The Law Association's Criminal Law Committee has told Parliament that the Summary Offences (Move-On Orders) Amendment Bill needs significant changes before it should go further.

The bill, currently before a select committee (a small group of MPs who examine proposed legislation in detail and invite public input), would give police the power to ask people begging or rough sleeping to move elsewhere. Refusing a move-on order would not carry a prison sentence under the bill as written — the penalty is a fine.

Julie-Anne Kincade KC, who leads the Law Association's Criminal Law Committee, told RNZ's Nine to Noon that the committee supported the intent behind the bill but felt changes were needed. Kincade said the bill should not "unfairly criminalise what is currently non-criminal behaviour."

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith defended the bill by pointing to behaviours not covered by existing move-on powers, including people shouting or swearing at others, lying in a sleeping bag, and putting up makeshift dwellings on public streets.

Kincade drew a distinction among those examples. The committee believed lying in a sleeping bag should not be criminalised, she said, unlike shouting or being aggressive, which is disruptive.

The committee raised three specific concerns about the bill's drafting.

First, there are no limits on how far a person can be asked to move. Someone issued with a move-on order could theoretically be directed to move an unspecified distance from where they are, with no maximum set in law.

Second, the committee said the current threshold for allowing police to issue a move-on order is very low and should be raised. A higher threshold would mean police would need to meet a more demanding test before using the power.

Third, the committee suggested the penalty for refusing a move-on order be raised to imprisonment. That might seem counterintuitive coming from a defence-oriented body, but the reasoning is practical. Under New Zealand's sentencing framework, a penalty of imprisonment opens the door to non-custodial sentencing options such as supervision or community work. A fine-only regime gives a sentencing judge no flexibility to impose those alternatives. By making imprisonment the maximum penalty, the committee argues, judges would gain the discretion to impose rehabilitative or community-based outcomes rather than a straightforward financial penalty that may be unenforceable against someone rough sleeping.

The committee's submission therefore pushes in two directions at once: narrowing the scope of behaviour caught by move-on orders, while widening the sentencing toolkit available to the court when orders are refused.

The broader context here is a familiar tension in summary offence legislation — that is, laws dealing with minor offences. Move-on powers sit at the intersection of public order and the rights of some of the most marginalised people in the community. The threshold question, the distance limitation gap, and the penalty structure all bear on how often the power might be used, against whom, and with what consequence for non-compliance.

Goldsmith's framing of the bill — pointing to aggressive behaviour and makeshift dwellings on public streets — suggests the government's intent is targeted at disruption and encampment rather than passive presence. But the committee's concern that lying in a sleeping bag could be caught by the bill's language goes to the breadth of the drafting and whether the legislation as written matches that narrower intent.

The select committee process is where those tensions get tested. Submissions from bodies like the Law Association's Criminal Law Committee carry weight in that process, not because they bind the committee, but because they identify drafting problems that the committee may recommend be addressed in an amended version of the bill.

The bill remains at select committee stage. Any changes to thresholds, distance limitations, or penalty provisions would need to be made through the committee's report back to Parliament or through government amendments as the legislation progresses through the House.