The Government has stepped in after it was revealed police have intentionally not been enforcing a law banning smoking and vaping in cars carrying children.
NZME can reveal not a single fine has been issued since the law came into force in 2021, with police saying fines are punitive and unlikely to work.
It can also be revealed police never carried out the necessary system upgrades to issue fines, despite Parliament delaying the law coming into force for 18 months to allow for the updates.
The law was passed by the Labour-led coalition in 2020 with support from National. It allowed officers to use their discretion to issue $50 spot fines.
Police Minister Mark Mitchell told Mike Hosking that the Police’s advice to the Police Minister at the time the law was passed was that the system couldn’t sustain the change.
He said that Police are now making the changes to the systems so that fines can be issued.
Labour’s Ginny Andersen said that from her understanding, while they knew the Police couldn’t implement it immediately there was a plan to do so over time that the Government was happy with.
She said she’s pleased that Mitchell is enforcing it and taking a stand, as the current Government has been very permissive around smoking by letting Smoke Free go.
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):
It's time for politics Wednesday. Mark Mitchell's with us along
(00:02):
with Ginny Anderson. Good morning to both of you. A
couple of quickies for you Mark. Just on the business
this morning of we had Chris Carhill on they haven't
been doing the vaping. They didn't update the system. Are
you fixing that? Have they let you down? Is the
a problem to here?
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Well, I mean the previous goverment past the legislation, but
obviously at that time the police's advice to the police
ministers at the system, you couldn't sustain the change. There
needs to be some investment of that. But that has
happened and the police are now making the changes to
the system so they can issue finds. It's pretty hard
to apply discretion. Because I'm a huge supporter of police discretion,
(00:42):
I completely agree because around that, but it's pretty hard
to apply discretion. We actually haven't got the option, so
it's important that they've got the option.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
Did they let everyone down by not adhering to the
law because the law is the law and they're supposed
to enforce the law.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Well, they informed the previous government that it was not
The government went ahead and passed slation. The advice from
the police was is that they couldn't set that up.
So you know, obviously now there's been some investment into
the system, it's been stabilized, and I've made my exputation
is that they operationalize it so that police actually do
genuinely have discretion.
Speaker 3 (01:17):
Do you accept that, Jinny, My understanding, and this is
just from a memory, is that they couldn't do it immediately,
but there was a plan in place to do it
over time, and we were happy with that. Look, I'm
pleased that Mark is enforcing it. The government has been
very permissive around smoking by leaving smoke free go, so
I'm pleased you're taking a stance and enforcing this.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
Okay, formal warnings. Mark seventy thousand formal warnings. And this
is unrelated to what I just mentioned before. It came
out of a court case and you issue a whole
lot of formal warnings. Turns out the court says that
if you wish you a formal warning and the person goes,
I'm not guilty, that formal warning is illegal. What do
you do about that?
Speaker 2 (01:53):
Yeah, that was the final of the court. So the
police have to respond to that and look, in some
cases that's probably a few calls that you know, if
you're going to get a formal warning, then it should
be based on the fact that there's an admission of guilt,
especially on the upper end of things. But so yeah,
the courts obviously found that the police are having to
respond to it. Look, the reality of it is formal
(02:15):
warnings and alternative actions went through the roof under the
previous government because they made legislation changes around the enforcement
of drug offending to a health based approach, which removed
some of that discretion that police said. And of course,
you know when you've got a target like we're reducing
the prisons muster by thirty percent, the police of course
are pushed into a space where you see a big
(02:36):
increase in formal warnings and alternative actions.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
So I just like to comment on that. So pre
charge warnings were brought in under the John Key government.
They had a goal of reducing by nineteen percent those
coming into the system and they got to twenty five percent.
So if you look back and look at the biggest
reductions in police arrest that comes under John Key and
that two thousand and eight section, and that was the
(03:01):
introduction of pre charge warnings. It was most definitely done
under a national government.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Okay, let's do that.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
There's a place. There's a place for warnings, but there's
not a place for the charge formal warning increase.
Speaker 3 (03:11):
Recharge formal warnings was brought in. I was working in
police at the time. Mark, I remember pre charge.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
There's a place and there's an important place for that, Judy.
I'm not arguing with you at all, but what I'm
saying to you is this under the previous government has
been a huge increase because the policy settings that you
put were around a reduction of the prison center. The
prison must be thirty percent, a lesson increased to all
turn in evections, which might I'm.
Speaker 3 (03:33):
Keeping to provide you with the data like at that
pre charge warning brocketed up. The first time they came
in was under the last national government. And that's when
you hit the crystal pass. Locate that's bought and we
can go back and find the data.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
Let me ask you a more broad based question to
try and depoliticize this Potarch is under some sort of
heat at the moment from various forms of the media
who seem to think that the claim that you've gone
and got a whole lot of people out of emergency housing,
and you can't give me the addresses to where they've gone.
Somehow an issue, Ginny, is it reasonable to think that
(04:13):
a government tracks a person who goes from government assistance
to non government assistants for the rest of their life
and somehow can when I ask you, it seems to
me the stupidest story in the history of the world.
If somebody is no longer on the government assistance, they've
moved on with their life, why should the government know
where they went and.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
What they did.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
I think the point they're trying to make is that
if the government stopped big housing builds, they've stopped good
in crime or order housing and numerous areas around the
New Zealand. And then they're boasting that the number of
people in emergency or housing has reduced. Well, if there's
no more housing, and where have they gone? And the
answer is they're on the street. And I was in
(04:53):
Auckland last week and I talked to Aaron Hendry who
was working with a couple who are sixteen that had
their benefits. They'd been kicked out of emergency housing and
they're on the street. So that's why we're seeing issues
in Central Wellington and Central Auckland with increased homelessness is
because people are being kicked out of homes and that's
the point they're making.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Mark.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
I suppose the point is if you're going to claim
thirty three percent or whatever the number was, reduction in
emergency housing and suddenly you can produce thirty three percent
increase in number of people on the streets and cars,
there's your problem, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Yeah, but that hasn't happened. And I do agree with you,
is that it's a nanny state for the government to
start poking into people's lives and finding out what they're doing.
So you know that the reality of it is the
incoming government is that we had a big issue around
emergency housing. There were lots of houses that were standing empty.
Tama has really turned his mind to us, worked with
Chris Bishop and they seem to be delivering some really
(05:45):
good results. It's a really positive story in relation to
in relation to people living on the streets. Look, our
Auckland CBD is becoming safe again. It's early days, but
we're moving in the right direction. That's because I've pulled
together a group of CPN z to Marry Wooden's Police Council,
Koster Business Associations, the City Mission, our social service providers
(06:06):
and the local MP and we're all working together and
we're actually delivering really good results.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
Okay, Jinny, quick quickly if you can. There was a
report out on corruption and lobbyists and we need to
change the rules and donations to parties and all that
sort of stuff. When you were a minister of whatever
you're a minister of at the time, were you lobbied
where you lobbied heavily and did you ever think, I'll
tell you what, this is a bit much and we
need some rules around.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
This or not.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
You always are lobbied, and that's where you did really
good staff around you to help and ensure that you've
got good practices in place. I think we probably do
need to take a look at those rules. Particularly. I
just can't believe that we've got someone like nicrol McKee
rewriting our gun laws. She was elected on being a
gun lobbyist and now she's responsible for rewriting our arms.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
Jury as she was elected.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
Yeah, but there needs to be.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
Better checks and balances on what's happening in that space.
The fact we can find ourselves. Like New Zealand has
got a gun lobbyist who want to see military style
semi automatic weapons that being used on rangers, and now
she has she got already every writing at armchacky.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
Belong to it.
Speaker 1 (07:15):
I saw you in the house yesterday. I saw what
you were trying to do. But at the end of
the day, and I know you disagree with it, and
I get all of that. But she's a duly elected MP,
has been given a job and she's going to write
to do the job.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
But what ticks and balances are in place about the
influencers and the way she's consulting, But she's not consulting.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
Called the Parliament and people voting, and people have their
saying it's a democratic process and you may not like it,
but it's unfolding the way it normally does.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
I think we're going to see some more in that
space as it rolls out, because I don't think national
are happy with her getting rid of the gun registry.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
And no, I know you're not happy with it the
heart of it, are you, Mike.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
No, we're not getting rid of the gun industry. It's ridiculous.
It's pilot with coalition there's pile of coalition agreement were
that we would do a review of the gun registry
to make sure that it's affective.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
And the factors that you're just going to do a review,
but it's not going to go anywhere.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
And so and so there will be a review, but
I can assure you as the police butter so the
gun registry is going nowhare market.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
Lobbying and corruption. Is there a corruption in this country?
And are you lobbied? Are you lobbied heavily and to
a point where you think we need you rules?
Speaker 2 (08:23):
Look me personally, I think that our democracy is one
of the most open and transparent and corrupt free democracies
of the world. We should be extremely proud of that.
We should do whatever we need to continue to safeguard that.
But I see my role. I work right across all
of the parties in Parliament. I'm a local MP, so
people should have open access to me. They should be
(08:45):
able to come in and sit down and talk about
their issues. You know, that's a big part of being
a member of Parliament in New Zealand. You are representative,
you are serving the community. So you know, I'd hate
to see that any chilling effect on that. In terms
of lobbying, we all get lobbied. That's sort of open
democracy is a bit people take very strong positions on things,
(09:06):
but you know, as long as we're transparent, as long
as we're very open, as long as we have safeguards
in place, then I think that's easily manageable.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
Good to see you both, make Mitchell Ginny Anderson for
another Wednesday Morning.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
For more from The Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to
news talks it'd be from six am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio
It's time for politics Wednesday. Mark Mitchell's with us along
(00:02):
with Ginny Anderson. Good morning to both of you. A
couple of quickies for you Mark. Just on the business
this morning of we had Chris Carhill on they haven't
been doing the vaping. They didn't update the system. Are
you fixing that? Have they let you down? Is the
a problem to here?
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Well, I mean the previous goverment past the legislation, but
obviously at that time the police's advice to the police
ministers at the system, you couldn't sustain the change. There
needs to be some investment of that. But that has
happened and the police are now making the changes to
the system so they can issue finds. It's pretty hard
to apply discretion. Because I'm a huge supporter of police discretion,
(00:42):
I completely agree because around that, but it's pretty hard
to apply discretion. We actually haven't got the option, so
it's important that they've got the option.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
Did they let everyone down by not adhering to the
law because the law is the law and they're supposed
to enforce the law.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Well, they informed the previous government that it was not
The government went ahead and passed slation. The advice from
the police was is that they couldn't set that up.
So you know, obviously now there's been some investment into
the system, it's been stabilized, and I've made my exputation
is that they operationalize it so that police actually do
genuinely have discretion.
Speaker 3 (01:17):
Do you accept that, Jinny, My understanding, and this is
just from a memory, is that they couldn't do it immediately,
but there was a plan in place to do it
over time, and we were happy with that. Look, I'm
pleased that Mark is enforcing it. The government has been
very permissive around smoking by leaving smoke free go, so
I'm pleased you're taking a stance and enforcing this.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
Okay, formal warnings. Mark seventy thousand formal warnings. And this
is unrelated to what I just mentioned before. It came
out of a court case and you issue a whole
lot of formal warnings. Turns out the court says that
if you wish you a formal warning and the person goes,
I'm not guilty, that formal warning is illegal. What do
you do about that?
Speaker 2 (01:53):
Yeah, that was the final of the court. So the
police have to respond to that and look, in some
cases that's probably a few calls that you know, if
you're going to get a formal warning, then it should
be based on the fact that there's an admission of guilt,
especially on the upper end of things. But so yeah,
the courts obviously found that the police are having to
respond to it. Look, the reality of it is formal
(02:15):
warnings and alternative actions went through the roof under the
previous government because they made legislation changes around the enforcement
of drug offending to a health based approach, which removed
some of that discretion that police said. And of course,
you know when you've got a target like we're reducing
the prisons muster by thirty percent, the police of course
are pushed into a space where you see a big
(02:36):
increase in formal warnings and alternative actions.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
So I just like to comment on that. So pre
charge warnings were brought in under the John Key government.
They had a goal of reducing by nineteen percent those
coming into the system and they got to twenty five percent.
So if you look back and look at the biggest
reductions in police arrest that comes under John Key and
that two thousand and eight section, and that was the
(03:01):
introduction of pre charge warnings. It was most definitely done
under a national government.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Okay, let's do that.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
There's a place. There's a place for warnings, but there's
not a place for the charge formal warning increase.
Speaker 3 (03:11):
Recharge formal warnings was brought in. I was working in
police at the time. Mark, I remember pre charge.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
There's a place and there's an important place for that, Judy.
I'm not arguing with you at all, but what I'm
saying to you is this under the previous government has
been a huge increase because the policy settings that you
put were around a reduction of the prison center. The
prison must be thirty percent, a lesson increased to all
turn in evections, which might I'm.
Speaker 3 (03:33):
Keeping to provide you with the data like at that
pre charge warning brocketed up. The first time they came
in was under the last national government. And that's when
you hit the crystal pass. Locate that's bought and we
can go back and find the data.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
Let me ask you a more broad based question to
try and depoliticize this Potarch is under some sort of
heat at the moment from various forms of the media
who seem to think that the claim that you've gone
and got a whole lot of people out of emergency housing,
and you can't give me the addresses to where they've gone.
Somehow an issue, Ginny, is it reasonable to think that
(04:13):
a government tracks a person who goes from government assistance
to non government assistants for the rest of their life
and somehow can when I ask you, it seems to
me the stupidest story in the history of the world.
If somebody is no longer on the government assistance, they've
moved on with their life, why should the government know
where they went and.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
What they did.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
I think the point they're trying to make is that
if the government stopped big housing builds, they've stopped good
in crime or order housing and numerous areas around the
New Zealand. And then they're boasting that the number of
people in emergency or housing has reduced. Well, if there's
no more housing, and where have they gone? And the
answer is they're on the street. And I was in
(04:53):
Auckland last week and I talked to Aaron Hendry who
was working with a couple who are sixteen that had
their benefits. They'd been kicked out of emergency housing and
they're on the street. So that's why we're seeing issues
in Central Wellington and Central Auckland with increased homelessness is
because people are being kicked out of homes and that's
the point they're making.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Mark.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
I suppose the point is if you're going to claim
thirty three percent or whatever the number was, reduction in
emergency housing and suddenly you can produce thirty three percent
increase in number of people on the streets and cars,
there's your problem, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Yeah, but that hasn't happened. And I do agree with you,
is that it's a nanny state for the government to
start poking into people's lives and finding out what they're doing.
So you know that the reality of it is the
incoming government is that we had a big issue around
emergency housing. There were lots of houses that were standing empty.
Tama has really turned his mind to us, worked with
Chris Bishop and they seem to be delivering some really
(05:45):
good results. It's a really positive story in relation to
in relation to people living on the streets. Look, our
Auckland CBD is becoming safe again. It's early days, but
we're moving in the right direction. That's because I've pulled
together a group of CPN z to Marry Wooden's Police Council,
Koster Business Associations, the City Mission, our social service providers
(06:06):
and the local MP and we're all working together and
we're actually delivering really good results.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
Okay, Jinny, quick quickly if you can. There was a
report out on corruption and lobbyists and we need to
change the rules and donations to parties and all that
sort of stuff. When you were a minister of whatever
you're a minister of at the time, were you lobbied
where you lobbied heavily and did you ever think, I'll
tell you what, this is a bit much and we
need some rules around.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
This or not.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
You always are lobbied, and that's where you did really
good staff around you to help and ensure that you've
got good practices in place. I think we probably do
need to take a look at those rules. Particularly. I
just can't believe that we've got someone like nicrol McKee
rewriting our gun laws. She was elected on being a
gun lobbyist and now she's responsible for rewriting our arms.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
Jury as she was elected.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
Yeah, but there needs to be.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
Better checks and balances on what's happening in that space.
The fact we can find ourselves. Like New Zealand has
got a gun lobbyist who want to see military style
semi automatic weapons that being used on rangers, and now
she has she got already every writing at armchacky.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
Belong to it.
Speaker 1 (07:15):
I saw you in the house yesterday. I saw what
you were trying to do. But at the end of
the day, and I know you disagree with it, and
I get all of that. But she's a duly elected MP,
has been given a job and she's going to write
to do the job.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
But what ticks and balances are in place about the
influencers and the way she's consulting, But she's not consulting.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
Called the Parliament and people voting, and people have their
saying it's a democratic process and you may not like it,
but it's unfolding the way it normally does.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
I think we're going to see some more in that
space as it rolls out, because I don't think national
are happy with her getting rid of the gun registry.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
And no, I know you're not happy with it the
heart of it, are you, Mike.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
No, we're not getting rid of the gun industry. It's ridiculous.
It's pilot with coalition there's pile of coalition agreement were
that we would do a review of the gun registry
to make sure that it's affective.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
And the factors that you're just going to do a review,
but it's not going to go anywhere.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
And so and so there will be a review, but
I can assure you as the police butter so the
gun registry is going nowhare market.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
Lobbying and corruption. Is there a corruption in this country?
And are you lobbied? Are you lobbied heavily and to
a point where you think we need you rules?
Speaker 2 (08:23):
Look me personally, I think that our democracy is one
of the most open and transparent and corrupt free democracies
of the world. We should be extremely proud of that.
We should do whatever we need to continue to safeguard that.
But I see my role. I work right across all
of the parties in Parliament. I'm a local MP, so
people should have open access to me. They should be
(08:45):
able to come in and sit down and talk about
their issues. You know, that's a big part of being
a member of Parliament in New Zealand. You are representative,
you are serving the community. So you know, I'd hate
to see that any chilling effect on that. In terms
of lobbying, we all get lobbied. That's sort of open
democracy is a bit people take very strong positions on things,
(09:06):
but you know, as long as we're transparent, as long
as we're very open, as long as we have safeguards
in place, then I think that's easily manageable.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
Good to see you both, make Mitchell Ginny Anderson for
another Wednesday Morning.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
For more from The Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to
news talks it'd be from six am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.