July 1, 2025 • 6 mins
A slew of justice announcements this week.
The Government's rolling out harsher punishments for theft and new fines for shoplifting – including a proposed infringement fee of up to $1000, based on item value.
Maximum penalties for shoplifting less than $2000 will be one year behind bars, and seven if worth more than that.
They also made coward punching a specific offence, which could carry a life sentence if fatal.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith told Mike Hosking all of their measures are to send the clear message that if you commit a crime, there will be consequences.
He says their primary goal is to reduce the number of victims of crime, which they’re making good progress on.
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):
So back to what's turned out to be Justice Week
new laws around assaulting first responders, the coward punish will
become a culpable homicide offense, harsher punishment for retail crime.
Of course, Paul Goldsmith is the Justice Minister and is
with us.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Very good morning to you morning, Mike Haway, very well.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
Indeed, I don't know whether to do this collectively or individually.
Do you have KPIs on this? What tangibly do you
expect to happen as a result of all the announcements
you've made this week.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Well, our primary goal in the justice space is to
reduce the number of victims of crime, serious violent crime
in particular, and so that's the number one that's what
we're focused on. The good newsers that we're making progress
on that. We set a target to drop from one
hundred and eighty five thousand New Zealanders being a victim
of serious crime to one hundred and sixty five by
twenty twenty nine. Were already down to one hundred and
(00:47):
fifty eight. That's still one hundred and fifty eight thousand
too many, and we're pushing hard. So all of it's
about sending a clear message that the labor approach of
somebody else's fault for you creating crime, or it's something
in the past. No, no, we've got to sheet home
personal responsibility, send a clear message there will be consequences,
(01:07):
and each of these are the ways is a different
way of saying that basic message.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
How much of what you've announced is a deterrent as
opposed to something you will have to act upon.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Do you think, oh, well, it's both. The extra tools
that the high fines for assaulting first responders is well,
it's partly a deterrent, but it's also signaling a very
strong message from society that we won't tolerate it. In
terms of retail crime, look, I mean, I don't think
anybody would argue that what the current situation is good enough,
(01:40):
with too many people just walking out of shops not
paying for stuff, being escorted by security guards to the
car and driving off. So that's why we'll be giving
security guards and people the ability to hang on to
offenders until the police arrive. A whole bunch of things
which is all designed to push back against this kind
of this this weird idea that it's okay just to
(02:01):
walk out without paying for stuff.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
And everybody else can find. Do you honestly expect a
person who next, say, side of beef and a doesn't
be to pay a fine.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Well, I expect them to be given a fine if
it's appropriate at that time and there's a police officer available,
or we can get somebody to view some footage, identify
the person and send a fine off. Yes, just as
it's cert appropriate that people pay a fine if they're
speeding down the road. Now, if you're saying, well, some
people don't pay their fines, that's true. And that's another
challenge that we've got in the justice here, which we're
(02:33):
very focused on being much more aggressive in collecting fines.
And I've given the very strong instructions to the Ministry
of Justice to be more aggressive, and they've already budgeted
for collecting a whole lot more fines and they will be.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
Part of this week's announcement with the discounts and all
that sort of stuff.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
In court.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
Are you are you comfortable with how courts deal with
what you're trying to do?
Speaker 2 (02:56):
Well, Look, obviously, the first way for a Ministry of
Justice to get sacked is to criticize the judiciary directly.
So I'm not going to do that. But what I'd
say is it's Parliament's job to send the law and
a clear message in the law, and that's what we're
doing with tougher sentences and restricting the ability of judges
(03:16):
to massively reduce sentences with all these discounts. That's the
signal we're sending. I mean, ultimately, we've got other choices
available to us. We could have mandatory sentences, we could
have minimum sentences, there are other things we can do.
But I'm very confident that we're sending a clear mess sere.
A lot of people have texted us this week and said,
why don't you do minimum? Why don't you do minimum? Well, look,
look we may well in the future. What we've done
(03:39):
in the past in New Zealand has always been a
maximum sentence with discretion under that for you to deal
with all the many multitudinal, different situations that judges are
dealing with. That's been our approach and we're tightening that.
But the next option, if we don't feel like we're
making progress in the messages and getting through, would be
the alternatives.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
We had Rod Duke on from Brisco's. He said a
year away, it's a long way to wait. And also
you're probably going to have to ramp up some of
those fines and make it a little bit stiffer. Would
you agree with that assessment or not?
Speaker 2 (04:11):
Well, well, yeah, it goes off to Select Mine and
people will. If people argue that we need to be
more aggressive, I'm happy to consider that in terms of
it taking a year. Look, it is important. Government's also
been criticized for doing too much under urgency and so
you know the pattern of sending a bill into Parliament
and going off to Select Committee and having people from
all around the country comment on it and point out
(04:32):
things that could be improved, I think is an important
part of how things work and that's what we're going
to do in this case.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
All right, quick matter that's related tertiary, the tertiary clause
that you're not the tertiary the treaty clause that you're
looking at in terms of the government. So how long
is this going to take?
Speaker 2 (04:49):
Well, well, we've got a group of people looking at
there's about fifteen or twenty pieces of legislation that we're
looking at with references to the tree. The issue is
that it's been too vague in the past and the
result is that, you know, in the education context, if
you've got this vague treaty references scattered all the way
(05:10):
through the legislation in the hands of a radical school,
principle can be interpreted to mean that you've got to
do it twenty percent of your day every day on
tel Mari or something like that. And so it's too vague,
and so what we want to do was either take
it out or be much clearer about what we do
and what we don't mean, and that process. Look, it's
(05:31):
going to take a few months for us to fall
on what the actual changes we want to do and
be clear about, and then we have to legislate for it.
So it's not going to be a quick fix overnight,
but we want to do it properly.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
Seymour wanted it completely. Were you guys pushing back against that, Well, look,
I'm not sure what his comments are. I mean, we're
part of a cabinet and a collective responsibility. We collectively
made response decisions as a cabinet and that's how it works.
Appreciate your time very much, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith. I'm
glad you said that because I got a text a
moment ago and It's a very good point made what
(06:04):
Seymour CD yesterday as regards it was us who wanted
it out but the other guys didn't. Is you could
argue a breach of cabinet confidentiality. And part of the
coalition agreement is if you agree, you can agree to disagree,
and he didn't invoke that. He's just come out all
of a sudden seema and go and yeah, we wanted
it out, but they didn't. And so that's that's it's
(06:26):
got a little fresson about it, I think.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
For more from the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to
news talks.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
It'd be from six am weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
So back to what's turned out to be Justice Week
new laws around assaulting first responders, the coward punish will
become a culpable homicide offense, harsher punishment for retail crime.
Of course, Paul Goldsmith is the Justice Minister and is
with us.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Very good morning to you morning, Mike Haway, very well.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
Indeed, I don't know whether to do this collectively or individually.
Do you have KPIs on this? What tangibly do you
expect to happen as a result of all the announcements
you've made this week.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Well, our primary goal in the justice space is to
reduce the number of victims of crime, serious violent crime
in particular, and so that's the number one that's what
we're focused on. The good newsers that we're making progress
on that. We set a target to drop from one
hundred and eighty five thousand New Zealanders being a victim
of serious crime to one hundred and sixty five by
twenty twenty nine. Were already down to one hundred and
(00:47):
fifty eight. That's still one hundred and fifty eight thousand
too many, and we're pushing hard. So all of it's
about sending a clear message that the labor approach of
somebody else's fault for you creating crime, or it's something
in the past. No, no, we've got to sheet home
personal responsibility, send a clear message there will be consequences,
(01:07):
and each of these are the ways is a different
way of saying that basic message.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
How much of what you've announced is a deterrent as
opposed to something you will have to act upon.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Do you think, oh, well, it's both. The extra tools
that the high fines for assaulting first responders is well,
it's partly a deterrent, but it's also signaling a very
strong message from society that we won't tolerate it. In
terms of retail crime, look, I mean, I don't think
anybody would argue that what the current situation is good enough,
(01:40):
with too many people just walking out of shops not
paying for stuff, being escorted by security guards to the
car and driving off. So that's why we'll be giving
security guards and people the ability to hang on to
offenders until the police arrive. A whole bunch of things
which is all designed to push back against this kind
of this this weird idea that it's okay just to
(02:01):
walk out without paying for stuff.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
And everybody else can find. Do you honestly expect a
person who next, say, side of beef and a doesn't
be to pay a fine.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Well, I expect them to be given a fine if
it's appropriate at that time and there's a police officer available,
or we can get somebody to view some footage, identify
the person and send a fine off. Yes, just as
it's cert appropriate that people pay a fine if they're
speeding down the road. Now, if you're saying, well, some
people don't pay their fines, that's true. And that's another
challenge that we've got in the justice here, which we're
(02:33):
very focused on being much more aggressive in collecting fines.
And I've given the very strong instructions to the Ministry
of Justice to be more aggressive, and they've already budgeted
for collecting a whole lot more fines and they will be.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
Part of this week's announcement with the discounts and all
that sort of stuff.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
In court.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
Are you are you comfortable with how courts deal with
what you're trying to do?
Speaker 2 (02:56):
Well, Look, obviously, the first way for a Ministry of
Justice to get sacked is to criticize the judiciary directly.
So I'm not going to do that. But what I'd
say is it's Parliament's job to send the law and
a clear message in the law, and that's what we're
doing with tougher sentences and restricting the ability of judges
(03:16):
to massively reduce sentences with all these discounts. That's the
signal we're sending. I mean, ultimately, we've got other choices
available to us. We could have mandatory sentences, we could
have minimum sentences, there are other things we can do.
But I'm very confident that we're sending a clear mess sere.
A lot of people have texted us this week and said,
why don't you do minimum? Why don't you do minimum? Well, look,
look we may well in the future. What we've done
(03:39):
in the past in New Zealand has always been a
maximum sentence with discretion under that for you to deal
with all the many multitudinal, different situations that judges are
dealing with. That's been our approach and we're tightening that.
But the next option, if we don't feel like we're
making progress in the messages and getting through, would be
the alternatives.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
We had Rod Duke on from Brisco's. He said a
year away, it's a long way to wait. And also
you're probably going to have to ramp up some of
those fines and make it a little bit stiffer. Would
you agree with that assessment or not?
Speaker 2 (04:11):
Well, well, yeah, it goes off to Select Mine and
people will. If people argue that we need to be
more aggressive, I'm happy to consider that in terms of
it taking a year. Look, it is important. Government's also
been criticized for doing too much under urgency and so
you know the pattern of sending a bill into Parliament
and going off to Select Committee and having people from
all around the country comment on it and point out
(04:32):
things that could be improved, I think is an important
part of how things work and that's what we're going
to do in this case.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
All right, quick matter that's related tertiary, the tertiary clause
that you're not the tertiary the treaty clause that you're
looking at in terms of the government. So how long
is this going to take?
Speaker 2 (04:49):
Well, well, we've got a group of people looking at
there's about fifteen or twenty pieces of legislation that we're
looking at with references to the tree. The issue is
that it's been too vague in the past and the
result is that, you know, in the education context, if
you've got this vague treaty references scattered all the way
(05:10):
through the legislation in the hands of a radical school,
principle can be interpreted to mean that you've got to
do it twenty percent of your day every day on
tel Mari or something like that. And so it's too vague,
and so what we want to do was either take
it out or be much clearer about what we do
and what we don't mean, and that process. Look, it's
(05:31):
going to take a few months for us to fall
on what the actual changes we want to do and
be clear about, and then we have to legislate for it.
So it's not going to be a quick fix overnight,
but we want to do it properly.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
Seymour wanted it completely. Were you guys pushing back against that, Well, look,
I'm not sure what his comments are. I mean, we're
part of a cabinet and a collective responsibility. We collectively
made response decisions as a cabinet and that's how it works.
Appreciate your time very much, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith. I'm
glad you said that because I got a text a
moment ago and It's a very good point made what
(06:04):
Seymour CD yesterday as regards it was us who wanted
it out but the other guys didn't. Is you could
argue a breach of cabinet confidentiality. And part of the
coalition agreement is if you agree, you can agree to disagree,
and he didn't invoke that. He's just come out all
of a sudden seema and go and yeah, we wanted
it out, but they didn't. And so that's that's it's
(06:26):
got a little fresson about it, I think.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
For more from the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to
news talks.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
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.