Earlier this year, the Minister of Justice, Simon Power, gave indications in several speeches that he intended turning his and the Government's attention towards the causes of crime as part of the Government's promises on ensuring the safety of the public.
Many a minister has trodden this path and many schemes have been proposed, and sometimes engaged, but with little to show for the effort.
How does a community stop the onset of criminal behaviour? Almost the entire focus of successive policies has been dealing with offenders; only now are we beginning to consider the circumstances of victims.
In April Mr Power followed his earlier remarks with a conference involving a broad range of individuals and groups.
As a result, the Government has decided to make addressing "the drivers of crime" a whole-of-government priority.
Quite what that will mean is not yet clear, but four specific needs have been identified.
These are antenatal, maternity, and early parenting support; schemes to address behavioural problems in young children; reducing the harm caused by alcohol; consideration of alternative approaches to managing low-level offenders and offering pathways out of offending.
The common meaning of the saying "Show me the child of 7 and I will show you the man" is that by the age of 7 the character and temperament of children is largely formed - an argument for the benefits of early and detailed educational intervention.
The Government appears to be hanging its crime-fighting hat on the concept that social maladjustment and criminality in later life can be identified early.
The Clark government thought similarly with its programme of vetting children between the ages of 3 and 7 for signs of antisocial behaviour, including training courses for parents and teachers of up to 5% of the 57,000 5-year-olds who begin school each year, about 3000 children a year.
The Government classes its ideas as a holistic approach to the problem of criminality, and so it is.
Any experienced parent knows early intervention with an emerging behavioural problem generally works well.
All manner of causal factors have been attributed to the problem of criminality, not the least being poor parenting, health problems, unemployment, peer pressure, low self-esteem, and especially in this country, being Maori.
There is no denying the latter, and Mr Power, to his credit - with the Minister of Maori Affairs Pita Sharples standing at his shoulder - did not attempt to do so.
Far from it: the high crime rate among Maori is to be a specific target, with Mr Sharples saying too many Maori were either involved in or affected by crime.
A whole-of-government approach makes sense when the wide range of factors involved in criminal behaviour and its triggers are considered, and thus there are hopes services for those identified as being "at risk" will be improved in areas such as health, education, parenting support, housing, recreation, and economic, social and community development.
But will the taxpayer get value for the unspecified amount of money required to reach these goals?
Economic pragmatism suggests sufficient reasons exist for intervention given the fiscal rewards to the community from a decline in the rate of criminality, violence and antisocial behaviour by teenagers and young adults.
The demand from taxpayers to successive government to "do something about crime" has been loud enough for long enough, but the community, that is to say we citizens, has been very reluctant to accept the necessity for long-term solutions.
More than 20 years ago, the highly respected Justice Sir Clinton Roper led an inquiry into violence in our society and produced a list of 118 recommendations.
Some 1200 or more submissions were made, including many from professionals working in child care, welfare, and the police, and one of the inquiry's conclusions was that indicators of future criminal and violent behaviour can be identified at an early age.
The correlation of statistics between crime and violence, unemployment, solo parenting and Maori was one of the key recommendations.
It was effectively ignored - politicians of the time were interested only in punishment.
Now we have a Government that seems prepared to act on recommendations for a programme of checking of adverse welfare and social circumstances, health, employment, parenting skills and so forth, with early intervention and guidance where necessary.
If Mr Power's and Dr Sharples' high-minded proposals to take a child showing serious antisocial tendencies and attempt to put them on the right path to adulthood before it is too late actually can be made to work - and there is every reason to try to ensure they do work - we and the generations to follow will have cause to be grateful.
A safe and decent society - and a patient one - is surely desirable.
