Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has pushed back against criticism of the Summary Offences (Move-On Orders) Amendment Bill, telling RNZ's Morning Report on 15 July 2026 that the legislation is being mischaracterised. His defence came the same day the Police Association went public with concerns that the bill would cast police as front-line managers of homelessness, addiction and mental distress rather than addressing their underlying causes.

The bill, now before the Justice Committee after its referral on 27 May 2026, would give police the power to issue move-on orders to people engaging in disorderly, disruptive or threatening behaviour in public places, requiring them to leave the area and not return for a specified period. (A move-on order is a police instruction to leave a place and stay away for a set time; it does not involve arrest or charge.) The Justice 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 or offensive behaviour, assault and obstruction, property damage, and graffiti. His concern is that the move-on regime risks placing police in the role of managing the visible effects of homelessness, addiction, mental health issues, poverty, and youth vulnerability, rather than dealing with the causes behind them. The Police Association also stated that Goldsmith dismissed strong warnings from government officials about the bill, and that the government pushed ahead with move-on orders despite those official warnings. RNZ has separately reported that the legislation did not get the backing of the Housing Ministry or the Justice Ministry.

Goldsmith's argument on Morning Report was narrowly framed around what current law does and does not cover. He said existing law already addresses disorderly behaviour and intimidation, but shouting or swearing at people on the street does not meet that legal threshold. He also said lying in a sleeping bag on the ground, on a bench, or in a doorway is currently not covered by any offence, and that move-on orders would address this gap. He emphasised that the bill is not the only government response to homelessness, pointing to other measures already in place. He suggested rough sleepers subject to move-on orders might be directed toward Auckland City Mission.

That suggestion runs into a practical problem the Mission itself has identified. Auckland City Mission has 20 beds in its transitional housing facility tagged as "immediate access," and another Auckland housing provider has 45 such beds, bringing the city total to 65. None of those 65 beds can be accessed 24/7. The Mission's transitional housing 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 emergency departments, and must wait on the footpath in the dark and cold until 8am.

The broader context here is that the gap between the minister's framing and the operational reality on the ground is where the tension in this debate sits. Goldsmith is correct that there is no specific offence covering passive occupation of public space by rough sleepers, and his argument that existing disorderly behaviour thresholds do not capture swearing or shouting on the street is a matter of legal record. But the Police Association's objection is not primarily about whether the legal gap exists; it is about whether police are the right agency to fill it, and whether a move-on order can work as a meaningful intervention when the referral pathway it implies — crisis accommodation accessed during business hours — cannot operate outside those hours.

Watts's point about existing police powers is also worth weighing against the bill's scope. If officers can already act against disorderly behaviour, obstruction, property damage and graffiti, the substantive new element the bill introduces is the power to move people who are not necessarily committing any of those offences — people who may simply be present in a doorway or on a bench. Whether that is a proportionate tool for managing public space, or a mechanism that channels vulnerable people into a housing system with documented after-hours gaps, is the question the Justice Committee will have to work through as submissions come in.

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

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