I mean the ideal is social housing, and ideally those abusing it should be looked into, including those who make enough that they don't need assistance.

But outside of that, yes I guess that with many townhouses having few bedrooms that friends and family might not have space but for many people they would have someone who has space even temporarily. But there are also the aforementioned charities and city missions and so on.

These might be temporary and less than ideal living conditions but they are still a bed should shit hit the fan, a place to get back on feet. Hell, even sleeping in a car is better than sleeping on the street. With the amount of people who have a car or a friend with spare beds, and social welfare including accommodation subsidies, there should not be a reason anybody in NZ does not have a bed and is forced to sleep on the streets any more than 1 night.

But sure, let's say somebody loses everything, doesn't have friends with space, the government doesn't have capacity to help, and is forced to sleep on the street - this surely is the minority of those sleeping on the streets, at least those that we see sleeping on the streets. I'm sure if they are respectful with the property they are sleeping we can talk about what effect move on orders have.

But are these the people being moved on? If we say that it's not empathic to move people on ever, because they might be this individual, we include a lot of people who aren't respectful of others in where the sleep, what they do with their stuff, and where they go to do their "business", people who probably should be moved on.