Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m looking forward to discussing the Summary Offences Act with the Minister of Justice. As it states in clause 3, this is the principal Act that this amendment bill amends. It is particularly important, because there has been quite a lot of criticism of move-on orders. There are already a number of similar provisions in the Act that are allegedly replicated in this bill—and that’s what I’m interested to ask the Minister about—and that appear to be the same as what is in the move-on orders legislation. That’s apart from the rough sleeping and the homelessness.

I wanted to go through some of the sections in the Summary Offences Act and actually ask the Minister what is going to be different about the provisions which are in this amendment bill. If we look at the main areas, the Minister has focused on these a lot in terms of disorderly and disruptive behaviour, threatening, intimidating, and obstructing or impeding someone else from entering a business. If we look at the Summary Offences Act at section 3, we see that behaving in a disorderly manner is already included in there. I wanted to know from the Minister: what is the additional benefit in having that provision in the move-on orders so that people can be moved on?

Probably a fundamental question as well is: what does the Minister understand in terms of police behaviour and interaction with people? Is his understanding that, currently, the police can ask someone doing anything to move on, if they wish? Has he discussed that with the police, and does he have any information as to how effective that is? I would imagine that, in a large percentage of times that you’re asked by a police officer to stop doing something and please move on, people would comply with that without the need for this legislation. So the police already have the power to request that someone moves on.

I suppose the reason I’m raising this is that I’m sure the Minister will state that, well, one of the aspects of the policy considerations of a move-on order is that it is something short of a criminal sanction at first instance. But, of course, once a move-on order is issued, if it’s not complied with or if someone doesn’t stay in place in order to be served with a move-on order, it does then become something of a criminal conviction as well. We have that in section 3. If we look at “threatening behaviour”, we also have section 4 of the Summary Offences Act, “Offensive behaviour or language”, which exists at the moment, where we look at intimidation. In section 21 of the Summary Offences Act, we have intimidation as a factor, specifically in section 21(2). These have slightly different definitions, but they are available currently.

One of the things that I did want specifically to ask the Minister about is that we have, in the move-on orders, a desire to prevent people from stopping people from entering a business. We’ll talk about that a bit later in terms of this provision, but if we look at the equivalent provision in the Summary Offences Act, we see that section 22, “Obstructing Public Way”, is already in the Summary Offences Act. As I understand it, by-laws in some of our biggest cities, including Auckland, allow for people to be moved on without necessarily coming under the Summary Offences Act, but that’s a comparable power under the Summary Offences Act.

Then we have breaching the peace. Now, as I understand, we don’t have a provision for breaching the peace in the Summary Offences Act, but we do have a specific provision in the Crimes Act, which is the much more serious Act compared with the Summary Offences Act, where we have, in section 42, “breach of the peace” covered there. Then we look at the only other two sections I wanted to highlight in the Summary Offences Act, which were section 12, “Acts endangering safety”, and I’ve already, I think, mentioned section 22, “Obstructing Public Way”. My question to the Minister is: how did these existing provisions differ from what he’s proposing?

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. In terms of the clause here, which deals with the substance of this legislation, we’ve done this because we have a very real concern about the situation in our CBDs and market places and town squares around the country. The proposition that was being put forward by the previous speaker, Camilla Belich, was “We have all the tools we need to deal with the situation and what are you concerned about?” Of course, as is obvious to everybody that has been into our CBDs over the last few years, if that was the case, then something’s not quite right, because these behaviours are manifest throughout the community and are causing people to feel unsafe and unwelcome and uncomfortable in our town squares. The purpose of this legislation is to reclaim those areas for the benefit of those who live there and work there.

How this is different: well, of course, at the moment some of those behaviours are captured in the Summary Offences Act. The police, ultimately, have a choice between arresting somebody and going through the whole court process and establishing a level of meeting the threshold, and very little else up their sleeves—whereas this legislation introduces another tool, another option, which is to provide for an order to move on and go somewhere else. It doesn’t require arresting, it doesn’t require going to court—and, of course, given the pressures on the police, that seldom happens—so it is providing another tool to be able to deal with behaviours in a more timely fashion. Of course, it can apply to some who are above the criminal threshold, but also to some who are below the criminal threshold as well, who can be subject to a move-on order.

That’s what it does: it provides the police with an extra tool. That’s the point I’ve made, and many people have jumped up and down about this, saying, “Well, this doesn’t solve some of the deeper issues that we face.” We’ve never claimed that this legislation will solve those problems. It won’t solve homelessness, and it won’t solve all sorts of social ills; we have many other tools that are designed to do that. We don’t live in a perfect world—not every situation is dealt with perfectly, and not every problem is resolved—but we throw many resources through our welfare system and through our health system and through our mental health system and our housing systems to help those who are in need, and we will continue to invest.

There may be an argument about investing more, but what we’re dealing with here with this legislation is to provide another tool to the police to deal with those situations that they are confronted with on the streets, without necessarily having to go through an arrest and court process, which is the option primarily available at the moment.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s interesting for the Minister of Justice to say that, yes, this does provide another option—I think no one is disputing that—but if the existing options under the Summary Offences Act aren’t working, is another option going to help that situation at all?

The Minister specifically mentioned that some of the options will involve courts, and I just want to point to some of the other clauses that my colleague Camilla Belich mentioned and ask which clauses or which other offences the Minister thinks would differ or require a court process as opposed to what we are currently seeing here. Let’s give an example: if the Minister wouldn’t mind providing some guidance around section 22 of the Summary Offences Act, around “obstructing public way”, I think it would help people to understand and for there to be some form of clarity. If a person finds themselves in that situation—or indeed, for the police, if the police find themselves in that situation—how would the police choose which one of these options best suits that particular context? The Minister of Justice is the Minister in charge of this bill, and therefore the Minister is responsible. I think it is not simply an operational matter; it’s a policy matter. I think it is important for the Minister to respond to that.

My colleague Camilla Belich mentioned a few other things beyond the Summary Offences Act that may also interact with this particular bill that I think fall under the idea of which principal Act this should fall under. When we’re looking at by-laws, for example, Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland has the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013. If this bill comes into effect—we’re seeking guidance on how the choices that a police officer would have are expanded, but also how the choices for police officers in those jurisdictions with by-laws have also expanded. I want to check, as a part of a principal Act and any particular consequential Act as a result of this particular bill, whether the Minister has sought any guidance about whether this trumps existing by-laws. How does this interact with existing by-laws?

Those are my two questions: one on some examples of how, then, a police officer or person would know which selection of the different varieties under the Summary Offences Act they are going to be charged with; which one of the ones that my colleague Camilla Belich mentioned, and the Minister mentioned, requires a court process? And how does it interact with council by-laws? I gave one example, the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 in Auckland.

Committee of the whole House

Well, in answer to the first one, in terms of how the police would make a judgment as to which one to apply, I would expect the police to use their judgment in the circumstances. In terms of the second question—I’ve forgotten it.

💬 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: By-laws—by-laws and courts. How many of them go through the courts?

Well, how it relates to the by-laws: the by-laws, of course, are one of the many things that we’re not happy with the effectiveness of, because clearly, they haven’t been working effectively and haven’t been able to be made to work effectively in Auckland, for example, where we have seen many instances where people don’t feel safe moving and working. I went to a business where the young women of the office formed a walking bus to get down to the train station at 5 o’clock each night because they felt unsafe on their own. That, to me, is not acceptable in a CBD, and that’s what we’re trying to address with this interaction here.

I do want to, while I’m on my feet, refer to Amendment Paper 804, which I’m bringing to the House, in relation to begging. The bill, as it was introduced originally—

💬 Camilla Belich: That’s in the next clause.

—just sought to—

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): I’ll just remind the Minister that that is on clause 4. We’re debating clause 3, which is the principal Act.

Well, I’m getting too excited. I’m sorry about that—I’m get ahead of myself.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m not wanting to take too much more time, but I just want to respond to some of the Minister of Justice’s answer’s that he’s given around this.

Does the Minister accept—and I’ve gone through it in a lot of detail, and my colleague Lawrence Xu-Nan has as well—that apart from rough sleeping and begging, the majority of the types of behaviour that he is mentioning that he’s concerned about in this bill, which does amend the Summary Offences Act, are already included in the Summary Offences Act or other pieces of legislation? It would be helpful to know if he does accept that that is the case. Of course, it is the case that, as he said, the choices are for the police to arrest someone or do nothing. Well, the police can say to someone, “Do you know that this behaviour, if it continues, is likely to breach the Summary Offences Act?” That, to me, seems very similar to what a move-on order would be—only in oral form and with much less parliamentary time—especially around the behaviours which are already in place.

The other question I have for the Minister is: this is the Summary Offences Act; it is to provide for offences. I appreciate that they’re not the highest level of offences—we’re not talking about the Crimes Act here—but they are offences. What is the Minister’s view of an offence under the Summary Offences Act if it falls short of criminality? I think that’s also important to know.

The last question I had for the Minister is: when he talks about people forming a walking bus—and I think we have to be sensitive here not to portray the opposition to move-on orders as an opposition to safe central cities. I think everyone in this House is united in wanting people to be safe and not wanting people to feel intimidated and not wanting people to feel like they can only walk around in a walking bus. But I would infer that the reason they’re doing that is probably not because they are afraid of a homeless person but because they are more concerned about something that would actually be a crime under either the Summary Offences Act or under the Crimes Act. That is what people are generally afraid of.

I did want to ask the Minister—I’ve had it reported to me by community housing providers that rough sleepers, who will be included in the Summary Offences Act for the first time under this bill, are more likely to be the victims of crime than the perpetrators of crime. I wanted to know if the Minister was aware of that and agreed with that fact, because that does change the inclusion of rough sleepers within the Summary Offences Act—because, actually, if that statistic is correct, they’re the people we should be protecting from crime, not including in the Summary Offences Act. I would appreciate if the Minister had any thoughts he could share.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Clause 4 Section 2 amended (Interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): Members, we now come to clause 4. Clause 4 is “Section 2 amended (Interpretation)”. The question is that clause 4 stand part.