As the Government prematurely winds up its Ministerial Advisory Group for Victims of Retail Crime, some of its recommendations are being challenged by the Police Association. 

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. 

Hailed as a success by the Government, the group 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. 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.

Legal and operational risk

Last month, the association made submissions on the Bill, raising 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.”

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. 

Carnage anticipated

Association president Steve Watt says 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 says. 

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 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, the 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.

Support for facets of Bill

The association does support other aspects of the Bill, including an amendment that protects undercover officers from prosecution (with Attorney General oversight), specific penalties being considered for “coward’s punch” assaults, and increased penalties and explicit inclusion of all first responders in multiple offence categories – a change the association has been seeking for some time. 

In 2020, the association appeared before the Justice Select Committee to submit that being attacked or assaulted while on duty is not part of the job of a police officer, other first responders or a prison officer.

Its submission covered the same territory as the current Bill – calling for authorised officers to be included in the category of first responders, as well as tougher penalties. The Bill was defeated in April 2021, and a further attempt to resurrect it in 2024 was terminated before its third reading. 

See the association’s full submission on the current Bill here.