The Coalition Government’s proposal to expand police “move-on” powers under the Summary Offences Act 1981 is being framed and pathologised as a necessary step to restore order to town centres. But beneath the language of public safety lies a troubling question: are we addressing homelessness — or are we criminalising poverty?
Under the proposed changes, police would be able to direct individuals to leave a public space for up to 24 hours if their presence is deemed intimidating, disruptive, or disorderly. Breaching a move-on order could result in fines or imprisonment. These powers would apply to young people as well as adults.
At first glance, this may sound like a reasonable tool to manage antisocial behaviour. Yet homelessness is not, in itself, antisocial. Sleeping rough, sitting on a pavement, or asking for help are not crimes. They are signs of unmet needs. The deeper issue is this: are homeless people breaking the law simply by existing in public space when they have nowhere else to go?
A Policy Problem, Not a Policing Problem
Homelessness in Aotearoa does not emerge from thin air. It is shaped by structural pressures: high rents, limited public housing supply, tightened eligibility for emergency accommodation, and welfare settings that can leave young people unsupported.
Recent policy shifts have made access to housing more restrictive. Long waitlists for Kāinga Ora properties remain. Emergency housing criteria have been tightened in recent years. Changes requiring greater parental responsibility for 18–19-year-olds accessing benefits risk leaving some rangatahi in precarious situations if family homes are unsafe or unavailable.
When housing becomes harder to access, people do not disappear — they become visible. And when visibility makes communities uncomfortable, enforcement becomes the chosen response.
But moving someone on from a park or doorway does not create a house. It simply relocates the problem. Move them on — to where? To another suburb? Another district? Into bushland, cars, overcrowded homes? Whose responsibility do they become next?
The Bill of Rights Question
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 protects fundamental freedoms, including freedom of movement (section 18) and freedom of peaceful assembly (section 16). Any limitation on these rights must be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society (section 5).
Move-on powers sit uncomfortably within this framework. If a person is not committing a criminal offence but is directed to leave a public space simply because their presence is considered undesirable, we must ask whether such limits are proportionate. Public spaces belong to all New Zealanders — including those without private shelter.
If homelessness becomes grounds for exclusion from public space, the risk is that poverty itself becomes treated as a public order offence.
The Cost of Criminalising Poverty
Evidence internationally shows that policing homelessness is expensive and ineffective. Enforcement leads to fines that cannot be paid, court appearances, warrants, and sometimes incarceration. The cost of police time, court processes, and prison beds quickly exceeds the cost of stable housing with support.
Housing-first models — which provide permanent housing alongside wrap-around services — have consistently demonstrated better long-term outcomes and lower overall public cost. It is cheaper to house people than to cycle them through the justice system.
Who Manufactures Homelessness?
Homelessness is not manufactured, by those sleeping rough. It is a by-product, of the capitalist sytem that inevitably leads to housing shortages, income insecurity, intergenerational poverty, family violence, mental health gaps, addiction services that are stretched thin, and historic inequities that disproportionately affect Māori and Pacific communities.
When we respond with police powers rather than structural reform, we risk obscuring those root causes.
A Different Path
Concern for community safety is legitimate. No one disputes that threatening or violent behaviour should be addressed. But conflating homelessness with criminality is neither accurate nor just.
A constructive response would include:
- Significant investment in public and community housingAccessible emergency accommodation without punitive barriers
- Youth-centred prevention pathwaysStrengthened mental health and addiction services
- Cross-agency coordination that treats homelessness as a housing and wellbeing issue — not a law-and-order issue
We must be careful not to confuse visibility with criminality. Homeless people are not breaking the law by existing. They are living — publicly — because policy has left them without private refuge.
If we are serious about safer communities, the answer is not to push homelessness out of sight. It is to ensure everyone has a place to call home.
