Category: Law and Order

Source: Radio New Zealand

The government insists move-on orders are just one tool in the toolkit, as it seeks to curb anti-social behaviour and rough sleeping in city and town centres across New Zealand.

Opposition parties have slammed the proposal, however, describing it as “cruel” and “despicable.”

The government has confirmed it will give police powers to issue move-on notices.

The notices will apply for disorderly or threatening behaviour, as well as for begging or rough sleeping.

It will be left to the individual officer to decide exactly how long the order lasts, with a limit of 24 hours, the distance the person needs to move away from, and what support the person needs, if any.

Officers will have to make it clear to the individual that a breach will be an offence, with maximum penalties of fines up to $2000, or up to three months imprisonment.

At the announcement, justice minister Paul Goldsmith insisted the government was not criminalising homelessness.

“What we’re criminalising is a refusal to follow a move-on order,” he said.

Goldsmith said a ‘reasonable distance’ would mean different things in different parts of the country, and denied it would simply shift the problem elsewhere.

“If you’re told to move on and you go up the road and you start doing the same behaviours again, well then you’ll be subject to another move-on order until the message gets through that society doesn’t tolerate these activities.”

Police minister Mark Mitchell said police use discretion “thousands of times a week,” and there was a range of options available to them.

He said the move-on orders filled a “gap” in the police response.

“We’ve got something that will formalise it, that will actually hopefully get them engaging with those services and actually fix those issues, and at the same time we won’t have people living on our streets. I don’t think any fair-minded Kiwi in our country wants to see people out living on our streets.”

Mitchell said the “default setting” would be to work with someone, to try and find whether the solution was a health, mental health, or housing response.

But some simply did not want to listen to police.

“Many of the people that choose to come in and set up and live on the streets and cause the social problems that we see are also vulnerable themselves.”

Minister for Auckland Simeon Brown said he had met with non-government organisations and government agencies across Auckland, as well as the council, to see what actions could be taken to improve safety.

Welcomed by business

Auckland’s central business association Heart of the City had lobbied for social and economic needs to be addressed, and while there had been improvements, anti-social behaviour continued to cause concern.

Its chief executive Viv Beck said she was pleased the government had “listened” in terms of bringing in additional police, a new downtown police station, a housing and outreach ‘action plan,’ and now the move-on orders.

Beck said Auckland was an “aspirational city,” which meant ensuring people were housed and looked after.

“This is another, if you like, another tool in the kit to be able to ensure that we are really ready to capitalise on now, after ten years of disruption for a whole variety of reasons, that our city can actually grow, we can continue to attract investment, and that we’re aspirational so people are looked after if they’re in need but that it’s a really safe, welcoming place for everyone.”

Ian Wright, property manager of the Queen’s Arcade in downtown Auckland, said there was no use creating a “beautiful place” if it was unsafe outside.

He said the council and Heart of the City had started to bring in guards, and the government had allowed for more police on the beat, which had made a difference.

“We’re not where we need to be. But I think this is very much another key tool in the toolbox that will greatly facilitate the change process and just put the icing on the cake to where we’ve been,” he said.

Wright said it was mostly “recidivist offenders” engaging in intimidation, harassment, and general unsocial behaviour.

“We had a gentleman that was around living on the street on Commerce Street, around the corner. He was there for months, and he wouldn’t accept help, but now he’s accepted help, and he’s obviously been taken back into care and he’s getting the care he needs.

“So 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 the line in the sand, and saying we’ve actually got a right to be here too. The people, the visitors, we want it to be safe and secure. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.”

‘Punch-down politics’ – opposition

Labour was concerned the policy would not just be a tool, but the go-to tool.

Deputy leader Carmel Sepuloni said the policy was cruel.

“This is another instance of the government oversimplifying a problem, trying to sweep it under the carpet, acting like it’s just a law and order issue, when the reality is it’s so much more complex than that,” she said.

“The government need to be investing in mental health. They need to be building the homes that New Zealanders need. They need to be investing in addiction services. They need to be supporting and resourcing the social and health services that work with so many of the people that we’re seeing on our streets. They’re not doing any of that. Instead, they’re saying that they’re going to criminalise these people and then effectively saying that it will become the police’s responsibility.”

Goldsmith said the government had put additional resources into housing, with 300 extra spots for homeless people, and not all of them were being taken up.

The move-on orders, he said, were to deal with those who refused to take up that extra help.

Green Party co-leader and Auckland Central MP Chlöe Swarbrick, said the policy was some of the most “despicable, bottom of the barrel, punch-down politics” she had seen from the government.

“You are not solving a problem if you are simply trying to move it out of sight and out of mind,” she said.

Frontline police she had spoken to had made it “pretty abundantly clear” they did not have the resources to solve the issues either.

“If the government wants to deal with the issue of homelessness, I have a very clear solution for them: provide housing and the necessary wrap-around support for people to be able to stay in that housing. Unfortunately, the government has decided to do the complete opposite of that, shredding the necessary resources for our communities to thrive.”

Advocate fears ‘street-to-prison pipeline’

Aaron Hendry, director of youth development organisation Kick Back, was particularly concerned the orders could be used on people as young as 14.

His organisation worked with tamariki as young as 9 who were experiencing homelessness, often coming from complex situations where their whole family needed support.

“The idea that police will just be moving children on without intensively providing support to these kids is really concerning,” he said.

“We are concerned around what is looking like a really clear street-to-prison pipeline, with the lack of resources invested to ensure that people are looked after.”

He said social service providers had made it clear to ministers that the resources were not there, and that the move-on orders would not solve the problem and could cause more harm.

“Whānau that are sleeping rough in the city centre are often reaching out to Work and Income for support, being denied support, and as a result are ending up on our streets. That’s a real clear decision the government’s making to criminalise whānau for experiencing homelessness, as a consequence of the decisions they have made to restrict access to shelter and support.”

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

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand