Move-on bill's ban on rough sleeping not the answer: Retail NZ

Retailers have told MPs that new move-on orders aimed at supporting their businesses may just move addiction and homelessness problems from one shopfront to another.

The Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill, which would enable police to order rough sleepers or those as young as 14 displaying disorderly behaviour to move elsewhere, is before select committee.

When announcing the legislation, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said main streets and town centres across New Zealand had been "blighted" by disruption and disturbance, with business declining as bad behaviour went unchecked.

However, Retail NZ chief executive Carolyn Young told MPs at the select committee that although problems of disruptive behaviour outside stores and in public areas did need to be addressed, addicts and homeless people would often have nowhere to go.

She said moving people on could be "a breaker for disruptive behaviour when it occurs - and that is needed from time to time", and retailers did need a thriving city centre.

She called for the removal of clauses targeting groups of people rather than behaviours, saying people who slept rough or begged were not inherently disorderly or disruptive but may behave so at times due to addiction or mental health problems.

"They are going to move on perhaps from Queen Street into K Road and cause the same behaviour again because the underlying issues aren't resolved," she said.

"And then from K Road they may be moved on and they may go to Newmarket. And then from there they'll then move on and they'll go to Parnell and then they'll be back in front of Queen Street.

"The issue for Retail NZ is that we support retailers across the motu and when you move someone on without the right support ... then that will continue to occur in front of another retailer."

Young said construction and roadworks were also creating disruption for retailers, and vacancies as a result were creating spaces rough sleepers may occupy.

Retailers also wanted more people working in the city rather than at home and a strong economy to support a thriving city centre and retail environment.

National's Rima Nakhle argued the government was doing "so much" to tackle the complex problems around homelessness, and said South Auckland retailers were telling her something different - asking if Retail NZ had spoken to shopowners there.

"I'm not intimidated, I buy the beggars food, but it's intimidating other people from going into the stores in South Auckland, that's what I'm hearing," Nakhle said.

Retail NZ had spoken to retailers across the country, Young said.

She did see benefit in the move-on orders being used for disruptive behaviour.

"If there is somebody that is having a mental health issue and is hugely disruptive in front of a store, if there's a fight going on, or there's ... any of those sorts of behaviours that are happening, it gives the ability for a break to happen and for that behaviour to be ceased."

She pointed to the Wellington suburb of Newtown, which had many support services that attracted a lot of people who needed those services, and said if they were behaving disruptively they could be moved elsewhere, and that break could be useful in stopping the behaviour temporarily.

However, the same people would likely come back the next day because that was where the support services were.

"Having a break point when there is really difficult behaviour happening in front of a store is really useful, but what is the long-term solution so that you're not just calling the police back every day?"