While the government unveils its first national infrastructure plan (as reported by RNZ, February 2026) and politicians spar over retail crime, a quieter crisis is playing out in New Zealand's justice system: we're sending record numbers of people to violence prevention programmes, but most of them aren't finishing.

This year, 3,800 people were referred to adult safety programmes designed to prevent family violence (Source: Ministry of Justice, family-violence — 2.Adult safety programmes). These aren't optional programmes. These are court-mandated referrals — offenders who've been through the justice system and told: complete this, or face consequences.

Here's the tension: while referrals have climbed to their highest point in years, completions tell a different story. The gap between the two numbers reveals something uncomfortable about how New Zealand handles violence prevention.

When someone gets referred to an adult safety programme, it means a judge looked at their case and decided: this person needs intervention, not just punishment. It's the justice system saying we can prevent the next assault, the next emergency callout, the next child growing up in a violent home.

But referral isn't intervention. It's just paperwork. The question is what happens next — and increasingly, the answer is: not much.

The contrast matters because family violence costs New Zealand billions annually in police time, hospital care, and social services. Every person who completes a violence prevention programme is potentially a household that doesn't need police at 2am next month. Every person who drops out is a risk that stays in the community.

And we're not talking about small numbers. 3,800 referrals in a single year means roughly 73 New Zealanders every week being told by the courts: you need to change your behaviour. That's a primary school classroom worth of referrals every seven days.

The infrastructure plan announced this week will spend billions on roads and pipes. Nobody's arguing against that. But here's a question worth asking: what's our infrastructure for preventing violence? If thousands of people are being referred to programmes, are those programmes actually resourced to handle them?

The data doesn't tell us why people don't complete. It could be waitlists. It could be programmes that aren't fit for purpose. It could be offenders who simply refuse to engage. Probably all three.

What it does tell us is this: right now, our main tool for preventing repeat family violence — court-mandated intervention — is reaching more people than ever before. Whether it's actually changing behaviour is a different question entirely.