Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says a proposed law that would let police tell people to leave public spaces is being misunderstood. Speaking on RNZ's Morning Report on 15 July 2026, Goldsmith said the bill is being mischaracterised. His comments came the same day the Police Association publicly raised concerns that the bill would put police in charge of managing homelessness, addiction and mental distress, rather than fixing the causes behind them.

The bill, now being looked at by a parliamentary committee (a group of MPs who examine proposed laws and hear from the public), would give police the power to issue "move-on orders." That means police could tell someone to leave a public place and not come back for a set period of time. The committee opened public submissions on the bill on 22 May 2026. Goldsmith described it on his Facebook page as "a really proactive, preventative and targeted piece of legislation."

Police Association president Steve Watts said officers already have powers to deal with disorderly behaviour, assault, obstruction, property damage, and graffiti. His worry is that move-on orders would put police in the role of managing the visible effects of homelessness, addiction, mental health issues, poverty, and youth vulnerability, rather than dealing with what causes them. The Police Association also said Goldsmith ignored strong warnings from government officials about the bill, and that the government pushed ahead anyway. RNZ has separately reported that the Housing Ministry and the Justice Ministry both declined to back the legislation.

Goldsmith's argument on Morning Report focused on what current law does and does not cover. He said existing law already covers disorderly behaviour and intimidation, but shouting or swearing at people on the street does not meet that threshold. He also said lying in a sleeping bag on the ground, on a bench, or in a doorway is not currently an offence, and that move-on orders would fill that gap. He stressed that the bill is not the only government response to homelessness, pointing to other measures already in place. He suggested rough sleepers given move-on orders might be directed to Auckland City Mission.

That suggestion hits a practical problem the Mission itself has raised. Auckland City Mission has 20 beds set aside for immediate access in its transitional housing, and another Auckland housing provider has 45, bringing the city total to 65. None of those 65 beds can be accessed at all hours. The Mission's beds have support staff on site around the clock, but beds can only be accessed Monday to Friday, from 8:30am to 5:30pm. The Mission has reported that people are sometimes left outside its doors in the middle of the night from hospital emergency departments, and have to wait on the footpath in the dark and cold until 8am.

The broader context here is that the gap between what the minister says and what happens on the ground is where the tension in this debate sits. Goldsmith is right that there is no specific offence covering someone simply occupying a public space, like sleeping in a doorway. But the Police Association's objection is not really about whether that legal gap exists. It is about whether police are the right people to fill it, and whether a move-on order can actually help when the place someone might be sent — crisis housing that is only open during business hours — is not available at night.

Watts's point about existing police powers is also worth thinking about. If officers can already act against disorderly behaviour, obstruction, property damage and graffiti, the main new thing this bill adds is the power to move people who are not necessarily doing any of those things — people who may simply be sitting in a doorway or on a bench. Whether that is a fair tool for managing public space, or something that pushes vulnerable people into a housing system that has gaps after hours, is the question the committee will have to work through as submissions come in.

The Ministry of Justice and the Housing Ministry both declined to back the bill, according to RNZ. That two of the agencies most directly involved did not support it is a fact that will weigh on the committee process, regardless of how Goldsmith frames the bill's purpose. The committee is accepting public submissions, with no closing date yet reported.

Goldsmith has been consistent in his position: the bill is targeted, it fills a genuine gap, and it is one tool among several. Whether that holds up under scrutiny from submitters and committee members is the test ahead.