Opinion: We still don’t know conclusively whether law and order is any better under the National-led government. But safe to say Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s team is true to their promise on the plan to reduce crime.
A Bill to make the sentencing law stricter passed its third reading in Parliament last week. It is expected to become law in about three months. The legislation ticks off several of the coalition’s commitments, and speaks to the tough-on-crime case National made in the run up to elections.
“We developed a culture of excuses for crime. That ends today,” Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said after the Bill made it through Parliament. That message is at the core of what his party promised – “real” consequences for crime. The punitive measures that exist, it says, are too soft.
The upcoming law will cap the sentence discounts that judges can apply at 40 per cent, and disable repeat offenders to claim leniency because they are young or sorry for having committed the crime.
It also encourages judges to not allow offenders who commit a crime while on bail, in custody or on parole to serve all the accrued sentences at the same time. The argument is criminals should pay for the entirety of their crimes. Punishment shouldn’t be bundled into a shortened package.
One of the provisions speaks particularly to retailers, a category that has routinely been victimised in both petty and aggravated robberies the last few years. This touches a raw nerve among Kiwi-Indians, many of whom own mom and pop stores.
It requires judges to deliver stricter punishments for those who attack stores with a single staffer, or those whose business and home are interconnected. That is sure to appeal to small business owners.
As we try to make sense of what this means for law and order, it helps to make a crucial distinction. The government is delivering on what it ‘says’ will fix law and order. Full marks for intent, commitment. But the proof of the pudding will surely be in the eating.
Having a recipe isn’t good enough. That recipe should cook a good meal. Is the government’s recipe any good? “Slogans make bad policy,” Labour’s justice spokesman Duncan Webb cautioned soon after the sentencing reforms made it through this week.
Goldsmith and his colleague, Police Minister Mark Mitchell, will need to demonstrate their tough-on-crime talk has juice, that it is not a slogan but rather a remedy. Hard numbers can help.
The ministers need to clearly spell out the yardstick on which they are going to measure whether their solution works or not. They must present a statistics-based framework for voters to assess their performance. Has violent crime reduced? Are ram raids under check?
Guerilla tactics won’t work in shaping public perception. Sporadic announcements like the one about how more beat police officers in Auckland CBD have helped reduce crime won’t cut it. As was evident from the response from Labour, who argued areas from where cops were redeployed to CBD ended up more vulnerable.
It doesn’t matter who is correct. Perception pays little regard to facts and accuracy. If reasonable doubts are cast on the government’s claims, there’s a good chance they’ll stick in people’s memory.
Statistical wizardry wouldn’t work either. Last month, Mitchell claimed credit for a slight dip in violent crime. Doubts were quickly raised on the integrity of the dataset he used to arrive at that conclusion.
Public trust on statistics is low, more so when they come from the government. It’s a double edged sword. If the government is perceived to be cherry-picking data to prove a point, it raises doubts on their intentions.
The government has spent nearly half of its current term demonstrating a commitment to doing what it said. The remaining term would be well spent trying to demonstrate what it said will actually work.
ISSUE
