New Zealand Parliament Debates Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill

In a recent parliamentary session held on [Insert Date], members of the New Zealand House of Representatives convened in committee to discuss the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill. This bill focuses on introducing criminal sanctions for employers who unlawfully withhold wages or benefits from their employees, addressing a significant gap in current legislation.

Employment Law vs. Criminal Legislation: A Core Debate

Central to the discussion was whether employer theft should be addressed under employment law rather than as a criminal offense. Carl Bates, representing National—Whanganui, questioned the appropriateness of treating such matters through criminal legislation. He argued that these issues might be more suitably handled via employment law's personal grievance processes and expressed concern about overburdening the justice system. Bates noted a lack of supporting data from submissions to substantiate the size of the problem.

Camilla Belich, from Labour, responded by emphasizing the necessity of the bill in addressing existing legal gaps. She highlighted that while most employers are trustworthy, there is an imbalance in how theft by employees versus employers is treated under New Zealand law. The amendment aims to ensure parity between employer and employee theft cases. Belich also pointed out data provided by the Ministry of Justice supporting the need for such legislation.

Title Controversies: Reflecting Intent or Misleading Implications?

The debate explored the semantics of the bill's title. Bates proposed alternative titles, suggesting "Crimes (We Think All Employers Are Thieves) Amendment Bill," later refined to "Crimes (We Don't Trust Employers) Amendment Bill." These suggestions were intended to reflect what he perceived as an underlying sentiment that employers might be untrustworthy.

Belich rejected these alternatives, defending the current title as both appropriate and necessary. She refuted claims that it implies all employers are thieves, emphasizing the bill's focus on fairness in applying criminal law to employer theft.

Ambiguities and Accidental Offenses: Seeking Clarity

Bates raised concerns about potential accidental offenses being criminalized under this bill. He highlighted scenarios such as banking errors leading to unintentional non-payment, questioning whether these should trigger criminal liability. To address these ambiguities, he suggested renaming the bill to "Crimes (Theft (Even if it is an Accident) by Employer) Amendment Bill."

Alternative Terminology: Pilferage vs. Theft?

Adding another perspective, Dr. Vanessa Weenink of National—Banks Peninsula proposed using terms like pilferage or peculation, arguing they might better describe the issues at hand without implying intentional wrongdoing. Her comments pointed to a broader discussion about whether there is sufficient evidence of widespread employer theft to justify such legislation.

Conclusion: A Vote and Moving Forward

The debate concluded with a party vote on clause 1, which pertained to the bill's title. The outcome was close, with 63 members voting in favor (New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 6) and 60 against (New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11). Despite differing opinions, the clause was agreed upon, signaling a step forward in legislative efforts to address employer theft.

As the bill continues through Parliament, it remains a focal point for discussions on balancing fairness in employment practices with the need for effective legal remedies against exploitation.