1News recently reported that there are “10,475 police officers and 10,478 gang members.”
Since the 2023 election, gang numbers have risen 13%, or 1208 more members, while police numbers have increased by 264. Labour’s Ginny Andersen called the new figures “a broken promise from the Prime Minister” and “an absolute failure”.
Yet on the same day, the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey showed there were 49,000 fewer victims of violent crime in the year to October 2025 compared with the previous two years.
136,000 people were victims of crime in the 12 months to October 2025, a significant drop from prior levels.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith linked the decline to policy changes: “We have reformed the sentencing regime so those who cause the most harm are imprisoned for longer,” he said, citing restored Three Strikes laws and new tools to deal with gangs.
Police Minister Mark Mitchell argued that “greater police visibility in communities has helped deter crime” and that foot patrols have “almost doubled”.
Luxon’s defence was consistent with that line. “Our commitment is that we are lowering crime and when you see violent serious crime coming down… the effectiveness of gang members in prosecuting crime has been diminished by virtue of our actions,” he said.
Editor’s note: Newstalk ZB’s Barry Soper described the 1News framing as lacking balance, saying that there “wasn’t a mention of the number of violent crimes that had diminished”.
He stated that a “high profile manager at TVNZ” had contacted Police Minister Mark Mitchell to apologise for “the way the crime figures were dealt with”.
“They used figures showing there were… three more gang members than there were police in the country. Three,” he said. He questioned how precisely gang membership is measured and argued the “story was absolute, undiluted rubbish”.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith linked the decline to policy changes: “We have reformed the sentencing regime so those who cause the most harm are imprisoned for longer,” he said, citing restored Three Strikes laws and new tools to deal with gangs.
Police Minister Mark Mitchell argued that “greater police visibility in communities has helped deter crime” and that foot patrols have “almost doubled”.
Luxon’s defence was consistent with that line. “Our commitment is that we are lowering crime and when you see violent serious crime coming down… the effectiveness of gang members in prosecuting crime has been diminished by virtue of our actions,” he said.
Editor’s note: Newstalk ZB’s Barry Soper described the 1News framing as lacking balance, saying that there “wasn’t a mention of the number of violent crimes that had diminished”.
He stated that a “high profile manager at TVNZ” had contacted Police Minister Mark Mitchell to apologise for “the way the crime figures were dealt with”.
“They used figures showing there were… three more gang members than there were police in the country. Three,” he said. He questioned how precisely gang membership is measured and argued the “story was absolute, undiluted rubbish”.
Read more over at 1News and iHeart Radio
The Centrist is an online news platform that strives to provide a balance to the public debate - where this article was sourced.
4 comments:
Ginny Andersen needs to put a sock in it. If ever there was a failure - it's her. The violent crime stats prove it beyond any doubt.
The last paragraph is absolutely spot on. When I saw the report on the news, my first thought was "How do they know there is exactly 10,478 gang members in New Zealand?" Do they have to fill in a form when they're initiated (perhaps some sort of benefit claim form) and lodge it with Social Welfare, the Police and/or DIA?
And if a “high profile manager at TVNZ” has apologised to Mark Mitchell, are we going to see a retraction/apology on the news?
I'd rather have 264 more doctors.
My brother formed a gang at primary school.
I wonder if he's still on the list.
And if my siblings and I would be considered as "associates"?
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.