15 April 2026
HUD2026-009435
M Quicken
[FYI request #34073 email] Tēnā koe M
Thank you for your email dated 13 March 2026 to Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga – Ministry of Housing
and Urban Development (the Ministry) requesting the following information under the Official
Information Act 1982 (the Act):
a) Instructions provided by any of the ministers to you (ministry) relating to move-on orders
including requests for briefing.
b) Official requests / communique both to you and from you relating to move-on orders
including emails requesting data, evidence and information like attachments / appendixes.
As you may be aware, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) led the work to develop Move-on Orders
targeting disorderly behaviour in public places. During the development of this policy, MoJ sought
our feedback on their proposed policy on several occasions, as well as seeking information to
support the proposed policy.
We recently published a response to a request we received under the Act for any advice provided
to Ministers, officials, or other agencies regarding Move-on Orders, as well as any evaluation or
analysis the impact of this proposed legislation. This response has been published on our website
and can be viewed at:
www.hud.govt.nz/documents/oia-response-to-hud2022-008549-move-on-
orders. For this reason, I am refusing your request for these documents under section 18(d), on the
grounds that the information requested is publicly available.
One email, titled
RE: Cabinet paper consult MOJ - Strengthening responses to public disorder
[HUD2025-008613], has been found to be within scope of your request and is released to you with
some information withheld under the following sections of the Act:
Section of
Reason to withhold
Act
9(2)(a)
To protect the privacy of natural persons.
9(2)(g)(i)
To maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the free and frank
expression of opinions by or between or to Ministers of the Crown or
employees of the Ministry.
In terms of section 9(1) of the Act, I am satisfied that, in the circumstances, the decision to withhold
information under section 9 of the Act is not outweighed by other considerations that render it
desirable to make the information available in the public interest.
You have the right to seek an investigation and review of my response by the Ombudsman, in
accordance with section 28(3) of the Act. The relevant details can be found on the Ombudsman’s
website at:
www.ombudsman.parliament.nz. As part of our ongoing commitment to openness and transparency, the Ministry proactively
releases information and documents that may be of interest to the public. As such, this response,
with your personal details removed, may be published on our website.
Nāku noa, nā
Kate Garvie
Policy Manager Responding to Severe Housing Needs
Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga – Ministry of Housing and Urban Development
From:
Julia Minko
To:
s 9(2)(a)
Subject:
RE: Cabinet paper consult MOJ - Strengthening responses to public disorder [HUD2025-008613]
Date:
Thursday, 13 November 2025 1:37:45 pm
Attachments:
image001.png
image003.png
image005.png
image007.jpg
image009.png
image010.png
image011.png
image012.jpg
Thank you s 9(2)(a)!
From: s 9(2)(a)
@hud.govt.nz>
Sent: Thursday, 13 November 2025 1:34 pm
To: Julia Minko <[email address]>
Cc: Ministerial Service Workflow <[email address]>; Laura Miller
<[email address]>; Jeremy Steele <[email address]>; Nicole Rennie
<[email address]>; Colin Lynch <[email address]>; Bronwyn Lauten
<[email address]>
Subject: Cabinet paper consult MOJ - Strengthening responses to public disorder [HUD2025-
008613]
Kia ora Julia,
Please find below some comments on the Cab paper consult MOJ - Strengthening
responses to public disorder to support the Ministerial feedback process.
s 9(2)(g)(i)
Therefore, we have included both comments that can be
inform your response to consultation, but also questions that you may wish to ask through
consultation (depending on your preference), to help gather more information to support
Ministerial decision making.
In contrast to the paper, the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) shows that MOJ’s preferred
approach is to retain the status quo, including the ongoing implementation of social and
health sector initiatives to address disorderly behaviour. The RIS contains additional
significant information and notes that the benefits of the status quo are likely to outweigh
the costs. The option reflected in the Cabinet paper received the lowest score.
We understand that Minister Goldsmith is still considering specifically including rough
sleeping as a behaviour captured in move-on powers. If the papers are changed to reflect
this, it amplifies our concerns with these measures.
It is worth noting that the proposal in the Cabinet paper is inconsistent with the proposed
approach in the upcoming Auckland City Centre Action Plan.
Ngā mihi
Comments:
We are concerned that a lack of distinction between anti-social behaviour and
homelessness creates a risk of criminalising homelessness and could cause further
harm to people. This would be heightened by the explicit inclusion of rough sleeping and
is heightened by the inclusion of passive begging as a behaviour the people can be
moved on for.
We recommend the express exclusion of homelessness from the definition of public
disorder and other appropriate safeguards are adopted to minimise this risk of harm.
Move-on powers and other law enforcement tools are an inappropriate and ineffective
response to homelessness, which is best addressed through collaborative place-based
approaches between councils, service providers, iwi/Māori, and relevant government
agencies.
Setting move-on order breaches as a criminal offence rather than an infringement
offence and the level of fine will have much greater impacts on people experiencing
homelessness than others.
Move-on orders risk creating a new avenue for interactions with Police. This is especially
concerning for Māori as Māori are over-represented in the justice system, face increased
likelihood of prosecution and Māori youth are already three-times more likely to become
known to Police as an offender by age 14.
Questions:
1. What data on who is engaging in anti-social behaviour was used to inform this
position?
2024 Police data indicates those experiencing homelessness are often victims of crime.
This is further supported by recent Justice advice which stated actors who are not
homeless are often the ones involved in criminal behaviour and public disorder.
2. What evidence is available on the impact and effectiveness of move-on orders?
HUD is concerned about the limited evidence of the efficacy of move-on laws in Australia
and the UK, with Justice previously noting that studies have found no empirical evidence to
show that move-on powers result in reduction in crime rates.
Where available, reports show disproportionate application of move-on powers in
Australia against persons who are homeless, Indigenous, young, or mentally ill.
3. Has there been any consideration on the potential increased risk of harm as a
consequence of complying with move-on powers?
Increased likelihood of predation if rough sleepers moved on from well-lit central public
spaces (particularly at night) especially for women and young people. Alternatively, it may
lead to people who would sleep in a public place, seeking out private property (to avoid
move on orders) which could lead to criminal charges.
4. Has consideration been given to whether this addition could amount to a de facto
criminalisation of homelessness?
Creates perception that homelessness is a criminal behaviour, which may negatively
impact public opinion and ignores that most often homelessness is not a personal choice
but a result of structural and systemic system failures (poverty, housing supply, access to
healthcare and employment) and often a trigger such as family breakdown or violence,
loss of employment or income, being the victim of a crime.
5. What would constitute a reasonable excuse for breaching a move-on order?
The paper does not define what would be considered a reasonable excuse. There is
opportunity for this definition to mitigate harm by explicitly outlining survival behaviours
associated with homelessness as a reasonable excuse.
6. What safeguards and mitigations will be adopted to ensure people experiencing
homelessness will not be disproportionately targeted by move-on powers?
The paper identifies significant implications and disproportionate impact for several
vulnerable populations, including people experiencing homelessness, Māori, and youth.
What safeguards will be employed to reduce the risk of harm?
7. What safeguards and mitigations will be adopted to prevent the risk of profiling
vulnerable populations based on ‘likely’ to offend or causing anxiety to people in public
places?
Assumptions based on the person and behaviour could lead to profiling and cause further
harm through assumptions, beliefs, or other discriminations. Māori are disproportionately
severely housing deprived and experience high rates of racial discrimination.
8. What modelling has been done to compare the financial implications of move-on
powers with social responses, such as Housing First?
International evidence suggests that punitive approaches are often more expensive and
less effective than investing in housing support. Has there been any assessment of these
costs in the current fiscally constrained environment?
s 9(2)(a)
Senior Policy Advisor | Responding to Severe Housing Needs
Policy Group
s 9(2)(a)
@hud.govt.nz |
www.hud.govt.nz | L8, 7WQ, 7 Waterloo Quay, Wellington 6011 | New Zealand
Disclaimer
This email is confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have
received this email in error, then any use is strictly prohibited. Please notify us
immediately and delete all copies of this email and any attachments. Any opinions
expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the Ministry of Housing and Urban
Development.
IN-CONFIDENCE
