Labour made a final push last week against plans to quadruple the maximum prison sentence for shoplifting of goods worth $500 or less.

The party pressed the issue during the committee of the whole House last week, which was Parliament’s final opportunity to debate and amend the Crimes Amendment Bill clause by clause before its third reading.

The government majority rejected the amendments proposed by the Opposition and approved the bill’s operative parts, leaving no further opportunity for substantive changes before the final vote.

With National, ACT and New Zealand First voting together, its passage in its present form is effectively assured.

The Bill is based on recommendations by the ministerial advisory group on victims of retail crime headed by Sunny Kaushal. The group folded in May this year after completing its term. 

On July 29, Labour's justice spokesperson Camilla Belich argued increasing the prison sentence for low-level theft would have a major effect on the prison population.

“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 told Parliament.

Belich then questioned whether such a substantial increase was justified for lower-level theft, contrasting it with imprisonment intended to protect the public from dangerous offenders.

“It’s not easy to see this in clauses 25 and 26, because it just, obviously, increases the punishment for those who are convicted of theft at the lower level from three months to a year, which is a significant increase."

Belich pointed out the change alone will lead to a significant increase in the women’s prison population.

"...we all want to see people who are dangerous no longer in the position where they can hurt other people," she said.

“But, in this instance, we’re talking about theft. Of course there are victims of theft, there are shop owners, but there are also people who will be severely impacted by having a member of their family in prison. It’s not only the person who is in prison who is punished for that; it’s, additionally, the members of the family.”

Belich said justice ministry projections showed the women’s prison population could increase by 63 per cent, largely because women were more likely to be charged with lower-level theft.

She also asked what planning had been done for the additional prison beds and costs.

Minister Karen Chhour, who handled the bill during the committee stage, said the government accepted that tougher penalties would result in more people being imprisoned.

“It’s an outcome the government is willing to accept to ensure tougher consequences on offending,” she said.

The bill was expected to result in about 250 additional prisoners each year, Chhour said.

The change applies to theft generally, not only shoplifting, although it forms part of the government’s wider response to retail crime. Under the current Crimes Act, theft involving property worth $500 or less carries a maximum sentence of three months’ imprisonment.

The bill raises that maximum to one year and restructures the wider theft bands by making theft worth $2,000 or less punishable by up to one year. Theft above $2,000 would carry a maximum of seven years.

Labour voted against the part of the bill containing the theft changes, alongside the Greens and Te Pati Maori. But the party did not oppose every provision in the legislation.

In its dissenting view in the justice committee’s earlier report, Labour expressly supported changes modernising the law covering human trafficking, people smuggling and exploitation.

It described those reforms as a significant step forward in updating New Zealand’s response to exploitative practices, while saying more work was needed to protect victims and prevent modern slavery. 

Labour also supported the intent behind stronger protections for first responders assaulted while doing their jobs.

Its concern was that the definition of a first responder was too narrow. The party sought consideration of groups including mental health staff, Māori wardens, volunteer firefighters and other emergency-response personnel.

The government added corrections officers to the protections but did not extend them to all the groups Labour had identified.  Labour’s other major objection was the expansion of citizen’s-arrest powers.

The bill allows a private person to arrest someone found committing any offence under the Crimes Act. It also clarifies that reasonable force used in carrying out an arrest may include physical or mechanical restraints.

Labour said the changes risked confrontation, escalating violence, vigilantism and harm to retail workers, members of the public and alleged offenders.

It also raised concerns about the lack of training and publicly available guidance, and whether encouraging workers to make arrests could conflict with employers’ obligations under health and safety law.

A separate shoplifting infringement regime added late in the legislative process also drew sustained Labour criticism.

Under that regime, a person who removes goods from retail premises without paying and without reasonable excuse could receive an infringement notice.

Unlike an ordinary theft charge, the infringement offence does not require proof that the person acted dishonestly.

Under questioning from Labour MP Duncan Webb, Chhour confirmed that “no mental element is required” for the offence.

Webb said that could capture someone who mistakenly walked out of a shop without paying, although Chhour said police would be expected to take a commonsense approach to whether a person had a reasonable excuse. 

Labour MPs also questioned whether the fines would affect poor and wealthy offenders differently, how mistaken CCTV identifications could be challenged, and whether infringement notices might be sent to outdated email addresses without the recipient knowing.