justiceforallinc

Submission on the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill 2026
Position: Oppose

Justice For All is supporting and advocating for the people who live on the land of the red zone in New Brighton.

We oppose the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill in its current form.

This Bill expands Police powers beyond responding to criminal behaviour and into managing poverty, visibility, and presence in public spaces. While improving public safety is important, this proposal risks targeting vulnerable people rather than addressing the causes of public disorder.

1. The threshold for intervention is too broad

The Bill allows move-on orders for conduct described as “disruptive”, “begging”, rough sleeping, or behaviour indicating an intention to remain in a public place. These terms are subjective and create broad discretion that may be applied inconsistently.

People should not face legal consequences simply for existing in public spaces where they have nowhere else to go.

2. The Bill increases vulnerability for people experiencing homelessness

Rough sleeping and begging are indicators of hardship, not threats to public order. Including them as grounds for Police intervention risks treating homelessness as a problem to remove rather than a situation to support.

People experiencing homelessness are already more vulnerable to violence, poor health, instability, and barriers to accessing services. Move-on orders may force people to leave places they know are relatively safe, disconnect them from food services, outreach workers, and community support, and make it harder to maintain routines that support survival.

Rather than reducing harm, this Bill risks increasing it.

3. The Bill adds stress, anxiety, and fear without solving the problem

For people without stable housing, uncertainty is already constant. The possibility of being moved on, detained for personal details, fined, or ultimately facing imprisonment creates additional stress and anxiety for people who are already under significant pressure.

The threat of enforcement may also discourage people from remaining in visible places where support services can find them, pushing people into more isolated and unsafe environments.

This does not reduce homelessness — it makes homelessness harder and less visible.

4. The enforcement powers are disproportionate

The Bill allows detention to obtain personal details and creates offences carrying fines and potential imprisonment for failing to comply with an order.

These are significant consequences for behaviour that may not otherwise meet the threshold of criminal offending.

Recommendations

We recommend the Committee:

• Remove rough sleeping and begging as grounds for move-on orders.
• Tighten and clearly define terms such as “disruptive” and “breaching the peace” to reduce inconsistent application.
• Require Police to prioritise referral to housing, mental health, and community support services before issuing orders where welfare concerns exist.
• Increase investment in community-led responses, outreach services, housing support, and early intervention programmes that address the causes of public disorder rather than its visibility.
• Increase community involvement in developing local responses to public safety concerns, including input from homelessness services, local organisations, affected communities, and people with lived experience of homelessness.
• Prioritise education, engagement, and support over punishment where behaviour is linked to hardship, vulnerability, or unmet social needs.
• Introduce independent monitoring and public reporting on the use of move-on powers.
• Include a statutory review after 12 months to assess impacts on vulnerable communities and public safety outcomes.

Public safety is strengthened when communities are supported, connected, and resourced. Lasting solutions come from prevention, education, and support—not from expanding powers that risk increasing vulnerability and criminalising disadvantage.

Thank you for considering our submission.