The select committee process has proven useful in substantially strengthening anti-stalking laws.
Originally proposals on making it an offence had a maximum penalty of five years in prison, capturing three specified acts within one-year.
But it'll now be triggered after two acts within two years.
Labour's Police spokesperson Ginny Anderson told Mike Hosking it's an example of why the process is an important part of our democracy.
She says it's been great to work collaboratively, to listen to submissions, to understand what Police can do and to make the changes to strengthen the law.
Police Minister Mark Mitchell told Hosking that police take these things extremely seriously, and they now have the tools to be able to give a meaningful response.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Politics Wednesday, Mark Mitchell and Ginny Anderson both Weather's Good morning, Gunny.
Are you on the Select committee has been dealing with
the stalking business?
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Yes, I have.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
I thought you were we hard. Yes, So I'm emboldened
by the process that I mean, forget the politics for
a minute and correcting change. It proves I think you
the point you've made on the program before that there
are select committees and there are times when stuff does
get fixed or changed or amended. And this would be
(00:31):
a good example of it, wouldn't it.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
That's right, and they're often the most rewarding times and politics.
So I took a members bell which did provide it
a new offense for stalking, and we're the difference between
US and National was is that they were still sticking
to one year, so three separate acts that would be
like stalking in one year. And we have reached really
close to the sector who worked with women affected by stalking,
(00:55):
and we continued to lobby for two year periods because
we know that that that works better and it was
great to be able to work collaboratively, to listen to submissions,
to understand what would work from police and to make
those changes to strengthen the law. So it's a win
for women being safer and usial good.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
And so from here, from your point of view, Mark
say whatever you want once amusk the question. But from
your point of view, are the police going to be
able to enact this in a way because we had
Ruth money on and having a law is one thing
when you ring the coppers and having the reaction can
sometimes be something different. So they are going to be
across this and it will work, it will be more effective.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Yeah, they will. And I think that, yes, I agree
with Ginny is it certainly in terms of legislation like this,
and we know that women have been targeted and this
happens every day and every week around the country in
terms of harassment. So and it was brought to caucus
and actually it was the Prime Minister that said we
should go as hard as we can on this and
give as much protection as we can to these women,
and so it went to it went bet to slect
(01:56):
Mede and there's agreement on that and it's important. Look,
Ruth Buddies does an outstanding job now on her role.
She's been advocating for victims for decades. The police without
a doubt take this extremely seriously, and they now have
the tools to be able to respond with a meaningful,
good response to these things.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
Good as apolitically as you can. Jinny, the Regulatory Standards Bill,
of which there is a lot of verbiage around at
the moment, do you hand on heart understand what it is.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
Well, it's a new framework that enables David Seymour to
put his framework into it. So yeah, So typically we
would have a regulatory impact statement that's done by officials
who often given the most honest opinion on a bill.
When we're in opposition, we will look at that regulatory
impact statement and I will honestly say there is no
(02:44):
problem yet that the government is trying to solve. This
is simply an election pledge. So having that independent advice
is critical, and there is a real concern that his
ministry and his framework will be doing all of that
book checking right.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
So let me ask you this next question. Why would
his forget it's him because it will be the ministry
when he's long gone. Why would the ministry, as being
part of the public service, suddenly have a particular slant
that would worry so many people. The reason I asked
that question is having waded my way through it yesterday
because I thought, God, this is boring, but I better
learn about it. It's so interpretation that you could be right,
(03:24):
but equally you could be wrong. Therefore, I just don't
know what the drama is about it.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
So there are real consumes, particularly in terms of removing
existing provisions like the treaty and taking that away. So
we've always had that as a way of encouraging good
race relations, good way of consulting each other. So that
sort of angle, particularly post the Treaty Principles Bill, there's
a lot of fear about what this will.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Be used for.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
And you're right, there is an unknown element as to
how David Seymour will use this to further his own agenda.
Speaker 4 (03:56):
But all right, market, So I just say, look, he's
obviously deeply focused on He's dedicated most of his life
to policy and good policy making and good public policy,
and I think that he's definitely brought this in with
the intent of making sure that in our country.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
We have the best public policy we can have in
the world. And I think that all that Labour are
going to do is continue to talk about fear and
treaty fear and treaty instead of actually talking about the bill.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
But Mark, do you understand it hand on heart? I mean,
not right or wrong, just do you get what he's
trying to do or not.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
I do get what he's trying to do because he
is deeply passionate about trying to make sure that as
a country we have absolute consistency across our public policy.
And you know he's always been a campaigner for that.
He's always been clear about that, and that's what he's
trying to achieve. The bill will go through a full
slept Winti process. Everyone will have a chance to make
a submission. That's great democracy. We live in one of
the best industries of the world.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
And a couple of broad quick ones for you, ginny Kee,
we saber for farms. Todd mcclay's made a promise that
we should get access of we save for farms. Would
you have any fundamental objection to that as opposed to
just house.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
I'd have to take a look at how that works,
and without knowing that, I'm not going to pledge that.
We need to see how it works and how it operates.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
But so you can take a chunk of your money
to buy a farm. The same way you can take
a chunk of your money to buy a first house if.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
It's a first house. So if it's a first property,
that that's something that's possible. The problem we've had under
tough times recently is people have lost their home because
of a mortgage sale and then they're prevented from buying
a second one because they've already used that key resave.
So very small number of parents right now, there's a
few out there who have actually lost their home and
they want to go into buy a second one and
(05:38):
they've said that's number two, So you don't get that
interesting market.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Are you guys working on this given todds the promise?
Speaker 2 (05:45):
No, No, one hundred percent. I mean I was at
a Young Farmer's meeting about six weeks ago and Morrisville,
and this is one of the things that they brought
forward in terms of can they access that money to
allow them to get their first herd together or vistan
stock give them helping handed to their first farm. And
so we see this as has been something that's really
important to them and that's why we're working on it.
Speaker 1 (06:05):
Okay, have I either of you got solar?
Speaker 2 (06:09):
No?
Speaker 1 (06:10):
Would you? Are you interested. Is it a thing? What's
your power? What's your power bill? Ginny per month round figures?
Speaker 3 (06:19):
Oh about three hundred.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
It's not bad. What's yours? Mate? Not on all your house,
it's just the one you live in.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
It's a it's a bit higher because I have to
admit we are running the sparkle and that.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
I'm going to tub bath.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
Sorry, Mark, I was laughing too much. What's your monthly power?
Speaker 2 (06:43):
I've got a it's very, very hard and you enjoys.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
Nothing wrong with the spark It's nothing wrong with the
spark What what's your monthly bill?
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Roughly as would be around closer to four hundred.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
See, that's not bad, is it?
Speaker 3 (06:56):
What?
Speaker 2 (06:56):
What?
Speaker 1 (06:56):
What's holding you back? Ginny? Doing something about that? Or
do you you know? As three hundred for you, that's
doable and that's life and you don't need solar or
windmill or anything else.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
Yeah, I would look at solar. I think that having
the affordability of panels is something that's important, and I
think for those people who have invested and you get
to sell back to the grid, that's a great outcome.
So you're increasing our resilience and producing it. But you're
also lowing the household bill, So things like that are
quite smart.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
Mark this corruption report that came out yesterday, the third
report from this particular committee. Do you see corruption? Is
it getting worse? And are the people who should be
on top of it on top of it?
Speaker 2 (07:37):
So the report is very good in the sense of
obviously Casey has brought this group together because as a country,
we want to make sure that we're head of the curve,
that we're identifying clearly what our threats and threats and
risks are, and that's what these reports are doing. So yes,
we can't be naive or complacent. When you look at
our where we are on the on the corruption X
(08:00):
is that we still made no mistake. Let's get some
perspective around it. We're still one of the least corrupt
countries in the world, so we're doing well. However, yet
from twenty seventeen we have dropped down to fourth place,
so we're doing quite a bit of work. And I
was out with our outstanding Director of the CFO, Karen
Chang about a month ago we were launching a new
(08:20):
foreign Interference and Bribery tool and education campaign which included
an encrypted reporting capability because we are taking positive steps
and making sure that we do deal with this.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
Hey, Ginny, I'm reading yesterday a piece that says, oh wait.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
Can I just say something to go for it? That
is a huge risk and it's concerning that this government
cut funding to customs. Right after that we see a
massive spike and meth and phetamine and still not that
investmentment in anti corruption. We had a methanphetamine ring operating
ap Auckland Airport using the baggage. That is a direct
(08:56):
impact on our credibility and there needs to be more
action taken by this government to counter the increasing pressure
methn feed me ninety seven percent increase overdoses increase. This
is impacting our communities and the government is standing around
with its hands in its pockets saying that we need
to do more.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
So I can assure you we're not standing around with
the hands in their pockets. And I just point out
the fact that we have dropped to fourth place under
the Labor government in terms of corruption. There's been more
money going to corrections and by the way, we are
hammering the gangs, and the gangs are the ones that
are responsible for sorry for customs and well there's a
lot of money gone into corrections as well. But we're
(09:35):
hammering the gangs, and everyone knows that organized crime and
the gangs are behind a lot of the corruption, the
attempted to get people work in the ports, you know,
the distribution of methamphetamine, the misery that comes with that.
So no, we're doing a lot of work on this.
We take public safety really seriously and we're making some
good progress, but we know we've got a long way
to go.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
Got the monde of you guys, appreciate it very much,
Jimmy Anderson, Mark Mitchell.
Speaker 2 (09:57):
For more from The Mike Asking Breakfast, listen live to
News Talks at B from six am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Politics Wednesday, Mark Mitchell and Ginny Anderson both Weather's Good morning, Gunny.
Are you on the Select committee has been dealing with
the stalking business?
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Yes, I have.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
I thought you were we hard. Yes, So I'm emboldened
by the process that I mean, forget the politics for
a minute and correcting change. It proves I think you
the point you've made on the program before that there
are select committees and there are times when stuff does
get fixed or changed or amended. And this would be
(00:31):
a good example of it, wouldn't it.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
That's right, and they're often the most rewarding times and politics.
So I took a members bell which did provide it
a new offense for stalking, and we're the difference between
US and National was is that they were still sticking
to one year, so three separate acts that would be
like stalking in one year. And we have reached really
close to the sector who worked with women affected by stalking,
(00:55):
and we continued to lobby for two year periods because
we know that that that works better and it was
great to be able to work collaboratively, to listen to submissions,
to understand what would work from police and to make
those changes to strengthen the law. So it's a win
for women being safer and usial good.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
And so from here, from your point of view, Mark
say whatever you want once amusk the question. But from
your point of view, are the police going to be
able to enact this in a way because we had
Ruth money on and having a law is one thing
when you ring the coppers and having the reaction can
sometimes be something different. So they are going to be
across this and it will work, it will be more effective.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Yeah, they will. And I think that, yes, I agree
with Ginny is it certainly in terms of legislation like this,
and we know that women have been targeted and this
happens every day and every week around the country in
terms of harassment. So and it was brought to caucus
and actually it was the Prime Minister that said we
should go as hard as we can on this and
give as much protection as we can to these women,
and so it went to it went bet to slect
(01:56):
Mede and there's agreement on that and it's important. Look,
Ruth Buddies does an outstanding job now on her role.
She's been advocating for victims for decades. The police without
a doubt take this extremely seriously, and they now have
the tools to be able to respond with a meaningful,
good response to these things.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
Good as apolitically as you can. Jinny, the Regulatory Standards Bill,
of which there is a lot of verbiage around at
the moment, do you hand on heart understand what it is.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
Well, it's a new framework that enables David Seymour to
put his framework into it. So yeah, So typically we
would have a regulatory impact statement that's done by officials
who often given the most honest opinion on a bill.
When we're in opposition, we will look at that regulatory
impact statement and I will honestly say there is no
(02:44):
problem yet that the government is trying to solve. This
is simply an election pledge. So having that independent advice
is critical, and there is a real concern that his
ministry and his framework will be doing all of that
book checking right.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
So let me ask you this next question. Why would
his forget it's him because it will be the ministry
when he's long gone. Why would the ministry, as being
part of the public service, suddenly have a particular slant
that would worry so many people. The reason I asked
that question is having waded my way through it yesterday
because I thought, God, this is boring, but I better
learn about it. It's so interpretation that you could be right,
(03:24):
but equally you could be wrong. Therefore, I just don't
know what the drama is about it.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
So there are real consumes, particularly in terms of removing
existing provisions like the treaty and taking that away. So
we've always had that as a way of encouraging good
race relations, good way of consulting each other. So that
sort of angle, particularly post the Treaty Principles Bill, there's
a lot of fear about what this will.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Be used for.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
And you're right, there is an unknown element as to
how David Seymour will use this to further his own agenda.
Speaker 4 (03:56):
But all right, market, So I just say, look, he's
obviously deeply focused on He's dedicated most of his life
to policy and good policy making and good public policy,
and I think that he's definitely brought this in with
the intent of making sure that in our country.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
We have the best public policy we can have in
the world. And I think that all that Labour are
going to do is continue to talk about fear and
treaty fear and treaty instead of actually talking about the bill.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
But Mark, do you understand it hand on heart? I mean,
not right or wrong, just do you get what he's
trying to do or not.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
I do get what he's trying to do because he
is deeply passionate about trying to make sure that as
a country we have absolute consistency across our public policy.
And you know he's always been a campaigner for that.
He's always been clear about that, and that's what he's
trying to achieve. The bill will go through a full
slept Winti process. Everyone will have a chance to make
a submission. That's great democracy. We live in one of
the best industries of the world.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
And a couple of broad quick ones for you, ginny Kee,
we saber for farms. Todd mcclay's made a promise that
we should get access of we save for farms. Would
you have any fundamental objection to that as opposed to
just house.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
I'd have to take a look at how that works,
and without knowing that, I'm not going to pledge that.
We need to see how it works and how it operates.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
But so you can take a chunk of your money
to buy a farm. The same way you can take
a chunk of your money to buy a first house if.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
It's a first house. So if it's a first property,
that that's something that's possible. The problem we've had under
tough times recently is people have lost their home because
of a mortgage sale and then they're prevented from buying
a second one because they've already used that key resave.
So very small number of parents right now, there's a
few out there who have actually lost their home and
they want to go into buy a second one and
(05:38):
they've said that's number two, So you don't get that
interesting market.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Are you guys working on this given todds the promise?
Speaker 2 (05:45):
No, No, one hundred percent. I mean I was at
a Young Farmer's meeting about six weeks ago and Morrisville,
and this is one of the things that they brought
forward in terms of can they access that money to
allow them to get their first herd together or vistan
stock give them helping handed to their first farm. And
so we see this as has been something that's really
important to them and that's why we're working on it.
Speaker 1 (06:05):
Okay, have I either of you got solar?
Speaker 2 (06:09):
No?
Speaker 1 (06:10):
Would you? Are you interested. Is it a thing? What's
your power? What's your power bill? Ginny per month round figures?
Speaker 3 (06:19):
Oh about three hundred.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
It's not bad. What's yours? Mate? Not on all your house,
it's just the one you live in.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
It's a it's a bit higher because I have to
admit we are running the sparkle and that.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
I'm going to tub bath.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
Sorry, Mark, I was laughing too much. What's your monthly power?
Speaker 2 (06:43):
I've got a it's very, very hard and you enjoys.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
Nothing wrong with the spark It's nothing wrong with the
spark What what's your monthly bill?
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Roughly as would be around closer to four hundred.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
See, that's not bad, is it?
Speaker 3 (06:56):
What?
Speaker 2 (06:56):
What?
Speaker 1 (06:56):
What's holding you back? Ginny? Doing something about that? Or
do you you know? As three hundred for you, that's
doable and that's life and you don't need solar or
windmill or anything else.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
Yeah, I would look at solar. I think that having
the affordability of panels is something that's important, and I
think for those people who have invested and you get
to sell back to the grid, that's a great outcome.
So you're increasing our resilience and producing it. But you're
also lowing the household bill, So things like that are
quite smart.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
Mark this corruption report that came out yesterday, the third
report from this particular committee. Do you see corruption? Is
it getting worse? And are the people who should be
on top of it on top of it?
Speaker 2 (07:37):
So the report is very good in the sense of
obviously Casey has brought this group together because as a country,
we want to make sure that we're head of the curve,
that we're identifying clearly what our threats and threats and
risks are, and that's what these reports are doing. So yes,
we can't be naive or complacent. When you look at
our where we are on the on the corruption X
(08:00):
is that we still made no mistake. Let's get some
perspective around it. We're still one of the least corrupt
countries in the world, so we're doing well. However, yet
from twenty seventeen we have dropped down to fourth place,
so we're doing quite a bit of work. And I
was out with our outstanding Director of the CFO, Karen
Chang about a month ago we were launching a new
(08:20):
foreign Interference and Bribery tool and education campaign which included
an encrypted reporting capability because we are taking positive steps
and making sure that we do deal with this.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
Hey, Ginny, I'm reading yesterday a piece that says, oh wait.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
Can I just say something to go for it? That
is a huge risk and it's concerning that this government
cut funding to customs. Right after that we see a
massive spike and meth and phetamine and still not that
investmentment in anti corruption. We had a methanphetamine ring operating
ap Auckland Airport using the baggage. That is a direct
(08:56):
impact on our credibility and there needs to be more
action taken by this government to counter the increasing pressure
methn feed me ninety seven percent increase overdoses increase. This
is impacting our communities and the government is standing around
with its hands in its pockets saying that we need
to do more.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
So I can assure you we're not standing around with
the hands in their pockets. And I just point out
the fact that we have dropped to fourth place under
the Labor government in terms of corruption. There's been more
money going to corrections and by the way, we are
hammering the gangs, and the gangs are the ones that
are responsible for sorry for customs and well there's a
lot of money gone into corrections as well. But we're
(09:35):
hammering the gangs, and everyone knows that organized crime and
the gangs are behind a lot of the corruption, the
attempted to get people work in the ports, you know,
the distribution of methamphetamine, the misery that comes with that.
So no, we're doing a lot of work on this.
We take public safety really seriously and we're making some
good progress, but we know we've got a long way
to go.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
Got the monde of you guys, appreciate it very much,
Jimmy Anderson, Mark Mitchell.
Speaker 2 (09:57):
For more from The Mike Asking Breakfast, listen live to
News Talks at B from six am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.