National's justice spokesperson Paul Goldsmith and leader Christopher Luxon. Photo / Alex Burton.
National's justice spokesperson Paul Goldsmith and leader Christopher Luxon. Photo / Alex Burton.
EDITORIAL
National’s new anti-gang policy, announced after days of attention on gang behaviour in Ōpōtiki, illustrates some of the problematic aspects of this election campaign.
On Sunday the public was, once again, essentially told that the Opposition would be “tough on crime” if it wins power.
National would make beinga member of a gang an aggravating factor in sentencing. That would mean convicted gang members would face tougher consequences, leader Christopher Luxon said.
At present the Sentencing Act 2002 says that the “nature and extent of any connection between the offending and the offender’s” membership of or involvement with an organised criminal group or association is an aggravating factor in sentencing.
National, like NZ First, is aiming to make gang membership an aggravating factor in any instance where a gang member commits an offence, not just as part of gang activity.
Making basic gang membership the tipping point for severity could potentially have a lot of consequences if applied to any offending. Has this change been thought through? Could this markedly boost the prison population and increase the load on the justice system? What would the possible extra costs be?
At this point, it’s hard to know what impact the change would have. Police Minister Ginny Andersen said, “National are simply proposing a technical tweak,” and are “once again pretending to be tough”.
Luxon denied that this was opportunistic policy-making on the fly because of Ōpōtiki - and it was indeed a National campaign promise in 2020.
It does reinforce the current anti-gang crime campaign message, provide some news headlines, and gets Labour and the Green Party to respond to the National Party plan. On that metric, it was a success.
Crime rates as one of the most important issues to voters. But, like earlier policies such as promising to give police power to stop gang members gathering and wearing patches in public, this move has a knee-jerk populist simplicity, appealing to people genuinely fearful of crime.
Being a victim of crime is upsetting and people want answers. The urge to wield a rhetorical sledgehammer is difficult for politicians to resist. Luxon’s announcement showed a focus on selling the policy in zero tolerance tones.
He referred to an “explosion in violent crime”, and said the move would “help restore law and order”. Gang visibility can lead to “prolonged fear and intimidation for victims”, and the message was “if you choose to align yourself with a criminal gang and engage in criminal activities, you will face more severe consequences”.
Beyond the talk, the problem of crime is complex and longstanding. Dealing with why people join gangs is necessary to reducing offending. Practical approaches to crime prevention are important. There are also plenty of existing measures against gangs the police can and do use.
There have been policies announced in this campaign with detail attached. But there have also been attempts to chase news cycles, throw stuff out, talk in generalities, and see what touches a nerve.
The country faces many serious problems but still lacks serious solutions for them.
