The changes aim to curb rising retail theft and will allow reasonable force without age or value limitations.
New Zealand is a self-policing society because it has to be.
There’s just one officer to every 500 Kiwis (roughly 10,000 police vs 5.2 million Kiwis). Police cannot be everywhere so what we are proposing with citizen’s arrest powers reinforces the great Kiwi “have ago” culture that has been eroded. It means anyone, a homeowner, a tradesperson or a farmer can intervene when they see a crime taking place.
Think where it will lead us if our society is not empowered? If they yell “help” who will come to their help? But if not me, who?
By putting up barriers, the orange cone health and safety mentality for starters, we’re telling people not to act, to look away, to be passive to ignore. I would like to think that if I saw Labour MP Ginny Andersen being mugged that I would intervene.
Yet Ginny Andersen, Chris Hipkins and sadly Retail NZ, of all people, are saying no. Give criminals free rein. As it’s all on the police ignore it. Is that the New Zealand we want? A paradise for thieves and thugs?
The big picture
New Zealand has experienced a rapid deterioration of law and order over recent years. In fact, it has more than doubled.
Whether it is the most serious crimes that destroy lives, such as armed robberies or assaults, or repeated thefts that destroy businesses and livelihoods, we know that retailers and consumers are paying a high price for this disorder.
The biggest challenge we face is a perception by criminals that they are untouchable – that there are no consequences for their actions. That police won’t respond and that even if they do that the courts will let them go.
This sense of impunity harms us all. It escalates violence and encourages more criminals to do more crime – because they know they can get away with it.
This needs to stop. And that is what our work at the Ministerial Advisory Group for the victims of retail crime is focused on – creating a zero-tolerance response to retail crime.
Both the defence of property proposals that we are discussing, and our future work that I look forward to talking about soon, are all designed with the same goal in mind: to create a zero-tolerance response to retail crime. One that ensures criminals know they will be caught if they offend, and that they will face real consequences.
This is our best chance to break the cycle of repeat offending and to restore law and order - to turn the country back around to where we were just six years ago.
Sunny Kaushal is the chair of the independent Ministerial Advisory Group for the victims of retail crime.
So what has the Government agreed?
I am proud of the first steps we have taken to build a zero-tolerance response. Our announcements about citizen’s arrests are about empowering victims of crime to defend themselves and their property - and to ensure the legal system backs victims when they do.
Nobody knows how they will react when they are offended against.
Many people will choose not to intervene because it is not safe to do so. Many stores will have policies in place to prevent intervention. That is understandable and is not going to change.
Our proposals do not make anyone do anything. And I don’t want to see any retailer intervene where they would put themselves or their customers at risk.
However, the question I ask is this: Should our laws protect victims of crime, or should they protect offenders?
Should victims be at risk of civil or criminal responsibility if they take reasonable steps to protect themselves and their property?
That is what these proposals are about. Our proposals ensure the legal system adequately protects victims of crime who make a choice, in the heat of the moment, to act reasonably in the defence of themselves and their property.
These changes are not radical. In fact, all our proposals do is bring our laws more closely into line with those in Australia, Canada and the UK.
Nor are our proposals actually new for New Zealand. We already have citizen’s arrest powers on the books. But our existing laws are inconsistent, complex, confusing, and out-of-date.
Our existing laws leave gaps that expose victims of retail crime to possible legal liability if they act in the defence of themselves or their property. That is wrong.
And these gaps are absurd. Under existing law, a retailer would be legally protected if they acted to prevent a shoplifter who was stealing from them at 9pm at night, but would have no legal protections if they did that five minutes earlier.
That is just nonsense. And it isn’t good enough.
Retailers shouldn’t be exposed to legal risk if they act reasonably to stop the person offending against them, irrespective of the time of day.
Fundamentally, our announcements only aim to address these gaps, and to ensure that all victims of crime are protected when acting reasonably in the defence of themselves and their property.
These proposals are concerned with the protections available to every New Zealander. They do not create specific powers of arrest that regulate and protect the actions of security guards.
I know the industry is working hard on proposals that would improve the level of training and capabilities of security guards. I think this work is immensely important, and the Ministerial Action Group supports these efforts as far as possible.
Security guards’ work is key to delivering the zero-tolerance response we want to create. I support greater training, standardisation and professionalisation across the security industry at all levels of guards.
The work we announced this week is just a first step. I look forward to seeing how we can best work with the security industry over coming months to grow the capability, training, professionalism, and ultimately, the powers of security guards.
