An amendment bill that allows citizens across New Zealand to arrest or apprehend suspected criminals in retail settings is causing concern for retailers and other bodies across the country.
The Justice Committee has been hearing submissions this week on the Crimes Amendment Bill, which includes several clauses that would, if passed, greatly extend the current citizen’s arrest laws as a tool to prevent retail crime.
The Crimes Amendment Bill offers other rule changes, including new specific offences for attacking first responders or prison officers, a crackdown on coward punches, a new shoplifting infringement regime, and strengthening trafficking and people smuggling laws.
Retail NZ CEO Carolyn Young said citizens' arrest is not a solution to retail crime and risks putting all New Zealanders at an unacceptable risk of harm.
“It would mean anyone could perform a citizen’s arrest and use restraints on another person,” Young said. “There would be no age restrictions, so it would include children, and would apply to any perceived offence – for example, taking a bottle of water.”
The Bill also proposes allowing the ability to strike offenders in defence of property.
“The majority of Retail NZ members hold serious concerns that these laws risk creating an environment where offenders proactively arm-up in the wake of these changes. That heightens the risk of serious injury, or even death, to retail staff and bystanders,” Young said.
“Our members have told us that they will prohibit their staff from undertaking citizens’ arrest in their stores, but they cannot stop members of the public from doing so. Enabling citizens arrest contravenes a business owner’s responsibility to comply with the Health and Safety at Work Act, where employers have a duty to ensure the health and safety of those in the workplace.”
Other members of Retail NZ, Young said, have pointed out that, even if an arrest was successful on their property, they do not have the facilities or staff to detain offenders until police arrive.
Young added that police resources are already stretched, with officers unable to attend all reports of retail crime as it is. Retail NZ understands that in most instances, police would likely instruct people to let the offender go.
“It is hard to see how the current citizen’s arrest provisions within the Bill would make any difference to New Zealand’s rates of retail crime. We hold grave concerns that this legislation, as drafted, would create more vigilantism and would mean our stores would no longer be safe spaces to shop and work.”
The New Zealand Police Association have also echoed Retail NZ’s concerns, sharing in a statement on its website that it is challenging the citizens arrest recommendations. These recommendations arose from the Government’s Ministerial Advisory Group for Victims of Retail Crime.
The advisory group was formed in July 2024 in response to a surge in retail crime, including jewellery store heists and ram raids, which put extra demands on Police resources and gained significant media attention.
NZPA said while the Government considered the advisory group as a success, it has nonetheless been widely criticised for an overly large budget, $1.8 million over 18 months, and some contentious, potentially unworkable proposals.
“Three of the group’s five members resigned amid disagreements, including over its decision making, before it was shut down six months early,” NZPA shared on its website. “One of its recommendations – to allow retailers to use pepper spray for self-defence – was roundly criticised by retail and security guard groups.
“The main outcome of its truncated tenure has been seeking changes to the Crimes Act to expand citizens’ arrest powers, as outlined in the Crimes Amendment Bill 2025 currently being considered. The recommendations include allowing retailers and the public to detain offenders using "reasonable force".”
“The proposal has been strongly opposed by not only the Police Association, but also Retail NZ, whose representative on the board was one of those who resigned.”
NZPA has already made a submission on the bill, alongside Retail NZ. The association raised concerns that the proposed changes would create legal and operational risks: “Put simply, the association fails to see any merit in encouraging untrained civilians/retailers to engage in potentially dangerous situations traditionally handled by trained police officers,” the organisation wrote.
According to the NZPA, there was a high chance of “unintended consequences” if untrained citizens sought to detain suspected criminals, it said. “A civilian attempting a citizen’s arrest is at high risk of either using too much force and exposing themselves to an assault charge or using too little force and being injured themselves and unable to safely detain the suspect.”
The Bill permits “reasonable force” to defend property, even if it involves striking or injuring someone. The association says this is effectively a licence to commit assault, with minimal safeguards.
“Arresting someone is not a job to be undertaken lightly; there’s a reason it is part of the weeks of training required of police officers before they are deployed,” NZPA shared in its statement.
Association president Steve Watt said the recommendations are a “train wreck waiting to happen” and would lead to members of the public taking unnecessary risks in scenarios that were likely to escalate beyond their capacity to control them.
“It’s difficult enough for a fully trained and well-equipped officer to make arrests in the scenarios outlined in the Bill, yet this proposed legislation seeks the same level of power for untrained and ill-prepared retailers and members of the public,” he said.
The suggested changes also appear to fail to consider the practical limitations of police time and resourcing. For a citizen’s arrest to be lawful, the citizen must immediately call the police. As the association notes, such calls might not necessarily meet the police priority threshold for a quick response.
“Police officers will not have the luxury of just dropping tools to attend citizen’s arrests,” Steve says. “Politicians know police resources are already stretched and yet we are discussing a piece of legislation that gives retailers the false belief that if they detain someone, they just call police and an officer will be dispatched.
“I suggest MPs considering this Bill ask themselves a simple question: What could possibly go wrong?”
Before closing down, the advisory group was also working on advice about facial recognition technology, security industry regulations, shoplifting infringement regimes and strengthened trespass laws.