Reports of retail crime, from shoplifting to vandalism and ram raids have almost doubled in five years.

Police statistics provided to the National Party last week show the monthly average of retail crime reported increased from just over four thousand in 2017 to just under eight thousand in the first half of this year.

On One News last night, a Hamilton businessman under siege from young offenders has a plea for the Government to take them off the streets for longer.

And in the New Zealand Herald, the owner of Te Puke & Rotorua Jewellers says in 15 years of business, he's had about 30 burglaries or attempted break-ins, and more than $80,000 worth of jewellery and watches stolen.

Aimee Hines is the Public Affairs Manager for Retail New Zealand and joined Kerre Woodham to discuss what retailers can do.

LISTEN ABOVE

Reports of retail crime, from shoplifting to vandalism and ram raids have almost doubled in five years.
Police statistics provided to the National Party last week show the monthly average of retail crime reported increased from just over four thousand in 2017 to just under eight thousand in the first half of this year.
On One News last night, a Hamilton businessman under siege from young offenders has a plea for the Government to take them off the streets for longer.
And in the New Zealand Herald, the owner of Te Puke &amp; Rotorua Jewellers says in 15 years of business, he's had about 30 burglaries or attempted break-ins, and more than $80,000 worth of jewellery and watches stolen.
Aimee Hines is the Public Affairs Manager for Retail New Zealand and joined Kerre Woodham to discuss what retailers can do.
LISTEN ABOVE

Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Aimee Hines: Retail NZ Public Affairs Manager on reports of retail crime nearly doubling in five years

There is one thing I’ve never heard one of the old soldiers you always see or hear on the news on Anzac Day saying. There are less of them now, of course, as time passes, but, over the years, I have never heard one of them say they had a great time and that going to war was the time of their life. I’ve never heard it. And I bet you haven’t, either.

And that’s why you’re not going to hear me ripping into those involved in the anti-war protests around the country yesterday. On Anzac Day.

For two reasons: I reckon in their heart of hearts, anyone who has been to war would agree that it’s a futile waste of time, energy, and lives.

The other reason is that of all days of the year, ANZAC Day is the perfect day to point out the futility of war. And, while the protest action yesterday was largely about what’s going on right now in the Middle East, war is war - whenever it happens.

Now I’m not saying that it’s a day to be disrespectful of those who served and those who are serving in our military today. I’m not saying that at all, because the first World War is part of our family’s history.

My grandfather went to Gallipoli. And survived, obviously - because I wouldn’t be here otherwise. He was decorated for his efforts and our wider family; we are very proud of that.

But, like pretty much every other returned soldier, he never spoke about it. Lord knows what personal trauma he was dealing with. But that’s how it was in those days, wasn’t it? No counselling or anything like that.

But if he had spoken about it, I’m sure he would have told us kids that war is a dead-end street. And it would be pretty hard to think otherwise if you’d been through it, I reckon.

Apparently, he put his age up to get himself into the army for the first World War and put it down to get back in for the second. But they might have seen through that, and he ended up in the Home Guard on the Otago Peninsula.

By that time, he was well on his way to having 11 kids and we’ve always joked that he would have been perfectly happy being down at Taiaroa Heads, if it meant just getting out of the house.

I’m telling you this, so you know that I’m not coming at this from a position of ignorance or disrespect. I have huge respect. Not just for my grandfather and other family members who served in other wars, but I’ve got huge respect for anyone who serves.  

But that doesn’t mean that I have to be a war-freak. It doesn’t mean that, just because war has been an important part of our family history, that I have to be a flag waiver for war, full stop.

And I’m not. Which is why I’m not upset about what happened yesterday. Which largely involved red dye of some sort being poured into public water fountains around the country.

The bucket fountain in Wellington was red. The fountain at Mission Bay, in Auckland, was red. Victoria Park, in Christchurch. Nelson and Hamilton were other places where protesters chucked whatever it was, they used into fountains.

Protesters also turned-up at the National Anzac Service in Wellington. But you probably know that that was called-off because of high winds. Which is saying something for Wellington. But I gather it was about the safety of the veterans, as much as anything.

Signs went up at the fountains, as well. A couple of examples: “Do not normalise Anzac violence”. “Honour the fallen by swearing ‘never again’”. “No glory in war”.

The same sorts of things we hear veterans say every ANZAC Day.

And I think one of the people involved said it perfectly when they said that ANZAC Day is “a time for reflecting on what is meant by ‘lest we forget;”. Which made me think. 

So too did Peter Fitzsimons in an article he wrote for the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday. He said that, on ANZAC Day, we get a lot of emotions: reverence, respect, and remembrance. But he said there’s one missing - which is rage.

Rage that so many soldiers were needlessly slaughtered on what he described as “inane battle plans that never had any chance of succeeding”.

Rage at the complete lack of remorse from those who sent them to their deaths. Rage at the refusal to learn from previous catastrophes to prevent the next one.

He was talking on behalf of Australian soldiers there, of course. But the same can be said on behalf of the New Zealand soldiers who went through exactly the same thing.

And I reckon any soldier - past and present - would agree with Peter Fitzsimons and those involved in yesterday’s protest action, that war is something to be avoided at all cost.

And I reckon any soldier —past and present— would agree that ANZAC Day is the perfect day to get that message across.

There is one thing I’ve never heard one of the old soldiers you always see or hear on the news on Anzac Day saying. There are less of them now, of course, as time passes, but, over the years, I have never heard one of them say they had a great time and that going to war was the time of their life. I’ve never heard it. And I bet you haven’t, either. 
And that’s why you’re not going to hear me ripping into those involved in the anti-war protests around the country yesterday. On Anzac Day. 
For two reasons: I reckon in their heart of hearts, anyone who has been to war would agree that it’s a futile waste of time, energy, and lives. 
The other reason is that of all days of the year, ANZAC Day is the perfect day to point out the futility of war. And, while the protest action yesterday was largely about what’s going on right now in the Middle East, war is war - whenever it happens. 
Now I’m not saying that it’s a day to be disrespectful of those who served and those who are serving in our military today. I’m not saying that at all, because the first World War is part of our family’s history. 
My grandfather went to Gallipoli. And survived, obviously - because I wouldn’t be here otherwise. He was decorated for his efforts and our wider family; we are very proud of that. 
But, like pretty much every other returned soldier, he never spoke about it. Lord knows what personal trauma he was dealing with. But that’s how it was in those days, wasn’t it? No counselling or anything like that. 
But if he had spoken about it, I’m sure he would have told us kids that war is a dead-end street. And it would be pretty hard to think otherwise if you’d been through it, I reckon. 
Apparently, he put his age up to get himself into the army for the first World War and put it down to get back in for the second. But they might have seen through that, and he ended up in the Home Guard on the Otago Peninsula. 
By that time, he was well on his way to having 11 kids and we’ve always joked that he would have been perfectly happy being down at Taiaroa Heads, if it meant just getting out of the house. 
I’m telling you this, so you know that I’m not coming at this from a position of ignorance or disrespect. I have huge respect. Not just for my grandfather and other family members who served in other wars, but I’ve got huge respect for anyone who serves.   
But that doesn’t mean that I have to be a war-freak. It doesn’t mean that, just because war has been an important part of our family history, that I have to be a flag waiver for war, full stop. 
And I’m not. Which is why I’m not upset about what happened yesterday. Which largely involved red dye of some sort being poured into public water fountains around the country. 
The bucket fountain in Wellington was red. The fountain at Mission Bay, in Auckland, was red. Victoria Park, in Christchurch. Nelson and Hamilton were other places where protesters chucked whatever it was, they used into fountains. 
Protesters also turned-up at the National Anzac Service in Wellington. But you probably know that that was called-off because of high winds. Which is saying something for Wellington. But I gather it was about the safety of the veterans, as much as anything. 
Signs went up at the fountains, as well. A couple of examples: “Do not normalise Anzac violence”. “Honour the fallen by swearing ‘never again’”. “No glory in war”. 
The same sorts of things we hear veterans say every ANZAC Day. 
And I think one of the people involved said it perfectly when they said that ANZAC Day is “a time for reflecting on what is meant by ‘lest we forget;”. Which made me think.  
So too did Peter Fitzsimons in an article he wrote for the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday. He said that, on ANZAC Day, we get a lot of emotions: reverence, respect, and remembrance. But he said there’s one missing - which is rage. 
Rage that so many soldiers were needlessly slaughtered on what he described as “inane battle plans that never had any chance of succeeding”. 
Rage at the complete lack of remorse from those who sent them to their deaths. Rage at the refusal to learn from previous catastrophes to prevent the next one. 
He was talking on behalf of Australian soldiers there, of course. But the same can be said on behalf of the New Zealand soldiers who went through exactly the same thing. 
And I reckon any soldier - past and present - would agree with Peter Fitzsimons and those involved in yesterday’s protest action, that war is something to be avoided at all cost. 
And I reckon any soldier —past and present— would agree that ANZAC Day is the perfect day to get that message across.

John MacDonald: Is ANZAC Day a time for protest?

Welcome to another war of words between the greenies and the government over changes to the Resource Management Act. 

With the poor old farmers stuck in the middle, just wanting the chance to be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to protecting the environment. And that’s what I think we should be doing. 

You know how people have this concept of Mother Nature and how it’s all peace and love and milk and honey and bees buzzing and gentle rivers and all of that? It’s amazing, isn’t it, how quickly all that goes out the window if the milk and honey brigade don’t like something?     

Here’s an example in relation to the Government making five changes to the RMA: “The Government is hellbent on pushing our natural environment to the brink, exploiting everything it can for any profit that can be squeezed out of it".

Who’s saying that do you think?

It’s not Federated Farmers, they’re saying pretty much the complete opposite. They’re saying that the changes announced yesterday are “an end to the war on farming”.

It’s the Green Party which is talking about pushing the natural environment to the brink. In particular, its environment spokesperson Lan Pham. Who comes from the same part of the country I'm in: Canterbury. 

Which is a hotspot for dairy farming, especially. Where truckloads of farms have been converted to dairy over the last 20 or 30 years. 

One stat I saw today said that the number of cows in Canterbury went from 113,000 in 1990 to 1.2 million in 2019. I’d always thought that we have the most number of dairy cows than anywhere else in the country, But I’ve been looking around online and it might be Waikato. But Canterbury still has a lot. 

And the thing that people often talk about when it comes to dairy farming, is the impact that level of expansion and intensity of farming has had and will continue to have on the environment. Because when a cow takes a pee out in the paddock today, it takes 20 years for the nitrates in that urine to work through the soils.

Which means that dairy farmers get a bad rap, but they’re not on their own, all farmers have been feeling the heat. 

And, according to Federated Farmers anyway, that’s about to ease with these changes to the RMA that the Government announced yesterday, which are about doing away with things like limits on how much land farmers can use for winter grazing and water quality considerations in consent applications.

If you were to ask me which of the viewpoints I noted earlier align most closely with my view of the world when it comes to protecting and enhancing the natural environment, if I was honest and I had to choose one of them, I’d go with what the Greens are saying.

But, unlike climate activists and politicians, I’m willing to accept that things aren’t black and white. Which is why I think it’s time we just trusted farmers to do the right thing and let them get on with it.

And I say that for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, I’ve got friends who are farmers and every time I go and see them, I can see that they just want to do the right thing. But, instead, they’ve had governments and government departments behaving like helicopter parents and watching their every move just in case they do something wrong. And that’s nuts.

And secondly, show me a farmer who wants to poo in their own nest.

They don’t. And this is where the greenies lose it. Because if they think farmers want to destroy the natural environment on their properties for short-term financial gain, then they know nothing about how it all works.

Farms are businesses, yes. But they’re also assets. And why would anyone want to do anything to damage their asset? They wouldn’t.

And that’s why I think that, instead of pulling farmers to bits, we should be trusting them to do the right thing. 

Yes, I know, there are muppet farmers - just like there are muppet townies. But we can’t do anything about that. And if you think the Resource Management Act is how you sort out muppets, then you might want to think again. So, we can’t do anything about the muppets. 

What we can do, though, is say to the farmers who aren’t muppets, that we trust them to do the right thing - and leave them to it.

Welcome to another war of words between the greenies and the government over changes to the Resource Management Act.  
With the poor old farmers stuck in the middle, just wanting the chance to be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to protecting the environment. And that’s what I think we should be doing.  
You know how people have this concept of Mother Nature and how it’s all peace and love and milk and honey and bees buzzing and gentle rivers and all of that? It’s amazing, isn’t it, how quickly all that goes out the window if the milk and honey brigade don’t like something?      
Here’s an example in relation to the Government making five changes to the RMA: “The Government is hellbent on pushing our natural environment to the brink, exploiting everything it can for any profit that can be squeezed out of it". 
Who’s saying that do you think? 
It’s not Federated Farmers, they’re saying pretty much the complete opposite. They’re saying that the changes announced yesterday are “an end to the war on farming”. 
It’s the Green Party which is talking about pushing the natural environment to the brink. In particular, its environment spokesperson Lan Pham. Who comes from the same part of the country I'm in: Canterbury.  
Which is a hotspot for dairy farming, especially. Where truckloads of farms have been converted to dairy over the last 20 or 30 years.  
One stat I saw today said that the number of cows in Canterbury went from 113,000 in 1990 to 1.2 million in 2019. I’d always thought that we have the most number of dairy cows than anywhere else in the country, But I’ve been looking around online and it might be Waikato. But Canterbury still has a lot.  
And the thing that people often talk about when it comes to dairy farming, is the impact that level of expansion and intensity of farming has had and will continue to have on the environment. Because when a cow takes a pee out in the paddock today, it takes 20 years for the nitrates in that urine to work through the soils. 
Which means that dairy farmers get a bad rap, but they’re not on their own, all farmers have been feeling the heat.  
And, according to Federated Farmers anyway, that’s about to ease with these changes to the RMA that the Government announced yesterday, which are about doing away with things like limits on how much land farmers can use for winter grazing and water quality considerations in consent applications. 
If you were to ask me which of the viewpoints I noted earlier align most closely with my view of the world when it comes to protecting and enhancing the natural environment, if I was honest and I had to choose one of them, I’d go with what the Greens are saying. 
But, unlike climate activists and politicians, I’m willing to accept that things aren’t black and white. Which is why I think it’s time we just trusted farmers to do the right thing and let them get on with it. 
And I say that for a couple of reasons. 
Firstly, I’ve got friends who are farmers and every time I go and see them, I can see that they just want to do the right thing. But, instead, they’ve had governments and government departments behaving like helicopter parents and watching their every move just in case they do something wrong. And that’s nuts. 
And secondly, show me a farmer who wants to poo in their own nest. 
They don’t. And this is where the greenies lose it. Because if they think farmers want to destroy the natural environment on their properties for short-term financial gain, then they know nothing about how it all works. 
Farms are businesses, yes. But they’re also assets. And why would anyone want to do anything to damage their asset? They wouldn’t. 
And that’s why I think that, instead of pulling farmers to bits, we should be trusting them to do the right thing.  
Yes, I know, there are muppet farmers - just like there are muppet townies. But we can’t do anything about that. And if you think the Resource Management Act is how you sort out muppets, then you might want to think again. So, we can’t do anything about the muppets.  
What we can do, though, is say to the farmers who aren’t muppets, that we trust them to do the right thing - and leave them to it.

John MacDonald: Who says farmers can't be trusted?

Have you ever heard of a placebo policy? That’s what this Three Strikes law is, and I don’t think bringing it back is going to make one bit of difference.

You’ll know what a placebo is when it comes to things like clinical trials where they give someone a sugar pill but tell them it’s medicine, and the person says ‘oh I feel much better, thanks’. 

The person thinks they’re using a real pill, or a real drug and their mind tells them that, because they're doing something, it’s working. It’s making a difference. But it’s actually not doing anything.

And placebo policies are exactly the same. They’re policies that people think will work —will make a difference— just because they exist. 

Or more to the point, they are policies that politicians latch onto because they think it makes them look like they’re doing something. Even though, at the end of the day, it doesn’t change a thing.  

And that’s exactly what the Government is doing with its plan to bring back the Three Strikes legislation. You commit crimes with punishments longer than two years and, the third time, the judge has to give out the maximum sentence. None of this discount business.

That two-year bit is key, because the new version of Three Strikes Version isn’t going to apply to low-level offending.

The idea behind that is to make sure there isn't a repeat of situations that even Labour thought were nutbar. Example: a mentally ill man serving nearly five years in prison for kissing a woman in the street. 

Nevertheless, some people love the idea of it. But there is no clear proof that it reduced the amount of serious crime the last time we had it. But the Government is bringing it back anyway because it can and because it will look like it’s doing something.

Criminal defence lawyer John Munro said on Newstalk ZB today that, even though we’ve had this law here before, the Government is pretty much flying blind on this one because there hasn't been any long-term research on its effectiveness the last time we had it.

And some people are saying that it’s likely some criminals, once they’ve been done twice already for serious crimes, will think even less about consequences because they have nothing to lose.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not in the least bit sympathetic to criminals. Not in the least bit. 

All criminals, but especially the lowlifes who commit the likes of the 41 different violent and sexual crimes we’re talking about with this Three Strikes law. You can imagine what they are, I don’t need to go through a list. Although, this time around, there’ll be a new strangulation and suffocation offence included.      

But, in your heart of hearts, do you really think bringing this law back is going to make any difference? I don’t think it is. If the aim is to reduce violent crime, then the Government is barking up the wrong tree with this one.

Have you ever heard of a placebo policy? That’s what this Three Strikes law is, and I don’t think bringing it back is going to make one bit of difference. 
You’ll know what a placebo is when it comes to things like clinical trials where they give someone a sugar pill but tell them it’s medicine, and the person says ‘oh I feel much better, thanks’.  
The person thinks they’re using a real pill, or a real drug and their mind tells them that, because they're doing something, it’s working. It’s making a difference. But it’s actually not doing anything. 
And placebo policies are exactly the same. They’re policies that people think will work —will make a difference— just because they exist.  
Or more to the point, they are policies that politicians latch onto because they think it makes them look like they’re doing something. Even though, at the end of the day, it doesn’t change a thing.   
And that’s exactly what the Government is doing with its plan to bring back the Three Strikes legislation. You commit crimes with punishments longer than two years and, the third time, the judge has to give out the maximum sentence. None of this discount business. 
That two-year bit is key, because the new version of Three Strikes Version isn’t going to apply to low-level offending. 
The idea behind that is to make sure there isn't a repeat of situations that even Labour thought were nutbar. Example: a mentally ill man serving nearly five years in prison for kissing a woman in the street.  
Nevertheless, some people love the idea of it. But there is no clear proof that it reduced the amount of serious crime the last time we had it. But the Government is bringing it back anyway because it can and because it will look like it’s doing something. 
Criminal defence lawyer John Munro said on Newstalk ZB today that, even though we’ve had this law here before, the Government is pretty much flying blind on this one because there hasn't been any long-term research on its effectiveness the last time we had it. 
And some people are saying that it’s likely some criminals, once they’ve been done twice already for serious crimes, will think even less about consequences because they have nothing to lose. 
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not in the least bit sympathetic to criminals. Not in the least bit.  
All criminals, but especially the lowlifes who commit the likes of the 41 different violent and sexual crimes we’re talking about with this Three Strikes law. You can imagine what they are, I don’t need to go through a list. Although, this time around, there’ll be a new strangulation and suffocation offence included.       
But, in your heart of hearts, do you really think bringing this law back is going to make any difference? I don’t think it is. If the aim is to reduce violent crime, then the Government is barking up the wrong tree with this one.

Aimee Hines: Retail NZ Public Affairs Manager on reports of retail crime nearly doubling in five years

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips