spinofflive
Image showing a social media post from the New Zealand National Party claiming a drop in violent crime since 2018, alongside a Charted Daily post displaying charts indicating a rise in violent crime since 2016, and then a drop. Background has question marks.
The National Facebook post making the claim, the tweet on which it was based, and the government’s earlier update on a rise in violent crime (Image: The Spinoff)

PoliticsFebruary 26, 2025

Has violent crime really dropped for the first time since 2018?

Image showing a social media post from the New Zealand National Party claiming a drop in violent crime since 2018, alongside a Charted Daily post displaying charts indicating a rise in violent crime since 2016, and then a drop. Background has question marks.
The National Facebook post making the claim, the tweet on which it was based, and the government’s earlier update on a rise in violent crime (Image: The Spinoff)

The government had some positive law and order news to share this week. The source for the claim? A tweet. But by the measure it’s using to track progress towards its own violent crime reduction target, it’s a different story. 

On Tuesday afternoon, a shady-looking trio of hooded figures appeared in a post on the National Party’s social media accounts, the image overlaid with bold text proclaiming, “Violent crime has dropped for the first time since 2018.” There was no further context, but a press release from police minister Mark Mitchell and justice minister Paul Goldsmith had the details. “Police data shows that violent crime has fallen for the first time since 2018, indicating that the government’s tough-on-crime and victims-first approach is working,” it read.

“After year-on-year increases in violent crime since 2018, it is encouraging to see a reversal of this rise with a 2% drop in the numbers for 2024,” said Mitchell in the release. “It is especially encouraging when you consider that violent crime increased by 51% between 2018 and 2023.”

Mark Mitchell, Christopher Luxon and Paul Goldsmith in June 2023 (Photo: Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)

A 51% increase in violent crime in five years is an alarming stat, but as The Spinoff has detailed in the past, the NZ Police “victimisations” data the coalition government regularly uses to illustrate the previous government’s alleged “soft-on-crime” failures – and, now, its own “tough-on-crime” successes – comes with some caveats. It records all instances of reported crime for which there is a direct victim, even if no charges are laid – and an increase or decrease in potential crime being reported to police doesn’t necessarily mean an increase or decrease in actual crime. A Herald analysis from 2023 noted factors that may have contributed to a rise in police crime data, including better reporting mechanisms, such as the introduction of the 105 non-emergency phone line in 2019, and legislative changes, such as new offences added to the Family Violence Act in 2018.

The ministers’ press release is based on a January 31 tweet by X user @charteddaily, a fact that is mentioned at the very bottom of the press release:

It’s a curious footnote, given NZ Police has a data team who can crunch any numbers the minister wants at any time, and @charteddaily has used the same categories of publicly available police data that both Mitchell and Goldsmith have repeatedly used to reference an increase in violent crime in the past. The tweet compares a decline in these stats with Corrections data showing a rise in the prison population, a point also highlighted in the press release (and a comparison a team of professional data analysts may be reluctant to make). “This drop coincides with New Zealand’s prison population hitting its highest level since 2018, and a raft of other police statistics showing crime overall reducing, with total victimisations down 2%, and assaults and serious assaults both down 1%,” said Mitchell in the release. 

The metric considered to paint a more accurate picture of crime rates is the Ministry of Justice’s annual New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey. This is what the government uses to set its reduced violent crime target (20,000 fewer victims of assault, sexual assault and burglary by 2029) and measure progress towards it. An annual, nationally representative survey of around 8,000 people that has been running since 2018, the NZCVS has a major advantage over police data in that it “captures crimes that are often unreported, such as sexual assaults and family violence”, as the violent crime target fact sheet itself noted when the target was set in April 2024. NZCVS results have suggested that only around a quarter of instances of crime are actually reported to police. It has also indicated that there has been no significant change in the annual number of victims of assault, sexual assault and burglary – violent crime as per the government’s official target to measure it – since the survey began. 

That is, however, until the NZCVS began releasing quarterly data in order to fit in with the government’s quarterly target progress reports. It’s less reliable than the annual data due to complex reasons involving weighting and other survey minutiae, but the first such release, in September last year, dropped a bombshell: for the first time in the survey’s history, violent crime had increased significantly, rising from 185,000 victims for the year to October 2023 to 215,000 victims for the year to June 2024 (there is overlap in the time periods due to the way the survey is conducted and the new quarterly reporting requirement).

The NZCVS does get a mention in the ministers’ press release, towards the end. “The latest New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey also shows how effective our work to restore law and order has been,” Goldsmith said. “There were 24,000 fewer victims over the year ending October 2024, compared to June 2024.” The October 2024 data – which is the gold-standard annual data rather than the quarterly simulacrum – is set to be officially released next month, but Goldsmith has evidently had a sneak preview, and the number must be down (or up, depending on where you’re starting from) to 191,000.

“These results are extremely promising,” said Goldsmith, “but we expect the data to remain volatile before a longer-term trend emerges. There’s still more work to do.”

What the justice minister doesn’t mention is that while “24,000 fewer victims” may sound great, it’s still 26,000 above the government’s target of 165,000 – and still 6,000 higher than their starting point from less than a year ago. By that measure – which, remember, the government is using to track its own progress – violent crime has risen, not dropped. 

‘Become a member and help us keep local, independent journalism thriving.’
Alice Neville
— Deputy editor
Keep going!
A black background with a white 'X', the social media platform logo, and Elon Musk and JD Vance's portraits on either side
Elon Musk and JD Vance are utilising Muks’s X platform for their causes

OPINIONPoliticsFebruary 26, 2025

We are in an information war – and we are losing

A black background with a white 'X', the social media platform logo, and Elon Musk and JD Vance's portraits on either side
Elon Musk and JD Vance are utilising Muks’s X platform for their causes

If there is one hard lesson we in New Zealand know all too well, it’s that when hate spreads online, it doesn’t stay there. 

There’s an information war going on in the world right now. And we are losing.

Elon Musk and Donald Trump, supported by an army of bots, grifters, liars, and complicit and compromised politicians on both sides of the aisle, have managed to aim true and strike a blow to the heart of liberal democracy and the rules-based international order. 

Right now on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), its owner Elon Musk and Vice President JD Vance are signaling intent to defy increasingly strident court orders. Their weapons of choice in this war are data, the widespread manipulation of public opinion, and the use of internet mobs to attack critics. 

Liberal democracies like our own here in New Zealand – and like the one that the United States was until very recently – are extremely vulnerable to information warfare. I know because I have been running a programme that educates people to apply skills that have been proven effective in countering disinformation. These aren’t regulatory approaches, but rather techniques that everyone needs in order to “do their own research” –and that all institutions need to manage a complex information environment. 

In doing this, I’ve been fortunate to work with a variety of funders, from pre-Musk Twitter to the New Zealand government – and most recently the US Embassy in New Zealand. Following the inauguration of Donald Trump and his chaos-inducing executive orders, we mutually agreed to terminate the grant funding our A Bit Sus Pacific Media programme. The independence of our education programme and our commitment to the privacy of our students made the arrangement unviable for us. And the Embassy’s obligation to follow the orders of Donald Trump made it unviable for them. 

New Zealand’s laudable commitment to freedom of expression, of the press, and of association leave us reasonably reluctant to fight back in ways that protect our political and social cohesion. This reluctance is present even when we know that the attack is coming from nation states whose interests don’t align with ours or from oligarchs intent on steamrolling our democratic processes and institutions. 

At this moment, New Zealand is in a place of extreme vulnerability. Even now we can see online the drumming up of support for our own version of DOGE (the so-called ‘Department of Government Efficiency’, which in reality is  a billionaire-led impoundment of tax dollars and money Congressionally allocated to ensure the public good) which on our shores would also represent a Treaty violation that would resonate through our social fabric in ways hard to imagine. 

Led by Musk, but devolving to his online swarm, any person or organisation who happens to meet their glance is at risk.  The University of Auckland has been the most recent target of this kind of attack, but they aren’t the only victim, and they will not be the last. 

These are the tactics of totalitarianism and authoritarianism. 

Elon Musk's face edited over a picture of Pope Francis, with a dogecoin meme in place of the eucharist
Elon Musk and his beloved dogecoin. (Image: Reddit)

We are a small country whose economic prosperity and security relies on a stable rules-based international order. Without that, we are vulnerable. Facing the elephant in the room – the sudden collapse of the United States out of liberal democracy – compels us to reassess what we are doing to prepare our people and our institutions in this war of information. 

The attacks from people like Musk are not based on truth. They often contain a kernel of fact, but the big lie is embedded in the framing – that is, the lens through which we see the world and understand it. Disinformation actors work to build frames as narratives through which they can channel their stories and manipulate public opinion. 

As someone who has spent the past few years teaching the kinds of skills that internet users can deploy to avoid falling prey to disinformation, I frequently get asked why these tactics cannot be used for good, to protect people’s freedoms and build support for pro-social issues like the protection of the environment. 

The answer is that false frames can be built in ways that are simply more compelling than real life. Conspiracy, hate, and constant drama are the hallmarks of how disinformation actors pull people in and keep them engaged. They leave those enmeshed in these narratives riled up and energised for the next part of the story and not inclined to engage in the often routine and plodding work of creating change through the institutions and structures of a democracy – or a Treaty partnership, for that matter. 

‘Love The Spinoff? Its future depends on your support. Become a member today.’
Madeleine Chapman
— Editor

You can see the result in the so-called “Blue MAGA” movement, a Democratic Party mirror-image of the movement Trump built. While the target of the narrative is different – usually Republicans and the familiar red-hatted MAGA adherents – the shape and impact of the hate is the same. Hate is hate and it cannot be twisted to good purpose. 

And that’s the key to countering disinformation while respecting the vital freedoms we hope to continue to enjoy. The evidence is quite compelling that what works to rein in these attacks and support resilience to them across the population has nothing to do with censorship, restricting freedom of expression, or even regulating online platforms. Those solutions are not viable and are rapidly failing even in Europe. 

Rather, investment and energy placed into a programme of warning people about false narratives, teaching people how to fact check themselves, and supporting high standards of discourse and behavior – especially from political leaders – is what works. 

Those who lived through the great conflagrations of the 20th century are almost all gone now. New Zealand suffered terribly through those, when all hell broke loose in the world. 

Today, Donald Trump’s unhinged threats against Canada, Panama, Greenland, and Gaza are not idle, and it would be irresponsible of us and our leaders to assume they are – or to assume that the consequences of an expansionary America would not come to rest at least in part on our shores. 

We cannot allow ourselves to lose the information war. Maintaining the legitimacy and health of our democracy is the most important issue we face. All others rest upon it. 

The world is at war again now and it is unlikely to remain online. If there is one hard lesson we in New Zealand know all too well, it’s that when hate spreads online, it doesn’t stay there. 

Refusal to secure our information sphere is a refusal to secure our country. It’s time that all of our political parties face up to that and act. We don’t have much time left before it really is too late.

Politics