Latest news with #DuncanWebb
RNZ News
a day ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
Opposition reacts to shoplifting crackdown as retailers celebrate overdue changes
Labour Party justice spokesperson Duncan Webb. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Retailers say the government's crackdown on shoplifters is overdue, despite the opposition blasting the law as confused. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith announced instant fines and tougher sentences for shoplifting offences. It's the latest in a slew of changes to the justice system, this time an instant ticket of up to a $1000 for those caught shoplifting. Under the proposed law, shoplifters caught stealing lower-value goods could be stung for up to $500. The maximum punishment for theft would go up to a year in prison for goods worth $2000 or less, or seven years for more serious cases. On Auckland's Queen Street, Queens Arcade property manager Ian Wright said it was a positive change. "These recent initiatives that the government's bringing in are what we've been asking for for a long time, and certainly was missing in the last regime," he said. "It's exciting, it's all about holding people to account, and this is just another step in the right direction." He had seen his share of crime in the area. "There are these recidivist offenders, and I think some of these new initiatives are really going to make the difference where, if you can clamp down on those are remove those from our communities, it's going to make the whole place a lot safer and the crime will drop." Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith and Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee announce the new infringement regime. Photo: RNZ / Calvin Samuel Labour Justice spokesperson Duncan Webb was unconvinced. "I just think it's hotchpotch and confused," he said. "I just don't think it's effective. It's making noises and saying 'we're doing something' when, in fact, you've still got to have the police to attend and enforce, we're not seeing that." Webb thought the government was posturing. "They're sort of lording it as 'oh, we're going to get tougher on shoplifters,' in fact, between one and two thousand dollar offences, the penalty is going down," he said. "That's what I mean, it's confused." Webb said under the new regime, the government had taken what was three bands of offending and turned it into two. "In doing that, the band between $1000-$2000, which currently is seven years imprisonment maximum, now becomes one year imprisonment maximum." He said resourcing the police force was vital. "We need more cops on the street, but also better resourced cops," Webb said. "It's no good them sitting at their desks, doing emails and filling forms, they've got to be freed up from that so that they can actually do frontline police work." Police faced a backlash earlier this year after RNZ revealed an internal memo suggesting lower-level retail crime - like shoplifting - would not be investigated. The new regime added an aggravating factor for high-value theft carried out in an "offensive, threatening, insulting, or disorderly" manner. Sandringham Business Association chair Jithin Chittibomma said the fines would make offenders think twice. "Yes, surely there will be people that don't care," he said. "But I'm sure there will be people that do care about their future, and even if it is a 10, 20 percent reduction, I'll take that too." Legislation for the new infringement regime was expected to be introduced in the next few months. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
3 days ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
Harsher penalties for assaults on first responders not effective deterrent
Labour's Justice spokesperson Duncan Webb, Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Labour says tougher sentences for those who attack first responders are not an effective deterrent. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith's bill proposes new offences for assaulting or injuring police, corrections, ambulance and fire officers with intent - a New Zealand First policy. The new offence of assaulting a first responder with intent to injure would mean up to five years in prison - two years higher than the standard offence - while injuring them with intent would carry a sentence of up to seven years and counts against the three strikes regime which can impose mandatory minimum sentences. Labour's Justice spokesperson Duncan Webb said attacks against first responders already attracted longer sentences. "So this is doing more of the same." Webb said harsher sentences were not an effective deterrent - and the three strikes law, for example, failed to reduce offending. He said the government should focus on recruitment to support first responders. "We think the better response would be to recruit more Corrections officers and the 500 police officers that haven't turned up yet. "That's what really makes them safer - to support them in the work that they're doing." Photo: RNZ / Marika Khabazi Goldsmith said first responders ran towards danger rather than away from it to help those who needed urgent assistance. "Assaulting them puts multiple lives at risk, so there must be greater consequences for these heinous acts of violence. Our hardworking police officers, firefighters, paramedics and prison officers deserve better," he said. The proposed legislation was promised in National's coalition agreement with New Zealand First, and follows a Member's bill by then-NZ First MP Darroch Ball was rejected in 2020 by Labour and National, which said it was poorly drafted . The announcement follows a suite of sentencing changes that came into effect on Sunday .
RNZ News
25-06-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Regulatory Standards Bill: 30 hours allocated for public submissions on Act Party leader's bill
David Seymour also hit out at online campaigns denouncing the bill. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii ACT Party Leader David Seymour is defending the Regulatory Standards Bill getting only 30 hours of public submissions allocated. Te Ao Māori News has reported the Finance and Expenditure Committee made the decision to allocated a maximum of 30 hours for public submissions on the Regulatory Standards Bill. Submission on the bill closed on Monday, which has been introduced to Parliament in various forms on three separate occasions; first in 2006, then 2011 and 2021. Speaking to media, Seymour said the bill was "probably the most consulted on bill this century" given it would be the bill's fourth time through the house. But, Labour's Regulation spokesperson Duncan Webb said it was the "most rejected bill we've ever seen" and Seymour wanted to "slip it through under the radar". Seymour said the point of select committee was to get information to the committee so they could write better a bill, not a "referendum". "There's never been a bill that has had more consultation, more study, more debates, more deliberation this century than the Regulatory Standards Bill," Seymour said. "If people really believe that 30 hours is not enough time to hear all valid views about it, then I don't think they're taking it seriously." The ACT leader also hit out at online campaigns denouncing the bill and providing guides on how to make a submission - particularly from Greenpeace. "Let's be honest, most of these people who have submitted have gone and clicked on a series of false statements put out by the likes of Greenpeace, and that's all they've done," Seymour said. "These are not people that have read the bill or have something to say about it. So, if the idea is that because basically, Greenpeace ran an email recruitment campaign, there should be more listening, I don't think that's true." In response, Greenpeace spokesperson Gen Toop said Seymour comments were a "pathetic attempt" to "delegitimise" opposition to the bill. "Seymour has gone from calling people bots to smearing academics , and now he's trying to sideline people who have turned to trusted civil society organisations like Greenpeace to assist them in having their voices heard," Toop said. Toop said it was a "travesty" that there would only be 30 hours for people to be heard in by Select Committee and the bill would insert "far-right ideology" into the law making process. "Everyone deserves to have their voices heard on this bill, whether they had help with their submission or not," Toop said. Opponents could be summed up as "never have so many, been riled up, by so few, over so little substance," Seymour said. "I don't believe there's ever been a bill in this Parliament where every single written submission has been heard. A lot of people make written submissions and they ask not to be heard. That's normal." Seymour said. Duncan Webb. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Labour's Duncan Webb said the bill had so far been "rejected every time" and Seymour did not want the bill to go through a full process. "He wants to slip it through under the radar. It's ridiculous. He's got a truncated select committee process. It should be heard fully. There are thousands of people who want to be heard," Webb said. "I like to think we live in a democracy where we give as many people as much voice as we can." Webb said there would be too many submission to go through the process "indefinitely" but 30 hours was "derisory" and "insulting". "It's undermining of people having a decent voice." Asked how long public submission should go for, Webb said 100 hours for the Fast Track Bill and 80 for the Treaty Principles Bill was an "indication". Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Scoop
23-06-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Labour Will Repeal Regulatory Standards Bill
Labour will repeal the Regulatory Standards Bill in its first 100 days in Government. 'The Regulatory Standards Bill has no place in a fair and democratic New Zealand and Labour is committed to repealing it in our first 100 days if elected next year,' Labour justice spokesperson Duncan Webb said. 'This Bill is another concession by Christopher Luxon to ACT that puts corporate interests ahead of the public good, making it harder to pass laws that protect people and the environment. 'Under the Regulatory Standards Bill, laws that would keep people healthy and safe, like requiring landlords to heat homes, limiting the sale of vapes, or keeping our air and water clean would be at risk. 'It allows David Seymour to create his own hand-picked 'appeals body of regulatory economists' to criticise laws that are out of line with his minority views. 'Put another way, it takes power away from communities and hands it to corporate friends of the ACT Party. 'Christopher Luxon was too weak to stand up against it, but Labour will repeal it,' Duncan Webb said.
RNZ News
07-06-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
The House: A sentencing hearing in Parliament
Rawiri Waititi speaks in the debate on the Privileges Committee's majority recommendation of parliamentary suspensions for three Te Pāti Māori MPs. The noose is a reference to a tupuna who was hanged in Mount Eden Prison. Photo: VNP / Louis Collins The fate of the three Te Pāti Māori MPs who performed a haka during the vote on the first reading of the Principles of Treaty of Waitangi Bill last November was decided on Thursday , following a long, and at times intense debate. The Privileges hearing outcome was something the Government clearly wanted finished, and it ended the week. Leader of the House Chris Bishop, kicked off Thursday's debate by asking the House to bring down the curtain on an issue that has lingered in Parliament for seven months. The debate boiled down to whether the recommended punishments - all unprecedented - were fair, or even wise. Before the debate paused a fortnight ago, the positions of the two largest parties ( National and Labour ) had been outlined. The Privileges Committee Chair, Judith Collins had stood by the recommended punishments, while Chris Hipkins moved an amendment to reduce them to more historically usual levels. Some of the speeches stepped beyond a simple defence or opposition. Some were personal, some philosophical, some emotional. A few moments are noted below. Labour's Duncan Webb, who is Deputy Chair of the Privileges Committee, is a former jurist and went for the dissect-the-facts approach. It felt like a trial defence summary. "It's well known that those three members chose not to attend the Privileges Committee or provide any explanation. They weren't required to attend the committee. They were not called to attend and therefore did not have to. Whilst they can't claim credit for cooperation - nor can they say they were denied an opportunity to explain - neither can they be punished. "It appears that some members of the committee may feel affronted that the members didn't come to the committee when they were invited. They may even consider that the members were defiant in not attending. "However, they were not required to attend. This is no justification for the imposition of a punishment that is disproportionate and arbitrary." Te Tai Tonga MP Tākuta Ferris took Te Pāti Māori's first call, and took a constitutional approach, questioning the underpinnings of the institution making the judgement. "This debate is not about a haka. It is not about a suspension. It's not about the interruption of a vote. "It is, at its heart, about the fact that this House continues to ignore Te Tiriti o Waitangi, that this House continues to ignore Māori sovereignty, and that this House continues to ignore all of the constitutional rights that flow forth from those two things. "The fact of the matter is simple: without Māori sovereignty, there is no Te Tiriti o Waitangi. "Without Te Tiriti o Waitangi, there is no constitutional right for the presence of the Crown in this part of the world. "Without the constitutional right, there is no Parliament." New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters is a harsh critic of Te Pāti Māori. There was a sense that the pot was boiling over as Peters, himself a member of the Privileges Committee, launched into Te Pāti Māori MPs. "No ordinary Māori, Māori, or non-Māori should accept the behaviour or the intent of this party of absolute extremists, screaming out that everybody else in the Parliament is here only by their behest. "Have a look in the mirror. Mr Ferris, look in the mirror. What is the majority of your DNA? What's the majority of your DNA? Well, if you're disgraced by your European DNA, we over here are not. We are proud of all sides of our background because we are New Zealanders first and foremost. As for blood quantum, if the cowboy hat wearer is an example of blood quantum, I'm going to a new biology class." Winston Peters speaks in the debate on the Privileges Committee's majority recommendation of parliamentary suspensions for three Te Pāti Māori MPs. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Labour's Willie Jackson also focused his speech on Te Pāti Māori, playing what could be called the role of 'good cop' and encouraging them to compromise. "You know I love you, but a little bit of compromise could help the situation... I know it's hard to apologise, but I want to say to you Te Pāti Māori that not every single Māori in the country supports you and they don't support some of the strategy. "They love you, I love you, but some of the stuff is not going down well. "This is the centre and a celebration of the Westminster system, and I think our challenge - as, I think, you know - is that we have to imbue some of our Māori culture into the system. "We have to get a partnership going, and I don't think the kōrero so far is going to help with the partnership. You know, we have to get the House to embrace some of our values." Willie Jackson speaks in the debate on the Privileges Committee's majority recommendation of parliamentary suspensions for three Te Pāti Māori MPs. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Former Speaker Adrian Rurawhe is also from Labour's Māori caucus. His speech was a change of pace and had a touch of elder statesman. He began by speaking of a new precedent set - a government majority within the privileges committee punishing the opposition. Raiwiri Waititi and Adrian Rurawhe chat during the debate on the Privileges Committee's majority recommendation of parliamentary suspensions for three Te Pāti Māori MPs. Photo: VNP / Louis Collins "There are no winners in this debate. Each party in this House might think they're winning by talking to the people that support them, but there are no winners in this debate - none - especially not this House. "The Privileges Committee of the future will have a new precedent, without a doubt - a new range of penalties against members who err in the future. You can guarantee that. "You can also guarantee that Governments of the day, in the future, will feel very free to use those penalties to punish their opponents. "This is what we are doing in the House today." The House also heard from the ACT party, who the Te Pāti Māori performed the haka in front of. One of the key points of contention was whether the ACT MPs were victims of intimidation. All three ACT MPs who spoke certainly thought so, with Karen Chhour, who compared the debate to an HR meeting. "I've listened to the speeches across this House, and the hate and the anger that's been chucked from both sides of this House, and it actually really saddens me - it really saddens me. Somebody can say that I don't have the right to stand here and speak, but that's what this place is about. "Four and a half years ago, when I had the privilege of being elected into this place, I felt that burden of what was expected of me when I came to this place, to represent the people that I wanted to come here to make a better life for." "This is what the Privileges Committee is there for - sort of like our HR, where we sit down and we discuss what the issue was and, hopefully, can come to a medium ground where there is a little bit of contrition shown from those who have had the accusations brought to them, and then a simple apology could be enough." Demanding an apology for behaviour found to be intimidating is actually one of the most common punishments recommended by the committee. The Committee's report noted that the MPs not meeting the Committee had no bearing on their decision. As in most courtrooms, where the accused have the chance to represent themselves. All three Te Pāti Māori MPs in question spoke during the debate. Rawiri Waititi used his speech to not only defend his and his colleague's position but as a rallying cry. Rawiri Waititi speaks in the debate on the Privileges Committee's majority recommendation of parliamentary suspensions for three Te Pāti Māori MPs. Photo: VNP / Louis Collins "Turn our rage into power and make this a one-term Government. Enrol! Vote! If you hear the haka outside these walls, add your voice. If you see injustice trending online, amplify the truth. "If you feel fear, remember fear is the coloniser's last currency. Spend it into worthlessness by standing up. You can bench my body from this house for 21 days, but you will never bench our movement." The Greens' Steve Abel, who was the last to speak, also picked up on the courthouse feel to it all, but not just any courthouse. "We're not supposed to critique the courts, but I guess this is a court of our Parliament. The Privileges Committee represents the Parliament. We have two of the most senior members of this Parliament on that Privileges Committee, the then Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, and the Attorney-General, Judith Collins. "Two of the most senior members, both lawyers, have egregiously punished one of the newest members of this Parliament. "What is the message that that sends to young people watching about the justice of this House, to newcomers to the House? "What is the message that it sends about a young Māori woman who has come and spoken with such certainty of the people she represents? "I think it sends a very bad message and I believe it renders the character of the Privileges Committee under that leadership as something of a kangaroo court." After three hours of debate, the House finally came to vote. All amendments put forward by the Opposition were voted down, and the original motion supporting the punishment recommended by the Privileges Committee was agreed upon, thereby kicking off the suspension period for the three Te Pāti Māori MPs, who also lost their salary and their votes in the House whilst suspended. - RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
