Комитет парламента Новой Зеландии рекомендовал смягчить действие приказов об удалении с территории

Proposals for new move-on order powers are being led by Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith. Photo / Mark Mitchell A cross-party committee of MPs has recommended the Government weakens its controversial move-on orders, including vastly expanding the reasons someone can return to a prohibited area once they have been served the order. It comes as Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, who is leading the proposed law changes, indicated National helda differing view over move-on orders than coalition partner Act. The justice select committee, which is made up of a majority of Government MPs, also recommended lifting the age the orders could apply to from 14 to 18. The inclusion of rough sleeping and begging as actions that could be the subject of a move-on order has been a point of contention. Only 1% of public submissions to the committee supported the orders. Criticism included the moral validity of the orders, that the penalties and punishments were disproportionate to the offences and that such orders would have limited effectiveness. The proposed powers give police the ability to move people who are engaging in specific behaviour, including rough sleeping, begging or intimidating behaviour away from the area for 24 hours. A breach risks a maximum $2000 fine or up to three months’ imprisonment. The committee recommended altering the bill to raise the age to 18 because the way police respond to young people now made these new orders “unnecessary”. When police respond to an unaccompanied young person, they are required under the Oranga Tamariki Act to “consider the young person’s wellbeing”. This could include returning the young person to their parents, guardians or placing them in the custody of Oranga Tamariki. The committee also recommended narrowing the grounds for issuing a move-on order to someone who was begging to someone who was engaged in “unreasonable begging”. “In determining whether begging is unreasonable, a constable must consider the time and location of the begging, the duration of the begging and the effect of the begging on the enjoyment of public spaces by other people.” Begging is defined as requesting or demanding money, food or other goods through speech or other conduct. The committee recommended amending the definition of begging to exclude fundraising for political parties or candidates, charitable or not-for-profit fundraising and authorised busking or street performing. The committee also recommended broadening the reasons why a person could be punished if they returned to the area. The MPs recommended the bill be altered so a person would not be deemed to be committing an offence if they returned to the area they were moved on from for any reason other than to engage in specified prohibited behaviours, including unreasonable begging or disruptive or intimidating behaviour. “During our consideration, we discussed lawful reasons why a person might need to return to the area they had been moved on from. For example, a person might need to visit a medical facility or visit a shop or buy food,” the committee report said. “We consider that this provision should be amended to mitigate the unjustified limitation on freedom of movement.” The Labour Party said despite the “significant” amendments, which it “fought hard for” and “unanimously”, the bill still “unfairly targets our homeless, rough-sleeping and poorest communities”. “This bill is not clearly directed towards targeting antisocial behaviour as it purports but is targeted at some of our most at-risk populations when they are at their most vulnerable. “Begging is often undertaken when people are desperate and have no other choice but to ask for help from other in the community.” Labour said the amendments “did not go far enough” and rough sleeping and begging should be removed from the bill. “We will be proposing amendments at Committee of the Whole to this effect that we hope that parties across the House will support. “We are not a country that sees a person in need and asks them to ‘move on’. New Zealanders, as evidenced in the select committee process, are more compassionate than this bill portrays.” The Green Party said the bill criminalised homelessness and such a response to people in severe hardship was “inhumane and completely ineffective”. “The evidence overwhelmingly shows us that the solution to homelessness is to support people into suitable permanent housing. We need to trust the evidence and invest in Housing First models, sustained housing tenure and wraparound support for vulnerable communities. “This bill is not about public disorder, but rather the visibility of poverty.” In a statement, Goldsmith said National was “comfortable” with increasing the age move-on orders could apply to as that “makes sense”. “There are two changes that we’re not pleased with – particularly around the definition of begging and people being able to come back into the area for reasonable purposes. “We think that will make it harder to enforce. It’s far simpler just to have a move-on order that requires someone to leave the area and not return for 24 hours.” Goldsmith also said he was “disappointed” with Act, who he said had “chosen to align themselves with Labour and the Greens and Te Pāti Māori”. “We still intend to pass this before the election.” The Act Party said in a statement: “As this debate has gone on, it’s become clearer that we need to be tough on the behaviour, rather than the people. The changes made today mean the law is focused on antisocial behaviour, not breaching the Bill of Rights towards certain individuals, even after the behaviour has stopped.” Julia Gabel is a Wellington-based political reporter. She joined the Herald in 2020 and has most recently focused on data journalism.