News
Jill Hawkey is Executive Director of CMM and spokesperson for the Doors to Dignity campaign.
OPINION: In cities across New Zealand and beyond, a troubling trend is gaining momentum: proposals to use “move-on” legislation to ban people experiencing homelessness from public spaces.
Framed as tools to maintain public order or safety, these laws are in reality a blunt instrument that punishes poverty, displaces vulnerable people, and fails to solve the problem they claim to address.
No one wants to see people living on the streets — not the general public, the agencies tasked with supporting people who are homeless, or the people themselves.
Homelessness exposes the failure of a system that does not provide enough affordable housing or adequate access to mental health and addiction services for those in our community who have experienced trauma.
Treating homelessness as a nuisance to be swept away rather than a crisis to be solved is misguided. Move-on laws do not end homelessness; they conceal it.
These policies are typically designed to make homelessness less visible to housed residents and tourists, not to reduce its prevalence. Forcibly removing people from parks, footpaths and shopping districts pushes rough sleepers into more isolated and dangerous areas. The result is a cruel game of cat and mouse, with the most vulnerable chased from one corner of the city to another, with no destination and no support.
In Melbourne, similar anti-encampment laws proposed in 2017 met fierce backlash from legal experts and human rights advocates; the city ultimately backed down, recognising the laws were impractical and likely unlawful.
In New Zealand, advocates fear Auckland’s proposal could follow the same failed path. My organisation, the Christchurch Methodist Mission (CMM), and other social service providers worry the city is attempting to push people out of public sight without offering meaningful alternatives. This is not policy — it is abandonment.
The harms are both moral and practical. Displacement disrupts access to medical care, mental health services and community support networks. It increases the risk of violence, retraumatisation, and exposure to the elements. Frontline services have observed that move-on approaches isolate people further and push them away from the help they need.
Proposed models in New Zealand would authorise police to direct people to leave areas for up to 24 hours, with fines for non-compliance. Lowering the threshold for police intervention risks compounding harm without reducing homelessness. These are policing powers masquerading as housing policy.
The economic argument for move-on laws is equally weak. While proponents claim these laws reduce strain on public resources, the opposite is often true. Displacement leads to greater reliance on emergency services, shelters and crisis care. It contributes to long-term social costs, including poorer health outcomes, reduced employment prospects and increased demand for welfare support.
Contrast this with Housing First, the unconditional, rights-based homelessness programme CMM leads in Canterbury and Marlborough. Internationally, Housing First is considered best practice for people with complex needs.
Local evidence and international research consistently show that Housing First delivers high housing retention, improved wellbeing, and cost offsets through reduced use of crisis, health, and justice services.
Here in Ōtautahi, our Housing First service has successfully housed more than 400 people in recent years, yet we are currently supporting over 100 people who remain on a waiting list for housing.
Then there is the moral cost. What kind of society criminalises sleeping? What does it say about our values when we treat poverty as a crime and compassion as a weakness?
Contrary to Police Minister Mark Mitchell’s characterisation in July of homelessness as a lifestyle choice, it is the result of systemic failures — rising rents, stagnant wages, mental illness, domestic and family violence, and the erosion of affordable housing. Punishing people for being poor is not only ineffective; it is inhumane.
There are better ways forward. Instead of move-on powers, we need move-in policies: more public housing, tailored support services, and greater investment in prevention.
We need to listen to people with lived experience and ensure that those affected are part of the policy conversation rather than silenced by enforcement. Housing First shows what works: stability, dignity, and a pathway out of crisis.
If we truly want to end homelessness, we must stop pretending pushing people out of sight is the same as solving the problem. It is time to reject move-on laws and embrace real solutions. Dignity does not come from empty streets — it comes from full hearts, open minds, and a society that refuses to leave anyone behind.
The path forward is clear: invest in housing, not fines. Support people, do not displace them. That is how we end homelessness — not by moving people on, but by moving them in.