Tourists don’t have ultimate ‘right to the city’

2026-03-02 - 16:07

Opinion: In an interview on Mike Hosking’s Breakfast last week, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon expressed concern about international tourists encountering unhoused people in the cities of Aotearoa. He explained that the new proposed ‘move-on’ orders, which give police additional powers to force homeless people out of the downtown areas of Auckland and other cities, were to protect the experience of tourists. For Luxon, the biggest issue we have as a result of the vast increase in people living rough on the streets of our cities is about ‘Chuck and Mary’, who he described as coming for their “once-in-a-lifetime trip to New Zealand on a cruise ship”, walking around downtown and getting “intimidated because someone’s sitting on the doorstop of a shop they’re trying to get into”. Luxon proposed a situation to New Zealanders where tourists on a trip of a lifetime have more of a right to exist in our cities than people trying to survive by sleeping on its streets. The previously unspoken concern for the experience of tourists in particular made clear to me the key motivations behind this new law. It is not about safety, wellbeing, or dignity. It is not about addressing the myriad complex issues that make up homelessness, which has been exacerbated by Luxon’s Government’s own policies. Instead, it is about sanitation, hiding the evidence of deep, growing social inequality from the eyes of ‘innocent’ visitors. This is a cynical public relations strategy that attempts to hide the realities of life in Aotearoa from any short-term visitor. Similar to our supposed international reputation as both ‘clean’ and ‘green’, we are attempting to make money off a false narrative of cohesion and plenty, while eating away at the health of our society. As many in New Zealand have noted, ‘move-on’ orders do not offer a solution. They don’t suggest a place to which people may move for support or safety. Instead, it offers people further experience of displacement, often out of central city areas, which is where the majority of support services are. Examples of similar move-on orders, or wider clearances of encampments around the world, have not been successful, instead greatly exacerbating harm. Many geographers, urban researchers and policymakers draw on the concept of ‘the right to the city’ in their work, originally described by Henri Lefebvre (the influential French Marxist philosopher and sociologist) in the late 1960s. Broadly speaking, it is based on the premise that all people have a collective right to the city, to have presence, place and visibility within it. Moreover, they have a right to participate in the city, to shape the form and function it takes. The announcement of the move-on powers suggests we have lost sight of this idea completely. Instead of thinking about the city as a space that should be inclusive, democratic, and governed by the people — we are making decisions about how the city functions based on who spends $20 at Kiwi Giftland on Queen Street. Chuck and Mary don’t have a more supreme right to the city than other people in Aotearoa, nor should they have more of a claim to visibility and presence than unhoused people in the cities they visit. But this focus on the economic importance of the presence of tourists illustrates the degradation of the idea of the ‘right to the city’ in Aotearoa. Instead of being based on ideals of democratic participation, those whose desires shape our cities, the concept of rights to the city is patterned by perceived economic activity. This is not the fault of tourists and visitors. Temporary visitors also have a right to the city – including Auckland. But their interests should not be prioritised over our most vulnerable citizens. I love living in central Auckland, including when it’s buzzing with activity in the summer. I am always delighted to try to work out what the new, different crowds each weekend mean – is this evidence of a Disney cruise, a Lorde show at Spark Arena, or a test rugby match? As a country we often pride ourselves on being welcoming hosts, especially when the weather plays ball. But at this point, it appears that some members of our Government believe Chuck and Mary’s right to our cities are more important than that of New Zealanders doing it tough on the streets. Instead of finding solutions to our problems with housing, health support services and the general cost of living, they plan to hide any evidence of these severe problems in our country. The pushback the move-on law announcement has received is heartening. New Zealanders across the country have made noise, many rejecting the policy as nonsensical and cruel. Let us instead understand our cities as places all have rights to participate in, whether you grew up here, live here, or just disembarked from the Discovery Princess.