What an Australian court ruling tells us about NZ’s proposed move on powers
An Australian court has ruled that evicting people experiencing homelessness from public land without alternative accommodation or reasonable notice breached fundamental human rights. We look at what that means for the Government's proposed move-on orders.
Published on April 16, 2026
A functioning human rights system benefits everyone – and it is especially important for people most affected by state power. When human rights are embedded into public decision‑making, the result is more careful, more transparent, and more humane.
As the New Zealand Government moves to expand police move‑on powers, we are concerned that it will result in disproportionate use of power by authorities over people experiencing homelessness.
A recent Supreme Court decision in Queensland, Australia is illustrative. In Bobeldyk v Moreton Bay City Council, the Queensland Supreme Court found that a council breached human rights when it evicted people experiencing homelessness from public land without offering alternative accommodation or giving them enough time to find shelter.
The people affected had been lawfully living on the land under a council framework. When that framework was repealed, notices were issued and belongings removed. While the policy change itself was lawful, the Court found the way enforcement was carried out breached the applicants’ human rights.
What the Court said
The Court found the council’s actions breached several human rights protections, including:
- the right to protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
- the right to be free from unlawful interference with privacy, family, or the home, recognising that a tent or makeshift shelter can still be a “home”
- the right to property, especially where essential and sentimental items were destroyed (including the daughter’s ashes and the mother’s jewellery)
Critically, the judge found there was no justification for evicting people when accommodation could reasonably have been arranged, or at least when longer notice could have been given.
The Court noted that simply moving people on without alternatives does nothing to resolve homelessness and instead displaces it elsewhere.
Why this matters in Aotearoa New Zealand
In late February, the New Zealand Government announced plans to amend the Summary Offences Act to give police broader powers to issue move‑on orders. These proposals are being justified as a response to disruption and disorder in public spaces.
But much of the behaviour cited - disorderly conduct, obstruction, breaches of the peace - is already covered by existing law.
What would meaningfully change is police power to criminalise people who are begging, sleeping rough, or perceived to be intending to inhabit a public place.
That is where we are concerned.
The Queensland decision shows that enforcement aimed at visible poverty, rather than harmful conduct, places already vulnerable people at serious risk of rights breaches. This is especially concerning in a context where:
- housing supply is critically strained
- transitional housing is under pressure
- mental health and addiction services are overstretched
As the Court made clear, displacement without support is not a solution.
The Queensland Court rejected the idea that human rights can be set aside because problems are complex or unpopular.
Rather than creating powers to move people on from public spaces, where they are not behaving in dangerous or harmful ways, the Government should focus on delivering ongoing holistic support and permanent housing solutions. A human rights approach to housing means moving forward; respecting mana, self-determination, and dignity.