Lack of employer support for new citizens' arrest law should give Government pause for thought – Editorial

Support for extended "citizens' arrest" powers seems to lie primarily with small retailers. Photo / Machine Headz

Editorial

THREE KEY FACTS

• The Government’s proposed “citizens’ arrest” amendments to the Crimes Act face widespread opposition.
• Retail NZ and the Employers and Manufacturers Association warn of increased violence and safety risks.
• Support mainly comes from small retailers, but concerns about escalating violence remain significant.

The widespread lack of support for the Government’s proposed “citizens' arrest” amendments to the Crimes Act should give it some serious pause for thought.

The changes – which would give all citizens greater ability to arrest or detain thieves – are an attempt to address public concerns about an increase in retail crime.

Specifically, they appear to be aimed at the targeting of dairies and supermarkets by thieves who appear entitled in the knowledge that retail workers have no power to physically prevent them from leaving with stolen goods.

The move has unsurprisingly been opposed by unions – including the Police Association.

But it is the outright rejection of the proposal by two of New Zealand’s biggest employer groups that should prompt the Government to reconsider its course – or at least look very carefully at how far these proposals go.

Retail NZ chief executive Carolyn Young has said she is concerned about an escalation of violence and threats to staff.

Frontline retail workers were often young and in their first job and “don’t go to work to do law enforcement”, Young said.

“We have grave concerns about proposals to empower people to physically restrain or physically engage with people to stop them doing a crime, and the fact that could create more violence and people will get hurt,” she said.

The Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA) is normally a firm ally of this Government on moves to address red tape and empower businesses.

But it warns the rule changes “could significantly raise the health and safety risks faced by workers in the retail sector and seems unlikely to effectively reduce shoplifting”.

EMA head of advocacy Alan McDonald said business owners are being encouraged to put themselves and their staff in harm’s way, which is in breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act.

Support for this move seems to lie primarily with small retailers.

The Dairy and Business Owners Group has welcomed the changes – which it says are “common sense”.

“If crims know law-abiding Kiwis can defend their stuff, whether a homeowner, a farmer or a retailer, they’ll think twice,” said Manish Thakkar, chair of the Dairy and Business Owners Group.

The language from the group’s former chair Sunny Kaushal – who headed the ministerial advisory group – was even more combative.

“Our law says you can defend your property as long as you do not strike back or do not cause bodily harm, whereas Australians say you can defend your property as long as you do not cause a serious injury or death, it’s a very clear demarcation.”

The emotion behind the views of those on the front lines of the retail crime wave is understandable.

There may well be scope to provide trained security guards with more power to restrain and detain.

But empowering regular retail workers to tackle groups of hardened criminals, who are often armed, risks escalating the violence.

The Government must listen to experts. Attempts to move quickly with what it perceives to be populist policy risks further complicating already difficult situations.