Move-on orders age change a good start, but still 'morally reprehensible' - city missioner

Auckland City Missioner Helen Robinson has called the proposed changes to move-on orders in New Zealand “a good start” but described the retention of the 14-year-old age threshold as “morally reprehensible.” The changes, which would raise the minimum age for move-on orders from 14 to 18, are part of the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill currently under review by Parliament’s justice committee. According to RNZ, the committee is recommending the government adopt the amendment, which would allow police to issue move-on orders to individuals engaging in disorderly behavior, begging, or rough sleeping. Youth homeless collective Manaaki Rangatahi expressed outrage over the proposed legislation, stating it would negatively affect many young people living in urban areas across Aotearoa. While acknowledging the potential benefit of excluding minors aged 14 to 18 from move-on orders, the group emphasized that the legislation should be entirely scrapped. They argue that the current version of the bill, which applies to individuals as young as 14, fails to address the root causes of homelessness and instead risks exacerbating the crisis among vulnerable youth. The bill grants police the authority to move individuals away from public spaces if they are deemed to be causing disturbances or engaging in behaviors such as begging or rough sleeping. However, critics, including youth workers, the Police Association, and Retail NZ, have urged the government to follow the justice committee’s recommendation to exclude minors under 18 from the scope of the legislation. These groups contend that the inclusion of younger individuals in the policy framework could lead to further marginalization and harm. Robinson, speaking to RNZ, echoed these sentiments, emphasizing that retaining the lower age limit would be unacceptable. She stated that the mission’s initial reaction to the proposed change was one of optimism, believing it signaled progress in addressing the needs of vulnerable youth. Yet she stressed that the legislation must be revised to remove references to begging and rough sleeping, which she views as survival behaviors rather than criminal acts. “I still find the legislation morally reprehensible,” Robinson said. “If the law proceeds with provisions targeting begging and rough sleeping, it will be both ineffective and harmful. People who are rough sleeping have no choice, it is a survival behavior. Similarly, begging is often a result of extreme financial hardship.” Robinson highlighted the lack of adequate shelter resources, noting that even in Auckland, where the mission operates 20 of 65 immediate-access beds, hundreds of people remain without shelter. She argued that the solution lies in providing emergency housing, followed by long-term support to help individuals secure stable homes and understand the reasons behind their homelessness. Danielle Marks, the Waikato regional coordinator for Manaaki Rangatahi, echoed similar concerns. She noted that there are no providers capable of housing children under 16 and warned that raising the age limit to 18 could place young people in inappropriate living conditions. Marks emphasized the importance of creating safe, youth-specific housing environments that reflect the unique experiences and needs of young people. As the debate continues, advocates stress that the focus should remain on addressing the systemic issues contributing to youth homelessness, rather than implementing punitive measures that fail to recognize the complex realities faced by those experiencing homelessness. With the justice committee’s report yet to be formally released, the government faces mounting pressure to reconsider the implications of the proposed changes.