Submission: ‘Move On’ Orders
We’ve all seen the increase in begging, homelessness, and rough sleeping. The causes of these issues are complex and I will always support a housing first approach.
The Government has decided to respond to the challenges with heavy handed legislation that will criminalise those who are struggling. The Ministry of Justice didn't have sufficient time to provide more detailed analysis and alternative options because the Minister wouldn’t allow time for it. He constrained the scope and ignored the advice of officials.
Below is my submission, where I strongly oppose it on the basis that the approach taken wasn’t necessary and it breaches the NZ Bill of Rights.
Submissions on the Bill close on Thursday 2 July.
https://bills.parliament.nz/v/6/27dd41ab-acd3-4afa-a59f-08deb151b1c7?lang=en
This is a submission from Damian Light.
I was born in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland and have lived here my entire life. I am an elected member of Auckland Council (Howick Local Board), but this submission is in my own name.
I strongly oppose this Bill as it fails to address the issues of public disorder in a meaningful way, instead choosing to criminalise poverty, homelessness, and rough sleeping. Drafting the Bill has been rushed, leading to minimal analysis and a Bill that is inconsistent with the NZ Bill of Rights.
The Bill claims to aim to ensure that the Police have “the necessary powers to maintain public order”, yet takes an unnecessarily heavy handed approach and ignores alternatives that would have provided faster, more efficient options.
As noted in its regulatory impact statement, “The Ministry of Justice prefers Option One - status quo.” It notes that “Costs are likely to outweigh the benefits.” The Ministry of Justice provided advice on alternatives that would have achieved similar outcomes, without criminalising poverty.
It is clear that this Bill is driven by political ideology and electoral timeframes, rather than a desire to achieve the right outcomes. The Regulatory Impact Statement goes on to note that “The scope was also constrained by Ministerial decisions. We were directed to focus on proposals for move-on orders. Therefore, this RIS does not analyse potential broader responses to disorderly behaviour”.
“As noted in the RIS, there is limited information on the scale or significance of the problem, and the analysis has been constrained by its narrow scope that focuses only on justice legislative options, limited timeframes, and lack of broader consultation.” More time would enable broader consultation and further analysis to test the assumptions underpinning the problem definition and options.”
As noted in the Attorney-General’s Report (under Section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act), “The proposed treatment of “begging” as a stand-alone ground for issuing a move-one order appears inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression in the Bill of Rights Act,” And “The proposed effect of a move-on order, which would preclude a person (who has been issued with an order because he or she is/has been begging or rough sleeping) from staying or entering a specified area, for all purposes, appears inconsistent with the right to freedom of movement.”
Finally, moving on people who are causing issues does nothing to address the issues. It will simply push these vulnerable people further out into the suburbs, further from the services and organisations that are working to support them. This will further stretch the limited resources available and simply move the problem around.
I do not need to be heard by the Select Committee - my submission speaks for itself.
I ask that the Committee:
Rejects the Bill and recommends that it does not proceed further.
Recommends to the Government revisit the issues, providing the appropriate Ministries time to explore all options and develop a comprehensive and appropriate response to these complex issues.