KEY POINTS:
The Government has chosen an eccentric line of argument to try to play down annual crime statistics that reveal an 11 per cent increase in violence offences. It says we are not so much a more violent society but a society in which more violence is being reported.
In particular, according to Prime Minister Helen Clark, a 29 per cent surge in family violence owes much to increased reporting of domestic incidents, thanks largely to the high-profile "It's not OK" advertising campaign. Yet even if that is so, it does not disguise the fact that the police are having to investigate far more instances of violence. And that this increased activity is, in turn, putting more and more pressure on an already creaking justice system. Whether that is because more violence is being reported is, in the end, irrelevant.
The Government's essential denial of the problem will fool nobody. The statistics will merely confirm to many that it has not done enough to deal with crime. The police have done admirably to resolve 47 per cent of all crimes in the past year, up from 44.7 per cent in the previous 12 months. But that statistic also points to the many, often minor, crimes that are not being solved. People become frustrated when they report offences such as graffiti or car break-ins, only to be told these are too insignificant to warrant investigation. The events are important to those offended against but not to the police, a state of affairs made more understandable by the upswing in violence crimes.
Public opinion polls confirm the widespread unease. The United States financial crisis may have propelled the economy to the top of most voters' list of concerns but law and order remains among their leading worries.
At least one party, Act, is acknowledging this. Both its billboards and its selection of David Garrett, the legal adviser to the Sensible Sentencing Trust, at number five on its party list highlight a zero-tolerance approach. The policy may be old-school and untenable in many respects but the latest statistics will give it a renewed resonance to some.
National Party leader John Key, in a "state of the nation" speech in January, outlined a far more cogent approach, which eschewed punitive measures for the sake of political posturing. Among a number of interlocking ideas were new educational and training programmes for school leavers under 18, some custodial programmes, and the strengthening of several agencies charged with trying to stop youngsters embarking on criminal careers.
On the strength of that, National should be leading the field on law and order. Nothing much, however, has been heard from the party since then.
This provided Labour with the opportunity to go on the front foot over the latest statistics.
If it has not done enough in this area, it has, nonetheless, been active. It is reasonable to ask, for example, how stretched the police would be now if the Government had not, albeit as part of its agreement with New Zealand First in 2005, initiated a target of 1000 extra officers over a three-year period. Achievements such as this give Labour some basis for grabbing hold of law and order as an issue, rather than seeking to hide it behind a weak argument.
Only the Corrections Minister, Phil Goff, seems to have recognised the possibility. His musing on just-introduced South Australian legislation that outlaws gangs introduced a novel, if not convincing, approach to one aspect of law and order. This is the type of fresh notion that people welcome.
A similarly practical response should have been brought to a worrying surge in violent crime. But when direction was required, Helen Clark's Government delivered only elusiveness.
