The Police Association questions whether proposed move-on orders will achieve anything beyond temporarily relocating people and adding to frontline workloads.

The association told the Justice Select Committee in July that the legislation risks putting Police in the role of managing complex social problems while piling more work onto already stretched officers. 

In its submission on the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill, the association says police already have powers to deal with disorderly and offensive behaviour and questions whether the proposed legislation will achieve its intended aims. 

Members see some value in having another tool available when existing thresholds for enforcement have not been met, association president Steve Watt says, but he has significant concerns about how the powers would work in practice.

Useful tool but at what cost?

“We understand the sentiment but, irrespective of your view, it’s extra workload,” Steve says.

“We see it as a tool for members when they have no other option because someone creating a ruckus has not reached the threshold of arrest. For example, someone going bar to bar, they are drunk and/or being a bit abusive or a nuisance but they are not breaking current laws.” 

The Bill would allow police to direct people to leave a public place for up to 24 hours, including for rough sleeping and begging, with breaches potentially resulting in prosecution. 

But Steve says the legislation offers little guidance about what happens next. 

Questioned by select committee members about where people would go if support services were unavailable, he said: “Are they moving them two blocks down the street? Are they having to move them to another suburb? What is it, or where is it, that the officers dealing with the homelessness need to take these people or move these people on to?”

The association says that in downtown Auckland, where the need is greatest, there are no night shelters available to “move” rough sleepers to, meaning the legislation risks creating a cycle of repeated enforcement without resolving the underlying problem. 

“We don’t want to target those with mental health, physical health or financial issues. That is not our role. And where would you move them to? Move-on orders will just displace the problem,” Steve says.

Displacement v resolution

A key concern for the association is that the Bill focuses on the visible effects of homelessness, addiction, mental health issues and poverty rather than their root causes. 

It is also concerned the legislation would apply to children as young as 14, potentially resulting in vulnerable young people being repeatedly moved on without receiving the support, accommodation or protection they need. 

Similar concerns have been raised by Police policy staff, who previously advised ministers they did not support criminalising rough sleeping and non-aggressive begging and preferred any move-on powers to focus on aggressive anti-social behaviour. 

Steve warns that the legislation could shift public expectations of Police.

“There will be an expectation from the public that police deal with homeless [people] who are lying on the street should the legislation pass in its current form, because that’s specifically what it asks Police to do,” he told the select committee.

He argued the Bill risks drawing Police back into managing broader social issues at the very same time the organisation was stepping back from frontline mental health responses. 

“Essentially, what this Bill does is almost draw us back into that... a social problem that really doesn't sit with Police,” he said. “The line is crossed, I would suggest, with this legislation.”

If the Bill proceeds, the association wants stricter thresholds for issuing move-on orders, stronger protections for vulnerable people, clearer operational guidance for officers and better referral pathways to housing, health, addiction and support services. 

“Frontline officers need tools that resolve problems, not powers that repeatedly relocate them.”