Retailers are staying opposed to move-on orders as they stand, saying they should target behaviour, not vulnerable people. 

The proposed Bill would let Police direct people out of a public space for rough sleeping, begging, or behaving disorderly. 

The Justice Committee's recommended changes, including lifting the age orders could apply to from 14 to 18. 

Retail NZ CEO Carolyn Young told Kerre Woodham disruptive behaviour is the main issue for retailers, not homelessness. 

She says it doesn't matter if the person's in a suit or what time it is, it should be down to behaviour, not whether someone has a home or not. 

They're also seeing less and less rough sleepers blocking doorways, Young says, as compliance officers now usher people away each morning. 

She says they're generally out of doorways by around 7 or 8am. 

LISTEN ABOVE   

Retailers are staying opposed to move-on orders as they stand, saying they should target behaviour, not vulnerable people.&nbsp;
The proposed Bill would let Police direct people out of a public space for rough sleeping, begging, or behaving disorderly.&nbsp;
The Justice Committee's recommended changes, including lifting the age orders could apply to from 14 to 18.&nbsp;
Retail NZ CEO Carolyn Young told Kerre Woodham disruptive behaviour is the main issue for retailers, not homelessness.&nbsp;
She says it doesn't matter if the person's in a suit or what time it is, it should be down to behaviour, not whether someone has a home or not.&nbsp;
They're also seeing less and less rough sleepers blocking doorways, Young says, as compliance officers now usher people away each morning.&nbsp;
She says they're generally out of doorways by around 7 or 8am.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE &nbsp;&nbsp;

Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Carolyn Young: Retail NZ CEO on the current move-on orders proposal and their opposition to it

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/8e1adee8-caf0-4886-9d39-b4ba018880d9/transcript

The KNAPP Sustainability Leadership Award recognises retailers who are advancing their sustainability efforts through a specific green initiative.

Last night at the Spark Retail NZ Awards The Warehouse Ltd - The Good Drop took the prize, which is The Warehouse's clothing recycling scheme.

Sustainability Partner at The Warehouse Group Caroline Dewstow joined Kerre Woodham to discuss the win.

LISTEN ABOVE 

The KNAPP Sustainability Leadership Award recognises retailers who are advancing their sustainability efforts through a specific green initiative.
Last night at the Spark Retail NZ Awards The Warehouse Ltd - The Good Drop took the prize, which is The Warehouse's clothing recycling scheme.
Sustainability Partner at The Warehouse Group Caroline Dewstow joined Kerre Woodham to discuss the win.
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Caroline Dewstow: The Warehouse Group sustainability partner on clothing recycling service win

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/2e7e52dc-cc34-432b-816b-b4bb002cb169/transcript

A cross-party committee of MPs has recommended the Government water down its move-on orders, concerned that the penalties and punishments would be disproportionate to the offences of rough sleeping and begging. Under the proposed legislation, police had the ability to move people engaging in specific behaviours, including rough sleeping and begging, away from the area for 24 hours. Breaching the rules risked a $2,000 fine or up to three months' imprisonment.  

But after more than 7,000 New Zealanders made submissions, with more than 98% of those submissions opposing the bill as it stood, changes have been made. Those opposed included the Police Association, city missions, faith groups, ordinary everyday New Zealanders who took the time to submit, and Retail NZ, which seems an odd one. Chairperson of the Justice Select Committee, Tom Rutherford, told the Mike Hosking Breakfast he's happy with where the move-on orders have landed. 

"I think we've made some really pragmatic changes, increasing the age from 14 to 18 years old, including things like freedom camping not being captured, stronger protections around providing personal details, requiring the police to report on it in a statutory review in three years' time, and reducing that fine from $2000 to $1000 – I think we've really hit the money here." 

Reducing the age at which the orders could apply from 14 to 18. There were real concerns that young people would be criminalised by these orders, young people who had nowhere else to go, the most vulnerable. It's interesting that Retail NZ was opposed to the bill as it stood. I totally get the Police Association and the city missions, but the move-on orders were in part designed to protect retailers from dealing with aggressive and offensive behaviour.  

But are the amendments fair in your mind? I had a few concerns about them, like aggressive, offensive behaviour, absolutely, get rid of it, but I would have thought that there were sufficient laws to do that anyway. The move-on orders just mean moving the problem from one place to another. If people have nowhere to go, if people have mental health issues, if people are there because they're young, home is not safe, they can't find anywhere to be, then how is the move-on order going to actually solve those issues? It'll just be a not-so-merry-go-round of people landing in one place, being moved on, and landing in another.  

I have absolutely no doubt that not just the police, but all of the social agencies who are set up to deal with the problem of people who live outside of the community for whatever reason, I have absolutely no doubt that the move-on orders were meant with the best possible intentions of trying to make the streets safer, of not having people abusing parents and children who are walking down the street minding their own business, your Tom and your Lindas coming off the cruise ship and just experiencing a nice bit of New Zealand to be met with near naked men brawling in a drunken stupor in the middle of Queen Street. It's not great. It's absolutely not ideal. You can't allow it to happen, and it was let go for a very, very long time. But coming down with the move-on orders doesn't seem to me to be a realistic way of solving the actual issue. People are homeless for many, many reasons, it's not simply because they don't have a home, and they're complex and it's tricky. Were the move-on orders ever designed to get to the root of those problems? I'm not entirely sure they were. 

A cross-party committee of MPs has recommended the Government water down its move-on orders, concerned that the penalties and punishments would be disproportionate to the offences of rough sleeping and begging. Under the proposed legislation, police had the ability to move people engaging in specific behaviours, including rough sleeping and begging, away from the area for 24 hours. Breaching the rules risked a $2,000 fine or up to three months' imprisonment. &nbsp;
But after more than 7,000 New Zealanders made submissions, with more than 98% of those submissions opposing the bill as it stood, changes have been made. Those opposed included the Police Association, city missions, faith groups, ordinary everyday New Zealanders who took the time to submit, and Retail NZ, which seems an odd one. Chairperson of the Justice Select Committee, Tom Rutherford, told the Mike Hosking Breakfast he's happy with where the move-on orders have landed.&nbsp;
"I think we've made some really pragmatic changes, increasing the age from 14 to 18 years old, including things like freedom camping not being captured, stronger protections around providing personal details, requiring the police to report on it in a statutory review in three years' time, and reducing that fine from $2000 to $1000 – I think we've really hit the money here."&nbsp;
Reducing the age at which the orders could apply from 14 to 18. There were real concerns that young people would be criminalised by these orders, young people who had nowhere else to go, the most vulnerable. It's interesting that Retail NZ was opposed to the bill as it stood. I totally get the Police Association and the city missions, but the move-on orders were in part designed to protect retailers from dealing with aggressive and offensive behaviour. &nbsp;
But are the amendments fair in your mind? I had a few concerns about them, like aggressive, offensive behaviour, absolutely, get rid of it, but I would have thought that there were sufficient laws to do that anyway. The move-on orders just mean moving the problem from one place to another. If people have nowhere to go, if people have mental health issues, if people are there because they're young, home is not safe, they can't find anywhere to be, then how is the move-on order going to actually solve those issues? It'll just be a not-so-merry-go-round of people landing in one place, being moved on, and landing in another. &nbsp;
I have absolutely no doubt that not just the police, but all of the social agencies who are set up to deal with the problem of people who live outside of the community for whatever reason, I have absolutely no doubt that the move-on orders were meant with the best possible intentions of trying to make the streets safer, of not having people abusing parents and children who are walking down the street minding their own business, your Tom and your Lindas coming off the cruise ship and just experiencing a nice bit of New Zealand to be met with near naked men brawling in a drunken stupor in the middle of Queen Street. It's not great. It's absolutely not ideal. You can't allow it to happen, and it was let go for a very, very long time. But coming down with the move-on orders doesn't seem to me to be a realistic way of solving the actual issue. People are homeless for many, many reasons, it's not simply because they don't have a home, and they're complex and it's tricky. Were the move-on orders ever designed to get to the root of those problems? I'm not entirely sure they were.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Will move-on orders actually solve the root of the problem?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/0b7f9781-7903-4d9b-af4c-b4bb0004b38a/transcript

18 year old Jade Evans was killed last year when a truck driver ran a compulsory stop sign and crashed into her car, leaving her with catastrophic brain injuries. She and her unborn baby Lily died three days later after Jade's family donated her organs to save the lives of others. Now her family's calling for stronger accountability for preventable road deaths following yesterday's sentencing of the truck driver. The driver, who pleaded guilty to careless driving causing death, was sentenced to two months community detention, disqualified from driving for one year, and ordered to pay reparation to Jade's family. Doesn't seem much for lives lost, does it?  

But then when you think about Jake Hamlin, he got 12 months home detention for driving drunk and killing Samantha Williams. No accident about it. No carelessness about it. It was criminal negligence on his part, really. So yes, it would be nice to see people held accountable for the damage they do.  

Jade's mother Kathryn Stothers and stepfather Cameron have launched Jade's Law, a national petition calling for reform of New Zealand's road safety laws. Named in Jade's honour, the petition wants to increase penalties for careless driving causing death, and asks Parliament to amend the Land Transport Act so penalties reflect the seriousness of a life lost and recognise a wider range of aggravating circumstances for breaches of traffic rules, particularly involving heavy vehicles. Kathryn says the petition is not about seeking harsher punishment for one individual, it's about seeking a change of law to allow judges to impose sentences that reflect the seriousness of the crime.  

If you think back to a Dutch driver —I believe he was a tourist— Johannes Appleman, he T boned a car in Canterbury back in 2014 and that killed Dr Lucy Hone's 12 year old daughter, as well as her best friend and her best friend's mum. He failed to stop at a stop sign, one of those classic long Canterbury roads where you just don't see it. There was no intent, he wasn't drunk, he wasn't tired, yet he ploughed into them and three lives are lost. A Tauranga man was sentenced to 150 hours community work, disqualified from driving for 12 months, and ordered to pay emotional harm reparation for careless driving over the death of a motorcyclist.  

You have that awful, awful case of the young woman in Morrinsville —I think that was back in 2011— who came round a corner just on the outskirts of Morrinsville, failed to take a moderate bend, drifted over the road and ploughed into, she wasn't even going that fast, ploughed into a group of cyclists who were absolutely doing exactly as they should. They weren't all over the road, they were riding sensibly and it was just one of those horrible accidents. She wasn't drunk, she wasn't impaired with drugs, she wasn't tired, she was on her way to work and she killed three people.  

When it's an accident, a pure accident, no drugs are involved, no alcohol's involved, no tiredness, you're not turning around and laughing and chatting to other people, when it's just a dreadful accident, yet the outcome of that moment of carelessness or distraction or thinking about something else, that moment of distraction causes so many lives to be changed forever. Families have to live forever without their child, their husband or wife. How do you reflect that fairly? Harsher penalties, they're not going to stop the accidents happening because these are not people who need to be told not to drink and get behind the wheel of a vehicle. They weren't drunk. They don't need to be told don't take drugs, don't speed. They weren't doing any of that. It was an accident and yet the fallout from the accident is so great.  

Does there need to be a marker in law to say what you did was an accident, yes, but the damage you did through being at the wrong place at the wrong time in a moment's distraction has resulted in so much damage, so much pain, so much harm, we must mark it in law by punishing you. I mean, at the moment you've got a little light community service or a fine, disqualification for a year or so for people who have taken multiple lives. They didn't mean to, they weren't impaired, there weren't aggravating circumstances around what they did, but boy they did some damage. What's appropriate? 

18 year old Jade Evans was killed last year when a truck driver ran a compulsory stop sign and crashed into her car, leaving her with catastrophic brain injuries. She and her unborn baby Lily died three days later after Jade's family donated her organs to save the lives of others. Now her family's calling for stronger accountability for preventable road deaths following yesterday's sentencing of the truck driver. The driver, who pleaded guilty to careless driving causing death, was sentenced to two months community detention, disqualified from driving for one year, and ordered to pay reparation to Jade's family. Doesn't seem much for lives lost, does it? &nbsp;
But then when you think about Jake Hamlin, he got 12 months home detention for driving drunk and killing Samantha Williams. No accident about it. No carelessness about it. It was criminal negligence on his part, really. So yes, it would be nice to see people held accountable for the damage they do. &nbsp;
Jade's mother Kathryn Stothers and stepfather Cameron have launched Jade's Law, a national petition calling for reform of New Zealand's road safety laws. Named in Jade's honour, the petition wants to increase penalties for careless driving causing death, and asks Parliament to amend the Land Transport Act so penalties reflect the seriousness of a life lost and recognise a wider range of aggravating circumstances for breaches of traffic rules, particularly involving heavy vehicles. Kathryn says the petition is not about seeking harsher punishment for one individual, it's about seeking a change of law to allow judges to impose sentences that reflect the seriousness of the crime. &nbsp;
If you think back to a Dutch driver —I believe he was a tourist— Johannes Appleman, he T boned a car in Canterbury back in 2014 and that killed Dr Lucy Hone's 12 year old daughter, as well as her best friend and her best friend's mum. He failed to stop at a stop sign, one of those classic long Canterbury roads where you just don't see it. There was no intent, he wasn't drunk, he wasn't tired, yet he ploughed into them and three lives are lost. A Tauranga man was sentenced to 150 hours community work, disqualified from driving for 12 months, and ordered to pay emotional harm reparation for careless driving over the death of a motorcyclist. &nbsp;
You have that awful, awful case of the young woman in Morrinsville —I think that was back in 2011— who came round a corner just on the outskirts of Morrinsville, failed to take a moderate bend, drifted over the road and ploughed into, she wasn't even going that fast, ploughed into a group of cyclists who were absolutely doing exactly as they should. They weren't all over the road, they were riding sensibly and it was just one of those horrible accidents. She wasn't drunk, she wasn't impaired with drugs, she wasn't tired, she was on her way to work and she killed three people. &nbsp;
When it's an accident, a pure accident, no drugs are involved, no alcohol's involved, no tiredness, you're not turning around and laughing and chatting to other people, when it's just a dreadful accident, yet the outcome of that moment of carelessness or distraction or thinking about something else, that moment of distraction causes so many lives to be changed forever. Families have to live forever without their child, their husband or wife. How do you reflect that fairly? Harsher penalties, they're not going to stop the accidents happening because these are not people who need to be told not to drink and get behind the wheel of a vehicle. They weren't drunk. They don't need to be told don't take drugs, don't speed. They weren't doing any of that. It was an accident and yet the fallout from the accident is so great. &nbsp;
Does there need to be a marker in law to say what you did was an accident, yes, but the damage you did through being at the wrong place at the wrong time in a moment's distraction has resulted in so much damage, so much pain, so much harm, we must mark it in law by punishing you. I mean, at the moment you've got a little light community service or a fine, disqualification for a year or so for people who have taken multiple lives. They didn't mean to, they weren't impaired, there weren't aggravating circumstances around what they did, but boy they did some damage. What's appropriate?&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Does there need to be harsher penalties for careless driving?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/8414815c-7c36-47c9-a7d7-b4ba001517a1/transcript

Carolyn Young: Retail NZ CEO on the current move-on orders proposal and their opposition to it

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips