Businesses and members of the public are within days of gaining much wider powers to detain people they catch stealing, after Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith confirmed the Government’s overhaul of the Crimes Act will begin its final reading in Parliament this week.
In a statement released on Tuesday 4 August, Goldsmith said the Crimes Amendment Bill would come into force within a week of passing. He framed it as one of the last big law and order promises the coalition made before the 2023 election, and one it intends to finish before voters go to the polls again.
“We promised to have this passed into law before the next election. We’re delivering,” Goldsmith said. “This legislation will take effect within a week of this Bill passing into law.”
The citizens’ arrest changes are the part that has drawn the most fire. At the moment a private person can only arrest someone for a lower-level Crimes Act offence, including theft of goods worth under $1,000, if it happens between 9pm and 6am. The bill scraps that window, so a shopkeeper, a security guard or a passer-by will be able to intervene in any Crimes Act offence at any hour of the day.
Anyone making an arrest will have to contact police and follow their instructions. The bill also spells out that restraints can be used when reasonable, and rewrites the defence of property provisions so it is clear that reasonable force is available to someone protecting their own goods.
Goldsmith said the case for change rests on how much retail crime has grown. “The economic cost of retail crime in New Zealand is in the billions. Retailers and security guards face abuse and assault that no New Zealander should be subjected to,” he said. Government figures put the rise in retail crime at 85 percent between 2019 and 2023, with theft victimisations up 91 percent.
The bill is an omnibus, and the arrest powers are only one strand. It creates new offences for assaulting first responders and front-line corrections workers, adds three new coward punch offences, sets up a shoplifting infringement regime, and stiffens the penalties for human trafficking, people smuggling and dealing in slaves. Several of those were written into the National and New Zealand First coalition agreement.
“Where others may flee, first responders and front-line corrections workers run towards danger to help those who need urgent assistance,” Goldsmith said. “Assaulting them puts multiple lives at risk, so there must be greater consequences for these terrible acts of violence.”
The opposition parties have not fought the bill as a whole. Labour, the Greens and Te PΔti MΔori backed the trafficking reforms and the new protections for first responders. What they voted against was the sharp increase in penalties for theft.
Under the bill the maximum sentence for stealing property worth $500 or less rises from three months in prison to a year. Theft of goods worth up to $2,000 also carries a maximum of a year, and anything above that a maximum of seven years.
Labour justice spokesperson Camilla Belich argued during the committee stage that the increase would fill prisons without making anyone safer. “Replacing three months with a year as the punishment for theft is predicted to have an absolutely enormous impact on the number of prisoners in New Zealand,” she said on 3 August that “we all want to see people who are dangerous no longer in the position where they can hurt other people. But, in this instance, we’re talking about theft.”
Justice ministry projections cited during the debate put the extra prison muster at roughly 250 people a year, with the women’s prison population potentially rising by 63 percent because women are more likely to be charged with lower-level theft. Minister Karen Chhour, responding for the Government, said it was an outcome the Government was willing to accept to ensure tougher consequences on offending.
The arrest powers have also been opposed by the two groups the Government says the bill is meant to help. In a statement published on 12 March 2026, Retail NZ chief executive Carolyn Young said the powers would not reduce retail crime and would put staff and customers in danger.
“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,” Young said. She added that even a successful arrest left shops in an awkward position, because “they do not have the facilities or staff to detain offenders until police arrive”.
The Police Association was blunter. In a piece published on 1 March 2026 it said it “fails to see any merit in encouraging untrained civilians/retailers to engage in potentially dangerous situations traditionally handled by trained police officers”, and warned that a civilian attempting an arrest risks “either using too much force and exposing themselves to an assault charge or using too little force and being injured themselves”.
Submitters also raised the fact that the powers apply regardless of the age of the person being arrested, with agencies warning that young people are more likely to be restrained simply because they are easier to hold. The Children’s Commissioner made that point to the Justice Committee earlier this year.
Employer groups have made a workplace safety argument as well. Back in February 2025, when the policy was first floated, Employers and Manufacturers Association head of advocacy Alan McDonald said employers “have a duty of care not to put their people in harm’s way” and that the proposals risked “an escalation in violence”.
None of that has changed the Government’s direction. The bill had its second reading on 30 June and cleared the committee of the whole House in early August, leaving only the third reading before it becomes law. With Parliament heading towards the election, the coalition has the numbers to finish it.
Justice policy is shaping up as one of the clearer dividing lines this election. If you want to see where each party sits on crime, sentencing and policing, our voting tool lets you compare their positions side by side.
The practical question for most people is a simple one. If you see someone walking out of a shop with unpaid goods, should you stop them, and are you willing to take the risk if you do. Tell us what you think in the comments below.
This article was written by AI, briefed to report the facts, hopefully without some of the bias people bring to the job π
Leave a Reply