Retail crime advisory group costs $500k in three months
Photo:
RNZ / Mark Papalii
The justice minister is defending the amount of money spent on the government's retail crime advisory group in 100 days, saying the group has come up with ideas the government will implement to better deal with retail crime.
The Labour Party says the half-million dollar sum is hard to stomach, and that ideas the group came up had previously been dismissed as being too dangerous.
But the group's chair says its budget is strictly managed and controlled, and he had robust checks and accountability measures in place.
The government has announced a suite of law-and-order reforms designed to crack down on retail crime, including on-the-spot fines for shoplifters, citizen's arrest powers, and toughened trespass laws.
The reforms were suggested by the ministerial advisory group, chaired by Sunny Kaushal.
Answering a parliamentary question from Labour's police spokesperson Ginny Andersen, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said "The Ministerial Advisory Group for Victims of Retail Crime has spent $507,468.71 from 1 March 2025 to 10 June 2025."
Those costs include personnel costs ($329,900.93), chair and member fees ($102,788.26), travel and accommodation ($9,605.71), and admin ($65,173.81).
Member remuneration is in accordance with the Cabinet fees framework, with the Ministry of Justice reimbursing invoiced fees.
On Tuesday, Goldsmith told media the MAG's budget was $1.8m a year, so it was under budget.
"The point of the advisory group is to come up with well-thought-through, oven-ready legislation for us to get on with, and that's what they've done," he said.
However, some of the policies still needed time to work through before the bill is introduced, or during the select committee process.
When announcing the trespass law changes, Goldsmith said the government would explore how best to support retailers when distributing notices to those who refuse to engage.
He also said the precise details on the use of facial recognition or CCTV to identify shoplifters would be "argued out" over the select committee process.
Andersen said it was unclear why that amount of money had been spent by the group.
She said when she was police minister, Kaushal had come to her suggesting a citizen's arrest policy, but it was dismissed as police had advised it was dangerous.
"It does seem an exorbitant amount for ideas that were given to our government for free, and ideas that have been advised as dangerous," she said.
Goldsmith, however, said he was confident the group had done what it was set up to do, and criticised Labour for not implementing such ideas.
"A lot of them weren't taken up because their government was frankly soft on crime and they weren't actually listening and making the changes that needed to be made."
Kaushal said the group operated under a clearly defined and stringently managed operating budget, controlled and overseen by the Ministry of Justice's finance team.
"In line with public expectations around the responsible use of funds, I have robust checks and accountability measures in place across all areas of expenditure," he said.
Kaushal said the group's "strict cost control and efficient operations" had already delivered a significant savings underspending from its allocated annual operating budget.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
20 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Letters to the Editor: nitrate, milk and mallards
Today's Letters to the Editor from readers cover topics including the risk of nitrate poisoning in Gore, the price of milk products, and a magic moment for a mallard. Think again on overdue fines clamp down plan The government will trial new technology which will help clamp and seize cars of people evading paying court fines, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says. There are some obvious and yet poorly considered difficulties with his measure. Many of those who incur fines have other liabilities such as child support arrears and debt to third tier lenders. Compounding this paradigm will not result in compliance. You cannot get blood from a stone. I sense that many of the cars clamped or impounded will be non-compliant — that is without WoF or registration. The relevant authorities will quickly accumulate scrap metal, and there is no shortage of old and non-compliant cars to replace those seized. The measure will restrict urban mobility, which means important family connectivity will be lost: those who work will be unable to do so, and school absenteeism will worsen. That said, the obvious work around will be to use a vehicle belonging to someone else. Enforcement costs will also exponentially exceed repaid fines. The solution is for realistic and structured deductions to be made electronically at source irrespective of its source. The reality is that many who owe fines are deprived and recipients of state support — life is difficult enough without the burden of fines — perhaps the expectation of payment should be considered before their imposition. Doing butter better One size fits all. Yeah right. If one size for all is wrong, then how can one price for butter, the export price, be right for all? It seems to me that the reason we are being told that one price is right is because one company has been allowed to dominate. What to do? One answer would be to break up the company. That is not likely to be palatable. Another would be to make remaining one company dependent upon looking after the domestic market. One price for exports, another lower price for the domestic market. Under the current arrangement, winning for Fonterra on prices, means losing for domestic consumers, other businesses, inflation and interest rates. Two prices and we could have win-win. If that change was made then I might agree with Fonterra's slogan on their website: "You, me, us together. Tãtou, tātou. Let us make it so. Those were the days Over 50 years ago, when our family first came to New Zealand, milk was price-controlled by government to 4c a pint. I think it actually cost about 25c a pint, but 4c was what you paid wherever you bought it. I think most New Zealanders would think this was a good use of public funds . Or you could insist Fonterra sell half the New Zealand requirement at a reduced price (as part of a licence to operate) and the government pay for the other half. Or better still, make Fonterra foot the whole bill and cap public company salaries at $750,000 a year. If it was done 50 years ago surely it could be done now. The modern equivalent would be making a one-litre can of milk 50 or 60c. This would affect everyone and could easily be transferred to the price of locally sold butter and cheese. Share the street On the subject of Albany St, why not just slow the traffic right down and make it a shared street? This would mean minimum disruption and cost, no loss of car parks and no removal of trees. Misfortune for mallard source of mirth for others Salutations to Stephen Jaquiery, your stellar photographer. His front page depiction ( ODT 25.7.25) of the mallard's icebound touchdown in the botanical gardens is a stunning tribute to his eye for capturing a magic moment, and his tenancity in waiting for it to happen. Fighting inflation I had a good laugh today at Ian Pillan's thoughts about a councillor's outraged reaction to questions surrounding fiddling with Albany St carparks ( ODT 26.7.25). It is a sad fact that the world is ruled by men, even in the 21st century still. Another sad fact that occurs to me is that many men, even with small amounts of power, have a very inflated sense of their own worth, often despite evidence to the contrary. We have some flagrant examples right around the world, at the moment, from Israel to Gaza to the US and elsewhere. I'd love the world to give women a proper go at it. It would be hard to do worse. State of Southland rivers in which I once fished and swam appalls The risk of nitrate poisoning has turned off tap water in Gore during the last weekend. Elevated nitrate levels, as we know now can cause health problems especially with pregnant women and babies. This is a fact that has been with us for many years now and the link has been made with intensive dairying. Ground water and many source streams and springs are utilised in town supplies and domestic outlying communities. This is a potentially dangerous situation, that despite warnings from health professionals and especially a fresh water ecologist Dr Mike Joy, is continuing. Greenpeace has now become involved to try and draw attention to this dilemma by doing what Greenpeace does; a little signage and minor vandalism. Now the irony. As Russel Norman points out after Federated Farmers Southland calls for Greenpeace to be stripped of its charity status. The SFF president Mr Herrick stated that the famous brown trout statue was made to look as if it had died.( ODT 24.7.25). Well the plastic trout may look dead but its real river lookalikes in many rivers are not there any longer because of abstraction and pollution (all smaller rivers and streams in Otago, Southland and Canterbury are polluted and or depleted). I know personally because as a youngster I fished and swam in all of them and even drank the water. Even the mighty Mataura River is suffering. There are over 600,000 dairy cows in Southland now. It might be time for Federated Farmers Southland to accept that intensive dairying threatens the wellbeing of others, see the water as common to all citizens, and really think about the role of Greenpeace in trying to keep our whenua safe. No to chemical fertilisers In the middle of the last century Americans brought chemical fertilisers to New Zealand and demonstrated how easy they are to use. Farmers adopted them and initially drilled superphosphate into the soil when sowing pasture or crops. This did little damage. From the 1980s farmers, particularly dairy farmers, added nitrogen to fading pastures by topdressing with synthetic nitrogen. This practice created runoff into nearby streams and rivers polluting the water and changing the environment. Recently it has been reported that the Gore drinking water had a reading of 11.4mg per litre of nitrogen. The recommended limit level of nitrates in drinking water in the USA is 10mg/L. Any level of nitrogen in drinking water is damaging to health, especially to young children and babies. Federated Farmers Southland president Jason Herrick seems to think that farming to the limit of drinking water impregnation is passable. I don't, the lowest amount of pollution is to be aimed for. The health and safety of our people should be of paramount importance. There is no longer an excuse for using chemical fertilisers in farming. Over the last few years research into regenerative farming using deep-rooted legumes in pasture by Professor Pablo Gregorini and medical researcher Dr Sagara Kumara at Lincoln University proved that organic/regenerative methods are more economic and produce as much produce as industrial methods. In fact, regenerative methods produce healthier soils, animals and healthier produce for people. It's here too There is no doubt about the origins of increased nitrates in Gore ground water. The same problem has appeared in Selwyn, Waimate and many other places in the Canterbury Plains and Otago low country for decades. A solid body of peer reviewed scientific papers show that elevated nitrate levels come primarily from large herds of dairy cows on bare ground during winter grazing regimes. In the absence of plant material the nitrates seep down to aquifers sometimes over a few days after heavy rain. Regional councils, which have the legal responsibility and authority to prevent this from happening, have known about the issue for at least 20 years. To suggest farmers and local authorities don't know the source of this threat to human health is disingenuous at best. Cottage owner backed My good friend Lou, of Crossans Cottage ( ODT 26.7.25) fame, has been dealt a low blow by the Central Otago District Council and I wish to express my anger, disappointment and confusion at the actions of council. (Oh I forgot to add frustration.) The council seems happy to hand out permission to those with bulging back pockets to build whatever, wherever and whenever but when it comes to this amazing woman who saw a dream in a few dilapidated stone walls to call it her own they have made her dream a nightmare. With the blessing of the descendants of the original owners she put in the hard yards to create an orchard and an amazing garden, which has made her self sufficient, alongside the most beautiful living space. No electricity but that's not a bother. I have been witness to an extraordinary Christmas cake being cooked in the oven of the coal range. Come on CODC show your softer side (if you have one) and accord this lady some empathy and a bit of gratitude for the fact she has restored our heritage in her own way. Draft apology Can we say to the CODC to pull its horns in, and cease its harassment of Mrs Lou Farrand ? One of the charms of Roxburgh is its collection of delightful old stone buildings, reeking of history. They would rather she demolish, and live on the streets? I offer this draft letter from the council to Mrs Farrand, which it may wish to consider sending her: "Dear Mrs Farrand, We write to apologise most abjectly for the high-handed bureaucratic thuggery we had inadvertently visited upon you, and at your stage of life. Indeed, we must thank you, and congratulate you, for your public-spirited work in maintaining your cottage as part of the lovely historic fabric of your wee town. How wonderful that it used to be a blacksmith shop. We want to ensure that your final years are spent in comfort in your delightful cottage, in full enjoyment of the way you have made it to be, free from outside aggravation. We acknowledge that, for all our local laws and regulations, Charles Dickens had a point, and hereby withdraw all financial demands, and will reimburse you for those already made. Apologetically, &c." My fee for providing this letter will be a great deal less than the four figure amount the council has levelled at Mrs Farrand. Providing peace We are a group of older Dominican women and are very concerned about the money and resources being put into armaments. NATO countries have increased their spending and it seems to us like an arms race we have experienced in our lifetime. This did not lead to protection or peace in the past and we are sure it will not do so now. The result was war on a large scale. It is of considerable concern to see that our government is following this trend and lauding evermore war preparations. A recent Faith and Reason column (Opinion ODT 18.7.25) provides statistics on what is happening. We do know what will prove to provide for peace is a very different direction. It will be to provide adequate shelter for everyone, healthcare from cradle to the grave, lifelong education, mutual respect for differences, giving shelter to migrants and care of our common home the earth. Sitting back How long does the world sit back and watch the appalling genocide of the Palestine people? Of all the countries in the world I would have thought Israel would have been the last country considering what they endured during World War 2, yet they are doing exactly the same to the people of Palestine. We have learned nothing from history I can't believe the world sits back and watches Israel kill innocent men women and children with the backing of many countries around the world. New Zealand led the world in the 80s with its anti-nuclear stance, although that didn't stop the warmongers of the world. But it made a statement to the world: as yet we hear no outrage from this government. Let's start by kicking the Israeli ambassador out of the country and to stay out till a ceasefire and peace talks begin Palestinians are dying in their thousands not only by bullets but by starvation possibly the worse kind of death imaginable. How many deaths is the world willing to put up with before they do something? Council thanked I would like to thank our Dunedin city councillors for their support of the Green Party's proposal to sanction Israeli politicians for occupying Palestinian territory. Night after night we see on our television screens the unimaginable suffering of Palestinian men, women and children whose only crime is to be born Palestinian and live in Gaza. One feels so helpless wondering why the rest of the world appears to do so little to stop this appalling situation. Now I hope other political bodies will follow the example of our council. Government complicity If I was to judge New Zealanders reactions to, and opinions of, the horror being played out in Gaza, by our government's official response, I could be forgiven for thinking that as a nation we deem this to be just another one of those conflicts in foreign parts; a situation where both sides are similarly responsible and should get around the table and sort out their differences. Winston Peters and the government's response appears to be driven by how other nations are responding (waiting for the other bystanders to speak out) rather than reflecting, not only the outrage but the emotional reaction of normal New Zealanders in the street and on the couch. Many of us are moved to tears or physically sickened by the daily stories and images representing the systematic destruction of the Palestinian people. To most decent people around the world, this is genocide. New Zealand was once considered a leader in international issues; speaking out against racism, environmental issues, climate change, anti-nuclear stance, to name just a few. However, this government has swiftly reduced us to a nation of followers happy to wait for other nations to act first before we squeak "yeah us too!" Our government will go down in history as having sat on its hands and waited until it was too late and thus become complicit in the horror. A little to give I note Givealittle has made it virtually impossible to get any money into Gaza for fear this money might fall into the hands of Hamas, even when the money is gathered for a known family in Gaza. This ostensibly because under New Zealand's Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism regime the funds could fall into the hands of Hamas, designated as a "terrorist" entity. So, while Gaza burns, while Israel deliberately minimises access to life necessities such that we see many civilians starving and even more children dying, Givealittle is concerned the funds could be used by someone linked to Hamas. So do we just look on helplessly as Mr Netanyahu and his government continue their deadly purge? Forgetting never again The meaning of "never again" has been forgotten. What has been remembered is the historic lesson on how to implement the process of destroying a specific group people. How is this done? Over decades you bully, humiliate, stigmatise, control and dehumanise the group. You systematically destroy cultural institutions — schools, universities, museums, places of worship and anything else that expresses the identity of the people. You move them from place to place, surveil their every move, destroy their homes, farmland and orchards. In the process you destroy communities, sow hatred and suspicion and also teach your children to hate. You deny your actions are responsible for the formation of resistance groups. You then use a horrific revenge attack as an excuse to destroy the entire population. Bomb and starve, cut off aid and blame it all on the people themselves. Prevent any objective reporting by banning journalists and assassinating local journalists. Convince the world that what you have done must never be seen in a negative light because of your past suffering. As the eternal victim no one can speak out against you. Governments and the media play the game. Stay silent, let the suffering continue until the broken and destroyed people can be hidden. Your greatest success may be that you will have destroyed memory. What? Did these people ever exist? The land was always yours. What happened to "never again"? Will our government and others ever take meaningful action or will they remain complicit? Solar farm In response to Ian Breeze on the proposed Helios Energy solar farm (Letters ODT 23.7.25), the benefits from photovoltaic power in lowering carbon emissions are real, but such facilities are not environmentally neutral as is suggested. Over a decade, I drove weekly between Durham and London along the M1 motorway and saw multiple building sites in designated areas of natural beauty. At first, I assumed this was housing but after the first photovoltaic panels appeared I realised this was different. Working at the Durham Energy Institute, (on nuclear power) I asked colleagues about what this was about; farmers were paid to set aside land for environmental reasons and the panels, in theory, are not buildings. Therefore, Peter Rabbit could frolic as usual and plants can grow around the infrastructure. This has not turned out to be true; the environment was impacted; this is a form of creeping urbanisation, a curse that affects countries in Europe as much its does New Zealand. There is a better way. In many countries planning consent for all new buildings can include mandatory rooftop solar. Tax credits are available for converting existing roof tops and carparks. Imagine all the large supermarkets and stores across Dunedin with solar panels on the roof and as shades in the car park? Imagine the impact on energy security as on sunny days we can reduce the hydro output, mitigating the impact of dry years and reducing natural gas imports. We need wind and solar. We are behind the global curve. With our hydropower as a strategic reserve (supplemented by a pumped hydro scheme at Lake Osbourne) we have an opportunity for solar and wind — we are closer to the equator than countries with significant solar power — to provide a secure source of energy. We held a referendum I refer to the letter from Dr Bernard Fouke (Letters ODT 24.7.25) and his statement: "I challenge the government to submit a referendum to let the public decide if the taxing system should be changed to support an adequately sized public system". May I suggest such a referendum has taken place. It was our last general election, both parties put forward their tax policies. Neither proposed a capital gain tax or adjustment to superannuation. During Covid we saw a $60 billion injection primarily for our health response. This is double our annual health budget. The interest on this loan is $3b annually. So the present government is injecting an extra 10% of the health budget into our health system to continue to pay for our Covid response. If 20,000 were saved from death by the government's Covid response, $60b divided by 20,000 equals $3 million per person. The question is, can we borrow more money or change a tax system that many may resist? The consequences will be the next generation will have to pay for the debt we incur today. Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: editor@
Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
HTP Change Aimed At Stopping Smoking
Hon Casey Costello Associate Minister of Health The Government's move to reduce the excise on Heated Tobacco Products (HTPs) is about getting more people to quit smoking, Associate Health Minister Casey Costello said today. 'The Labour Party and some people in RNZ are fixated on tobacco companies,' Ms Costello says. 'What Ayesha Verrall has said about the cost and benefit of this policy is completely untrue. 'We want people to stop smoking, and the contingent liability forecast by Treasury will only happen if a lot of people quit smoking and the Government's revenue from tobacco excise reduces significantly because of this. 'Obviously if that happens it's a good thing for smoking rates and peoples' health. Last year, a change was made to halve the excise duty on heated tobacco products (HTPs) to see if that might encourage cigarette smokers to switch to a less harmful product. There was to be an evaluation of the change after a year, but because of vaping regulation changes, HTP devices were withdrawn from the market for some of the year. HTPs are now back on the market and the review has been extended to July 2027 as there will be more data available. Last year's cabinet paper included preliminary modelling from the Ministry of Health showing 7,200 people quitting smoking in the first two years from the excise change. It also included estimates of the potential costs from reduced revenue from tobacco excise from people no longer smoking, and from the excise reduction on HTPs. These were included in the Budget documents as contingent liabilities to recognise the potential impact on the Government's accounts. 'What Labour and RNZ are saying is incredibly misleading,' Ms Costello says. 'To be absolutely clear, this is no 'tax break' for the industry. 'I said at the time and continue to say that our drive is to stop smoking. We are trying to see if HTPs can play a similar role to vaping and provide an alternative product and way to quit for smokers. 'We've made great progress in reducing smoking rates and with particular groups like young people and most smokers are now long-term and older and we need to try different ways to help them. 'While a full evaluation of this policy is two years away, I have asked the Ministry of Health to ensure that the excise reduction in HTPs continues to be passed on to consumers.' The Ministry of Health has also established an expert advisory group to look at improving the regulatory regime around all nicotine and tobacco products. The group includes representatives from Health Coalition Aotearoa, ASH, Vape Free Kids, Cancer Society, Heart Foundation, Hāpai te Hauora, the Asthma and Respiratory Foundation, Auckland and Otago Universities and other experts and is due to report to the Minister before the end of the year.
Scoop
7 hours ago
- Scoop
Voting Reforms, Prisoner Bans And Enrolment Changes - What You Need To Know About The Electoral Amendment Bill
Explainer - The Electoral Amendment Bill faces its first reading today in Parliament. But what does it actually say? The government has announced sweeping plans to change electoral processes before the 2026 election. In announcing the bill last week, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the government was "overhauling outdated and unsustainable electoral laws". However there's been pushback at the proposed changes, especially the elimination of Election Day enrolment. The bill is set to face its first reading in Parliament on Tuesday afternoon. Here's a breakdown of what the bill proposes and the reaction to it. What the bill is The Electoral Amendment Bill claims it "makes a range of systems improvements to support the timeliness, efficiency, integrity, and resilience of the electoral system". It makes a suite of changes including ending same-day voter enrolment, banning prisoner voting, changes to treating on Election Day and expanding anonymous political donation limits. Here's the main points. You will no longer be able to enrol to vote on Election Day Same-day enrolment will be a thing of the past if the bill passes. "Allowing late enrolments, however well intentioned, has placed too much strain on the system," Goldsmith said. "The final vote count used to take two weeks, last election it took three. "If we leave things as they are, it could well take even longer in future elections. The 20-day timeframe for a final result will likely already be challenging to achieve at the next election without changes." Voters had been able to show up during the advance voting period and enrol at the same time, as well as on Election Day, with their vote being counted as a special vote. The government wants to close enrolment before advance voting begins, with people needing to enrol or update their details by midnight on the Sunday before advance voting starts on the Monday morning (in other words, 13 days before election day). The legislation sets a requirement of 12 days advance voting at each election. The changes could mean special vote processing could get underway sooner. Speaking to Morning Report this week, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said "we want enrolment to happen before early voting starts". "The experience last time was by virtue of having on the day enrolment we ended up in a situation where it took us three weeks to count the vote, which was the longest it had ever taken us as well. "We want everyone to participate, you've got plenty of time to do so. "They can participate in the voting, they just need to do it and get themselves organised earlier, that's all." University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said the change might affect future election results and how they lean politically. "As a whole, since 1999 special votes have favoured the parties of the left - resulting in their picking up one or two more seats in the House at the expense of parties on the right. Restricting same day enrolment and voting can thus be predicted to reduce the number of votes cast by groups that support left-of-centre parties." However, he said that impact could be offset by voters enrolling earlier. "However, the groups most affected here - younger voters, those who are transient, and minority populations - are the hardest to reach through education campaigns and the like. That means we can predict that there will still be a substantial number of people not properly enrolled when voting commences, who will as a result lose the right to have their vote counted." The changes won't actually stop people from casting a ballot on election day, he said. Special votes must still be processed. "It's just that they won't be included in the final vote count once it is determined that the person has not enrolled to vote by the required time," Geddis said. "As such, the effectiveness of this change in reducing the burden on electoral officials is open to question." The bill would also introduce automatic enrolment updates so the Electoral Commission can update people's enrolment details using data from other government agencies, and remove postal requirements for enrolment. What are those special votes again? Special votes are anyone who isn't on the electoral roll or unpublished roll, lives overseas or vote away from a polling place because they can't get to one. The number of special votes have been growing which has resulted in seats swinging in the final count compared to election night. In 2023, nearly 21 percent, or 603,257 of all votes cast, were special votes. Only 78,030 of those were from overseas voters. Processing them takes more time than regular votes. Goldsmith said late enrolments placed too much strain on the system. "If we leave things as they are, it could well take even longer in future elections. The 20-day timeframe for a final result will likely already be challenging to achieve at the next election without changes." If you're in prison serving a sentence, you'll no longer be able to vote, period The bill disqualifies all prisoners convicted and sentenced from enrolling and voting while in prison. It doesn't apply to persons who have committed a crime but are detained in a hospital or secure facility. In 2020, the Labour government amended the law so that only people serving a term of three or more years were disqualified. The National-led coalition government had earlier signalled the change back. "Everyone understands that if you violate the rights of others, you surrender certain rights of your own," ACT justice spokesperson Todd Stephenson said. "Reinstating the ban on prisoner voters makes the consequences for crime clearer." Does this all make it harder for people to vote? Some have said the new bill will disenfranchise voters, while others are applauding it. "This is a significant, but necessary change," Goldsmith said. "The Electoral Commission will have plenty of time to run an education campaign to ensure people understand the new requirements." In a Regulatory Impact Statement prepared earlier this year, the Ministry of Justice did not support closing enrolment earlier. "Its impact on reducing special votes is uncertain, while its impact on democratic participation could be significant," officials said. And the government's Attorney-General, Judith Collins, has also said the legislation could breach the Bill of Rights. In a report, Collins concluded that the bill appeared inconsistent with the right to vote, to freedom of expression and the rights of prisoners in certain circumstances regarding changing penalties. She pointed to section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which states that every New Zealand Citizen who is of or over the age of 18 has the right to vote. "The accepted starting-point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy," the report states. "A compelling justification is required to limit that right." Geddis said that Collins' report was not surprising. "We know that banning all prisoners from voting is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights as the Supreme Court has declared this to be so. And in relation to removing same-day enrolment and voting for the entire voting period, the fact that there are other ways to address the problem of a slow vote count without taking away people's right to vote means it is not a justified limit. As such, the Attorney-General's conclusions are to be expected." Green Party spokesperson for Democracy and Electoral Reform Celia Wade Brown said: "These changes represent a dark day for our democracy. "Requiring enrolments before voting starts will see even more people miss out from expressing their democratic right. In the last General Election, over 200,000 people enrolled to vote or updated their details in the last 12 days. These changes would see all of these people miss out on having their say." ACT's Stephenson disagreed, calling late enrollees "lazy". "Democracy works best when voters are informed, engaged, and take the process seriously. It's outrageous that someone completely disengaged and lazy can rock up to the voting booth, get registered there and then, and then vote to tax other people's money away." ACT leader David Seymour also weighed in for the change, saying"frankly, I'm a bit sick of dropkicks that can't get themselves organised to follow the law." Those comments were later called "unhelpful" by Justice Minister Goldsmith. "I disagree with that language ... It's not language I would use," Luxon told Morning Report. Geddis said it was worrying to see an "apparent dismissiveness" by the government of concerns. "They are being warned that their proposed legislation will remove a fundamental right from thousands of New Zealanders without good enough reason. "Their response then seems to be that this is a trifling matter which can be overlooked because it is easier and more administratively convenient to simply stop allowing same day enrolment and voting. "Or, even worse, that the people whose rights are being limited are just 'dropkicks' who do not deserve any respect." Political donation changes The government has also announced that it will slightly increase the threshold for anonymous political donations. "The donation threshold for reporting the names of party donors is also being adjusted from $5000 to $6000, to account for inflation," Goldsmith said. The Greens' Wade Brown criticised that. "While the government has taken away votes from people in prison and made it harder to vote in general, it has made it easier for wealthy people to donate to political parties from the shadows by raising the disclosure threshold to $6000," she said. What is treating, and why are they cracking down on it? Treating is the practice of influencing a voter by providing them with free food, drink, or entertainment. It's already an offence, but the bill aims to make it clearer what exactly isn't allowed. The bill creates a new offence that prohibits the provision of free food, drink or entertainment within 100 metres of a voting place while voting is taking place. It will be punishable by a fine of up to $10,000. "There has been some confusion in the past around what is and isn't treating," Goldsmith said. "This will make the rules crystal clear." Election advertising or campaigning is not permitted within 10 metres of a voting place during advanced voting, and not at all on election day itself. In a Regulatory Impact Statement, Ministry of Justice officials said controlled areas around voting places would make it more straightforward to identify and prosecute offending and was more readily enforceable than the status quo. "The offence will not require that a person intends to corruptly influence an elector. Instead it will only require that they knowingly provided food, drink and entertainment within the controlled area," they said. But it was not their preferred option. "A key drawback of this option is that it is a blunt tool which does not exclusively capture harmful or corrupt behaviour. It draws a superficial line around voting places which may be arbitrary if the influencing behaviour occurs just outside the controlled area." Complaints about possible breaching of treating by providing food at a polling booth at Manurewa Marae were investigated after the 2023 election. It found those did not meet the test for treating. What's next? The first reading today will determine the path forward for the bill. If it passes a first reading, it's referred on to a Select Committee for further development, then will be further considered by Parliament. Geddis said these reforms were left to a simple majority of votes in Parliament like any other piece of legislation. "Because the government has a majority in Parliament, if it wants to do this, it can. It's just a question of whether it's the right thing to do," he told RNZ's Checkpoint.
