Govt to empower Police to 'move on' homeless with threat of three months prison, costing taxpayer $552 per person per night; Govt adds 2,000 prison beds since election & delivers 420 new homes
Containment Governance in Fiscal Contraction Phases:
The New Zealand Case 2024–2026
Abstract
This paper examines whether recent policy developments in New Zealand (2024–2026) exhibit a coherent “containment governance” pattern characteristic of fiscal contraction phases. Containment governance is defined as a policy orientation privileging downstream enforcement, behavioural compliance, and spatial management over upstream structural redesign. Drawing on developments in public-space regulation, emergency housing, welfare compliance, youth justice, and fiscal strategy, the analysis identifies a partial but cross-domain containment signature. The paper argues that this pattern does not constitute systemic ethical collapse but reflects a transitional governance mode under fiscal constraint. The decisive test lies in longitudinal outcome metrics: whether visibility reduction translates into durable structural resolution.
________________________________________
1. Introduction
Fiscal contraction phases place governments under dual pressure: restore macroeconomic credibility while maintaining social stability. Historically, such periods generate a preference for policy instruments that are administratively immediate, politically legible, and fiscally contained (Schumpeter 1991; Streeck 2014).
The central question of this paper is:
Does New Zealand governance (2024–2026) exhibit a containment pattern consistent with fiscal consolidation logic?
The inquiry is diagnostic rather than normative. It analyses policy design signatures across domains to determine whether enforcement and compliance tools are expanding faster than upstream structural capacity.
________________________________________
2. Conceptual Framework: Containment vs Structural Governance
2.1 Systems-Theoretical Framing
Modern governance operates within differentiated systems whose stability depends on functional performance rather than rhetorical coherence (Luhmann 1995). In fiscal contraction phases, political systems often compensate for reduced redistributive capacity by increasing regulatory or enforcement density.
Legitimacy, in this context, becomes output-dependent rather than purely discursive (Habermas 1975). Where material performance is constrained, visible order may substitute for structural transformation.
2.2 Containment Governance
Containment governance is characterised by:
• Downstream enforcement expansion
• Behavioural conditionality
• Spatial or visibility management
• Discretion decentralised to frontline actors
• Fiscal neutrality priority
• Success measured by volume reduction
Containment reflects what fiscal sociology describes as “state adjustment under revenue constraint,” where coercive and administrative instruments expand relative to redistributive ones (Schumpeter 1991; Streeck 2014).
The distinction is analytical rather than moral. Most systems contain elements of both logics.
________________________________________
3. Domain Analysis (NZ 2024–2026)
3.1 Public Space and Homelessness
Proposed amendments to the Summary Offences Act granting police move-on powers reflect a shift from offence-based intervention to presence-based regulation.
From a semiotic perspective, the policy regulates visibility rather than causality. It manages spatial disturbance rather than structural housing supply.
This reflects what Peirce would describe as a shift from addressing indexical causes to regulating symbolic surfaces (Peirce 1931–1958). The interpretive signal of disorder is managed without necessarily altering the underlying housing market conditions.
Interpretation: Leaning containment.
________________________________________
3.2 Emergency Housing Reset
Policy emphasis on reducing motel use and tightening eligibility reflects a volume-management logic.
In fiscal contraction contexts, governments often convert welfare systems from entitlement frameworks into throughput systems (Streeck 2014). Administrative compression substitutes for capital expansion.
Without durable tenancy retention metrics, volume reduction risks functioning as displacement rather than resolution.
Expansion of sanctions and conditionality reflects behavioural governance.
Habermas’s concept of legitimation crisis becomes relevant here: when fiscal capacity contracts, administrative rationalisation increases, sometimes at the cost of social integration (Habermas 1975).
Containment indicators include:
• Monitoring expansion
• Compliance prioritisation
• Administrative discipline
Structural resolution would require sustained employment retention and skill acquisition.
Interpretation: Moderate containment signal.
________________________________________
3.4 Gang Legislation and Public Order
Enhanced enforcement tools emphasise visible deterrence and symbolic restoration of order.
From a systems perspective, enforcement expansion increases regulatory density without necessarily increasing integrative capacity (Luhmann 1995).
Containment elements:
• Symbolic deterrence
• Expansion of police authority
Structural test lies in long-term recidivism reduction and reintegration success.
Interpretation: Hybrid containment-order logic.
________________________________________
3.5 Fiscal Posture
Budget framing emphasises debt discipline and expenditure restraint.
Fiscal sociology identifies this as a classical contraction response: state consolidation through expenditure compression (Schumpeter 1991; Streeck 2014).
In such contexts, political systems often substitute capital-intensive structural reform with administratively cheaper regulatory instruments.
Interpretation: Structural contraction phase increasing containment probability across domains.
________________________________________
4. Cross-Domain Pattern Assessment
A containment pattern is present if at least three of the following occur simultaneously:
5. Responsibility disperses rhetorically while operational discretion centralises.
Preliminary 2026 assessment:
Indicators (1), (2), and (5) appear active.
Indicators (3) and (4) require longitudinal validation.
Thus, a partial containment pattern is visible.
________________________________________
5. Ethical Interpretation
Containment governance does not imply ethical abandonment. It reflects systemic adaptation under fiscal constraint.
However, ethical anchoring weakens when:
• Visibility reduction substitutes for causal reduction.
• Discretion expands without accountability metrics.
• Structural capacity remains static while enforcement intensifies.
Habermas warns that legitimacy deficits arise when administrative rationality outpaces social integration (Habermas 1975). Luhmann, conversely, suggests that systems stabilise through functional differentiation rather than moral coherence (Luhmann 1995).
The tension between these perspectives defines the current interpretive moment.
________________________________________
6. Longitudinal Test Criteria (2026–2028)
To determine whether the NZ case represents transitional containment or path dependency, four empirical indicators should be tracked:
• Rough sleeping rates vs move-on order frequency
• Permanent housing retention vs emergency housing reductions
• Sustained employment outcomes vs sanction rates
• Downstream justice/health cost shifts
If structural metrics improve, containment was transitional stabilisation.
If displacement metrics dominate, containment becomes systemic.
________________________________________
7. Conclusion
New Zealand governance in 2024–2026 exhibits a discernible containment signature across multiple domains during a fiscal contraction phase.
This pattern does not yet constitute doctrinal transformation but reflects design convergence under revenue constraint.
Luhmann, Niklas. 1995. Social Systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1931–1958. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. 8 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1991. “The Crisis of the Tax State.” In The Economics and Sociology of Capitalism, edited by Richard Swedberg, 99–140. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (Originally published 1918.)
Streeck, Wolfgang. 2014. Buying Time: The Delayed Crisis of Democratic Capitalism. London: Verso.
So the best economic decision is to kick homeless people out of emergency accommodation and then threaten them with prison, but do not actually send them to prison — just leave them on cold, damp streets. ??
Most likely option is Newtown, never seen any in Kelburn nor Tinakori (not many suitable shops for cheap food). Over recent summers (not this summer so far), there have been people sleeping at the Botanical Gardens at night. It was mainly women, they had suitcases and were relatively well dressed. Every now and then you might also see tents not too far from the city centre… I know of one about 1 km from the CBD - I won’t say where exactly - that’s around for at least a month now (the poor person had to fix the tent after the big southerly storm).
👍 💯 I have seen them being successfully used overseas (can't remember WHERE because I read so many odd bits & pieces, but always click on those stories 🤔) My memory goes back to them being used in Japan MANY years ago as legit accommodation for travellers (train stations adjacent?) so it's not new, but modern tech makes them more practical to move to where they are needed - eg some big car parks in the USA used to let RV's stop overnight (don't know if still do...) & there are usually undeveloped sites that could accommodate a few pods while they are vacant 🤷 Having somewhere warm & dry even just overnight is the LEAST we can aim for absent real houses ⁉️
A sliver of human decency, it is just so clinical and harsh; we need to accept there is homelessness and provide a solution. It's not ideal at all, but if we provide something it will be better than the alternative.
I thought that over all NZ - and certainly in Wellington - cooperation between Jacinda's government, the council, local Iwi, and the city mission during COVID
meant that there were *no* homeless people for a couple of years.
None.
So it's not that we don't know how to "solve" this "problem"
(of course, it's not the predominantly Māori and Pasefika homeless and insufficiently homed that are the real problem - the real problem is three million unwanted uninvited unconstitutional white setters unaccountably still here)
Fair comment, I can imagine those pods being presented as temporary, but then end up being permanent. Not ideal. We need these people to be integrated into our communities.
🤷 As the saying goes, "don't let the perfect get in the way of the good" as in this case doing BOTH is needed - long term building solutions are too far away for those sleeping on the streets & in bushes etc NOW - pods are ALREADY a proven accommodation solution for "ordinary" travellers, so why not utilise them as an interim solution IN ADDITION to other longer term solutions 🤔 I know if I somehow ended up homeless I would prefer a high tech pod overnight than the cold wet outdoors! (or as a solo female, the insecurity of being insecure 🥺)
As I walk through downtown Wellington multiple times a week (manly daytime), unlike the PM or "super-pedestrian" Nicola Willis, I can share my view on this:
"The bigger issue is like Chuck and Mary coming in for their once-in-a-lifetime trip to New Zealand on a cruise ship, walking around downtown and getting intimidated [or worse] because someone’s sitting on the doorstop of a shop..."
is a extremely unlikely scenario in Wellington, while the intimidation and potential injury from
"E-scooter injuries on the rise, young people most affected"
is significantly higher. Also in recent years, specially since Nicola Willis was talking about her fears on her "imaginary walks" through town, the police men and women have one and only one target: Poor / homeless people in the CBD. They do not show any interest about the abysmal behaviour of (mainly rental) e-scooter riders.
I got hit at least 5 times in recent months and been abused as an "obstacle" for some form of real-life Mario Brothers' race by some high school boys multiple times. Don't bother to contact the police or the council on this topic, nothing happens, the council even sent me some PR material from the rental e-scooter company instead.
Dickensian is the word. Students of welfare during the 19th century would find much familiar in this govts reactionary and moralistic views on the deserving and undeserving.
Students of welfare history will also know: these ideas didn’t work. They were never about solving problems of poverty, but instead satisfying the moral views of their supporters.
James's usual rule: it's actually *worse* than you think.
How so?
Cos under the previous govt, especially during COVID, there were no homeless people. Certainly not in Wellington. Likely not in the country, especially in winter.
So it's not that we don't know how to "solve" this - it's that we *don't want to*
If voters are so allergic to the wealthy paying more tax, would some millionaire step up? As they have offered to! How satisfying this would be for them to see real results from their contribution.
Again, a fiscally stupid government that is happy to pay twice the money.. but of course they are waving a big stick and hoping it will all just go away.
And we wont even start of what this will add to health care costs, benefits, as the homeless are criminalised.
This government are unbelievable. Doing one stupid thing after another stupid thing and it feels like such an effort to even bother protesting at this point because what can we do about it while they are in power.
Says it all really doesn't it 2000 prison beds and 420 new homes. Why do they not spend the money it would cost to put in prison to say create a Japanese pod style overnight accommodation at the very least for these homeless people. Surely there must be some empty buildings in Auckland Central that could be converted. I don't know why I am even saying this, of course this government would not want to consider anything like that, that would mean they had some compassion and long term thinking and funds to underprivileged. Goldsmith when asked where they move them to, " oh about 1km out of town" & if that doesn't work prison next, WTF.
There are people living rough all around the suburbs ( more than 100 in my local board area in Kaipatiki on the north shore) , so I am not sure where "1Km out of town" begins and ends?
Thank you for this piece, Bernard. The announcement of this measure reminded me of the UK's Public Spaces Protection Orders, and the NZ Government seems to have picked up the concept and extended it to apply to the homeless and rough sleepers - an application which is advised AGAINST in the UK's guidelines. I highly recommend this brief 2014 essay by George Monbiot, https://www.monbiot.com/2014/01/06/dead-zone/
. It is chilling that such orders can be applied to behaviours that break no laws (they are redundant if actual law-breaking occurs), but once under an order a person is criminalised if they do not comply: a process kicked off at the discretion of the police. Yet another example of this government's anti-democratic tendencies and disdain for human rights. Instead of a war on poverty we have a war on the poor.
The utter tragedy is that for some, prison will mean being fed and housed at last- and so better off than on the streets. I am ashamed to be a New Zealander
I'll add to that: I'm ashamed to be both a New Zealander, and a human being. There is nothing, nothing, I can even think of as a redeeming feature in yesterday's announcement.
But, then it struck me, if any of National, ACT, or NZ First have election street rallies, let’s demand police to 'move them on' as they a creating disorderly behaviour. Add to that list Destiny Church associated thugs storming libraries etc. I guess I can dream!
Including, moving them all at least a kilometre out to sea. Let's see them swim back. Heck, we could even raise revenue by selling the television rights. Win/win
I'm sure it will Andrew. And no doubt selectively applied, or at least with the chilling 'threat'. Would a picket line be considered a crime'. Some who are anti-union may say so. Others like me will say that this is one of the few avenues left to employees to redress the power imbalance, and as exhibit A point to a relatively strong Australian union movement and accordingly more balanced power sharing in employment relations, and some terms and conditions.
For example, the Cruelty Gang have already tried to shut down descent by Health NZ employees with their Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill, eroded workers rights, and weakened health and safety in the workplace. Imagine the damage they have planned, and all the culture wars that they will run with until the election. Unfortunately, I think they are only getting warmed up.
But as my feeble attempt at irony suggests, maybe, just maybe they may get a little taste of their own medicine. Oh, wouldn't that be delicious.
So many issues. Asking the police to undertake this "move on" policy is just asking for trouble. They have already withdrawn from mental health call outs so training and structures are not there for this to actually achieve anything constructive.
People live on the street for a multitude of reasons, but they are also not just rubbish to be swept away. Most of them are already victims of our systems and institutions, and dealing with a reluctant police and penal system are not a place of safety of healing. They are people so lets remember they are members of our society as well, lets start with seeing them as people who deserve a little bit of respect instead of criminalising their existence? We transit these spaces, but pretend they do not also exist? Look them in the eye and say hello, ask them how they are. Were any of them consulted on what might work for them or just Viv and the rentier class?
Chuck & Mary and their environment destructive cruise can FO back to where they came from. These cruise ships are not contributing a significant amount of $ to our economy for us to care more about their thin skin than about our most volunerable.
And cruise ships are a low sustainability model of tourism with low positive economic impacts and very high negative economic, social, and environmental impacts.
One assumes given it is "Chuck" and Mary - that they hail from the USA - in which case homeless people are unlikely to be something they have never experienced before!
Containment Governance in Fiscal Contraction Phases:
The New Zealand Case 2024–2026
Abstract
This paper examines whether recent policy developments in New Zealand (2024–2026) exhibit a coherent “containment governance” pattern characteristic of fiscal contraction phases. Containment governance is defined as a policy orientation privileging downstream enforcement, behavioural compliance, and spatial management over upstream structural redesign. Drawing on developments in public-space regulation, emergency housing, welfare compliance, youth justice, and fiscal strategy, the analysis identifies a partial but cross-domain containment signature. The paper argues that this pattern does not constitute systemic ethical collapse but reflects a transitional governance mode under fiscal constraint. The decisive test lies in longitudinal outcome metrics: whether visibility reduction translates into durable structural resolution.
________________________________________
1. Introduction
Fiscal contraction phases place governments under dual pressure: restore macroeconomic credibility while maintaining social stability. Historically, such periods generate a preference for policy instruments that are administratively immediate, politically legible, and fiscally contained (Schumpeter 1991; Streeck 2014).
The central question of this paper is:
Does New Zealand governance (2024–2026) exhibit a containment pattern consistent with fiscal consolidation logic?
The inquiry is diagnostic rather than normative. It analyses policy design signatures across domains to determine whether enforcement and compliance tools are expanding faster than upstream structural capacity.
________________________________________
2. Conceptual Framework: Containment vs Structural Governance
2.1 Systems-Theoretical Framing
Modern governance operates within differentiated systems whose stability depends on functional performance rather than rhetorical coherence (Luhmann 1995). In fiscal contraction phases, political systems often compensate for reduced redistributive capacity by increasing regulatory or enforcement density.
Legitimacy, in this context, becomes output-dependent rather than purely discursive (Habermas 1975). Where material performance is constrained, visible order may substitute for structural transformation.
2.2 Containment Governance
Containment governance is characterised by:
• Downstream enforcement expansion
• Behavioural conditionality
• Spatial or visibility management
• Discretion decentralised to frontline actors
• Fiscal neutrality priority
• Success measured by volume reduction
Containment reflects what fiscal sociology describes as “state adjustment under revenue constraint,” where coercive and administrative instruments expand relative to redistributive ones (Schumpeter 1991; Streeck 2014).
2.3 Structural Governance
Structural governance, by contrast, emphasises:
• Upstream causal redesign
• Capacity expansion (housing, services, infrastructure)
• Durable outcome metrics
• Institutional responsibility clarity
• Explicit trade-off acknowledgement
The distinction is analytical rather than moral. Most systems contain elements of both logics.
________________________________________
3. Domain Analysis (NZ 2024–2026)
3.1 Public Space and Homelessness
Proposed amendments to the Summary Offences Act granting police move-on powers reflect a shift from offence-based intervention to presence-based regulation.
From a semiotic perspective, the policy regulates visibility rather than causality. It manages spatial disturbance rather than structural housing supply.
This reflects what Peirce would describe as a shift from addressing indexical causes to regulating symbolic surfaces (Peirce 1931–1958). The interpretive signal of disorder is managed without necessarily altering the underlying housing market conditions.
Interpretation: Leaning containment.
________________________________________
3.2 Emergency Housing Reset
Policy emphasis on reducing motel use and tightening eligibility reflects a volume-management logic.
In fiscal contraction contexts, governments often convert welfare systems from entitlement frameworks into throughput systems (Streeck 2014). Administrative compression substitutes for capital expansion.
Without durable tenancy retention metrics, volume reduction risks functioning as displacement rather than resolution.
Interpretation: Containment-leaning unless permanent placements demonstrably increase.
________________________________________
3.3 Welfare Compliance Expansion
Expansion of sanctions and conditionality reflects behavioural governance.
Habermas’s concept of legitimation crisis becomes relevant here: when fiscal capacity contracts, administrative rationalisation increases, sometimes at the cost of social integration (Habermas 1975).
Containment indicators include:
• Monitoring expansion
• Compliance prioritisation
• Administrative discipline
Structural resolution would require sustained employment retention and skill acquisition.
Interpretation: Moderate containment signal.
________________________________________
3.4 Gang Legislation and Public Order
Enhanced enforcement tools emphasise visible deterrence and symbolic restoration of order.
From a systems perspective, enforcement expansion increases regulatory density without necessarily increasing integrative capacity (Luhmann 1995).
Containment elements:
• Symbolic deterrence
• Expansion of police authority
Structural test lies in long-term recidivism reduction and reintegration success.
Interpretation: Hybrid containment-order logic.
________________________________________
3.5 Fiscal Posture
Budget framing emphasises debt discipline and expenditure restraint.
Fiscal sociology identifies this as a classical contraction response: state consolidation through expenditure compression (Schumpeter 1991; Streeck 2014).
In such contexts, political systems often substitute capital-intensive structural reform with administratively cheaper regulatory instruments.
Interpretation: Structural contraction phase increasing containment probability across domains.
________________________________________
4. Cross-Domain Pattern Assessment
A containment pattern is present if at least three of the following occur simultaneously:
1. Enforcement tools expand faster than capacity.
2. Volume reduction metrics dominate reporting.
3. Behavioural compliance replaces capability-building emphasis.
4. Costs reappear downstream (justice, health).
5. Responsibility disperses rhetorically while operational discretion centralises.
Preliminary 2026 assessment:
Indicators (1), (2), and (5) appear active.
Indicators (3) and (4) require longitudinal validation.
Thus, a partial containment pattern is visible.
________________________________________
5. Ethical Interpretation
Containment governance does not imply ethical abandonment. It reflects systemic adaptation under fiscal constraint.
However, ethical anchoring weakens when:
• Visibility reduction substitutes for causal reduction.
• Discretion expands without accountability metrics.
• Structural capacity remains static while enforcement intensifies.
Habermas warns that legitimacy deficits arise when administrative rationality outpaces social integration (Habermas 1975). Luhmann, conversely, suggests that systems stabilise through functional differentiation rather than moral coherence (Luhmann 1995).
The tension between these perspectives defines the current interpretive moment.
________________________________________
6. Longitudinal Test Criteria (2026–2028)
To determine whether the NZ case represents transitional containment or path dependency, four empirical indicators should be tracked:
• Rough sleeping rates vs move-on order frequency
• Permanent housing retention vs emergency housing reductions
• Sustained employment outcomes vs sanction rates
• Downstream justice/health cost shifts
If structural metrics improve, containment was transitional stabilisation.
If displacement metrics dominate, containment becomes systemic.
________________________________________
7. Conclusion
New Zealand governance in 2024–2026 exhibits a discernible containment signature across multiple domains during a fiscal contraction phase.
This pattern does not yet constitute doctrinal transformation but reflects design convergence under revenue constraint.
Containment governance stabilises surfaces.
Structural governance alters load-bearing architecture.
The present moment appears transitional. Its trajectory will be determined empirically rather than rhetorically.
________________________________________
References (Chicago Author–Date)
Habermas, Jürgen. 1975. Legitimation Crisis. Boston: Beacon Press.
Luhmann, Niklas. 1995. Social Systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1931–1958. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. 8 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1991. “The Crisis of the Tax State.” In The Economics and Sociology of Capitalism, edited by Richard Swedberg, 99–140. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (Originally published 1918.)
Streeck, Wolfgang. 2014. Buying Time: The Delayed Crisis of Democratic Capitalism. London: Verso.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brought to you by Stefan Reucker (Philosophical Intelligence Institute).
PS: If you want a simple empirical test for “containment vs resolution,” track these:
Rough sleeping trend vs move-on orders count
If orders rise but rough sleeping doesn’t fall, it’s displacement.
Emergency housing motel numbers vs permanent placements
If motel numbers fall without a corresponding rise in durable housing outcomes, it’s exclusion/displacement.
Benefit sanction rates vs sustained employment exits
If sanctions rise without durable employment stability, it’s compliance pressure rather than capability-building.
Fiscal savings claimed vs downstream costs
(police time, courts, prisons, health presentations)
That’s the containment fingerprint: costs reappear downstream.
that is a lot of reading
and some is esoteric.
remember KISS
So the best economic decision is to kick homeless people out of emergency accommodation and then threaten them with prison, but do not actually send them to prison — just leave them on cold, damp streets. ??
Yep. Out of sight is the important thing.
I'll be very amused if all the homeless folk move out of sight from Courtney Place to Tinakori and Kelburn.
Most likely option is Newtown, never seen any in Kelburn nor Tinakori (not many suitable shops for cheap food). Over recent summers (not this summer so far), there have been people sleeping at the Botanical Gardens at night. It was mainly women, they had suitcases and were relatively well dressed. Every now and then you might also see tents not too far from the city centre… I know of one about 1 km from the CBD - I won’t say where exactly - that’s around for at least a month now (the poor person had to fix the tent after the big southerly storm).
Or Parnell, Herne Bay, Epsom, Remuera, Ponsonby (Ironically, in my lifetime once a blue collar working class suburb) and Botany in Auckland
Newtown, Karori, or exiled to Cannon Creek & Wainuiomata
Would it really cost so much to have dry weatherproof pods of some description? Weren't they doing this in Rotorua but the council shut it down
👍 💯 I have seen them being successfully used overseas (can't remember WHERE because I read so many odd bits & pieces, but always click on those stories 🤔) My memory goes back to them being used in Japan MANY years ago as legit accommodation for travellers (train stations adjacent?) so it's not new, but modern tech makes them more practical to move to where they are needed - eg some big car parks in the USA used to let RV's stop overnight (don't know if still do...) & there are usually undeveloped sites that could accommodate a few pods while they are vacant 🤷 Having somewhere warm & dry even just overnight is the LEAST we can aim for absent real houses ⁉️
A sliver of human decency, it is just so clinical and harsh; we need to accept there is homelessness and provide a solution. It's not ideal at all, but if we provide something it will be better than the alternative.
I thought that over all NZ - and certainly in Wellington - cooperation between Jacinda's government, the council, local Iwi, and the city mission during COVID
meant that there were *no* homeless people for a couple of years.
None.
So it's not that we don't know how to "solve" this "problem"
It's that we choose not to. abuseincare.org.nz
(of course, it's not the predominantly Māori and Pasefika homeless and insufficiently homed that are the real problem - the real problem is three million unwanted uninvited unconstitutional white setters unaccountably still here)
it is a choice society not the homeless make, we have the money and capacity as you rightly point out.
No to pods. People Need homes, not charity nor fixes.
Fair comment, I can imagine those pods being presented as temporary, but then end up being permanent. Not ideal. We need these people to be integrated into our communities.
🤷 As the saying goes, "don't let the perfect get in the way of the good" as in this case doing BOTH is needed - long term building solutions are too far away for those sleeping on the streets & in bushes etc NOW - pods are ALREADY a proven accommodation solution for "ordinary" travellers, so why not utilise them as an interim solution IN ADDITION to other longer term solutions 🤔 I know if I somehow ended up homeless I would prefer a high tech pod overnight than the cold wet outdoors! (or as a solo female, the insecurity of being insecure 🥺)
As I walk through downtown Wellington multiple times a week (manly daytime), unlike the PM or "super-pedestrian" Nicola Willis, I can share my view on this:
"The bigger issue is like Chuck and Mary coming in for their once-in-a-lifetime trip to New Zealand on a cruise ship, walking around downtown and getting intimidated [or worse] because someone’s sitting on the doorstop of a shop..."
is a extremely unlikely scenario in Wellington, while the intimidation and potential injury from
"E-scooter injuries on the rise, young people most affected"
is significantly higher. Also in recent years, specially since Nicola Willis was talking about her fears on her "imaginary walks" through town, the police men and women have one and only one target: Poor / homeless people in the CBD. They do not show any interest about the abysmal behaviour of (mainly rental) e-scooter riders.
I got hit at least 5 times in recent months and been abused as an "obstacle" for some form of real-life Mario Brothers' race by some high school boys multiple times. Don't bother to contact the police or the council on this topic, nothing happens, the council even sent me some PR material from the rental e-scooter company instead.
It would be interesting to know which schools those 'boys' go to... I bet it's not a high school in Otara.
We've tried nothing and we're fresh out of ideas. It's Dickensian.
Dickensian is the word. Students of welfare during the 19th century would find much familiar in this govts reactionary and moralistic views on the deserving and undeserving.
Students of welfare history will also know: these ideas didn’t work. They were never about solving problems of poverty, but instead satisfying the moral views of their supporters.
Can't think of any pithy guff. Just angry
James's usual rule: it's actually *worse* than you think.
How so?
Cos under the previous govt, especially during COVID, there were no homeless people. Certainly not in Wellington. Likely not in the country, especially in winter.
So it's not that we don't know how to "solve" this - it's that we *don't want to*
last sentence:
the first "we" = the current government blames the homeless for being homeless (and therefore it is not for the current government to solve)
the second "we" = the current government blames the homeless for being homeless (and therefore it is not for the current government to solve)
It raised the possibility of making people with swimming pools in Epson uncomfortable
Surely we can look at doing what Finland does?
If voters are so allergic to the wealthy paying more tax, would some millionaire step up? As they have offered to! How satisfying this would be for them to see real results from their contribution.
Again, a fiscally stupid government that is happy to pay twice the money.. but of course they are waving a big stick and hoping it will all just go away.
And we wont even start of what this will add to health care costs, benefits, as the homeless are criminalised.
Its disgusting governing.
This government are unbelievable. Doing one stupid thing after another stupid thing and it feels like such an effort to even bother protesting at this point because what can we do about it while they are in power.
the current government is believable:
National governments in NZ have always been of the rich/wealthy, by the rich/wealthy, for the rich/wealthy.
the current government is heartless and inhumane.
Insane - just give them the $$!
Says it all really doesn't it 2000 prison beds and 420 new homes. Why do they not spend the money it would cost to put in prison to say create a Japanese pod style overnight accommodation at the very least for these homeless people. Surely there must be some empty buildings in Auckland Central that could be converted. I don't know why I am even saying this, of course this government would not want to consider anything like that, that would mean they had some compassion and long term thinking and funds to underprivileged. Goldsmith when asked where they move them to, " oh about 1km out of town" & if that doesn't work prison next, WTF.
There are people living rough all around the suburbs ( more than 100 in my local board area in Kaipatiki on the north shore) , so I am not sure where "1Km out of town" begins and ends?
💯 👍 Totally agree! Already discussed the "pod style" solution before reading yours 🤗
Malevolent and inhumane regulations from this government are standard operating procedure. This is NOT us!
Thank you for explaining the economics of incompetence. How did Luxon run Air New Zealand?
By inflating middle management and slowly shrinking profits. Absolute Charlatan
Dunno but he still remembered how to pronounce the name of the inflight magazine -
but famously forgot once he was opposition leader.
Thank you for this piece, Bernard. The announcement of this measure reminded me of the UK's Public Spaces Protection Orders, and the NZ Government seems to have picked up the concept and extended it to apply to the homeless and rough sleepers - an application which is advised AGAINST in the UK's guidelines. I highly recommend this brief 2014 essay by George Monbiot, https://www.monbiot.com/2014/01/06/dead-zone/
. It is chilling that such orders can be applied to behaviours that break no laws (they are redundant if actual law-breaking occurs), but once under an order a person is criminalised if they do not comply: a process kicked off at the discretion of the police. Yet another example of this government's anti-democratic tendencies and disdain for human rights. Instead of a war on poverty we have a war on the poor.
The utter tragedy is that for some, prison will mean being fed and housed at last- and so better off than on the streets. I am ashamed to be a New Zealander
I'll add to that: I'm ashamed to be both a New Zealander, and a human being. There is nothing, nothing, I can even think of as a redeeming feature in yesterday's announcement.
But, then it struck me, if any of National, ACT, or NZ First have election street rallies, let’s demand police to 'move them on' as they a creating disorderly behaviour. Add to that list Destiny Church associated thugs storming libraries etc. I guess I can dream!
Including, moving them all at least a kilometre out to sea. Let's see them swim back. Heck, we could even raise revenue by selling the television rights. Win/win
Yes this move them on evilness would apply to rallies and protests as well as homeless.
I'm sure it will Andrew. And no doubt selectively applied, or at least with the chilling 'threat'. Would a picket line be considered a crime'. Some who are anti-union may say so. Others like me will say that this is one of the few avenues left to employees to redress the power imbalance, and as exhibit A point to a relatively strong Australian union movement and accordingly more balanced power sharing in employment relations, and some terms and conditions.
For example, the Cruelty Gang have already tried to shut down descent by Health NZ employees with their Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill, eroded workers rights, and weakened health and safety in the workplace. Imagine the damage they have planned, and all the culture wars that they will run with until the election. Unfortunately, I think they are only getting warmed up.
But as my feeble attempt at irony suggests, maybe, just maybe they may get a little taste of their own medicine. Oh, wouldn't that be delicious.
Yep. The same minister is behind this as was behind the voter suppression law. And other anti-protest legislation.
anti-protest.
anti-Māori.
white supremacist.
pro-genocide.
dissent
(in the first sentence of your second paragraph)
Me too Aunty 😔🙏
So many issues. Asking the police to undertake this "move on" policy is just asking for trouble. They have already withdrawn from mental health call outs so training and structures are not there for this to actually achieve anything constructive.
People live on the street for a multitude of reasons, but they are also not just rubbish to be swept away. Most of them are already victims of our systems and institutions, and dealing with a reluctant police and penal system are not a place of safety of healing. They are people so lets remember they are members of our society as well, lets start with seeing them as people who deserve a little bit of respect instead of criminalising their existence? We transit these spaces, but pretend they do not also exist? Look them in the eye and say hello, ask them how they are. Were any of them consulted on what might work for them or just Viv and the rentier class?
Chuck & Mary and their environment destructive cruise can FO back to where they came from. These cruise ships are not contributing a significant amount of $ to our economy for us to care more about their thin skin than about our most volunerable.
And cruise ships are a low sustainability model of tourism with low positive economic impacts and very high negative economic, social, and environmental impacts.
One assumes given it is "Chuck" and Mary - that they hail from the USA - in which case homeless people are unlikely to be something they have never experienced before!
Sadly, there have been rough sleepers and tent cities of homeless people huddled under bridges in America for decades