Move-On Orders Legislation Needs Re-evaluation
Media Release | 22 June 2026 | FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PILLAR NZ has submitted in opposition to the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill.
While the objectives of reducing crime, disorder, intimidation, indecency, and disruption in public spaces are legitimate and important, PILLAR believes these goals can be pursued through measures that are proportionate and respectful of civil liberties.
Arian Tashakkori, Head of Operations & Donor Relationships at PILLAR, says the Bill fails to strike the appropriate balance between public order and fundamental freedoms.
"The current wording of this legislation, its associated penalties, and the new powers granted to Police will do little to address the problems it seeks to solve. At the same time, it sets a concerning precedent for New Zealanders' rights to freedom of speech and movement."
PILLAR notes that beggars and rough sleepers retain the right to express their need in public spaces. The Attorney-General's Section 7 Report states that "the Bill limits the right to freedom of expression" and that move-on orders may prevent someone from begging, thereby restricting their ability to communicate their circumstances and seek assistance.
"This is deeply concerning. The Government is effectively placing itself in the position of deciding what forms of expression are acceptable and what forms are not, measured against its own political and economic objectives."
PILLAR is also concerned that the legislation provides insufficient guidance regarding the geographical scope of a move-on order, creating uncertainty about how far an individual may be required to leave an area.
"These orders do not simply restrict movement. They can also limit access to essential services, including medical care and support services that may only be available in the vicinity of the area from which a person has been removed."
The organisation argues that the disproportionality of the proposal is reflected in the penalties attached to non-compliance. Departmental advice notes that the penalties are comparable to those imposed for substantially more serious offences, including careless driving causing death, supplying or dealing in a Class C controlled drug, wilful damage, indecent exposure, and resisting Police.
"Simply put, this legislation wields the coercive power of the state with too little restraint and in a manner that is disproportionate to the conduct it seeks to address. In practice, it is likely to have the greatest impact on some of the most vulnerable people in our cities and communities."
Tashakkori says that societies committed to liberty and democracy must exercise caution whenever expanding state powers.
"Nations that value liberty and democracy are vigilant when it comes to wielding the coercive power of the state. This Bill, in its current form, fails that test of vigilance."
PILLAR maintains that the Bill does not appropriately balance the objective of maintaining public order with the principles of natural justice, proportionality, and restraint in the exercise of state power.
"Of the four options available to him, the Minister has chosen the most intrusive and disproportionate approach. If legislation is to address the issue of rough sleepers living in public spaces, it must be carefully defined, narrowly tailored, and consistent with the rights and freedoms protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act."
"If we don't get this right, we'll have a much bigger problem on our hands."
ENDS