If you were a retailer and a shoplifter tried to run off with $500 worth of goods from your counter, would you want to stop them? That’s the question we must all answer before we judge the government’s latest announcement on self-defence rights for shop owners.
This isn’t just about crime statistics or whether these changes will reduce shoplifting. It’s about something more fundamental: rights and justice. Do law-abiding citizens have the right to protect their own property? The right to self-defence does not force anyone to act; it simply gives them the choice. If someone feels capable and willing to confront a thief, why should the law prevent them? The assumption must be that adults—who are trusted to vote and drive—can also assess risks and make their own decisions.
For years, retailers have said that New Zealand’s laws have tied their hands. Under the current legal framework, attempting to physically restrain a shoplifter—even one caught red-handed—could land a store owner in legal trouble. Today’s announcement signals an intent to change that, and for that alone, the government deserves credit. Intent matters. Action matters.
Under the proposed changes, retailers and security staff will have clearer legal rights to intervene when a crime is taking place in their store. The current ambiguity in self-defence laws has often discouraged action, leaving businesses vulnerable. The government has indicated that new rules will specify what degree of force is legally acceptable, at what times, and under what circumstances store owners and staff can act. This is expected to include provisions on detaining shoplifters and preventing property theft without facing unnecessary legal consequences.
Of course, critics argue that increased self-defence rights could put retailers in harm’s way. What if a lone shopkeeper faces multiple shoplifters? What if an attempt to detain someone escalates into violence? These are valid concerns, but they overlook a crucial point: people must be trusted to judge situations for themselves. No one is suggesting that a single worker should take on a group of criminals. But what about the reverse? If multiple employees see one shoplifter, why should the law prevent them from acting together to stop the theft? The proposed changes appear to address this imbalance.
The government’s plan, while light on specifics, suggests that self-defence actions will need to be “reasonable.” But how much force is reasonable? Other legal frameworks provide potential models. In some jurisdictions, any crime can be met with a proportional response. A shopkeeper facing a weapon-wielding thief might legally pick up a similar object in defence. But what about a firearm? These are the nuances the government must clarify.
The government pointed out that current self-defence laws are outdated and ambiguous. Under existing legal provisions, citizen’s arrests are mostly limited to nighttime. This legal quirk means that if someone steals from a store during the day, staff have few legal options to intervene. The absurdity of this loophole is clear. If a crime is happening in broad daylight, should law-abiding citizens be powerless to stop it?
Critics will argue that these changes won’t lower crime, at least not on their own. And they’re right. No single measure will eliminate retail crime. But that doesn’t mean we do nothing. Law and order require multiple strategies—stronger policing, swifter justice, and yes, giving victims more power to defend themselves. This is one piece of a much larger puzzle.
The biggest question remains: what will these changes actually look like? If they resemble other models, we can expect a test for self-defence: did the person believe their actions were necessary, and was that belief reasonable? In some legal systems, excessive force does not provide full immunity but may reduce charges, ensuring a balance between protection and accountability. If New Zealand follows a similar path, retailers will have clearer legal grounds to protect their businesses without opening the door to excessive force.
The challenge now is to craft a law that strikes the right balance. Retailers should not feel abandoned by the legal system, nor should the new rules encourage reckless vigilantism. The goal must be clear, practical legislation that allows reasonable self-defence while maintaining public safety.
If these reforms are implemented wisely, they will send a message: law-abiding citizens have rights, and criminals do not get a free pass. That alone makes this a step in the right direction.