoa said Police were not equipped to assess what health support rough sleepers need.

Chief executive Paul Gilberd said it shouldn’t be the job of officers.

“Often these people are very unwell both physically and in terms of mental health and sometimes substance abuse, so I feel for the police being put in a very awkward situation where they’re being required to make these judgements and I think there’s a strong argument for much better coordination between services,” he said.

PM responds

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told Morning Report, police were capable of dealing with the issues and the orders gave police another tool to address anti-social behaviour.

“We’ve got to make sure we’re doing everything to keep people feeling safe… it gives police an option to be able to say move on or out of this area.”

Luxon said police knew the shopkeepers in their areas and often knew the people rough sleeping there too.

“If an individual needs support police will be able to plug them in to support services.

“The police are quite capable, they understand the situation on the ground.”

Wellington’s City Missioner Murray Edridge said the government earlier signalled any laws to move on rough sleepers would come with support.

“And we heard the Prime Minister early in this conversation say we wouldn’t just move people on and not do anything to help them,” he said.

“Well, I’m still waiting to see what the help is going to look like.”

Auckland City Missioner Helen Robinson said she was “trying not to panic” thinking about the impact it would have on people.

She did not believe the law would work.

“Good law and order in our country means every person, needs a home and they need appropriate support,” she said.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith’s office said it’s been made very clear police are expected to connect people given move-on orders with the support they may need.

‘Holding to account’ – shop owner says

Back in Auckland, Queen’s Arcade property manager Ian Wright said the orders put the icing on the cake after more security, policing and social support.

“I don’t see it as displacement of the problem, that’s not a solution, it’s very much about holding people to account, drawing a line in the sand and saying we’ve actually got a right to be here too, the people, our visitors, and we want it to be safe and secure and I don’t think that’s too much to ask.”

Nick Bennett, who owns kitchenware shop Applewood in the Arcade, said there had been an escalation of homeless people who were becoming more aggressive and abusive.

He said the problem appeared to have escalated in recent years.

“I’m not sure where they could go. But I think as far as the public’s concerned, it will be quite beneficial for them, because they’re worried about these abusive people, that something’s going to happen to them.

“So I think if the policy goes ahead and people are told to move on, I think it will be definitely good for public and make them feel more comfortable and more happy in coming to the city.”

But Aaron Hendry, who works with at-risk young people, is worried about the orders applying to people as young as 14.

“The support structures are not in place to adequately respond to these children’s needs and so, look, it’s concerning to us, we are concerned around what is looking like a really clear streets to prison pipeline with the lack of resources invested in to ensure that people are looked after,” he said.

The orders will be part of an amendment to the Summary Offences Act, meaning it still has to go through the legislative process.

Paul Goldsmith said there would be a chance for the orders to be scrutinised, but the government also wanted to get them in place as soon as possible.

The National Homelessness Data Project last showed homelessness had more than doubled in Auckland in the year to September.

What the orders do

The government will amend the Summary Offences Act to give police the power to issue move-on orders to people who are displaying disorderly, disruptive, threatening, or intimidating behaviour.
They will also apply to people who are obstructing or impeding someone entering a business, breaching the peace, begging, rough sleeping, or displaying behaviour indicating an attempt to inhabit a public place.
The orders will require someone to leave for a specified time – up to 24 hours – and distance determined by the officer.
When the order is issued, the person will be warned it is an offence to breach it, unless they have a reasonable excuse for being there.
The penalty for a breach would be a maximum fine of $2,000 or up to three months imprisonment.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.