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;

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

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