Despite wide condemnation of the proposed law by agencies with the greatest understanding of the people likely to be affected by the new law, the Bill passed its first reading in Parliament last week.
Not all retailers agree with the orders either.
Earlier this year, the Karangahape Road and Uptown business association leaders in Auckland said the orders sent the wrong message about our society.
However, the government is beating its saggy old tough on crime drum, knowing nobody likes seeing rough sleepers or beggars in public even if they are not making a fuss.
Move them out to somewhere less obvious and we can all pretend homelessness does not exist and nor does poverty, addiction, family violence and poor mental health.
The Bill, if enacted, will give police the power to issue move-on orders to not just those behaving in a disorderly, disruptive, threatening or intimidating way, but those begging or rough sleeping or attempting to inhabit a public place.
Those issued with these orders, which apply to those 14 and over, will be required to leave the public place specified in the order or move a specified distance away from that place for a specified time up to 24 hours after the issue of the order.
In March Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith was telling the public the move-on orders were being introduced so police have the power to move people on and refer them to the support services they may need.
But there is nothing in the Bill which says anything about referral to support services.
An up to $2000 fine or imprisoning someone for up to 3 months if they do not comply with a move-on order is a heavy-handed approach which the government’s own officials have shown to be out of kilter with penalties for other offences.
As the Regulatory Impact Statement says, the proposed penalty is disproportionate with other offences carrying the same penalty, including careless driving resulting in death, supplying or dealing a Class C controlled drug and wilful damage.
The Ministry of Justice and the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee recommend terms of imprisonment should be reserved for the severest offending where the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly committed the act.
New Attorney-general Chris Bishop, in his report on the Bill, found the application of move-on orders to those displaying disorderly or aggressive behaviour did not limit the right to freedom of expression.
However, when it came to begging, he took the view the Bill went too far and the scope could be narrowed to begging that was aggressive or that interfered in freedoms of others.
On the issue of freedom of movement, he considered it justified in the case of disorderly or aggressive behaviour, but not for begging or rough sleeping.
He used the example of a person who had been rough sleeping around the only shop in an area. If they were issued with a move-on order they would not be allowed to return for 24 hours but that could also mean it would prevent them being able to buy food at the shop.
Mr Bishop suggested a less rights-limiting alternative would be to require a person not return to the place for the purpose of resuming the behaviour that prompted the issuing of the order.
Good law is rarely fast law, and when a proposed law is controversial and involves limiting people’s rights, proper process is vital.
This Bill deserves more than the truncated select committee process proposed by Mr Goldsmith so the law gets over the line before the election.
The Justice Committee is already weighed down with 13 Bills.
Debate continues in Parliament on the select committee timing tomorrow, but given its attitude to date, it is hard to see the government backing down on this.
