The New Zealand government has given police sweeping new "move on" powers to remove rough sleepers and beggars from public areas, choosing enforcement over housing policy in its response to visible homelessness.
The policy, announced by the coalition government, allows officers to issue 24-hour bans preventing individuals from returning to specific locations. It's Wellington's law-and-order approach to a social crisis, and critics say it will push vulnerable people from block to block without solving anything.
According to Stuff, the new powers enable police to direct people to leave public spaces if they're deemed to be causing a nuisance or safety concern. Those who refuse can be banned from the area for 24 hours, with repeat violations potentially leading to criminal charges.
The move comes from a coalition government led by National, with support from ACT and New Zealand First—parties that campaigned on tough-on-crime platforms and promised to address what they called deteriorating public safety and disorder in city centers.
Supporters argue the powers give police tools to deal with aggressive begging, public intoxication, and anti-social behavior that makes people feel unsafe in their own cities. They point to business owners and residents who say homelessness and begging have become more visible and concerning in recent years.
But housing advocates and social service providers say the policy is cruel and counterproductive. Moving people along doesn't solve homelessness—it just makes it someone else's problem, or pushes rough sleepers into more hidden, dangerous locations.
"Where are these people supposed to go?" asks one Wellington-based housing advocate. "We have a shortage of emergency housing, transitional housing, and affordable permanent housing. You can't arrest your way out of a housing crisis."
Mate, this is classic coalition thinking: make the problem invisible and call it solved. New Zealand has a genuine homelessness crisis, driven by housing unaffordability, inadequate mental health services, and poverty. Giving police move-on powers doesn't address any of those root causes.
The policy mirrors controversial approaches in Australia, where several states have similar move-on powers that civil liberties groups argue criminalize poverty and homelessness. Critics say these laws disproportionately target Māori and Pacific peoples, who are overrepresented among the homeless population.
New Zealand's homelessness statistics paint a grim picture. The most recent data shows thousands of people experiencing severe housing deprivation, with rough sleeping increasing in major cities. The causes are complex: soaring rents, inadequate social housing, mental health and addiction issues, and the lingering effects of the pandemic.
The coalition government's response has focused on enforcement rather than housing supply. While ministers talk about building more homes, the immediate policy response has been to give police powers to remove homeless people from sight.
Police themselves have expressed mixed views on such powers. While some officers welcome additional tools to manage public spaces, others worry they're being asked to be social workers without the training or resources. Moving on a rough sleeper doesn't connect them with housing, mental health support, or addiction services.
The 24-hour ban structure is particularly problematic. If someone is homeless in a city center, where are they supposed to go for 24 hours? The policy assumes they have somewhere else to be—an assumption that's false by definition for people sleeping rough.
Civil liberties advocates warn the powers could be used broadly, targeting not just rough sleepers but anyone deemed "undesirable" in public spaces. The language about "nuisance" and "safety concerns" is vague enough to allow significant police discretion.
There's also the question of effectiveness. International evidence suggests move-on powers don't reduce homelessness—they just disperse it. People move from one area to another, often to places with less access to services, support, or safety.
The policy reflects a political calculation by the coalition government. Visible homelessness is unpopular with voters, particularly in wealthy urban areas where rough sleeping has become more common. Moving people along creates the appearance of action, even if it doesn't solve the underlying problem.
But appearance isn't policy, and enforcement isn't a substitute for housing. New Zealand needs more emergency housing beds, more transitional housing, more affordable rental stock, and better mental health and addiction services. Move-on powers provide none of that.
Housing advocates are calling for the government to focus resources on actual solutions: building social housing, funding emergency accommodation, supporting mental health services, and addressing the structural causes of homelessness.
Instead, New Zealand is joining a growing list of countries that have chosen to criminalize poverty rather than address it. The police get new powers, rough sleepers get moved from corner to corner, and the housing crisis continues unchecked.
Mate, you can't arrest away a social crisis. New Zealand's homelessness problem needs housing policy, not police powers. This approach will make rough sleeping less visible without making it less common—and that's the point, isn't it?
