A group of homeless people sheltering under the verandah of the earthquake-prone Richmond Cottage in New Plymouth. Photo: RNZ / Robin Martin
New Plymouth councillors have voted down a move designed to clear the central city of rough sleepers.
During debate on a proposed Activities in Public Places Bylaw, first-term councillor Max Brough moved an amendment targeting the homeless camped out in the central city.
It would've prohibited anyone occupying a space in the CBD for two hours or more after the hours of darkness, unless permitted to do so.
Councillor Brough told a full council meeting there was no simple answer to the city's growing problem with rough sleepers.
"What I'm trying to do here is say, you know what, if the Government is not going to step up that we've got the ability, we've given our staff the tools, to take some action and then go after the Government for the money."
The explanatory note to the amendment outlined that if a person about to be removed from the CBD was homeless council would engage social services to find them accommodation.
If social services didn't act promptly and in a positive manner they would be seen as being in dereliction of their duties and council would claim any costs incurred from the Government.
Despite being advised the amendment was likely in breach of the Bill of Rights, Brough said it was at least an attempt do something about the issue.
"The whole thing is we have got a problem downtown and no-one is doing much about it. We are not following through, we've set some expectations that the community thought we were going to deliver on and we haven't done it."
Using the tools currently available to it, council recently gave roughsleepers notice it would confiscate and impound any bedding, personal belongings or structures found to be obstructing footpaths or entrances in the CBD.
It didn't go through with the threat citing improved behaviour from the roughsleeping community.
Brough's amendment found little favour among his fellow councillors and was voted down 8-3.
Amanda Clinton-Gohdes recognised the intent of the amendment was to provoke Government into action but said it "had no heart".
"What this amendment is doing is using those individuals who have found themselves homeless for various reasons - ie our most vulnerable - as a pawn in a game of chess against central government and it's not acceptable. This is not the way to do it."
Councillor Bali Haque said the amendment was wrong and depressed him.
"What we a doing here is dehumanising our most vulnerable people by putting in an amendment which is directed specifically at them.
"It's not enforceable. Even if you dragged people away in the middle of the night they will come back. It's not something you can slam a rule on - an illegal rule I might add - and fix the problem."
Bryan Vickery got in behind the amendment.
"I think we can have more beefed up bylaws showing our intent and we can fund the wraparound [services].
"I've been with councillor Max Brough and others looking at venues for potential wraparound services and I perceive that councillor Brough has a big heart and is philanthropic.
"So, that's how I call it and I will be supporting this going out to consultation."
An council officer's report on the new Activities in Public Places Bylaw - which brings together a number of bylaws under one umbrella - said existing provisions including the Summary Offences Act, alcohol bans and bylaws covering unruly behaviour and obstructing footpaths etc gave council the tools to deal with problems linked to rough sleepers.
Over the past five years council had received 40 complaints about people sleeping in cars and rough sleeping in the CBD was increasing.
The report said to be homeless was to be "excluded from one of our basic human rights, the right to adequate shelter" and rough sleeping was a complex issue requiring local and central government and local community and local service provider input.
"People sleeping rough are drawn to highly visible public spaces for their own safety and well-being, and they experience a wide range of barriers to accessing support."
Rough sleeping itself was not prohibited under existing bylaws and it was not proposed to ban it under the new bylaw.
The report warned tougher action on roughsleepers risked being in breach of the Bill of Rights Act.
"Case law demonstrates there are limitations to using punitive measures for issues of homelessness and rough sleeping and council may risk litigation if it seeks to consider rough sleeping as an antisocial/offensive behaviour."
It recommended a non-regulatory approach was taken to managing homelessness and rough sleeping and pointed out council was working with local service providers and government agencies to look at options for support and accommodation for rough sleepers.
Councillors voted to put the proposed Activities in Public Spaces Bylaw out for public consultation.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
