Begging, rough sleeping and three months in prison: officials warn penalties go too far
Friday, 5 June 2026
Penalties for breaching move-on orders are disproportionate and should not be aligned with offences such as careless driving causing death or selling Class C drugs, officials have warned.
Documents released under the Official Information Act show the Ministry of Justice raised concerns that the proposed offence and fine for breaching a move-on order were out of step with the behaviour being targeted, much of which sat below the usual criminal threshold.
The move-on order law would give police the power to tell people to leave a public place for up to 24 hours for behaviour including disorderly or intimidating conduct, obstructing access to businesses, begging, rough sleeping or behaving in a way that indicates an intent to inhabit a public place.
Breaching an order would be a criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a fine of up to $2000.
Read more:
Move-on orders may slow courts: A ‘price we are willing to pay’, Justice Minister says
Moving on: The controversial plan to shift people from Auckland city’s streets
Auckland’s homelessness has almost doubled, says council report
But officials warned the proposed penalty risked treating very different behaviour in the same way.
In agency feedback, officials noted the proposed response and penalty would be the same for “a person passively sitting in a public place” as for “a person causing a breach of the peace”, where the move-on order was being used as an alternative to arrest.
“Is it dis/proportionate to treat such seemingly distinct behaviours in the same way?” justice officials asked.
The Ministry of Social Development also supported Ministry of Justice advice that the offence and level of fine were disproportionate to the problem.
“We are pleased to note, and support MOJ’s advice that the offence created and level of fine is disproportionate to the problem, and should not be aligned with penalties for offences such as careless driving causing death, or selling Class C drugs,” MSD said.
MSD warned those most affected by the proposed fine were likely to be people with high and complex needs, who were least likely to be able to pay.
It said the fine would not create an effective deterrent and risked saddling people living on the streets with unsustainable debt.
“For those who are genuinely homeless, additional debt will also make it harder to secure housing and may discourage them from engaging with government and/or community services,” MSD said.
That could undercut the Government’s own investment in homelessness outreach services, it warned.
MSD also noted Ministry of Justice advice that imprisonment should be reserved for the most serious offending, where a person had intentionally, knowingly or recklessly committed the act.
But officials said that was not the case with the proposed move-on order breach offence, removing a key protection for individuals.
The penalty warning was part of a wider internal argument about how far the Government should go in using the criminal law to deal with public disorder, begging and rough sleeping.
Officials have also warned that the move-on orders risk effectively criminalising homelessness and that they will slow down the district courts as they deal with the breaches.
The bill enacting move on orders passed its first reading in Parliament last month and Goldsmith intends to pass the legislation before the houses rises at the end of September ahead of the election.
Earlier in the policy process, documents have revealed Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith had considered a draft Safe Streets Bill which would have created a new regime for “nuisance begging” and “nuisance obstruction of public places”.
The bill would have allowed police to direct people to leave an area for up to 96 hours if they were considered to be causing nuisance by obstructing a public place or begging. If the behaviour continued, police could issue prevention notices with more extensive requirements.
The bill also proposed offences for arranging or facilitating obstruction or begging for gain.
Its stated purpose was to improve the quality of life in cities and avoid criminalising the genuinely vulnerable.
But justice officials warned the bill was unlikely to achieve that.
They said it proposed a penalty-oriented framework for problems police considered to require health and socio-economic responses.
Officials also warned the bill was likely to raise several human rights concerns, including freedom of movement, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression.
Because of the broad nature of the bill, the number of human rights engaged and the disconnect between its stated objective and likely outcome, officials said it was likely to receive a section 7 Bill of Rights report.
And although the Safe Streets Bill was written to apply to anyone, officials said in practice it was likely to be used almost exclusively against homeless people and others who spent time on the streets.
“These proposals and the associated penalties return to a model where homelessness is effectively criminalised,” the advice said.
Officials said the penalties in the Safe Streets Bill were disproportionate to the behaviour being captured.
Breaching a direction could carry a maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a $2000 fine, while breaching a prevention notice could carry a maximum of six months’ imprisonment or a $4000 fine.
Those penalties were likely to be an ineffective deterrent, especially for homeless people, officials said.
“Homeless people are also unlikely to fully understand the law and its limitations,” the advice said.
The bill could also push begging and antisocial behaviour just outside central city areas, into inner suburbs around city centres.
Officials said any new powers should focus on behaviour, not presence, and should include exceptions so people could still access support services.
Many support services, including city missions and government agencies, are based in city centres, and it would be counterproductive to order people to leave the area where the key services to support them were located, they said.
The recommendation in August 2024 was to not progress the Safe Streets Bill and it was killed by the minister after that.
However, while the final move-on order bill no longer uses the Safe Streets Bill’s “nuisance begging” and “nuisance obstruction” structure, it still gives police powers to move people on for begging, rough sleeping and behaviour indicating an intent to inhabit a public place.
The former Attorney-General Judith Collins reported to Parliament that treating begging as a stand-alone ground for a move-on order appears inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression, and that the effect of orders issued for begging or rough sleeping appears inconsistent with freedom of movement.
The Government says move-on orders are needed to give police a faster way to respond to disorderly behaviour in public places.
Goldsmith has previously said a move-on order is not a criminal charge, and only people who breach orders will face prosecution.
“Disorderly behaviour in public places is something the Government has been concerned about since being elected,” he told The Post.
“The Government stands by the approach it has taken.”