More than 7,000 submissions have helped force significant changes to the Government’s controversial move-on orders legislation, but Labour says the fundamental problem remains — New Zealand is still proposing to use the justice system against people who have nowhere else to sleep.
Labour justice spokesperson Camilla Belich says changes recommended by the select committee represent an important victory for submitters who challenged the original legislation, with more than 98 percent of submissions opposing the Bill, according to Labour.
But Labour says it will push further amendments when the legislation returns to Parliament, seeking to remove rough sleeping and begging entirely from the move-on order regime.
The political battle now centres on a basic question: should homelessness be treated primarily as a public safety and enforcement issue, or as a housing and social support crisis?
More than 7,000 submissions push back
The scale of opposition has become one of the most significant features of the debate.
Belich says more than 7,000 New Zealanders made submissions, including organisations representing police, retailers, community services and faith groups.
Labour says more than 98 percent opposed the legislation.
Belich argues those submitters deserve credit for forcing changes to what she describes as a cruel and unworkable original proposal.
One of Labour’s strongest objections was the potential treatment of children and young people experiencing homelessness.
Belich says the legislation as originally introduced could have allowed a 14-year-old living alone on the street to be confronted with a move-on order, a fine and potentially further consequences for failing to comply.
For Labour, that exposed the central flaw in attempting to use enforcement powers against people whose underlying problem is that they have nowhere safe to go.
The fundamental argument remains
Despite the select committee changes, Labour says it cannot support provisions that continue to capture rough sleeping and begging.
Its position is that moving somebody from one public place to another does not resolve homelessness.
It simply changes where homelessness is visible.
Belich says Labour will introduce amendments during the committee stage seeking to remove rough sleeping and begging from the legislation entirely and will ask other parties to support those changes.
That could make the next parliamentary stages another significant test for the Government.
Government wants tools to deal with harmful behaviour
The move-on orders debate has emerged from concerns about intimidating, disruptive and antisocial behaviour in public spaces and the tools available to Police to intervene.
For communities, retailers and people using town centres, those concerns can be genuine.
Nobody should have to tolerate violence, threats, harassment or behaviour that makes public spaces unsafe.
But critics of the legislation argue existing criminal law can already respond to genuinely threatening or unlawful conduct.
Their concern is that once homelessness itself becomes associated with enforcement powers, the line between addressing harmful behaviour and simply removing poor people from public view can become dangerously blurred.
That distinction is now at the heart of the debate.
You can move somebody — but where do they go?
The practical question confronting move-on orders is what happens after one is issued.
If somebody has a home, alternative accommodation or somewhere safe to go, an instruction to leave an area may be workable.
For somebody sleeping rough because they have no accommodation, the situation is fundamentally different.
They may move from a shop doorway to a park.
From a park to another street.
From one suburb to another.
But they remain homeless.
That is why Labour says the legislation attacks the visibility of homelessness rather than its cause.
Its argument is that stable housing, appropriate health and addiction services, income support and effective outreach are more likely to produce lasting change than fines or repeated displacement.
Māori have a major stake in the debate
For Māori, the legislation carries particular significance because housing deprivation and homelessness do not fall evenly across the population.
Any policy expanding Police powers around rough sleeping therefore needs to be examined carefully for its impact on Māori.
For whānau already disconnected from stable housing, repeated encounters with enforcement agencies can create another pathway into fines, warrants and the justice system.
There is also the question of rangatahi.
A young person sleeping rough may be dealing with family breakdown, poverty, violence, mental distress or an absence of safe accommodation.
Treating that young person primarily as a problem of public order risks missing the circumstances that put them on the street.
For Māori providers working with homelessness, the more meaningful question is often not how to move someone away, but where can they safely be moved to?
Labour turns attack onto housing record
Belich is also using the Bill to attack the Government’s wider housing policies.
Labour argues restrictions around emergency housing and changes affecting Kāinga Ora have reduced options for people already facing severe housing insecurity.
The Government has defended its housing direction as an attempt to reduce dependence on emergency accommodation, improve performance and deliver better value from the state housing system.
But Labour says reducing emergency housing numbers is not itself evidence that the underlying need has disappeared.
If people leave emergency accommodation without entering stable housing, the pressure can simply emerge somewhere else — including overcrowded homes, cars, temporary arrangements and the street.
A housing crisis cannot be policed away
That is ultimately where the political argument is heading.
The Government believes communities need effective tools for dealing with behaviour that damages safety and confidence in public spaces.
Labour says those powers must not cross the line into criminalising poverty.
The select committee changes suggest the enormous public response has already influenced the legislation.
But they have not ended the argument.
Labour now wants Parliament to go further and remove rough sleeping and begging altogether.
That will force MPs to confront a fundamental distinction.
There is a difference between somebody committing an offence while homeless and somebody being treated as an offender because they are homeless.
With thousands of New Zealanders having taken the unusual step of submitting on the legislation, Parliament has received a powerful message that the distinction matters.
For whānau without a secure whare, however, the issue is more immediate.
A move-on order can tell somebody where they cannot sleep tonight. It cannot tell them where their home will be tomorrow.
#MoveOnOrders #Homelessness #HousingCrisis #RoughSleeping #CamillaBelich #LabourNZ #ChristopherLuxon #NationalParty #HousingNZ #EmergencyHousing #KaingaOra #HousingFirst #PublicSafety #Poverty #ChildPoverty #YouthHomelessness #Rangatahi #RangatahiMaori #Whanau #WhanauMaori #MaoriHousing #HousingEquity #JusticeReform #PoliceNZ #HumanRights #SocialHousing #CostOfLiving #Election2026 #MaoriVote #NZPolitics #MaoriPolitics #Aotearoa #TeAoMaori #MaoriNews #WaateaNews #RadioWaatea
