A packed public meeting at St Matthew-in-the-City in central Auckland has laid bare the growing unease over the Government’s proposed “move on” law changes, with political and community leaders warning the policy risks criminalising homelessness rather than addressing its root causes.
The hui, called by Auckland Central MP and Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick, drew a diverse cross-section of Tāmaki Makaurau residents, advocates, faith leaders and frontline workers. The atmosphere was at times emotional, at times incredulous, as speakers questioned both the intent and the practical implications of empowering authorities to direct people to leave public spaces.
At the centre of the debate is the Government’s proposal to expand police and local authority powers to issue “move on” orders to people deemed to be obstructing or causing disruption in public areas. Critics argue that without clear thresholds and safeguards, such powers could disproportionately target people experiencing homelessness.
Speakers at the meeting repeatedly returned to the same concern: if a person has nowhere stable to live, being ordered to “move on” does not resolve the underlying issue. Instead, it may simply displace individuals from one street corner or public space to another, compounding instability and increasing the risk of fines, arrests or further interaction with the justice system.
Helen Robinson, Auckland City Missioner, addressed the gathering and urged a closer examination of what the proposal actually entails. She stressed the need to unpack the definition and scope of “move on” powers, warning that without precision the concept becomes both confusing and potentially harmful. In her view, once the details are interrogated, the practical application of such orders begins to appear inconsistent and difficult to justify in the context of chronic housing shortages.
Robinson’s comments reflected a broader theme of the evening: the importance of policy clarity. Several contributors argued that vague legislative language risks wide interpretation on the ground, leaving enforcement dependent on subjective judgments rather than transparent criteria.
Community representatives also pointed to the structural drivers of homelessness in Auckland – high rents, limited social housing supply, mental health pressures and cost-of-living strain. For many in attendance, the concern is that enforcement-focused responses divert attention and resources from long-term housing solutions.
There was also discussion about the social and economic cost of pushing people out of visible public spaces without offering alternative accommodation. Attendees questioned whether repeated displacement could deepen isolation, disrupt access to support services and entrench cycles of marginalisation.
Supporters of tougher public space management have argued that businesses and residents deserve safe and accessible city centres. However, critics at the meeting contended that safety and compassion are not mutually exclusive, and that durable solutions require investment in housing, wrap-around services and prevention strategies rather than expanded enforcement powers.
By the close of the meeting, it was evident that the proposal has struck a nerve in Tāmaki Makaurau. What emerged was not simply opposition to a legal mechanism, but a deeper philosophical debate: whether homelessness should be treated primarily as a social welfare and housing issue, or as a matter of public order.
For many gathered inside St Matthew’s, the answer was clear – laws that compel people to move without addressing where they can safely go risk shifting the problem rather than solving it.
