Ministers say new move-on powers are needed to tackle disorder in CBDs. But is out of sight, out of mind a real solution, asks Catherine McGregor in today’s excerpt from The Bulletin.

To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.

A nationwide crackdown

The government confirmed on Sunday that it will amend the Summary Offences Act to give police the power to issue move-on orders to people rough sleeping, begging or displaying “disorderly, disruptive, threatening or intimidating behaviour” in town centres across the country. The orders, applying to anyone aged 14 and over, will require a person to leave a specified area for up to 24 hours, or face a maximum $2,000 fine or three months’ imprisonment if they breach it.

Justice minister Paul Goldsmith said New Zealand’s “main streets and town centres have been blighted by disruption and disturbance”, arguing police currently have “limited options to respond” when behaviour falls short of a criminal offence. “It means many disruptive, distressing and potentially harmful acts can occur before officers have any means of intervention. It doesn’t make sense,” he said.

Backlash from opposition and advocates

Opposition parties and social agencies have responded with alarm. Labour’s Carmel Sepuloni said the orders would penalise “those with the least” while failing to address the causes of homelessness. Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick compared the approach to “Trump’s America”, accusing the government of “punching down”.

Auckland city missioner Helen Robinson said simply moving people on would be ineffective, reiterating calls for more social housing and mental health support. Rough sleeping in Tāmaki Makaurau has climbed sharply following tighter access to emergency housing, with more than 800 people estimated to be unsheltered in the city.

Auckland councillor Richard Hills was blunt in his criticism, arguing the policy is “just shifting social issues around [Auckland] without addressing people’s needs at all”. In a social media post, he warned vulnerable people would be pushed into suburbs and parks with less support, creating the same concerns elsewhere.

Business groups, by contrast, have welcomed the move. The Auckland Business Chamber called it a “sensible and necessary step”, saying retailers needed practical tools to address behaviour that drives customers away.

Who leads the response?

The legislation places discretion squarely with frontline officers, but RNZ’s Giles Dexter has reported tensions behind the scenes. Emails released under the Official Information Act show police minister Mark Mitchell’s office expressing concern about the police’s role. In one message, a staffer wrote that Mitchell was “very keen to disabuse anyone of the notion that Police will lead a response to homelessness”, emphasising that social issues should be owned by other agencies.

Despite that, Mitchell told media on Sunday he expected police would “work closely” with support services “as they develop their operational guidance for the front line”. “Some people may require support services, some may not,” he said, adding that officers were experienced in assessing situations.

Hills has claimed some police have told him they are “concerned” about the orders and unsure how enforcement would work in practice. Data cited by RNZ shows public order proceedings are at a 10-year low, raising questions about whether new powers are proportionate.

Can enforcement be combined with compassion?

Writing in The Spinoff, Joel MacManus argued that while criminalisation does not reduce homelessness – “the only cure for homelessness is homes” – governments cannot ignore the wider social impact of visible rough sleeping and antisocial behaviour. Left-leaning politicians, he suggests, often emphasise compassion for those on the street, while the right focuses on public order and economic vitality. Yet, “addressing homelessness requires treatment at every level: poverty support services, management of public spaces, and social housing.”

A genuinely compassionate move-on system, MacManus argues, would combine tightly targeted enforcement in high-foot-traffic areas with expanded Housing First programmes, more emergency accommodation and stronger mental health and addiction services. Without that investment, the orders risk being little more than symptom management. As the legislation proceeds through parliament, the central question will be whether the new powers form part of a broader housing strategy – or simply move the problem from one street corner to another.