Public trust on statistics, especially pertaining to crime, is generally low. When the government uses numbers to prove a point, it’s even lower. With that as the overriding sentiment, how does it look when a study the government cites to say violent crime is reducing is questioned with what appears to be a strong counterargument?
It doesn’t really matter who is right. What matters is how people perceive it. Government claims about good work are, as it is, viewed with suspicion. Imagine how it looks when reasonable doubt is raised. The odds are stacked against the government, heavily.
On Tuesday, Police Minister Mark Mitchell and Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith proudly announced that violent crime had dropped by two per cent—the first decline since 2018. Yet, just two days later, the Ministry of Justice’s own data painted a different picture: victimisation rates for violent offences had remained steady. Worse still, further analysis of police data showed that violent crime, when adjusted for population, had neared an all-time high in December 2024.
For the public, this isn’t just a numbers game. It reinforces a familiar pattern: politicians playing with definitions, cherry-picking timeframes, and packaging statistics to fit their narrative. When two government agencies seem to be telling different stories about crime trends, it doesn’t inspire confidence. Instead, it breeds doubt—about the numbers, the government’s credibility, and, most importantly, whether crime is actually being tackled.
Crime is one of those issues where emotions rule over data. A family who has been a victim of a burglary doesn’t care that break-ins are statistically down. A shopkeeper dealing with repeat smash-and-grabs isn’t reassured by a two per cent drop in violent crime. What they see is what they believe: that crime is out of control, that the streets are less safe, and that the government is either out of touch or trying to mislead them.
This is the real problem the government faces. The National-led coalition is nearly halfway through its three-year term. The time for blaming Labour and making vague promises is running out, if not already over. If the government believes it has made real progress on law and order, it must do more than cite statistics that can be easily challenged. It needs to control the narrative with clarity, consistency, and credibility.
Tackling crime isn’t an overnight job, nor is there a single magic solution. It requires a multi-pronged approach: stronger policing, sharper laws, and better coordination across agencies. To its credit, the government has shown intent on both these fronts. It has promised tougher sentencing for serious offenders, crackdowns on youth crime, and better resourcing for police. Some policies are already in motion.
But here’s the catch—none of that matters if the public doesn’t see the bigger picture. So far, the government’s communication has been reactive, piecemeal, and at times, contradictory. Sporadic press conferences announcing crime reductions don’t help. If anything, they invite scrutiny, create confusion, and open the door for counter arguments—some valid, some political opportunism.
If National wants credit for any progress made, it must be more strategic in its messaging. Ministers and agencies need to be on the same page. Contradictory figures within the government only weaken the case. A single, unified framework for reporting crime trends would help prevent mixed messages.
People are skeptical of government statistics. Instead of pushing only the good news, the government must acknowledge ongoing challenges while presenting its solutions. A “yes, but…” approach—where both the problem and the plan are communicated—is far more credible than selective data.
Crime isn’t just about numbers. It’s about lived experiences. The government must go beyond statistical drops and highlight real stories—of police initiatives working, of communities feeling safer, of criminals being held accountable. These stories must be woven into a larger, coherent narrative about how law and order is improving, if at all.
The recent contradiction between police and justice data could have been avoided with better internal coordination. Before making bold claims, the government needs to anticipate counterarguments and be ready with clear explanations.
Crime will be a key issue heading into the next election. If the government cannot convince the public that it has crime under control, the opposition will make sure to convince them otherwise.
National’s law-and-order stance was a major part of its campaign. If it fails to demonstrate tangible results—or at least, control the perception of its progress—it risks losing credibility on one of its strongest platforms. And in politics, credibility lost is difficult to regain.
The government’s problem isn’t just about whether crime is up or down. It’s about whether people believe it when they say crime is being tackled. Right now, the odds are stacked against them. If they want to change that, they need to rethink not just their policies, but how they communicate them.