National has dismissed Chris Hipkins’ appointment as Minister of Police as “window dressing for the public.” According to its Police spokesperson, Mark Mitchell, National considers Hipkins’ appointment owes more to the fact he is the government’s “fix-it” man, being brought in to tidy up a portfolio where things have not been going well, than a signal of real change, because Labour is still “soft on crime.” By contrast, according to Mitchell, National is “deeply passionate about” taking a strong response to current mounting gang activity. 

He may have a point. After all, the Prime Minister’s announcement of Hipkins’ appointment focused more on the need to get the policing “narrative” (euphemistic Labour language for its spin message) back on track, than new policy initiatives to deal with the law-and-order issues people are currently concerned about. The one message she should have taken on board from all the criticism of the government’s perceived soft approach to policing over the last eighteen months is that people are tiring of the “narrative” – they simply want serious, workable solutions which will keep them and their families safe. 

Unfortunately for National, its own policy response to what is happening at present has fallen into the same “window dressing” trap. Its “narrative” is focused more on reinforcing its credentials as tough on law-and-order, both to keep its own more conservative voters onside, and the even more hard-line ACT Party at bay. The centre piece of its recent policy announcement was to ban completely the wearing of gang patches in public, because that would prevent gangs from swaggering, and intimidating the public the way they do at present. 

But the wearing of gang patches is already banned in government buildings, courts and hospitals, with apparent minimal effect, so it is hard to see a more widespread ban achieving much more, let alone being complied with. In any case, the public will quickly tire of the Police rushing up to corner dairies to arrest gang members wearing their patches while they buy cigarettes or convenience foods. 

National also wants to make it illegal for a gang member with serious convictions to access firearms or be on a property where firearms may be. While it sounds good and tough, it is essentially reactive, and will be very difficult to enforce. Equally problematic are National’s proposed dispersal, notices, whereby a gang member (presumably not wearing a patch and therefore so much harder to identify correctly) can be ordered to leave a public area for up to seven days. Most impractical and unenforceable of all are National’s proposed Consorting Prohibition notices (reminiscent of apartheid-era South Africa’s notorious banning orders) whereby a “known gang offender” can be banned from associating or communicating with other gang members for up to three years. 

The superficiality and potential unenforceability of these measures is breath-taking. Together, they look like “window dressing” in the extreme, designed more to bolster National’s law-and-order credentials than make an effective impact. 

While Labour has clearly misread the depth of public anxiety about the increase in gang activity and the threat to public safety random drive-by shootings pose, the answer does not lie in kneejerk, neo-populist solutions of the kind National is now proposing. In what may have been intended as only a throwaway line, The Prime Minister, earlier this week, said the government would welcome any ideas National has about resolving the current gang problem. It might therefore be a smart move now for Hipkins, early in his new role, to call National’s bluff, and invite Mitchell to join him in trying to develop a durable and workable bipartisan response. 

Having railed for so long at what it regarded as Labour’s inadequate response, “deeply passionate” National would find it very difficult to turn down such an invitation and still be taken seriously. For its part, Labour would have to swallow its “we always know best” pride if it were to listen to other options. Sadly, both parties have spent too much time looking in their respective ideological mirrors to ensure they have the “right” positioning on the issue, and not enough time listening to the public about what it would like to see done. 

Meantime, the drive-by shootings, and other gang activities look set to continue while the politicians throw names at each other. While that carries on, little in the way of meaningful solutions is likely. Yet Hipkins and Mitchell can show real leadership by setting aside their differences and working constructively together to reach purposeful solutions. But only if they are both of a genuine mind to do so.