95bFM Tackling homelessness without move-on orders
17 June, 2026
Interview by Pranuja Tahal, adapted by Jiwan Park
The Summary Offences Amendment Bill, widely known as the Move-On Orders Bill, was issued this May. The bill aims to “[restore] law and order to keep New Zealanders safe by ensuring that the New Zealand Police has the necessary powers to maintain public order.” The concern is regarding unhoused individuals residing around city centres, supposedly engaging in dangerous behaviours, affecting people’s enjoyment of public spaces, and causing negative social and economic impacts.
The bill equips New Zealand Police with the power to remove unhoused people over the age of 14 from public spaces for up to 24 hours. In some cases they can demand a fine of up to $2,000 and the individual would face imprisonment if the fine isn’t able to be paid.
University of Auckland Senior Lecturer for the School of Engineering Dr. Timothy Welch told 95bFM’s The Wire that there is minimal evidence to back the policy.
“In reality, there’s not much evidence that supports that unhoused people are violent or have any higher rates of crime, especially in our downtowns. There’s not a clear connection between people that are visibly homeless, and crime.”
Welch said the bill effectively punishes poverty by not offering an alternative for the most vulnerable members of our community. The legislation simply moves poverty and homelessness out of view for people who aren’t comfortable seeing it. Additionally, he connected the bill to wider government decisions, funds have been cut for emergency housing, subsidised income, and frontline mental health services. He said these services are all interconnected with homelessness, and would naturally lead to an increase in the number of the homeless population.
The Wire also spoke to Aaron Hendry, youth development worker and advocate based in Auckland, about the surge of youth homelessness in Aotearoa. He said the driving factor of homelessness is poverty, which stems from the treatment of housing as a commodity rather than a protected human right.
Families have been struggling to provide their children with adequate support, and when these circumstances aren’t supported by the government they can become systemic and structural challenges. Elements such as domestic violence, mental illnesses and addiction become more prevalent, making overcoming poverty further difficult.
Welch and Hendry both mentioned the "Housing First" model as a viable solution to solving homelessness. This is an approach that considers providing shelter a priority. This ignores preconditions such as mental health and sobriety, by recognising that those issues are easier to overcome with a stable housing. This model has seen success in reversing homelessness in countries such as Finland.
However, Hendry argued that we currently lack the resources to implement the Housing First model, and government investment to increase the number of public housing services is urgent. Ensuring efficient outreach response services for youth would be the first issue to resolve. Welch says these services would also be easier for the government to provide.
“We can provide a basic level of income, a wage benefit that’s livable, and better assistance to find employment. And all those things are a much, much lower cost than Move-On orders or emergency care for people who don’t have anywhere else to go.”
In terms of the progress our current government has been making to reduce poverty — in particular youth poverty — Honorary Associate Professor at the University of Auckland Susan St John told 95bFM’s The Wire that the newly released budget process has not prioritised resolving child poverty. She stated that the government’s approach to reducing child poverty was focused on economic growth, rather than a direct intervention.
“If you’re going to get the economy growing, you need a healthy and well-supported growing young population who will contribute to the workforce.”
She criticised the government’s funding allocations. Their budget initiatives include increased accommodation support, additional state housing, and employment assistance for sole parents. St John argues that these measures would not have a meaningful impact on resolving child poverty, and a more direct approach is needed.
Each interviewee agrees that homelessness and poverty are not issues that can be resolved with enforcement. While the Move-On Order Bill aims to improve public order directly, critics claim that addressing larger issues and investing in housing and poverty reduction would result in a better outcome in the long run.
Listen to the full interview with Timothy Welch
