Images this week of young people occupying the roof of a youth correction facility; more reports of improper conduct by staff in Oranga Tamariki facilities; more ram raids, and the ongoing political rhetoric about gangs strengthen the impression lawlessness is rife in New Zealand and that the government lacks any answers. In turn, these fuel public anxiety about personal safety and create fertile ground for Opposition politicians to till in the lead-up to the election.
Yet through the data already collected by the Police and other social agencies the families and young people who are well known to be at risk, and the nature of the social problems they face, are already clearly identifiable. Gathering this data and then using it to develop effective intervention services targeted specifically to those at risk was at the heart of former Prime Minister Sir Bill English's approach to social policy. But this government quickly eschewed that, dismissing it as far too specific, and stigmatising of those identified as at risk. It preferred instead a broader brush-based approach that did not, as it saw it, point the finger at those too specifically.
Unfortunately, today's National Party has also turned its back on English's nuanced policy in favour of a much more populist approach to law and order, with no evidence it will be any more effective than when tried by previous governments. Nevertheless, already backed into a corner by the ultra-hardline approach to law-and-order of its only viable potential partner ACT, National probably has no immediate practical alternative. National’s primary challenge right now is to shore up, then significantly grow its political support if it is to have any prospect of leading a government after October’s election. Its calculation is that, given mounting public concern about law-and-order issues, it cannot afford to be seen as soft or even reasonable on the issue, hence its hardline rhetoric of late.
While that approach is understandable in the context of the election, and may pay the desired dividend at the polls, it is foolish to think that it will be any more successful now than when it was attempted previously. It was the realisation of that that led English to once describe the prison system as “a moral and fiscal failure” – a point today’s National Party should not overlook.
Labour’s defence to claims it is soft on law-and-order and dealing with people at risk is to point to the significant increase in Police numbers during its term, and the various social assistance programmes it has introduced. It argues that rising lawlessness in the community has been brought on by deprivation and social inequality, long-term and deep-seated issues which it is committed to resolving. That sounds good and well-intentioned but is really an excuse for failing to act decisively.
Labour’s broad-based, point no fingers approach is just as ineffective and poorly directed as National’s hardline, reactive stance has proved previously. Neither is making an impact on dealing with families at risk, and both are wilfully missing the point in the interests of short-term political expediency. Society generally continues to suffer the consequences. This week’s report from the Prime Minister’s chief science adviser on dealing with the gangs also highlighted the failure of current policy approaches.
All of which reinforces the need for a targeted, data-based approach to those who are at risk. As indicated earlier, data already collected by the Police and other government makes it very clear who those at risk are. Additional data from external agencies, like the long-term Dunedin multidisciplinary study, provides information about when and how dysfunction starts to appear and the consequences of ignoring it.
Political parties like Labour, National and ACT like to claim that strong, specific actions like increasing Police numbers, or a tougher line on gangs show their boldness and strong commitment to upholding law-and-order and protecting community safety. But what they are promoting are at best symbolic and simplistic solutions that play to their own political audiences. They contribute little to resolving the wider social problem.
The lasting solution lies in adopting a targeted, data-based approach to identifying, then supporting, those who are disadvantaged and at risk, as promoted previously by English and suggested again in the Prime Minister’s chief science adviser’s report this week. However, this would require an act of political boldness, probably beyond the scope of most of our political parties at present. The lure of beating the law-and-order drum every three years remains too strong.
But so long as the politicians strut and tub-thump, and avoid deeper and more thorough solutions, there will be more incidents like those we have seen this week. Communities will continue to feel anxious about their security, and those at risk will still get a raw deal.
Sadly, nothing looks likely to change. The law-and-order drum will soon go back in the cupboard, only to be brought out once again when the next election comes around in three years’ time.
Peter Dunne, a retired Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister, who represented Labour and United Future for over 30 years, blogs here: honpfd.blogspot.com
Unfortunately, today's National Party has also turned its back on English's nuanced policy in favour of a much more populist approach to law and order, with no evidence it will be any more effective than when tried by previous governments. Nevertheless, already backed into a corner by the ultra-hardline approach to law-and-order of its only viable potential partner ACT, National probably has no immediate practical alternative. National’s primary challenge right now is to shore up, then significantly grow its political support if it is to have any prospect of leading a government after October’s election. Its calculation is that, given mounting public concern about law-and-order issues, it cannot afford to be seen as soft or even reasonable on the issue, hence its hardline rhetoric of late.
While that approach is understandable in the context of the election, and may pay the desired dividend at the polls, it is foolish to think that it will be any more successful now than when it was attempted previously. It was the realisation of that that led English to once describe the prison system as “a moral and fiscal failure” – a point today’s National Party should not overlook.
Labour’s defence to claims it is soft on law-and-order and dealing with people at risk is to point to the significant increase in Police numbers during its term, and the various social assistance programmes it has introduced. It argues that rising lawlessness in the community has been brought on by deprivation and social inequality, long-term and deep-seated issues which it is committed to resolving. That sounds good and well-intentioned but is really an excuse for failing to act decisively.
Labour’s broad-based, point no fingers approach is just as ineffective and poorly directed as National’s hardline, reactive stance has proved previously. Neither is making an impact on dealing with families at risk, and both are wilfully missing the point in the interests of short-term political expediency. Society generally continues to suffer the consequences. This week’s report from the Prime Minister’s chief science adviser on dealing with the gangs also highlighted the failure of current policy approaches.
All of which reinforces the need for a targeted, data-based approach to those who are at risk. As indicated earlier, data already collected by the Police and other government makes it very clear who those at risk are. Additional data from external agencies, like the long-term Dunedin multidisciplinary study, provides information about when and how dysfunction starts to appear and the consequences of ignoring it.
Political parties like Labour, National and ACT like to claim that strong, specific actions like increasing Police numbers, or a tougher line on gangs show their boldness and strong commitment to upholding law-and-order and protecting community safety. But what they are promoting are at best symbolic and simplistic solutions that play to their own political audiences. They contribute little to resolving the wider social problem.
The lasting solution lies in adopting a targeted, data-based approach to identifying, then supporting, those who are disadvantaged and at risk, as promoted previously by English and suggested again in the Prime Minister’s chief science adviser’s report this week. However, this would require an act of political boldness, probably beyond the scope of most of our political parties at present. The lure of beating the law-and-order drum every three years remains too strong.
But so long as the politicians strut and tub-thump, and avoid deeper and more thorough solutions, there will be more incidents like those we have seen this week. Communities will continue to feel anxious about their security, and those at risk will still get a raw deal.
Sadly, nothing looks likely to change. The law-and-order drum will soon go back in the cupboard, only to be brought out once again when the next election comes around in three years’ time.
Peter Dunne, a retired Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister, who represented Labour and United Future for over 30 years, blogs here: honpfd.blogspot.com
2 comments:
You can do both a targeted and get hard process and may have a real impact.
Bill English had a very slow but successful program in play utterly uninteresting to the Left as it highlighted the racial mix of the potential offenders.
The long term solution is education. A complete purge of destructive and failing ideologies and a renaissance in learning and achieving in the basics with old school methods, discipline and morality.
Pigs will fly before the left would accept that since their aim in education is primarily to produce socialists. That is the stated aim of progressive education.
Post a Comment