Government makes Move On Orders Bill less shit

The Justice Select Committee recently reported back the Summary Offences (Move on Orders) Amendment Bill and there was a pleasant surprise.

I blogged about this bill earlier this year.

I said that I thought the Bill did not need to apply to apply to young people under the age of 18 because existing powers were more than sufficient.

Section 48 of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 allows the police who find an unnacompanied child or young person in a situation where physical or mental health is being, or is likely to be, impaired to take the young person and either return them home or give them to Oranga Tamariki.

The planned law change would allow a police officer, when confronted with a homeless 14 year old, to tell them they have to go somewhere else, which would probably be less safe because it would be less public.

I made submissions on this point and had the chance to appear before the Justice Select Committee. I said that the proposal was absurd and that existing powers were more than sufficient.

In particular I said:

Being homeless is a pretty strong indicator that a young person’s physical or mental health is being, or is likely to be, impaired. Police already have power to remove them and place them in the care of Oranga Tamariki. They don’t need this extra power.

The Select Committee see the issue in similar terms and have now recommended that the Bill not apply to young people. The report back stated:

During our consideration, we discussed the interaction between the provisions of the bill and the application of the Oranga Tamariki Act. We were advised that if a constable responds to a young person who is engaging in conduct under new section 8A, the constable will primarily consider the young person’s wellbeing, as specified by the Oranga Tamariki Act. Therefore, we consider that section 8A(3) as introduced is unnecessary. We recommend replacing this provision and specifying that a move-on order would only apply to a person who is aged 18 years or older.

I let out a quiet woohoo when I learned of this. Although I should not claim credit for this. A number of other submitters including former District Court Judge Tony Fitzgerald thought the same. He described the bill as being callous and said this:

I thought the very inclusion of them was emblematic of the callousness that instead of recognising that a 14-year-old begging and sleeping on the street would raise significant concerns for their care and protection, which would be the obvious pathway to take, they propose immediately progressing to a criminal justice statute and police powers”. 

Support for the bill in its original form started to unravel this week. David Seymour said “I think it’s one thing to put a liability on adults. It’s something different to put a liability on children”.

It appears that Goldsmith and National were reluctant to agree to the change. And Winston Peters said that he still wanted teenagers to be included.

And it was revealed that Act sided with Labour the Greens and Te Pati Maori to water down other provisions of the bill.

The news of the change was leaked to Radio New Zealand early this week. It looks like the leak may have come from the right.

This is further evidence of the coalition fracturing. And it shows how indifferent National and NZ First are to the plight of homeless teenagers and their willingness to punch down on them for political advantage.