Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. Madam Chair. I’m pleased to be here for the committee of the whole House stage of the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill. The primary purpose of this bill is to amend the Summary Offences Act to provide police with an additional tool to manage public order. The bill equips police with the power to issue move-on orders to people who are behaving in a disorderly or disruptive manner in a public place. Move-on orders are a short-term tool that can be employed to disrupt and de-escalate concerning behaviours, making our public spaces and town centres more enjoyable for everyone who lives, works, and visits there. I’ll now answer your questions as best I can.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Cameron Brewer, for his opening comments. This bill we’re going through clause by clause, and so, more unusually, we have clause 1 at the beginning rather than at the end of the debate; but, as the Minister has just made some broader comments about the nature of move-on orders, my proposal would be that we make some broad comments about that and then we can talk about specific amendments and then move through the clauses, if that’s OK with the Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): That’s fine.

We’ve just had—as we’re in urgency—the second reading of the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill, and we’ve discussed a lot of the aspects of it in relation to the Justice Committee and the process associated with some of the changes there. We do have a lot that we can look at in terms of the changes that have been made. Additionally, we’ve got a number of amendments tabled by members of the House and, additionally, one Amendment Paper by the Minister, too, which will come up a little bit later.

Generally, I think one of the things that wasn’t addressed—well, by me, at least; I didn’t have the opportunity to mention it in the initial second reading that we just had—was the issue around the—and I think this will be an important point in this committee stage—the existing offences that we currently have and what the move-on orders seek to implement. It is important, I think, to look at the title of this and when we move on to the principal Act, as well, because this is an amendment to the Summary Offences Act. I think that is important to remember, because we hear again and again that this doesn’t criminalise homelessness. A lot of the stuff that the Government members have been talking to—that two Ministers have spoken to—are things that are already in the Summary Offences Act, like disorderly behaviour. The main kind of policy change of this bill is putting begging and rough sleeping into the Summary Offences Act. That allows conduct associated with them to be offences. I am interested to hear why the Minister does not consider that this allows normal behaviour associated with homelessness to be a criminal activity. That’s a kind of general question of the bill.

Also, in relation to move-on orders, we do have substantive issues—and I think it is the appropriate time to speak to it here, in clause 1—around the other initiatives that could have been put in place in order to address some of these issues. We can’t ignore the fact that we have a huge increase in homelessness in New Zealand, and there have been a number of cuts to a number of Government programmes, including the Kāinga Ora housing programme, including to community housing providers, including to emergency housing. These feed into the fact of the matter: that we have people who do not have a place to call home and are, indeed, present in our communities. And so, really, I think it will be important to go through some of the aspects around the Summary Offences Act and the existing provisions which are in place; but, generally, the new policy that is brought in by the move-on orders—and I’d be interested if the Minister agrees with this—is to bring begging and rough sleeping into the Summary Offences Act, those types of behaviour which would not be considered linked to criminal activity without other additional activity.

That is my first contribution. I do have some amendments on the title that I feel—and I think some other members do, as well—may better represent that title, but I do know that other colleagues have some general points that they would probably most appropriately make in clause 1.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to speak on the title clause. I think that my colleague Camilla Belich asked some really good questions, and I think some of these probably actually deserve a bit of attention in clause 3, as well, around whether the Act is, in fact, the best Act for this bill to fall under.

I want to focus on not the summary offences part; I want to focus on the move-on part. Orders is something we do see within the Summary Offences Act, and we see different types of orders presented in there, but I think one of the things that we’ve heard consistently throughout the committee stage, and we’ve heard submissions on this and we have yet to get clarity on what that means, is: where are we expecting people to move on to—well, to where are we expecting people to move? That’s really important, because there is a finite amount of spaces where people would be able to do that. Now, we heard from my colleague Tamatha Paul in the second reading that there is a genuine concern from community organisations that a lot of the people, and particularly vulnerable people—seniors, women, children—are concentrated in the city centre area because they are well-lit, particularly in the evenings. If they are being moved on into darker corners, into out-of-reach areas, we’re going to be seeing more harm that will be felt then, under this particular bill. My question to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Cameron Brewer, is: where are they moving on to?

But, also, if they are moving from one location to another—and we heard things around how businesses feel, and we have reiterated again and again the submissions we heard from Retail NZ, from Business New Zealand, from the Employers and Manufacturers Association, from the New Zealand Police Association, and all of those, around how they don’t support this bill. Let’s say that a person gets moved on from in front of one shop and they are now down the road, the next street over, in front of another shop; they then get moved on from in front of that shop to another street down the road. Is that what is intended for this bill? That is my second question.

I guess my third question around that is someone then needs to move them along and give them an order, and that would, again, be the responsibility of the police. Are there actually enough police resources in this case for them to be moved on from one street, then the police will follow them when they go to another street, and then the police will give them another move-on order and then they move to another street? Is that what our police really should be doing: following homeless people around to give them move-on orders? I want to ask the Minister what his thoughts are on these questions. I’m sure, depending on the Minister’s response, we will have follow-up questions.

Committee of the whole House

Look, we’ll just intersperse it here, just to break it up. The question has been put on homelessness and the point being made that homelessness and begging are not crimes. This has resulted—and we acknowledge that—in the behaviours identified in this bill being necessary to address the concerns that have been made by businesses, by stakeholders, by retail groups, and, most importantly, by members of the public about persistent public disorder affecting the safety and enjoyment of our public spaces.

I want to acknowledge all the work—and Tom Rutherford, the chair of the Justice Committee, has done that in the previous reading—and the goodwill that was found on the select committee and the number of submissions that you had to work through. I just want to highlight some of the changes that were made by the Justice Committee in its report back to this House. The definition of “begging” was clarified, changing one of the grounds for issuing a move-on order to “unreasonable begging”. Raising the minimum age of a person, which a lot submitted on as far as the proposed age, has moved up, and so a move-on order can be issued to 18-year-olds onwards. The infringement penalty has also changed for a breach of a move-on order to up to three months in prison or a fine of $1,000.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Dr Duncan Webb. Just before I do, we realise that in clause 1, with the title, there is an opportunity to set the scene, but I think we shouldn’t go too broad on the title clause itself. We’ve set the scene and there’s plenty of opportunity to talk about the other things as we work through.

💬 Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Well, the Minister just went very wide-ranging indeed.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, and, look, with these clause by clause bills, we do get a bit broad in that title clause. That happens because we want to set the scene, but we just don’t want to go on clause 1 all night.

Committee of the whole House

No, no. Certainly, we’ll have some detailed analysis of some of those other things a bit later on, but I did have one tabled amendment. There are a few amendments on the title, but there’s one in my name I thought I’d like to speak to. I think we should actually, to be fair, change the title of the bill in accordance with this suggestion, because 202 years ago a similar piece of legislation was passed. That was the Vagrancy Act 1824 in the United Kingdom. That is a bill that made not being in good employment and being vagrant on the streets and begging and being a rogue or a vagabond an offence.

Here we are. This is how much we’ve progressed. In 2026, we’re doing it again. That bill was repealed in England and Wales—it was an English Act—because it was seen as entirely outdated and inconsistent with what a modern, functioning social democratic State with a welfare system should be doing, but that’s not where we are. We’re back in 1824 making it now an offence to be a beggar and to repeatedly beg in the same place. That means you’re being subject to possible imprisonment.

I think we should just be up front about it and call this the Vagrancy Act, because that is the philosophy that this Government is adopting. It’s an early Victorian philosophy whereby people who are on the fringes of society and are unable to hold down a job for whatever reason and aren’t the well-to-do in their top hats with their hansom cabs and whatever they had in London back in the day—we can get them put into the poorhouse, which will probably be the next piece of legislation this Government would introduce if they had a chance.

I do think there’s something to be said about the retrograde nature—my point is the retrograde nature of this bill is casting us back centuries and it’s not looking forward. It’s simply saying that when there are people who are the undeserving poor, we’re going to essentially criminalise them if they don’t get out of our way, out of our sight, and out of our mind.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. My learned colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb stole a bit of my thunder there so I’ll navigate around that. I really wanted to focus on clause 1 and that title in particular.

Clause 1 provides that the Act will be known as the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Act 2026. While that title highlights the creation of move-on orders, the bill actually does a lot more than that. It creates a power to detain a person when an order is issued or served, it requires the provision of biographical information, and it establishes new criminal offences and also creates penalties for non-compliance. Then there are also new reporting and review requirements in there as well.

I suppose that titles do matter, because often they’re the first indication to the public of what the legislation actually does. In this case, the title focuses on the move-on order itself rather than the broader enforcement powers and offence regime that accompanies it. I was just wondering if the Minister could explain why the title is actually being limited to move-on orders when the bill also creates a range of detention powers and new criminal offences. Would a broader title that encompasses a lot of those—and I know a lot of my colleagues have put in some tabled amendments to that effect that will be good to explore later on, but I just want to hear your thoughts on why we don’t make the title broader to encompass those other things that the bill does. Thank you, Madam Chair and Minister.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. The definition of a move-on order was raised. I thought I’d take members through this, and it’s for the benefit of the Parliament TV audience as well. A move-on order is a direction from police for a person to leave a specific area for up to 24 hours. It may be issued to a person engaged in disorderly, disruptive, threatening, or intimidating behaviour, unreasonably obstructing or hindering entry to a business, breaching the peace, unreasonable begging, or rough sleeping or intending to inhabit a public place.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the time has come for us to break for dinner. The committee is suspended until 7 o’clock. We will resume.

Sitting suspended from 5.55 p.m. to 7 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): Alright, members, the committee is resumed. When we were suspended for the dinner break, we were debating clause 1. Once again, the question is that clause 1 stand part.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just to recap where we were: one of the things is we have this, I guess, in some ways, unfortunate situation of having no parts—we’re debating this clause by clause—and the previous Chair indicated that we can talk a little bit more broadly around some of this bill as part of the title clause. So just to continue on from some of the conversations we had before the dinner break with the Minister in the chair, the Hon Cameron Brewer.

We had some of the responses from the Minister regarding some of the aspects of the move-on orders. I know that we’re going to be discussing the in-depth details of clause 4 and 5 at a later date, but one of the things I want to check with the Minister is why we have seen some changes during the select committee. And again, one of the things that wasn’t clear during the select committee stage is—and we’ve heard this from the Children’s Commissioner as well—how children will be affected. Not necessarily in terms of children being issued a move-on order, but let’s say you have a parent, you know, a mum with a young child, who happens to be finding themselves in a homeless situation: how would that work in terms of a move-on order? And I guess my question to the Minister is: has the Minister, or through conversations with advisers and the ministry, conducted a child impact statement on this bill—in particular, on what the degree or magnitude of the impact on children is and whether we are upholding our, I guess, international commitment around the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child? So I want to hear from the Minister.

Committee of the whole House

I don’t know what that question had to do with the title of the bill. The title of the bill is the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I did indicate in my earlier contribution that I did have some specific amendments I want to put to the Minister, but I wanted to talk more broadly, first, about the title. The Minister of Justice has said, repeatedly, that this bill does not criminalise homelessness. However, the title of this bill is the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill; so he can’t have it both ways, I want to ask the Minister whether, in his view, it either has offences in it—and we talked earlier about the purpose of the bill and the main policy differences that this bill has compared to the existing Summary Offences Act—or it’s something else and it’s not about offences; it’s about giving a warning. If that were the case, then you’d probably see the provisions looking a wee bit different, and you wouldn’t see—when people failed to comply with the move-on order or failed to remain in place when they were being served with a move-on order, you wouldn’t see offences there. So I wanted to know, from the Minister: which is it? Does this bill create offences, or is this bill a bill which, as the Minister has repeatedly stated, does not criminalise things like homelessness? So that’s my kind of overall question.

I did have some amendments. I do appreciate my colleague Dr Duncan Webb’s reflection on the Vagrancy Act in the UK—and I’m not sure if we have had a response to that, have we, Dr Webb?

💬 Hon Dr Duncan Webb: No. Not that I heard.

So it would be good to hear from the Minister. I don’t think that’s an irrelevant consideration because we do know that the most equivalent type of legislation that we’ve seen in place for the longest has been the Vagrancy Act in the UK, which they’ve just got rid of. And coincidentally, they have an administration, there, which is now seeking to end homelessness. A very different approach being taken by a country that we’ve often looked to. So it would be good to hear some answers from the Minister on that.

I have some amendments in my name too, that I wanted to put to the Minister, on the title. The first one is changing the name to the “Public Space Exclusion and Poverty Displacement Act”. Now, the Minister may say, well, that’s not his intention of the Act. He wants to have “Move-on Orders” on there, but this would, perhaps, assist the Minister if his contention is indeed correct, that there aren’t provisions in here which would criminalise homelessness, because it doesn’t talk about offences. Of course, we know that we are amending the Summary Offences Act—and we’ll get to that, I think, in clause 3 and the provisions that are in the Summary Offences Act—but I think that that would be, probably, an accurate title.

I think what has been a concerning aspect of this bill is that, when we look at the aspects of this bill which are unique—to remind the Minister that the main unique provisions, as far as I can see, are the provisions relating to homelessness and the provisions relating to begging—because most other provisions are either covered by a by-law or are in the Summary Offences Act. The actual reason that many people are begging or are homeless is because of poverty or sometimes it’s because of desperation or hunger, and so reflecting that in the title, I think, is apt.

I also have an amendment which actually takes the opposite approach. So the last amendment—if the Minister wanted to be consistent with his approach that it wasn’t criminalising homelessness, he could go with something that doesn’t mention “offences”, unlike the current title. If indeed, actually, after this debate, he agrees that, no, this does criminalise homelessness, and the reason it criminalises homelessness is because the actual behaviour that we’re talking about—essentially being without anywhere to live, seeking shelter, being asked to move on, not moving on because, perhaps, that’s the place that you feel safest, that’s where it’s well lit—could result, from a constable, in a move-on order. If you didn’t comply with that, that would lead to, possibly, a criminal conviction, imprisonment, or a fine.

So that seems to be looking at what a homeless person would usually do—be without a home in a public place and seek shelter; consistent with that behaviour—and then we’re seeing offence being put on top of that. So the suggestion that I have is to change it to the “Summary Offences (Criminalising Homeless) Amendment Act”.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to check with the Minister of Justice. As I mentioned in my previous contribution—and the Minister is more than happy to have a conversation with the Chair—one of the things that we were directed to is that we can talk more about some of the broader policy because it’s also what the Minister discussed under the title of this part. We’re happy to do that a little bit later, but the Minister said he wasn’t sure what my contribution had to do with the title. Now, we’re talking about move-on orders, right? Therefore, the police are going to be moving people on as a part of that order. You are going to have mums with children who are going to be the recipient of a move-on order. So I think it is important, then, to ask whether there has been, as a part of a move-on order, any child impact statement that’s been conducted. Otherwise, I think that we are going to have issues with the actual intent of this title and what the Minister is trying to achieve.

Now, I agree with my colleague Camilla Belich that the fact that this bill falls under summary offences—and we can talk more about that in clause 3—is problematic because, I think, fundamentally, under summary offences, considering it then becomes an offence—that it is criminalising. And when you’re moving-on and the specific focus that we have on people—it is criminalising homelessness.

I think there’s no rational way that the Minister could, either here in this House or publicly, spin their way out of anything that’s different. I do want to check with the Minister whether the Minister would consider my tabled amendment, which is dated 16 September, 22.10.01, which actually just calls it for what it is and replaces “move-on orders” with “criminalising homelessness”.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to take the opportunity, as the former Chair noted, to traverse some of the wider principles underlying on the Act, which debate on the tile clause allows, and in particular, the whole idea of “move-on”.

I would be interested in the Minister of Justice’s reflections on how this fits in with wider Government policy. Ideally, they should be “move-in orders”, because it would be great for these people who don’t have anywhere to live to have somewhere to move into. The wider problem is that this Government hasn’t kept up with providing places for people to move into and in fact has sold off more homes than they’ve built. There’s a real challenge here. I’m just curious if this bill, the move-on orders bill, is actually part of the Government’s housing policy, which is that rather than giving people somewhere to live, they just want to move them on somewhere else where they can be homeless. It’s a real problem here.

I guess the wider issue is that we’ve seen, today, the economy go backwards, and yet part of this bill is moving people on who are impoverished. Rather than saying, “Come on and move in and have a feed.”, or “We’ll give you some support.”, you’re saying “Move on; out of sight, out of mind.” The challenge for me is to understand where this fits into a wider policy of the Government. In particular, in terms of income support—I agree that it’s unfortunate that there are people begging on our streets, because a welfare framework such as that put in by the first Labour Government should be one where people—

💬 Stuart Smith: Is that in the title?

Oh, thank you for that comment. The fact of the matter is that if you were listening to the earlier Chair, you’d understand that the title clause is one where members, particularly in a clause-by-clause debate, are entitled to traverse the wider policies underpinning the bill itself, and that’s in fact what I’m doing. I’ve forgotten—maybe I should go back to the beginning so I can catch my thread again.

The point I was trying to make is that if we had an income support system that wasn’t cutting off and limiting access to income support, we would in fact have fewer people on our streets who were begging and seeking support. Of course, one of the real challenges here is the definition of begging, and as we come to that part of the legislation, we’ll go into that in further detail. But the wider policy framework—the wider policy question—is, is this the Government’s approach to the issue of people not having enough money to buy food—that if they’re sitting in the street saying, “Can I have some money to buy some food?”, then the answer is not to give them the money from State to support, and not even to allow other people to give them that support, but rather to prohibit them from asking them for that money?

We have a culture, in a Western tradition, where charity is actually considered a virtue—that recognising people who are in a troubled situation and saying, “From my bounty, I’m prepared to give you something to make your life a little easier.”, is considered a virtue. Yet here, in this piece of legislation, it’s considered a vice to help someone out. Someone’s on the street, and the proper response isn’t to say, “Brother, here’s some money, buy yourself some food”, or “Here is some food; eat it and be nourished.” The answer is “move on”. In terms of the policy of this bill, in terms of the begging aspect of it, I’m interested to understand from the Minister exactly why that’s the policy of the Government and—[Interruption] Mr Chair?

💬 Hon Members: Mr Chair!

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

💬 Hon Members: Mr Chair!

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): I am going to take another call, but I will say to members, I appreciate that there has been some latitude, but we are on the title. I want us to come back to that and make our contributions rather succinct if we can. We are on the title clause.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m also just noting that we have been asking questions of the Minister of Justice regarding the title, as well as, as we have mentioned before, how that title wraps into the broader questions around the policy intent. We’re still waiting on some of those conversations.

One of the questions that we did ask the previous Minister in the chair that we didn’t really get any clarity on is, when we are looking at move-on orders, the question around where they are supposed to be moved on to. Again, this is something that we heard during the select committee stage—that that move-on aspect in the title doesn’t necessarily provide clarity on distance or magnitude. I think, when we talk about some of the aspects later on, it does mention around the duration, but it doesn’t mention distance. I think this is one of the things we did hear from the Police Association around the fact that they are concerned with the lack of clarity on how they are able to apply the move-on orders as stated in the title.

I think it is important, as we are talking about the broader idea—what is the thing that we’re trying to solve? Now, the Minister did say previously that “One of the things we want to try to solve is we want to ensure that retailers are going to be OK, and there are going to be people who are disrupted.” That’s fine, but if the person is simply moved two shops down, that’s technically moved on; if the person moves three streets away, that’s technically moved on; if the person gets moved to one town over, that’s technically moved on. How are the police going to be able to look at this, because the actual intent that underpins the bill, and therefore is encapsulated in the title of this bill, isn’t quite there. I think this is something we have heard through the select committee and then through submitters, but then we just couldn’t get clarity on that.

I would be interested to hear from the Minister if the Minister is happy to provide any further clarity on, I guess, what he would consider “moving on” meant. I will leave it at that for the time being.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have some questions that I don’t think can be discussed at any other point in the debate, because they are really about the Minister of Justice’s decisions in deciding to bring this move-on orders bill to the House. They are specifically in relation to the regulatory impact statement, and I have some very specific questions that I want to ask the Minister.

Reading the regulatory impact statement, it appears that this initiative came from the Minister. The evidence I have for that is that the first line in the regulatory impact statement dated 27 November 2025 is: “The Minister of Justice is concerned about disorderly and disruptive behaviour in public places”.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: I’m not the only one.

Well, it appears that this has come from the Minister, so I want to know why was this a priority for the Minister, and when did he determine that he would like to implement a move-on orders policy? We have heard references to the Minister’s previous advocacy for this in previous roles, and I would be interested, and I think the committee would be interested, to know where the impetus for this bill, as reflected in the title, came from in respect of the Minister.

The second question I have relates to the regulatory impact statement, which states that the Ministry of Justice recommended not to implement move-on orders. They recommended keeping the status quo. However, when this went to Cabinet, the Minister—and I don’t know what Cabinet decided; I assume they agreed with the Minister. It is specifically stated in the regulatory impact statement that the Minister of Justice did not prefer the status quo, which was what was suggested by the Ministry of Justice. He did not prefer the second option, which was a narrow form of move-on order with only a $500 fee, so that would have been slightly more than the status quo but not as much as what we’ve ended up with. And he didn’t prefer the third option, which was a more broad form of move-on order that did not apply, or didn’t appear to apply, to rough sleeping and begging.

No, what the Minister chose was option No. 4, which is a broader form of move-on order that also applies to begging, rough sleeping, and activities indicating an attempt to inhabit a public place, and it has the same penalty options as option No. 3. The Minister has chosen, in bringing this bill to the House, the most extreme version of a possible move-on orders regime, and I want to know why. I think the committee deserves an explanation. Why, when the Ministry of Justice stated that they recommended the status quo and when there were three other options that would be not as extreme as what he has proposed, did he decide, in his role, to implement the harshest form of move-on orders that capture the contentious elements we have discussed, which are begging and rough sleeping?

Another question I have is about the role of the Ministerial Advisory Group for Victims of Retail Crime. We know that this group was set up by the Minister to advise on aspects of retail crime, and we know a number of suggestions that that group proposed have now been implemented by the Minister. This is kind of linked to my first question. What was the impact of that group on his decision? In the regulatory impact statement, even though this was done over a year ago—well, not quite year ago; I think it was in November 2025, but anyway it’s a significant number of months ago—it is indicated that it was done under a specific time frame, and that meant that the consultation that the Ministry of Justice was able to undertake was not at the same level or as extensive as they would otherwise want it to be. How did he consider, and what weight did he give to, the Ministerial Advisory Group for Victims of Retail Crime, as I believe that that group is not established any more and is no longer functioning. I know that some of the participants in that group who were advising it decided to withdraw from it. If he could talk to the impact that that group had on move-on orders, that would be helpful.

Those are my questions—actually, there is one other last thing. Also, just amazingly, in the regulatory impact statement, there is a statement from the Ministry of Justice that the costs of move-on orders are likely to outweigh the benefits. I want to know from the Minister why he decided to bring this bill forward when the expert evidence from the Ministry of Justice stated that the costs are likely to outweigh the benefits. We have heard from some other speakers about the division this bill is causing in the community. We heard passionate submissions to this effect—testimony of the impact of how detrimental these may be. Even if you were looking at it only in a financial sense, the advice is that the costs outweigh the benefits, so why bring this bill to the House?

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): I will remind members one final time that we are on the title clause. I’m looking for contributions related to the title.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair; thank you for picking me. I took the last call before the dinner break, and my question wasn’t answered by the Minister. Just for the benefit of the Minister in the chair currently, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, I will ask this question, which is specifically around the title, Mr Chair, so you’ll be happy about that.

As we know, clause 1 states, “This Act is the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Act 2026”. While that title highlights the creation of move-on orders, the bill actually does a lot more than that. It creates a power to detain a person while an order is issued and served. It requires the giving of biographical information, and it also establishes new criminal offences and penalties for non-compliance. There are also reporting and review requirements thrown in there.

I suppose titles do matter, because they’re often the first indication to the public of what that legislation actually does, and in this case the title focuses on just the move-on order itself, rather than the broader enforcement powers and offence regime that accompany it. I was just wondering if the Minister would be able to explain why the title has actually been limited to move-on orders when the bill also creates detention powers and new criminal offences. I would like to know the rationale behind that. Thank you, Minister.

Committee of the whole House

There have been a number of questions asked which I will deal with in clause 3 when we’re dealing with the principal Act. In terms of the title, I called it the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill because it amends the Summary Offences Act, and it brings in a move-on orders regime to that Act.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is—

Committee of the whole House

Point of order. Thank you, Mr Temporary Chair. I’m just drawing your attention to Standing Order 137(4), which notes that a Temporary Speaker or, in committee, a Temporary Chairperson may not accept a closure motion.

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): Thank you very much, Mr Webb. I’m not actually a Temporary Speaker. I am a temporary Assistant Speaker.

Well, clearly—

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): I am an Assistant Speaker, actually, Mr Webb, so I have that jurisdiction, based on the appointment made by the Speaker and sought approval for from the House earlier this afternoon, and at that time no members had any issues with it and so it was granted. Under that I do have the approval to take closure motions, and I am proceeding. The question is that the debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 52

New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 1 changing the title to “Vagrancy Act 2026” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 52

New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “Move-on Orders” with “Relocation Orders” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 52

New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “Move-on Orders” with “Displacement Orders” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 52

New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that Scott Willis’ tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “Move-on Orders” with “Reshuffling Orders” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 52

New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “Move-on Orders” with “Public Begging Prohibition” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 52

New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): Camilla Belich’s two tabled amendments to clause 1 are out of order as not offering an objective description of the bill.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not offering an objective description of the bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 52

New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Clause 2 Commencement

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): Members, we now come to clause 2; clause 2 is the “Commencement”. The question is that clause 2 stand part.