This page is currently being updated. More information will be added shortly.
UCAN Submissions on Legislative Bills
UCAN is concerned that the Summary Offences (Move On Orders) Amendment Bill may disproportionately affect vulnerable people, including those experiencing homelessness, poverty, mental illness, addiction, or social exclusion.
Support over Enforcement: International human rights bodies have repeatedly stated that homelessness should be addressed through housing, healthcare, and social support rather than punitive enforcement measures.
UN Special Rapporteur: The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing has expressed concern about laws and practices that criminalise or penalise people for being homeless in public spaces.
UN Resolution 43/14: The United Nations Human Rights Council has recognised adequate housing as a fundamental human right and has encouraged governments to adopt policies that address the causes of homelessness rather than simply displacing people from public areas.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 25 states that everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living, including housing, health, and social security.
International Evidence: Evidence from countries such as Finland, Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands demonstrates that supportive approaches centred on housing, healthcare, and social services are more effective at reducing homelessness than enforcement-based approaches. In particular, Finland's "Housing First" model has been internationally recognised for significantly reducing long-term homelessness.
Move-on orders risk merely relocating vulnerable people from one place to another or entering them into the criminal justice system without addressing the underlying causes of homelessness, poverty, or social distress. Parliament should prioritise investment in housing, mental health services, addiction treatment, income support, and community-based assistance rather than measures that may further marginalise vulnerable New Zealanders.
Conclusion: We strongly disagree with and do not support this bill. Who will be helped if this bill becomes law? It will not be the New Zealanders living without a safe, warm, affordable place to live.
We support the intention of the Bill and the importance of issues raised by all speakers during the First Reading. We appreciate that this is not regarded as solely a housing bill; the questions raised intersect with mental health, criminal justice, addiction, financial hardship, and threatening domestic relationships, pointing to a range of necessary housing responses.
We hope that the deliberative approach adopted in Parliament can continue and produce a useful Act.
Learning from Inquests: As noted in the First Reading, there are fine examples of good boarding houses, examples of squalor and exploitation, and instances where boarding houses have been a deadly environment for innocent victims (including Mansfield House, Mahora House, and Loafers Lodge). Enquiries made to the Ministry of Justice suggest there have been no systematic follow-on recommendations following these inquests.
Housing Register Retention: Effective boarding houses are often transitional housing. Tenants should not have their names removed from the Housing Register when they enter into a tenancy agreement with the landlord of a boarding house.
Landlord Register Emergency Information: Tenants live in close quarters in a social environment over which they have little control, but often know when conditions are becoming dangerous. The landlord register should require:
Identification of the landlord and the physical state of the facility.
A contact person (landlord or appointee) available 24/7 for emergencies—waiting until after a long weekend is unacceptable.
An authorised contact person who can seek immediate assistance from Police or crisis services to immediately remove a resident threatening others.
Submission by: Debbie Leyland (Chair)
This submission serves as opposition to the Bill in its present form and supports withdrawing government support at the next stage of the process.
Treaty Rights: The Bill disrespects the Treaty parties and takes a very narrow approach to individual rights.
Constitutional Clarity: While some reasons for introducing the Bill are valid (there is existing confusion regarding constitutional interpretations of all Articles), the offhand and manipulative approach to these issues reflects poor governance.
Protecting Basic Rights: Parties to Article Two are often well-organised to protect their interests, but that is not the case for those relying on basic rights not derived from private property ownership.
Next Steps: We could begin to rectify this if the Select Committee recommends constructive ways of dealing with the objectives outlined in the General Policy Statement.
Inconsistent and Ill-informed: The provisions in the Bill are inconsistent with high-level policy statements. The government has failed to adequately consult Jobseekers on the practical effects of this proposal.
Achievable Objectives: Employment in suitable work generally leads to improved incomes, health, and well-being. It is plausible over the next six years to provide suitable work for ~25% of Jobseeker benefit recipients through high-value employment engagements. A public job guarantee and recognition of partners' separate personal entitlements are fundamental human rights.
Policy Contradiction: The Bill relies on communication failures and the threat of destitution to force benefit reductions rather than actively engaging with the structural issues faced by jobseekers.
Economic Reality: NZ's political economy relies on structural unemployment. Precarious tenancies and sub-baseline benefits make reliable communication with MSD difficult for jobseekers facing complex life circumstances.
High-Value Employment Engagement
Amend Social Security Act s.20:
Replace section heading with: Jobseekers support: entitlements
Add new s.20(2): "A person is entitled to be offered high-value employment engagement, including an offer of suitable employment, education or training, if the person has made a reasonable attempt to secure employment."
Reciprocity
Amend Social Security Act s.106:
Amend opening phrase to: "MSD must make people affected aware of their rights under this Act and their obligations..."
Amend Social Security Act s.139:
Add new s.139(2): "These provisions take effect when the Ministry of Social Development certifies that all obligations to notify Jobseekers have been communicated to and received by the Jobseeker."
Communication
Amend Social Security Act s.254:
Add new s.254(3): "P may also require MSD to communicate in each instance with an additional contact person."
Money Management
Delete cl.61 (new 163A) and Amend cl.67 (new 192A(3&4)) to substitute:
"Persons receiving Jobseeker support may elect to establish an agreed money management regime with MSD."
"Any sanctions involving money management and payment cards shall include a schedule of payments facilitated by MSD that cover the full costs of accommodation (including power and gas), transport, and health services, and provide sufficient cash for purchases made more efficiently in local shops and markets."
LAST DAY TO ENROLL TO VOTE IS MIDNIGHT THE 25th OCTOBER 2026
To update your details or to enroll to vote please click on the link below