Is Australia becoming a more violent country?
The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis.
But are we?
The short answer is: no.
Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years.
It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault).
For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support).
However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades.
Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often.
Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time.
Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern.
Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends.
Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months.
Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane.
Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be.
Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations.
Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank.
There is no clear, compelling explanation.
Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback.
Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be.
One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims).
Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger.
Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture.
Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence.
However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part.
If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense?
Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes.
Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it.
This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen.
READ MORE:
Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed".
This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored.
We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself.
This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place.
Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management.
Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs.
The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis.
But are we?
The short answer is: no.
Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years.
It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault).
For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support).
However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades.
Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often.
Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time.
Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern.
Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends.
Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months.
Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane.
Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be.
Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations.
Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank.
There is no clear, compelling explanation.
Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback.
Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be.
One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims).
Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger.
Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture.
Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence.
However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part.
If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense?
Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes.
Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it.
This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen.
READ MORE:
Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed".
This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored.
We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself.
This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place.
Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management.
Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs.
The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis.
But are we?
The short answer is: no.
Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years.
It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault).
For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support).
However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades.
Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often.
Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time.
Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern.
Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends.
Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months.
Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane.
Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be.
Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations.
Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank.
There is no clear, compelling explanation.
Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback.
Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be.
One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims).
Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger.
Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture.
Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence.
However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part.
If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense?
Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes.
Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it.
This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen.
READ MORE:
Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed".
This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored.
We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself.
This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place.
Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management.
Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs.
The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis.
But are we?
The short answer is: no.
Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years.
It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault).
For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support).
However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades.
Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often.
Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time.
Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern.
Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends.
Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months.
Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane.
Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be.
Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations.
Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank.
There is no clear, compelling explanation.
Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback.
Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be.
One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims).
Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger.
Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture.
Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence.
However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part.
If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense?
Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes.
Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it.
This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen.
READ MORE:
Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed".
This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored.
We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself.
This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place.
Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
3 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Queenstown meeting of Luxon, Albanese trumpeted
All eyes will be on Queenstown this weekend. New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon will host Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, along with his fiancee Jodie Haydon, in the resort tomorrow and Sunday for the annual Australia New Zealand Leaders' Meeting. It is the first time the meeting has been held in Queenstown since 2021, when former prime ministers Scott Morrison and Dame Jacinda Ardern had a tightly controlled and scheduled meeting, primarily due to Covid restrictions. Queenstown Lakes Mayor Glyn Lewers said it was "brilliant" the leaders were meeting in the resort, and considered they could not pick a better spot to "show off New Zealand Inc to our Australian cousins". Mr Lewers would be spending some time with the prime ministers, including being part of Mr Albanese's greeting party. He would later be welcomed to Queenstown by Ngai Tahu at a powhiri, following which there would be bilateral talks. Other engagements include a business roundtable with the Australia New Zealand Leadership Forum. A large media contingent from across the Tasman was expected to cover the visit, while some outlets were planning on doing other Queenstown-specific stories while in town. Mr Lewers said there were stories to be told, particularly around tourism and growth pressures, "and I'm open to talking with them about it". Destination Queenstown and Lake Wanaka Tourism chief executive Mat Woods said the meeting was "a really big deal", and hoped the media coverage further bolstered the resort's reputation across the Tasman. "Australia is our most important international market — it's a market that we've been working hard on for 40-plus years — Australians love Queenstown, Queenstown loves Australians, community and industry alike. "We just get that great opportunity to showcase Queenstown and build on all that work we've been doing ... to show what a great destination we are for Aussies to visit." Queenstown Business Chamber of Commerce chief executive Sharon Fifield said given what was happening around the world at present, it was good to see the two leaders continuing to strengthen their relationship. In a statement, Mr Luxon said one certainty in an otherwise uncertain work was the Australia-New Zealand relationship was the "bedrock as we look out into the world". "Australia is our only formal ally and a vital economic partner. "With a two-way trade of $32 billion, I look forward to discussing what more we can do as we tackle economic challenges on both sides of the Tasman."
Perth Now
3 hours ago
- Perth Now
Aussies back climate action, new poll
A new poll has revealed a majority of Australians want the government to take stronger climate action and limit risks from extreme weather events such as bushfires. YouGov surveyed 1500 Australians, finding 77 per cent of respondents wanted stronger climate action, while 13 per cent thought the government should do less to prevent risks from extreme weather events. A report released by the Productivity Commission this week found the cost of ignoring climate risks would cost the economy an extra $26bn in the next two decades. The Commission found Australia was expected to experience more extremely hot days, longer fire seasons, heavy rainfall over short periods, rising sea levels, coastal flooding and intense tropical cyclones. It stated a harsher climate would increase costs for Australia from $9bn in 2023 to $35bn by 2050 if Australia did nothing to adapt. 'Disasters create lasting health effects for households, and negatively affect education outcomes and earnings,' the report stated. The government is expected to reveal its 2035 target by September with advice from the Climate Change Authority. Climate Council chief executive Amanda McKenzie said a strong 2035 climate target will help protect people and drive new jobs and economic growth. Supplied Credit: Supplied Climate Council chief executive officer Amanda McKenzie said setting a strong 2035 climate target will help protect Australians from climate harm while driving new jobs and economic opportunities. 'Climate action and renewable power have been vote winners at the last two federal elections,' she said. 'Voters' concerns about extreme weather are justifiably growing more urgent. 'Almost eight in 10 want Australia's climate plans to reduce risk from climate-fuelled extreme weather, while more than six in 10 think the government should do more overall on climate.' Dr Barry Traill said politicians could not afford to turn their back on Australians losing their lives, savings and homes. Supplied Credit: Supplied The Climate Action Network program director Barry Traill said support for credible climate action and strong, science-backed pollution reduction targets are solidly mainstream positions in Australia. 'MPs can't afford to turn their backs on people losing their lives, their savings and their homes,' he said. 'Climate denial has and will continue to be punished at the ballot box. Australians want real action to protect lives and livelihoods.'
The Sun
3 hours ago
- The Sun
Doctor-patient trust is key to unlocking AI's potential to improve healthcare in Australia, finds Philips' Future Health Index Report
• Two-thirds (66%) of Australians welcome technology for improved care, but more than half (53%) are concerned it will mean less face time with their doctor. • Three in four (74%) Australian healthcare professionals report losing clinical time due to incomplete or inaccessible patient data, with one fifth of these (19%) losing over 45 minutes per shift, amounting to 23 full days lost per year. • Australians are less optimistic about AI in healthcare (43%) compared to their healthcare providers (85%), highlighting a critical trust gap. SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA - Media OutReach Newswire - 6 August 2025 - Royal Philips (NYSE: PHG, AEX: PHIA), a global leader in health technology, today released the Australian findings of its 10th edition of the Future Health Index 2025 report: Building trust in healthcare AI. For the first time, the report includes the perspectives of more than 1,000 Australian patients alongside their healthcare professionals, revealing a clear directive: Australians will embrace AI in healthcare, but only if it enhances, rather than replaces, the vital doctor-patient relationship. Whilst patients and providers see the potential for AI to address major challenges such as care delays and staff burnout, they believe its primary role should be to empower clinicians, allowing for more meaningful, human-centric care. 'This 10th edition of the Future Health Index gives us the clearest picture yet of what Australians want for their healthcare: technology must serve the human connection', said Shehaan Fernando, interim Managing Director of Philips Australia and New Zealand. 'For patients, building trust is as important as building technology. At Philips, we are committed to a human-centric vision for AI that empowers clinicians and strengthens the doctor-patient relationship that Australians value'. Patients welcome tech, but protect personal relationships The report uncovers a key tension in Australian attitudes towards technology. Whilst a majority (66%) of Australians welcome new technology if it improves the quality of their care, more than half (53%) express concern that it could lead to less direct interaction with their doctors. This desire for human connection is amplified by Australia's long-standing reliance on GP services as the foundation of the healthcare system. The findings suggest patients see AI's ideal role as a powerful support tool that handles administrative tasks, streamlines data access, and ultimately frees up GPs to engage in more in-depth, meaningful consultations. In Australia, three in four healthcare professionals (74%) report losing clinical time due to incomplete or inaccessible patient data, with one fifth of these (19%) losing more than 45 minutes per shift – adding up to 23 full days lost per healthcare professional each year[1]. AI's ability to manage and streamline patient data holds the key to reclaiming this time, allowing healthcare professionals to dedicate more focus to direct patient care. Doctors as trusted guides to AI When it comes to navigating the complexities of AI, Australians place their trust in their healthcare professionals. 79% of Australians would be most comfortable receiving information about AI in their care from their doctor, surpassing news outlets (48%) and social media (31%). This underscores the indispensable role of clinicians in guiding public acceptance and integration of AI. However, the report also notes that healthcare professionals themselves have questions, with 77% concerned or unclear about liability for AI errors. Australians are less optimistic about AI's benefits (43%) compared to their healthcare providers (84%), highlighting a critical trust gap. 'As clinicians, we see the incredible potential for AI to help us diagnose earlier and create more personalised treatment plans', said Dr Tim Bowles, Head of Department - HIVE (Health in a Virtual Environment), at East Metropolitan Health Service (EMHS) in Western Australia. 'AI can empower us to spend less time on administration and more time with our patients, ensuring technology elevates, rather than diminishes, the human element of care'. Philips' Commitment: Driving Human-Centred Innovation Philips' expertise in virtual hospital services and clinical command centres aligns with EMHS's efforts to improve patient-centred care and proactively detect the risk of patient deterioration. This collaboration, featuring the HIVE program and the deployment of a Clinical Command Centre solution leveraging machine learning and predictive analytics, has demonstrated significant patient outcomes. 'By integrating AI into our clinical workflows, we've been able to detect patient deterioration earlier, intervene faster, and ultimately deliver safer, more effective care. AI has become a vital tool in supporting our clinicians and improving outcomes when and where it matters most.' — Adam Lloyd, Area Director Community & Virtual Care East Metropolitan Health Service Data indicates the Clinical Command Centre has led to a 26% reduction in patient mortality[2], a 30% reduction in length of stay[3], and has helped 15% of patients be discharged home faster[4]. Furthermore, the program facilitated over 10,000 clinical interactions over a 12-month period, with 10% being for urgent or life-threatening reasons, and 64% of all interactions occurring after hours or on weekends. By integrating technology seamlessly into clinical workflows, Philips helps to augment the skills of healthcare professionals and improve patient care when it's needed most. 'Our long-term vision is to deliver responsible, human-centric AI that addresses the real-world challenges of patients and providers', said Shehaan Fernando, interim Managing Director of Philips Australia and New Zealand. 'By partnering with the medical community, we can ensure that innovation builds trust, improves outcomes, and supports a future of providing better care for more people'. For more information, or to download the full FHI 2025 Australia report, visit [1] FHI 2025 Australia report: Based on an eight-hour shift, working 250 days per year. This amounts to 187.50 hours lost per healthcare professional on average. [2] Lilly CM, et al. A Multi-center Study of ICU Telemedicine Reengineering of Adult Critical Care. CHEST. 2014; 145(3): 500-7. [3] Lilly CM, et al. Hospital Mortality, Length of Stay and Preventable Complications Among Critically Ill Patients Before and After Tele-ICU Reengineering of Critical Care Processes. JAMA. June 2011; 305(21) 2175-83.[5] Impact of an Intensive Care Unit Telemedicine Program on a Rural Health Care System. Zawada, et al. Postgrad Med J, 2009; 121(3):160-170. [4] Impact of an Intensive Care Unit Telemedicine Program on a Rural Health Care System. Zawada, et al. Postgrad Med J, 2009; 121(3):160-170.
