Submission on the Crimes Act Amendment Bill 2025

1. Introduction

The New Zealand Chambers of Commerce welcome the opportunity to make this submission on the Crimes Act Amendment Bill 2025.

Our network represents thousands of businesses of all sizes across New Zealand, from small family-owned retailers to larger employers who anchor town centres and regional economies. Retail crime is one of the most consistently raised concerns by our members. It is not abstract, and it is not victimless. It is a daily reality that is changing the way businesses operate, the way workers feel about their safety, and the confidence communities have in their local centres.

We support the intent of this Bill as it relates to amending the monetary thresholds and penalties for theft. In our view, it takes necessary and overdue steps to restore consequences for shoplifting and related offending, and better recognise the harm caused by aggressive shoplifting.

2. Retail Crime Is a Serious Problem

Shoplifting has increased significantly since 2019 and is now estimated to cost the retail sector between $1.4 and $2.6 billion each year. Those costs are not borne by offenders, but by customers, business owners, workers, and communities.

Our members report that retail crime today is very different from opportunistic petty theft of the past. Increasingly, it involves organised, repeat offending carried out with a high degree of coordination. These offenders understand the current law, and they exploit it.

3. Monetary Thresholds and Penalties for Theft

We support the Bill’s proposal to simplify the theft offence and amend the monetary thresholds and penalties.

Under the current law, theft under $500 carries a maximum penalty of only three months’ imprisonment. In practice, this low threshold has created an unintended gap in the law. Organised offenders are aware of these settings and will deliberately keep individual thefts below this level, moving between stores with minimal risk of consequence.

Raising penalties for theft under $2,000 better reflects the real harm caused by this offending. It sends a clear signal that theft, particularly when repeated and organised, is not a low-level nuisance but a serious crime with consequences.

4. Harm of Aggressive Shoplifting

We support the Bill’s recognition of the human cost of aggressive shoplifting.

Retail workers are on the front line. Many are young, vulnerable, or working alone. Members regularly describe intimidation, verbal abuse, threats, and aggressive behaviour as part of everyday retail work.

The current law focuses almost exclusively on property loss. It fails to recognise the distress, fear, and cumulative harm experienced by workers subjected to repeated aggression. Explicitly recognising this harm in the theft offence is an important step in acknowledging that retail crime affects people as well as property.

5. Infringement Offence for Low-Level Shoplifting

The Chambers support the introduction of a new infringement offence for low-level shoplifting.

While not all offending warrants prosecution through the courts, all offending should carry consequences. Under the current settings, Police often have limited options for responding to low-level shoplifting, particularly where offending is repeated but individually minor. As a result, members report that Police do not always attend low-level shoplifting incidents, which can undermine deterrence and contribute to a perception that such behaviour is tolerated.

An infringement regime would provide Police with a flexible and proportionate enforcement tool, allowing timely responses that reflect the nature of the offending without unnecessarily burdening the court system. It would also support graduated enforcement, allowing early intervention before patterns of repeat offending become entrenched.

In the Chambers’ view, a well-designed infringement offence would improve consistency in enforcement, reinforce community expectations, and help address low-level shoplifting in a way that is efficient and proportionate.

6. Citizen’s Arrest and Defence of Property

The Chambers approach the issue of citizen’s arrest with caution and recognise that there are differing views among our members.

All members agree that worker safety must remain paramount. Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, businesses have a primary duty to eliminate or minimise risks to workers so far as is reasonably practicable. Retail and hospitality environments are inherently unpredictable, and intervention in offending can escalate situations quickly. Prevention, de-escalation, and timely Police involvement should remain the preferred and expected response.

A number of members are concerned that expanding citizen’s arrest powers could create tension with health and safety obligations, particularly if broader statutory powers lead, whether explicitly or implicitly, to increased expectations that frontline staff intervene in criminal situations. Retail workers are not law enforcement officers and are often not trained or equipped to manage confrontational or pursuit-based interventions, especially where offending may involve repeat or violent individuals.

At the same time, the current legal framework is complex and technical. Legal protections can depend on distinctions such as time of day or maximum penalties, rather than on whether conduct was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. This creates uncertainty for workers and businesses responding to immediate threats.

If reform proceeds, it should be tightly framed and focused on clarifying protections for reasonable and proportionate defensive actions taken in response to immediate risk. Any changes should make clear that:

• workers are not expected or required to exercise citizen’s arrest powers;
• employers should not encourage or rely on frontline staff to pursue or detain offenders;
• Police must be contacted as soon as practicable; and
• once any immediate threat has passed, disengagement and Police involvement are the appropriate response.

There is an important distinction between defensive action taken to prevent harm and proactive enforcement activity. Legislative reform should prioritise clarity and worker safety at the point of risk, rather than expanding practical expectations on frontline staff.

Overall, any changes should reduce legal uncertainty while clearly reinforcing that frontline workers are not law enforcement and should not be placed in situations beyond their responsibility or safety.

7. Conclusion

The New Zealand Chambers of Commerce support amending the monetary thresholds and penalties for theft, as proposed in the Crimes Act Amendment Bill 2025.

From the perspective of the business community, the Bill strikes an appropriate balance. It restores meaningful consequences for shoplifting, better recognises the human impact of aggressive shoplifting, and provides Police with additional and proportionate enforcement tools.

The Chambers thank the Committee for considering this submission.