Published: March 27, 2026
On the 22nd of February, National MPs Paul Goldsmith and Mark Mitchell announced their breakthrough solution to homelessness: move rough sleepers on and pretend they don’t exist. It’s the perfect solution!
Their amendment to the Summary Offences Act authorises police to instruct homeless people to leave public places, without having to state why. The orders may not house anyone, but they will, according to Mitchell, build “a future where shoppers, visitors, residents and their families can feel safe in our communities.”
Under the current Act, move-on orders can be issued to those who are behaving in a “disorderly manner”. The changes proposed by Goldsmith and Mitchell will enable police to issue move-on orders to those who are “displaying disorderly, disruptive, threatening or intimidating behaviour, obstructing or impeding someone entering a business, breaching the peace, all forms of begging, rough sleeping, and behaviour indicating an intent to inhabit a public place.”
The orders apply to anyone aged 14 or over, and will require a person to leave an area for up to 24 hours, as directed by the officer.
The maximum penalty for failing to comply with a move-on order is a $2,000 fine, or three months’ imprisonment. The same three-month sentence applies to offences such as Class B or C drugs, while a $2,000 fine is the same maximum penalty for supplying alcohol to a minor.
In other words, homelessness in public centres will soon become a crime punishable by imprisonment.
The new laws have had no shortage of opponents. According to Wellington City Mayor Andrew Little, Wellington community leaders are “united in opposition to the legislation.”
In an open letter to the Prime Minister, 21 Wellington leaders, including the mayors of Wellington, Hutt City, Upper Hutt, Porirua, and the Kapiti Coast, joined social service organisations such as Wellington City Mission, Downtown Community Ministries (DCM), and the Salvation Army, in condemning the proposal. The letter described the orders as “superficial and unhelpful”, having the potential to “cause real harm to those members of our community that are most vulnerable.” The same letter stated that “move-on orders are not welcome in this region.”
Even the government’s own ministries appear unconvinced.
An RNZ article reports that the move-on orders didn’t receive the backing of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MUHD), or the Ministry of Justice. In fact, Paul Goldsmith, Minister of Justice, told RNZ that the Ministry “hasn’t enthusiastically embraced” most of the law-and-order policies put forward by the government.
Housing Minister Chris Bishop confirmed that while MUHD was consulted on the move-on orders, it did not support them, with Bishop accepting that their concerns around “housing instability” were “completely legitimate”.
“It won’t surprise you to learn they weren’t supportive”, he admitted.
Asked about the Justice Ministry’s advice, Goldsmith said that he “could not remember” the ministry’s “preferred option”. Goldsmith encapsulated the government’s perspective by saying "they [the MoJ] pointed out a range of opinions, and the government had its view that it wanted to progress these move on orders, and that's what we're doing.”
Here’s another way to put it: the government had heard the advice, but chose to ignore it.
Move-on orders do not solve homelessness. They move it. For someone sleeping rough, being forced to move to another street corner or car park does not create housing, stability, or support. It just pushes people further out of sight, and away from the few support services they have access to.
If the government actually wanted safer and more vibrant city centres, the solution is not displacement. It’s housing. Funding for outreach services, emergency accommodation, healthcare, addiction support, and long-term housing programs are what reduce rough sleeping. Evidence-based measures, not political ideology. Support services have been saying this for years.
In short, move-on orders may make homelessness less visible, but pushing people out of sight does not create housing, stability, or safety.
If the goal of the orders was to "fix" homelessness, it falls short. But if the goal was to pretend it isn’t there, then it might just be the “perfect solution” after all.