Submission on Move-on Orders
To: The Justice Select Committee
Submission on the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill
Submitted by PILLAR NZ (Protecting Individual Life, Liberty, and Rights)
22 June 2026
Introduction
1. PILLAR (Protecting Individual Life Liberty and Rights) is a civil liberties advocacy organisation with a mission to protect and promote New Zealand’s heritage as a free, liberal and democratic society. A focus on freedom of speech, conscience, religion, thought and inquiry, right to privacy, and the right to assembly and association, ground our vision for a free and democratic New Zealand.
2. The purpose of the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill (the bill) is to deal with disorderly and criminal behaviour in and around city centres. If left unchallenged such behaviour could reduce the public’s enjoyment of public spaces, interfere with commercial activity of local businesses, and instil a sense of fear and danger in urban areas and central business districts (CBD).
3. These concerns are fair and not unfounded. Significant media reporting has brought this issue to public attention and now to the attention of Parliament. Anecdotal experience will likely confirm the reality of disorder and danger facing CBDs across New Zealand. The negative flow-on effects on local businesses, and associated economic impacts, are logical consequences.
4. However, despite the justifications proposed for this bill, PILLAR believes that the legal mechanisms employed by this legislation, along with new powers given to Police, will fail to address the proposed problems in a meaningful way and simultaneously move to breach the civil liberties of Kiwis, setting a dangerous long-term precedent. It is one thing to successfully address the issue whilst breaching human rights, it is another to both fail to address the problem and simultaneously breach human rights!
Overview and Summary5. PILLAR opposes the bill in its current form. The objectives of reducing crime, disorder, intimidation, indecency, and disruption are legitimate and important. However, these objectives can be pursued through measures that are proportionate and respectful of civil liberties. In our view, this Bill fails to achieve that balance.
6. Our analysis of this bill concludes that this legislation wields the coercive power of the state with too little restraint and in a disproportionate manner against what is likely to be the most vulnerable people in our cities and society.
7. PILLAR is concerned with the fact that of the four options presented to him (as noted in the Regulatory Impact Statement), the Minister in charge has chosen to take the path that is most intrusive and least proportional in dealing with the issue. This legislation represents an overextension of the Government’s ‘tough on crime’ rhetoric - a noble pursuit, but dangerous when left unrestrained.
8. PILLAR, therefore, has made three key recommendations. These are noted at the end of our submission.
First Principles
9. PILLAR’s concerns regarding this bill are based on the following first principles:
a. Freedom of speech and expression
b. c. Freedom of movement and right to assembly Legal proportionality and natural justice
Analysis
Freedom of Speech
10. Although we commend protections provided for protest rights in Section 5, PILLAR is concerned with the implications of this legislation on freedom of expression more broadly, particularly because of the new definition of ‘begging’ as provided in Section 4 of the amendment legislation. This new definition, which includes expressions of speech and other conduct such as holding a sign, would give Police powers to issue move-on orders and therefore also criminally penalise those who fail to uphold the issued order. We suggest that this is an unjustified limitation on the right to expression. Our concerns also extend to the use of phrases and words such as, ‘breaching the peace’ and ‘disruptive’, on the grounds that these terms could be used to limit counter-protest rights – we are nonetheless heartened by the protections under Section 5.
11. The government should not prevent individuals from expressing their plight and need for help. Free-speech rights provide four specific protections:
• The right to speak
• The right to not speak
• The right to listen
• The right to not hear
12. Beggars have the right to express their need. The Attorney General’s Section 7 Report states that, “...the Bill limits the right to freedom of expression because move-on orders may prevent someone from begging – expressing their plight to others while seeking assistance – in a public place.” This is of concern. Here we see the Government arbitrating what speech is acceptable within society and what speech is not acceptable, measured against its own political objectives. As a matter of principle, this is a dangerous line of thinking to allow into legislative drafting and processes. It suggests the following: where speech and expression is inconvenient obstacles to the desired goals of a government, it can be supressed.
13. This is not firm foundation to place our free-speech rights upon. Traditionally, in free, liberal democracies that cherish speech rights and its consequent benefits, any restriction to expression is only accepted when there is a case of serious incitement to violence, defamation, explicit and direct harassment, or similar – not when an individual is passively expressing personal plight. If we are to penalise anything, it ought to be activity, not expression. The current wording and definition of ‘begging’ in section 4 means an acceptance of Government arbitration over the most foundational constitutional right to expression.
14. The Attorney General has suggested that there is a less intrusive way of going about this:
a. “There are less rights-infringing measures that would achieve the purpose, for example by narrowing the scope of this ground to begging that is aggressive or that interferes in the freedoms of others.” We commend this commentary and recommend that this advice be taken on board.
15. Given this Government’s decision to ban gang patches in public spaces in breach of speech and expression rights, we suggest that the provisions within this bill are yet another failure to uphold a constitutionally critical principle and set a dangerous precedent. Our concerns about poor precedent are therefore not unfounded. Restricting expression in this way establishes a dangerous precedent, enabling future administrations to compromise fundamental human rights when politically expedient.
Right to Movement and Freedom of Association
16. New Zealanders have legal protections for freedom of movement and association as established under the NZBORA Section 18. We are aware that this right applies to those whose movement is restricted and interfered with by rough sleepers, and those who intend to, or actively set up shelters, or other structures indicating an intent to inhabit the public place. The primary purpose of this bill is to protect the rights of those who are interfered with in this manner. This is understandable.
17. However, we are concerned that the legislation provides insufficient guidance as to the geographical scope of a move-on order, creating uncertainty as to how far an individual may be required to leave a particular location. As well as the restriction on movement that it imposes on someone, these orders can have severe impacts on an individual's capacity to access essential services (medical or otherwise) that may only be available in the vicinity of the area they were expelled from.
18. A less rights infringing approach can and should be pursued. For example, as suggested by the Attorney General, an alternative would be for move-on orders to require only that a person not return to the location for the purpose of resuming the conduct that gave rise to the order.
19. If this approach is not adopted, we recommend that the Bill include a provision that establishes clearer guidance on the geographical scope of a move-on order, including the distance and area from which a person may be excluded. Any such provision should require consideration of the practical consequences of displacement, including the individual's ability to access accommodation, support services, healthcare, transport, and other essential services. Such guidance would improve legal certainty and provide an important safeguard against the arbitrary or disproportionate exercise of these powers.
Natural Justice and Proportionality
20. As noted earlier, we are concerned by the fact that of the four options presented to the Minister, the most intrusive and rights-limiting option appears to have been selected. In particular, the proposed regime would permit the issuance of a move-on order, and potentially subsequent arrest or criminal liability for non-compliance, without any requirement that the underlying conduct be proven to the criminal standard.
21. We are concerned that this approach departs from fundamental principles of natural justice and proportionality. The powers conferred by the Bill risk imposing significant restrictions on individuals in circumstances where no offence has been established and where the conduct in question may not warrant such a coercive response.
22. As the Committee will be aware, the Offence and Penalty Vetting (OPV) team concluded that the use of move-on orders in this context is disproportionate to the harm sought to be addressed and is likely to create inconsistencies within the broader criminal justice framework.
23. The disproportionality of the proposal is illustrated by the penalties attached to non- compliance. As noted in the departmental advice, these penalties are comparable to those imposed for substantially more serious offending, including careless driving causing death, supplying or dealing in a Class C controlled drug, wilful damage, indecent exposure, and resisting Police. The alignment of penalties for failure to comply with a move-on order alongside offences of this nature raises serious questions as to whether the proposed sanctions are proportionate to the conduct being targeted.
24. For these reasons, we believe that the Bill, in its current form, does not strike an appropriate balance between the objective of maintaining public order and the fundamental principles of natural justice, proportionality, and restraint in the exercise of state power.
Recommendations
25. Considering the discussion and analysis above, PILLAR makes the following recommendations:
a) A reconsideration and redrafting of the definition of ‘begging’ in a manner that upholds speech rights of all kiwis and does not create a poor precedent for future Governments to become the arbiters of passive and unintrusive expression. A focus on conduct and not speech should guide our approach. If we are to penalise anything, it ought to be activity that interferes, not expression. We could, for example, narrow the scope of this ground to begging that is aggressive or that intimidates and interferes.
b) A less intrusive and rights limiting approach to the distance that someone can be expelled to. For example, it could be noted that move-on orders require only that a person not
return to the location for the purpose of resuming the conduct that gave rise to the order or, that when a move-on order is issued, appropriate consideration is given to the individuals access to essential services.
c) A reconsideration of the penalties imposed by a breach of this law to be more proportionate to the breach in question. It is appropriate to pursue substantial amendments here to ensure that move-on orders are subject to clear limits, appropriate procedural safeguards, and penalties that are proportionate to the conduct being regulated.
Conclusion
26. PILLAR approaches this legislation with a spirit of vigilance. We are, as stated, understanding of the goal being pursued here to establish safer city centres and urban areas. We are sympathetic to the needs and rights of the public, customers and small business owners whose freedom to operate, engage in economic activity, and even movement (including for customers), seem to be negatively impacted and interfered with.
27. However, we oppose this bill in its current form. We are concerned by the failure to adequately limit the coercive power of the state where there are sever threats to the civil liberates of New Zealanders. The threat to freedom of expression, movement and assembly and the disproportionate penalties imposed by this bill create dangerous legislative precedents. Of the options given to him, the Minister has chosen the most aggressive legislative path, we suggest alternative options be considered and pursued.
28. 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 this test of vigilance.