CBD retailers have a real problem, and the government has offered them what looks like a real solution. The trouble, revealed in more than 600 pages of OIA documents, is that the government’s own officials warned the solution as designed is unlikely to work, and may not survive contact with the courts.
The move-on orders bill was sold as a tool to restore order in town centres. But Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith chose to fold begging and rough sleeping into the legislation despite explicit advice against it from the Ministry of Justice, police, and the Attorney-General. For business owners weighing whether this delivers a durable fix or a photo opportunity, the paper trail matters.
The business case is genuine
Start with what is not in dispute. Retail crime costs New Zealand roughly $2.6 billion a year, according to the government’s own Regulatory Impact Statement. The Retail NZ 2024 crime report found 58% of retail crime involved threatening behaviour and 30% involved begging outside or near premises. Around Queen Street, 91% of 102 operators surveyed believed rough sleeping and begging was harming their trade.
The enforcement picture reinforces the frustration. Police proceedings for public order offences fell from 11,289 in the year to August 2020 to 5,424 five years later, a drop of more than half. Only 61% of retail crime incidents get reported, the most common reason being businesses assume police won’t respond. That is a confidence problem as much as a crime problem, and the demand for action is legitimate.
Where officials drew the line
The documents show policy work began in 2024 with an early draft called the Safe Streets Bill, which would have created offences for nuisance begging within 10 metres of any business, ATM or vending machine. Officials advised strongly against that approach, telling Goldsmith that move-on orders “would be a more effective tool” for managing aggressive anti-social behaviour.
But the same advice set a boundary. Move-on orders could target aggressive begging, threatening behaviour and dangerous public intoxication, but “police and councils agree that move-on orders should not be used to address survival behaviours associated with homelessness, like rough sleeping, general begging, or people experiencing mental health distress.” A police policy manager noted any public nuisance legislation should be framed “in the context of alcohol harm and street disorder, not homelessness.”
The final bill announced by Goldsmith and Police Minister Mark Mitchell went further than officials advised, covering all forms of begging and rough sleeping. Orders apply to anyone aged 14 and over, last up to 24 hours, and breach carries fines of up to $2,000 or three months’ imprisonment.
Why the fix may not stick
The expert warning is the part retailers should read. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists said in February 2026 that enforcement measures of this kind do not make communities safer over time. Dr Hiran Thabrew, Chair of Tū Te Akaaka Roa, put it plainly: “Move-on orders don’t move problems on, unfortunately. They merely upend unhoused people temporarily and at great personal cost.”
International research, including clinical studies from New South Wales, points the same way, suggesting enforcement-only approaches do not reduce rough sleeping while mental health support does. If that holds here, a 24-hour order moves a person around the corner and back the next day, which is not a solution any business can build a customer strategy around.
The liability shifts, the disorder may not
Then there is the legal exposure. The Attorney-General concluded the provisions targeting begging and rough sleeping placed an unjustified limit on rights, and the Ministry of Justice raised its own concerns. Auckland Council, opposition parties, homelessness advocates and Māori organisations all opposed the bill, an unusually broad coalition against a law-and-order measure. The Select Committee was due to report back by early September 2026.
A law its own designers warned against is more likely to be unevenly enforced, legally challenged, or amended under pressure. Police who did not support the rough-sleeping provisions are unlikely to use them enthusiastically, and councils that opposed the bill will be reluctant partners in implementation. Meanwhile frontline retail staff, who already face above-average rates of threatened violence, carry the day-to-day reality regardless of what the statute says.
Business owners have been handed what looks like a win. The documents suggest the foundations are shakier than the announcement implied, and the people who said so first were the government’s own advisers.
Sources
- Documents reveal how begging and rough sleeping ended up in move-on powers despite warnings (2026-07-10)
- Regulatory Impact Statement: Strengthening responses to public disorder (2025)
- Retail NZ Retail Crime Report 2024 (2025-05)
- Criminalising homelessness and disadvantage: new move-on orders will harm vulnerable New Zealanders (2026-02-25)