Move-on orders 'morally indefensible', submitters against them say

The government's move-on orders are being described as "morally indefensible", "unnecessary" and a "breach of the Bill of Rights."

But one of the very few submitters in support says the system currently has no teeth to deal with aggressive and non compliant behaviour.

Oral submissions on the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill were being heard by the Justice committee on Monday.

The government wants to give police the power to order people as young as 14 to move elsewhere or face a possible jail sentence if they were being disorderly, begging or rough sleeping.

The legislation would make it a criminal offence to remove the move-on order, and those who do so face a fine or a period of imprisonment

Paul McMahon said the bill was unnecessary; "everything genuinely harmful that this bill is aimed at, is already against the law".

"The police say it isn't needed, the Ministry of Justice says it won't work, and shouldn't be done. The Attorney-General says it breaches our Bill of Rights.

"When a government has to override its own police, its own officials, and its own law officer to pass its own bill, that is usually a sign that a bill should not pass."

Margy-Jean Malcolm called it "morally indefensible, legally unnecessary and fiscally irresponsible".

Public Housing Futures campaigner Vanessa Cole said legislation should be passed that takes the housing crisis seriously, "and moves people from the streets and their cars into permanent and stable housing".

"Not legislation that displaces homeless whānau, and put them at risk of being criminalised and imprisoned for not having access to housing."

Cole said town and city centres weren't struggling because people were sleeping on the streets, "people are sleeping on the streets for the same reason shops are struggling to keep their doors open: an economic system where the super wealthy are siphoning more and more from everyday people."

She also called the legislation a breach of the Bill of Rights, inconsistent with the rights of freedom of expression and movement.

Teirangi Klever used spoken word to make her point, saying move-on orders were apparently here to protect "everyday people."

"Everyday people is the phrase I've heard.

"Everyday people - I keep turning it over on my tongue until it cuts the roof of my mouth trying to work out who falls through the gap between every and day because every day I see people carrying everything they own inside of a backpack."

He Kainga Oranga, Housing and Health Research Programme, University of Otago Professor Nevil Pierse provided an example of seeing a 15-year-old girl sleeping outside their building on his way to work.

"She wasn't causing trouble, she wasn't threatning anyone, she wasn't blocking the doorway. She was simply a young person with no place safe to go."

He said that experience was relevant because this bill would make her behaviour a criminal matter for enforcement and punishment rather than care and support.

Other submitters echoed the concern the legislation wasn't focused on the causes of rough sleeping, or the related mental health or poverty issues.

CEO of Lifewise Pam Elgar said the bill criminalises rough sleeping and begging without addressing the "root causes of homelessness, addiction, trauma, poverty or mental health need."

Pillar NZ (Protecting Individual Life Liberty and Rights) Head of Operations Arian Tashakkori said this legislation sets a "poor legal precedent" when it comes to the protection of civil liberties in the country.

He said he was sympathetic to the goals of ensuring safer central business districts, but didn't support the bill in its current form.

He said police - if given the power to intervene - but where and when they do, their powers must be clearly defined, proportionate, and considerate of the practical consequences of displacement.

A school teacher from Whangārei, Simone Ackermann, spoke of her community feeling unprotected by the law while a public reserve was "taken over" by long term vehicle encampments.

She said for 18 months she felt the system "dropped the ball" while the community was subjected to "relentless loud music through the night."

"We were subjected to drinking, drug taking and fighting directly beside a children's playground. Vandalism, including faeces being smeared over public toilets. Intimidation, verbal abuse and midnight property trespassing.

"We also witnessed individuals masturbating out their vehicles in full view of families at playgrounds."

Ackermann said they contacted local council, visited the police, distributed pamphlets in the neighbourhood, and engaged with the local MP. But she said the current law didn't allow for immediate meaningful action.

"The system simply has no teeth to deal with the sort of issues we encountered."

Submissions continue on Friday.