Govt Set To Surpass Both Law And Order Targets
Minister for Children
Hon Paul Goldsmith
Minister of Justice
New quarterly data shows the Government is on track to deliver on both law and order targets ahead of schedule, Minister for Children Karen Chhour and Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith say.
'We're determined to protect communities, reduce victimisation, and to encourage young people not to continue down the path of serious crime and incarceration,' Mrs Chhour says.
'A year ago we set a target of reducing the number of children and young people with serious and persistent offending behaviour by 15 per cent by 2029.
'A 13 per cent reduction in the most recent quarter shows we are hot on the heels of achieving our goal.
'We've trialled bold new responses to this long-standing issue and have ensured agencies work in greater collaboration with each other.
'Proactive data-driven regional responses have also helped. It has truly been a team effort.
'Budget 2025 saw further investment in multiple complementary ways to address recidivism amongst young people, including future iterations of the military-style academies and the Youth Serious Offender declaration.
'We continue to want better for, and from, these young people. This is a strong start, but we're committed to sustained and meaningful success for our communities.'
'This success comes off the back of the Government tracking ahead of its violent crime reduction target,' Mr Goldsmith says.
'Our Government has wasted no time overhauling a culture of excuses left behind by the last administration. Victims are our priority, and we've returned them to the heart of the justice system.
'The latest New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey shows that for the year to February, there were 157,000 victims of violent crime. This is 28,000 fewer victims than the baseline set in October 2023. Specifically, there were 12,000 fewer victims in Auckland and 5,000 fewer in Canterbury.
'There is a lot more work to do, but these results are a good early sign we are heading in the right direction.
'We've provided police and the courts with extra tools to go after gangs, brought back a revised three strikes sentencing regime, restored real consequences for crime by limiting sentence discounts, and scrapped Section 27 reports.
'We do, however, expect the data to remain volatile, and there's still more work to do to continue driving these numbers down.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
14 minutes ago
- Scoop
Please Explain! The Proponents Of The Retrospective Law Change Need To Front Up
Those responsible for pushing a retrospective law change that could wipe out the rights of tens of thousands of New Zealanders must now front up to provide a formal 'please- explain'. That's the call from Scott Russell, the lawyer leading the Banking Class Action against ANZ and ASB, who has formally written to Cameron Brewer, MP as Chair of Parliament's Finance and Expenditure Committee urging him to call key decision-makers and proponents of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill to publicly explain the rationale for this extraordinary intervention. The Committee has the power to compel individuals to appear and a more clear-cut case for using that power would be hard to imagine. 'The Government is rewriting the law half-way through an active legal case to benefit two powerful Australian-owned banks – and no one seems to be taking responsibility for making the decision,' said Russell. 'Hon Scott Simpson, Commerce Minister says the banks didn't ask for it. The banks haven't commented. MBIE won't release the documents. And the public is being asked to accept it all on blind trust. Enough. It's time for answers.' Russell's submission urges the Select Committee to summon the following to 'Please Explain': The Chair and Chief Executives of ANZ and ASB to explain their role in the process; Senior MBIE officials to justify the sudden shift to retrospective legislation following private meetings with the banks; The Reserve Bank to provide any evidence backing claims that the law change is needed to protect financial stability. 'If their rationale is sound, let's hear it. Because right now, no one has offered a credible explanation for why a law change ruled out during the public consultation stage was suddenly resurrected behind closed doors – and timed perfectly to potentially limit the liability of two banks in a live court case.' The Government has refused to release unredacted versions of the Regulatory Impact Statement and delayed key OIA responses until after the public submission period closes on 23 June. The Ombudsman is now investigating. 'The Select Committee process cannot be allowed to rubber-stamp a law change that overrides consumer rights and undermines public trust – especially when those responsible won't even show up to explain it,' Russell said. 'If this is in the public interest, let the public hear why.'
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Ninety-Five NZ Lawyers Call for Stronger Govt Stance on Israel Amidst Rising Tensions in Middle East
Ninety-five New Zealand lawyers – including 9 King's Counsel – have signed a letter to the Prime Minister and other ministers urging the Government to consider a stronger stance against Israel's actions in Gaza. The letter has been sent amidst rising tensions in the region, following Israel's surprise attacks on Iran, and Iran's attacks on Israel in response. The letter's signatories come from all levels of seniority in the legal community including senior barristers, law firm partners, legal academics, and in-house lawyers. The letter cites UN sources that document the steadily deteriorating plight of civilians in Gaza, featuring escalating levels of bombardment, forced displacement, blockades of aid and deliberate targeting of hospitals, aid workers and journalists, and notes key responses to date. In July 2024 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared Israel's continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to be unlawful. In September last year New Zealand voted in favour of a UN General Assembly resolution calling upon all UN Member States to comply with their obligations under international law and take concrete steps to address Israel's ongoing presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. At the time, New Zealand noted it expected Israel to take meaningful steps towards compliance with international law including withdrawal from the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The letter comments that Israel has done nothing of the sort. The letter goes on to point out that in May this year Independent UN Experts demanded immediate international intervention to 'end the violence or bear witness to the annihilation of the Palestinian population in Gaza.' UN experts have observed the occurrence of over 52,535 deaths, of which 70 percent continue to be women and children. The Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Tom Fletcher has called for a response 'as humanitarians' urging 'Humanity, the law and reason must prevail'. The letter urges the Government to consider a stronger response including to condemn Israel's unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, to review immediately all diplomatic and political and economic ties with Israel, and to go further in imposing sanctions after New Zealand imposed sanctions on two extremist Israeli politicians. One of the letter's signatories, barrister Max Harris, says: 'This letter reflects rising concern among the general community about Israel's breaches of international law.' 'The Government has tried to highlight red lines for Israel, but these have been repeatedly crossed, and it's time that the Government considers doing more, in line with international law,' adds Harris. Aedeen Boadita-Cormican, another barrister who has signed the letter, says: 'The Government could do more to follow through on how it has voted at the United Nations and what it has said internationally.' 'This letter shows the depth of concern in the legal community about Israel's actions,' adds Boadita-Cormican.
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
Former ACT Party president Tim Jago appeals sexual abuse conviction and sentence
Tim Jago was found guilty of sexually abusing two teenage boys in the 1990s. Photo: RNZ / Nick Monro A court has heard former ACT Party president Tim Jago's appeal against his sexual abuse conviction and sentence. Jago was found guilty of sexually abusing two teenage boys in the 1990s after a jury trial last year. One of the boys was under 16 years old, and the other was over 16 years old. Jago sought to have his conviction overturned as a miscarriage of justice, arguing the jury had reached an unreasonable verdict and that the judge's summary was unbalanced. Jago appeared remotely from custody at the Court of Appeal in Auckland today as he served his two and a half year sentence. His lawyer Ian Brookie explained the two-pronged appeal. Brookie first argued that Jago's conviction was unreasonable and that the jury should have entertained reasonable doubt. Central to his argument was that Paul Oliver - a survivor who waived his name suppression - was uncertain of the timing and location of the assault when questioned during the trial. "What we say is the evidence and the issues with evidence with reliability… There's just no way a jury could have fairly convicted this man," Brookie said. "Our submission is that evidence was so unreliable the jury should have entertained reasonable doubt." Brookie also took issue with the judge's summary before sending the jury to deliberate. The judge had advised the jury that the historic nature of the complaint, which came more than two decades after the assault, did not mean it was necessarily untrue. Brookie argued the judge should have balanced this statement with the defence's argument that the complaint could have been false. "The concern here is the jury is effectively being told by the judge that a delayed complaint is not untrue," he said. However, Crown lawyer Robin McCoubrey disagreed. "The very purpose [of the judge's statement] is to provide balance to correct the misconception that [a delayed complaint is more likely to be false]," McCoubrey argued. The second part of the appeal was that Jago's sentence was too harsh and that he should have been sentenced to home detention instead of imprisonment. Brookie argued it was wrong to characterise the offending on the whole as "sexual offending against children," because only one of the two complainants was under the age of sixteen at the time. He also said Jago should have been given a bigger discount for community contributions, though the Crown argued the discount he received was adequate. "The only just and considered response should have been home detention," Brookie said. "Ultimately, there was just a plain wrong decision not to impose home detention here. It was not appropriate to say deterrence required imprisonment." The Court of Appeal has reserved its decision for a later date. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
