The move-on orders legislation has passed its first reading, following a heated debate at Parliament.
About 80 people were sat in the public gallery to watch today's debate following a call to action from the Green Party.
Even though the legislation has passed its hurdle, a long debate on when the select committee has to report back on the bill has to be extended into next week.
The Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill would give police the power to issue move-on orders to people who are displaying disorderly, disruptive, threatening or intimidating behaviour.
They will also apply to people who are obstructing or impeding someone entering a business, breaching the peace, begging, rough sleeping, or displaying behaviour indicating an attempt to inhabit a public place.
After being issued with such an order, the person has to leave a specified order for up to 24 hours, and what the officer deems to be a "reasonable distance" away.
People as young as 14 would be subject to the orders.
The legislation has been heavily criticised by Opposition parties, homelessness organisations and the Police Association.
Only people who refused to follow the orders would face prosecution, and people lawfully protesting or conducting charitable or not-for-profit fundraising would be exempt.
Goldsmith said there had been "unprecedented" levels of disruption in city centres with businesses, residents, and visitors paying the price.
"Our focus is ensuring that we reclaim those streets and those town centres for the enjoyment of people who live there, who work there, who visit there," he said.
He said many "disruptive, distressing, and potentially harmful" acts could occur before police had any means of intervention, and that was what the legislation sought to change.
"You'd be hard-pressed to find anybody who lives, works, or visits our city centres that hasn't witnessed disorderly behaviour."
Goldsmith insisted there were "many tools" to help people in need, including access to the welfare system, additional Housing First homes, more funding for frontline services, and expanded wraparound support.
"It's often said, 'Oh well, what about your empathy for those who are in genuine need?' And I'd just say this: my empathy lies particularly with those New Zealanders who have put their life savings into a small business, who get up every day to do their business, to provide for their family, for their community, and for their customers.
"And they find a number of people lined up outside their businesses abusing those who come and go, and make it difficult for them to succeed, and to live, and to provide for their families. That's where my empathy lies."
'Would you like them to go sleep in a bush?'
Labour's deputy leader Carmel Sepuloni said the bill was "purely ideological" and insisted it did criminalise homelessness.
"You stand up in this House and say you're not criminalising, despite the fact if they don't move on they can be fined or they can be sentenced."
Sepuloni said it was "crazy" that the government would talk about disorderly behaviour when two of the categories that would trigger a move-on order were homelessness and begging.
"It's not nice, and it's hard when you have to explain it to your kids, but it's even worse for the people that are actually living as homeless people, because they have nowhere to lay down with a roof over their heads at night time."
Green MP Tamatha Paul said the government was misleading the public by saying it was not criminalising homelessness.
"If they comply and go home, they're not going to be charged. The minister realises they don't have a home, right? Where exactly are they supposed to move on? Should they go to your house?"
Paul was particularly aggrieved that the orders applied to people as young as 14.
"Where exactly are these kids meant to go? Would you like them to go sleep in a bush? Would you like them to go sleep under a bridge? They have nowhere to go, they have no parents, they have no responsible adults, and now they will be caught up in the justice system for the rest of their life."
Paul, who had organised to get people into the public gallery, said those watching on worked on the frontline, and urged the government to listen to them.
Jackson said Goldsmith had now "got his wish" almost 20 years later.
"Congratulations Minister Goldsmith, well done, what a political achievement," Jackson remarked sarcastically.
"Hold on to anger towards the poor long enough ... and you too can be a National Cabinet minister."
Bill gets coalition backing
National's coalition partners ACT and New Zealand First voted in favour of the bill.
ACT MP Simon Court said there had been "political gaslighting" around the bill, and all it did was equip police to deal with public disorder.
"You are denying the lived reality of young people who I've worked with, in the central city, in K Road and other business, who told me they were afraid to come to work until it was light because of the intimidation and fear they felt from people who they could identify as being regularly occupying places in public spaces," he said.
"The Greens and Labour are denying the reality of people who choose to live in urban centres, with all the enormous investments and infrastructure like City Rail Link in Auckland, we want people to come and live."
"It is returning our streets to the communities that own them, not allowing us to be intimidated and to be frightened, to just be in our own cities."
MPs debate report back timeframe
Goldsmith wanted the Justice Committee to report back on the bill by September 3.
"The reason for this slightly faster turnaround of three and a half months, rather than the usual period, is because this government wants to get on with this legislation, and have it enforced quickly, and because we believe three and a half months does provide plenty of time for full consideration of the issues," he said.
It prompted a filibuster attempt from the Opposition.
Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan argued it should be moved to September 22 - two days before the House is expected to rise before the general election on Novmeber 7.
Xu-Nan said the bill had a Section 7 report by the Attorney-General, which had found removing rough sleepers and beggars did not appear to be justified. This deserved further scrutiny, and he noted the government could have introduced it sooner, given it received a Regulatory Impact Statement in November last year.
"If they introduced something like this earlier in the year, they could in fact allow for a full six month select committee, without having to have a truncated process. Instead the bill has decided to introduce bills of a lesser significance, despite knowing something like this would have an impact and undermine our Bill of Rights."
Labour agreed the report back timeframe was too short, with Justice Committee member Duncan Webb tabling his own amendment to stop the committee from meeting while the House was sitting.
Because Parliament had to rise at 6pm, the debate on the report back date was interrupted. It means, despite the bill passing its first reading, the debate on exactly when it will next appear before the House will resume on Tuesday.
Move-on orders bill
Under the legislation, police will have the power to issue move-on orders to people 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.
• Behaviour indicating an intent to inhabit a public place.
These orders will:
• Require a person to leave a specified area for a specified amount of time, up to 24 hours.
• Require a person to move on a reasonable distance from the area, as specified by the constable.
• Apply to people aged 14 or older.
• Be issued in writing or electronically, as is operationally appropriate.
This story was first published on rnz.co.nz |  |
