I back the move on orders as a business association CEO, but let’s not mistake them for a solution – Mark Knoff-Thomas
Like so much public debate today, we’ve made crime another issue where you’re expected to choose a side.
You can be tough on crime or you can be compassionate. You can demand consequences or you can talk about poverty, mental health, addiction and broken families. You can stand up for victims or worry about what happens to offenders.
It’s nonsense.
After years of dealing with crime on the ground in Newmarket, I have become convinced that the most effective approach is also the one politicians seem least comfortable articulating. We need to be considerably tougher on antisocial and criminal behaviour in the short term while also tackling the root causes over the long term.
Those things are not contradictory. In fact, one without the other is almost pointless.
That’s why I’ve been outspoken in my support for move-on orders.
When the legislation passed, critics warned it would be used to sweep society’s most vulnerable under the rug. But look at the early evidence from the frontline. In the first nine days of the new powers, police issued 29 move-on orders, leading to just a single arrest. Crucially, not a single order was issued for rough sleeping or begging.
Instead, police used a graduated approach – engaging, educating and warning first – deploying the power where it was actually needed: against disorderly, intoxicated and threatening behaviour.
That distinction is vital. A move-on order is not a criminal charge, but a tool to de-escalate. The rationale must be the person’s behaviour, not somebody’s social category.
I do not want police targeting someone simply because they are homeless, poor or look out of place. But neither can retail precincts tolerate behaviour that makes staff and customers feel unsafe. The early data shows police can be trusted to exercise discretion sensibly.
I support putting victims back at the centre of the conversation. For too long, we became so consumed by understanding offenders that we sometimes seemed to forget the shop worker being threatened, the teenager being mugged for their shoes, or the customer who stays in their car because they don’t feel safe going into a store.
Consequences matter, boundaries matter, and the visible enforcement of both matters.
But here is where I part company with some of the traditional law-and-order rhetoric. If all we do is move people on, arrest them and lock them up, we are plastering over cracks.
I see some of the same people creating problems in Newmarket day after day. Some have severe mental health problems. Others have addiction issues. Some young offenders come from homes where crime, drugs, violence or complete disengagement from education is normal.
A move-on order provides an immediate circuit-breaker to stop antisocial behaviour. But what happens after police move them on? On its own, they simply move somewhere else.
That’s why a serious crime policy must operate on two clocks.
The first runs in hours. Stop the threatening behaviour, remove the weapon, move somebody on when their behaviour warrants it, protect the victim. Restore order.
The second runs in years. Get children back into school, intervene in dysfunctional families earlier, treat addiction, rebuild mental-health services. Give offenders who can be rehabilitated education, skills, structure and a realistic path back into society.
Marking success against only one clock guarantees failure on the other.
We have become reasonably good at political announcements aimed at the first and extraordinarily good at talking about the second. What New Zealand has never managed particularly well is doing both consistently across successive governments.
Crime changes quickly. We saw ram raids surge and then recede. Now we are seeing different patterns emerge, including more weapons and increasingly brazen offending. The Government cannot spend years responding to yesterday’s problem while the problem itself evolves.
The long-term work is different. It cannot be rewritten every three years according to which political tribe occupies the Beehive. That requires something desperately unfashionable in an election year. Bipartisanship.
There should be a core set of long-term commitments around education, youth intervention, mental health, addiction and rehabilitation that survives changes of government. At the same time, governments should retain the ability to respond quickly and firmly when behaviour on our streets changes.
Call that tough on crime if you want. Call the other half compassionate. I call it governing. Because compassion without consequences can become permission. Consequences without rehabilitation simply guarantee we will be dealing with the same people again.
After years of watching this play out on the ground, I am less interested in which side of the political argument an idea belongs to. I want to see it work.
Mark Knoff-Thomas is chief executive of Newmarket Business Association and the general manager of Newmarket Security.
Catch up on the debates that dominated the week by signing up to our Opinion newsletter – a weekly round-up of our best commentary.