Trespass bans and shoplifting fines: Tough new retail crime laws on the way
Stronger trespass powers on the way
Retailers have long argued that existing trespass laws are toothless, allowing repeat offenders to flout bans with little consequence. Now, the government says it's time to change that. Under a proposed overhaul of the Trespass Act, businesses will soon be able to ban offenders from not just one store but every branch of a chain – a move supermarket giants like Woolworths NZ have long championed, saying current laws are 'not fit for purpose.'
The maximum trespass period will increase from two years to three, and fines for refusing to leave or lying about one's identity will double. Justice minister Paul Goldsmith says the changes aim to curb the rising tide of violence and theft that many retailers argue threatens workers daily. Sunny Kaushal, chair of the Ministerial Advisory Group which drove the law change, said the current act was 'a joke' and the changes would bring New Zealand more in line with other countries like Australia and Canada, RNZ reports.
Shoplifting fines and new offences
The trespass reforms are only part of the government's latest tough-on-crime push. Earlier this week, Goldsmith announced new measures targeting shoplifting, including on-the-spot fines of up to $1000 and a new offence of aggravated theft for offenders who use threatening or violent behaviour. The changes aim to end what Goldsmith calls 'apparent impunity' for low-level theft, Katie Ham reports in The Post (paywalled). The new infringement scheme will allow police to issue instant fines on the spot, much like speeding tickets, while the maximum punishment for theft will rise to one year in prison for goods worth $2000 or less, or seven years for more serious cases. A new aggravating theft offence will also be created for high-value theft carried out in an 'offensive, threatening, insulting, or disorderly' manner.
Greens push back
Not everyone is applauding the crackdown. Green Party MP Tamatha Paul has called the shoplifting measures 'criminalising poor people', arguing that penalising those who steal out of desperation won't solve deeper issues of poverty and food insecurity. Paul, who has attracted attention for previous comments on crime – including claiming a woman was jailed for stealing $12 worth of items, which she later admitted to the Herald's Jamie Ensor she couldn't verify – says the government's approach ignores the underlying drivers of petty crime. As Stuff's Bridie Witton notes, 'her comments come as food banks report struggling to meet demand – even before the peak winter surge – and continue to call for increased and guaranteed government funding'.
Her criticism of the shoplifting law triggered a sharp response from National. Goldsmith accused Paul of 'giving shoplifting the green light,' and noted that Labour and the Greens had opposed other recent law-and-order changes like reinstating Three Strikes and banning gang patches. 'We can only assume this week will be more of the same.'
Part of a broader law-and-order push
The retail crime measures come as the government rolls out a flurry of law-and-order announcements. This week alone, ministers confirmed plans for new penalties targeting 'coward punches' and stronger sentences for those who assault first responders. At the same time, the Ministry of Justice quietly released analysis of February's controversial citizen's arrest law, another measure championed by Kaushal's advisory group. As RNZ's Russell Palmer reports, the analysis suggests allowing members of the public to arrest or detain thieves stealing from retail stores will do little for public safety. In fact, the analysis found, it could increase risks of force being used inappropriately, particularly against youth and Māori.
Undeterred, the government is hoping to send a message: shoplifters, trespassers and repeat offenders won't get a free pass anymore. Whether it makes a dent in offending, or simply criminalises the most vulnerable, is something both sides of the debate will be watching closely.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
4 hours ago
- Newsroom
RNZ an easy target for flailing Goldsmith
Comment: Melissa Lee was dumped as Minister for Media and Communications for being, in her own words, 'a little slow'. Lee had done nothing in her six-month tenure and resembled an opossum in the headlights when Newshub closed and TVNZ slashed staff numbers. If the same rules applied, Lee's replacement, Paul Goldsmith, should also be handing the portfolio over to the next hopeful. In his 12-month reign, Goldsmith has failed to strengthen the media presence in New Zealand – the job given to him by his boss, Christopher Luxon. He hailed Sky's $1 takeover of Three as a welcome investment in local media. It was, of course, the American owners admitting defeat and bailing out. This might be harsh, but Goldsmith's one achievement seems to have been getting walked over by Google and Facebook. Since Goldsmith gave up on plans to force these global giants into paying for news, Google has voluntarily started renewing content deals that were in place before the last election. These deals pump millions into the media sector including RNZ and TVNZ. Under pressure to be seen to be doing something, anything, Goldsmith has turned his sights on an easier target – RNZ. Easier in multiple ways. No one in the coalition Government is going to stand up for RNZ. Act doesn't think there is any need for the public broadcaster and NZ First leader, Winston Peters, seems bent on revenge for a perceived lack of reporting on his party's successes. The Prime Minister struggles with his own performances in the media and is unlikely to deter Goldsmith from selecting RNZ as a whipping boy. RNZ's falling radio ratings are a soft target for Goldsmith to zero in on. The connection between a falling audience and management failure is an easy concept to push and a hard one to defend. Further slides in the ratings following Goldsmith's pronouncements left RNZ's CEO Paul Thompson in a very tough spot. As well as indirect pressure from Goldsmith, Thompson would have felt the heat from a new (Goldsmith appointed) board member, Brent Impey. Impey is a veteran of commercial radio, where ratings are everything. The current chair, Jim Mather, would also see the need for action. Appointed chair during Labour's time in office, Mather is an ex-military man who understands the chain of command and always does things by the book. He would have felt the need to respond to Goldsmith's concerns even if he didn't agree with them. Thompson decided on a bold move. He contracted RNZ's former news boss, Richard Sutherland, to produce a report looking at the reasons behind the ratings slide and possible solutions. Thompson would have known that Sutherland, who left RNZ in August 2023 after five years as head of news, was unlikely to take prisoners. It was hardly a secret in media circles that Sutherland had become frustrated with parts of the organisation's structure including the archaic separation of news and digital (RNZ's web content). He was furious at what he saw as a lack of accountability from those overseeing online during the Russian propaganda fiasco in mid 2023. Thompson would also have known that Sutherland's report would end up in the public arena. RNZ is subject to the Official Information Act and competing media, particularly NZME, delight in opportunities to cast the state broadcaster in a negative light. What Thompson possibly didn't anticipate was how big a swing Sutherland would take at his old employer. In a report most media have described as 'highly critical' or 'scathing' Sutherland criticised the quality of on-air work, the amount of time staffers are allowed to work from home and a Wellington bias in its news selection. But perhaps the most interesting revelation in the report is that interviews conducted by Sutherland revealed most of the staff see radio as a sunset industry. It is not hard to imagine Goldsmith and Impey (who will probably chair RNZ after Mather retires from the board) saying 'gotcha' as they read that part of the report. There is no doubt RNZ has undergone a culture change in the past few years. After Sutherland left, he was replaced as news boss by Mark Stevens from Stuff. Sutherland grew up in commercial radio and TV – he is a broadcaster through and through. Stevens has no radio experience but is well regarded for his digital know how. In many ways Stevens has been a good hire for RNZ. With Megan Whelan (Head of Content) they have dramatically broadened the range and scope of RNZ's online offering. This has led to rapid growth in RNZ's online audience, helped by Newshub's closure and spikes in readership of one-off lifestyle or fast-twitch content. If RNZ was private media company, its executive would have been praised for the successful investment in online media. But the inability to slow the rate decline of radio audiences is now creating huge pressure on Thompson and his team. Whelan has resigned and RNZ has advertised for a 'Chief Audio Officer.' Turning around the ratings will be hard, partly because the staff view that radio is a 'sunset industry' is not exactly wrong. Like audiences of most legacy media with linear offerings, it will keep declining but the end of the medium is someway off yet. Sutherland suggested a 'high profile' hire would be an important step on the road to redemption, but who? NZME will desperately hold on to its stars and on-air talent from the failed Today FM have mainly drifted out of the industry. Ex-TV3 journalists like Paddy Gower, Duncan Garner, Rebecca Wright and Melissa Chan-Green are names being mentioned and no doubt considered, but the search for outside talent also highlights RNZ's failure to develop more of its own presenters into top performers. Who is the next Kim Hill? Katherine Ryan is probably the closest to a Hill-type RNZ has, but is in the later stages of her career. The Sutherland report also presents Thompson, now the country's longest serving media CEO, with another problem. It paints a picture of failure; failure to address problems that have built up over years. Radio stations take time to turn around and it usually requires myriad small changes as well as major ones. The RNZ board will be acutely aware the underperforming media minister Paul Goldsmith won't want to hear that. He will want a quick result to improve his own scoreboard.
The Spinoff
10 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Six Māori words spark a debate over how children learn to read
The removal of a learn-to-read book has infuriated teachers, experts and parents – and may prove a political misstep for National, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. Educationalists call book withdrawal an overreaction The government's decision to remove the learn-to-read book At the Marae from classroom circulation has triggered a storm of criticism from teachers, principals and literacy experts. The book, designed for five-year-olds, includes six Māori words – marae, karanga, wharenui, koro, hongi and karakia – which officials argued sat uneasily within the structured literacy model now mandated in schools. Yet literacy researcher Professor Gail Gillon, who developed the wider Best Start Literacy Programme, told RNZ's John Gerritsen there was 'absolutely no evidence' children found the reader confusing. 'And in fact, our data would suggest the opposite.' Teachers have been scathing too. Writing in The Spinoff, Auckland teacher Tansy Oliver calls the decision 'insulting to our children, our teachers and our nation', warning it risks deepening the alienation Māori have long felt within the education system. A political misstep? The reaction hasn't been confined to classrooms. In the Sunday Star-Times (paywalled), editor Tracy Watkins argues the government is playing 'culture-war politics with children's learning', positioning itself alongside its more extreme coalition partners rather than the moderate voters who kept John Key in power for nearly a decade – and whom National needs in order to win next year. The removal of six kupu Māori is, Watkins says, a misjudgment that damages National more than it helps. For education minister Erica Stanford – widely seen as one of National's more centrist, liberal-friendly figures and even touted as a future leader – the row looks like an unforced error. Watkins' assessment is cutting: 'It's hard to know which will hurt National most. Being seen as aligning itself with the bigots, or making itself a laughing stock.' The structured literacy defence Stanford has been clear that the policy is not an outright ban on te reo, noting that Māori words still appear in other Ready to Read titles and are taught explicitly from Year 2 onwards. But she argues that structured literacy – rolled out nationally from the start of this year – relies on tightly sequenced phonics instruction, and kupu Māori fall outside that progression. As Oliver explains, because words such as karakia or wharenui cannot be decoded (sounded out) at the five-year-old level, they are categorised as 'heart words' that must be memorised. In Stanford's view, limiting their presence in Year 1 decodable readers is consistent with literacy science. Stanford has also pointed to an apparent parallel, reports Gerritsen: English words do not feature in readers for te reo Māori immersion schools, so it makes sense, she said, to likewise avoid Māori words in English-medium early readers. But Māori educator Rawiri Wright said that's not a fair comparison, since mainstream schools are supposed to be places where all official languages are recognised. Does te reo even need structured literacy? Beyond the current row lies another question: whether structured literacy is the right tool for teaching te reo at all. In a Conversation article, education academics Brian Tweed and Pania Te Maro criticise the 'blanket application' of the approach in kura Māori, noting that because Māori spelling is entirely phonetic, children don't face the same decoding challenges as English learners. 'Instead, pushing structured literacy into Māori-medium schools seems to be driven by an ideological commitment to this teaching approach rather than an actual need,' they write. The pair also point to the Waitangi Tribunal's 1986 declaration that 'te reo Māori is a taonga (treasure) that Māori must have control of. It's for Māori to decide on changes and innovations in the teaching and learning of the language.' That principle underscores why this debate has become so fraught: it is not only about reading pedagogy, but about who has the authority to shape the future of the Māori language.
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
Cabinet minister Goldsmith involved in Seymour's UN letter controversy
On July 1, two days before the letter went to the UN, one of Seymour's advisers sent a draft to Goldsmith's office. 'Attached is the Minister for Regulation's proposed response... He mentioned that we had agreed to run it past your minister before we sent it off,' the email read. Act leader David Seymour sent a blunt letter to the UN after consulting Paul Goldsmith. Photo / Mark Mitchell 'It is a little more direct than what MFAT [Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade] might draft. Please let me know if your minister is happy.' Goldsmith's office responded the next day, asking for a phone call. By the morning of July 3, Seymour's adviser emailed him: 'Goldie is happy for us to send it. He is going to send his own mild MFAT holding letter on behalf of himself and [Māori Development Minister Tama] Potaka.' Seymour replied: 'Okay, great.' His letter was sent to the UN that afternoon. In a statement provided to RNZ on Saturday, Goldsmith said: 'When asked, I did not object to [Seymour] sending the letter, but when commenting on UN matters, it is the Foreign Minister's views that are relevant, not mine.' A spokesperson for Seymour said he had nothing further to add. Emails between Seymour's staff in June canvassed the options for responding to the UN and noted MFAT's preferred approach was a joint reply from 'relevant ministers' Seymour, Goldsmith and Potaka, in line with previous UN communications in 2024. Instead, Peters ultimately issued a Government-wide letter on August 11, striking a softer tone and expressing regret for the 'breakdown in protocol'. The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, Albert K. Barume, had raised concerns on June 12 about Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill, suggesting it failed to recognise Māori traditions or uphold Treaty principles. Seymour's reply branded the critique 'presumptive, condescending and wholly misplaced' and 'an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty'. After news of Seymour's letter broke in July, Luxon told media he agreed with its content but Seymour was wrong to have sent it: 'I expect Winston Peters to be the person that engages with the UN'. – RNZ
