Laura norda rides again

Written By: - Date published: 9:47 am, July 22nd, 2023 - 57 comments
Categories: chris hipkins, Christopher Luxon, crime, law, law and "order", Social issues, uncategorized - Tags:

This week Labour announced a proposal to change the law.  There would be a new offence of what is colloquially known as ram raiding and the law would be tweaked so that 12 and 13 year olds charged with this new offence would have to appear in court.

And also this week they announced there would be two new youth justice prisons built.  I won’t go into detail about their third announcement that did not go so well.

I have some experience in the area.  I have worked as a lawyer representing young people in the current system since 1989.  I am well aware of the intricacies.

The announcement would mean that more twelve and thirteen year olds could appear in the Youth Court and be subject to Youth Court sanctions, like being subject to electronically monitored bail or Supervision with Residence, which can be a six month incarceration sentence in a youth detention facility.

The justification is that there are some really tough twelve and thirteen year olds and that stronger responses are needed.  Like the ability to put them on EM bail and if necessary detain them.

The problem with the analysis is that it is a bit simplistic.  Twelve and thirteen year olds charged with aggravated robbery or aggravated burglary can appear in Youth Court now.  An aggravated burglary involves committing a burglary while in possession of a weapon, something that often happens during ram raids.

And the really tough youths that Hipkins talked about often already have care and protection status with Oranga Tamariki.  If there is an existing Family Court custody order then they can be placed in an appropriate youth detention centre without the need for Youth Court proceedings.

Hipkins was right to talk about how for 80% of young people recent Government’s reforms are working.  The wrap around service is having a meaningful effect.  From the Beehive this press release from April this year has the details:

“Of the 147 children engaged in the Government’s Kotahi te Whakaaro programme only 27 have reoffended,” Minister for Social Development and Employment Carmel Sepuloni said.

“The programme has also supported 373 siblings and wider family members, ensuring we are turning the lives around of some of our most vulnerable young people.

“Alongside these actions we have seen a drop in the number of reported ram raid incidents.  In August 2022, there were 116 reported ram raids.  Six months after the expansion of Kotahi te Whakaaro there were 40.

And Kelvin Davis is quoted as saying this:

“Locking up children under the age of 15 does not work in the overwhelming number of cases, it just creates more hardened criminals who will reoffend once they are released from custody.  We need intensive interventions that address the causes of offending and what we are doing is working,”

The kids for who the reforms did not work are a tough bunch.  But for this group my view is that existing laws may provide sufficient power.  Having to contemplate the jailing of twelve and thirteen year olds for burglary is a really hard proposition for me to accept.  Because essentially they are still kids.

There are many common features of this group.  The effects of the generational poverty caused by Ruth Richardson’s mother of all budgets and Rogernomics is still clear.  These kids live in substandard homes, their health and their ability to learn is too often severely compromised, there are drug issues and mental health issues the family is too often grappling with, and diagnoses of ADHD or FASD are very common.

If you want to do something for them then focus on their needs when they are two.  Waiting until they are twelve before doing something is too late.

No doubt Sunny Kaushal, who for years wanted to be a Labour MP but more recently has become really retrograde with his commentary about youth crime and dairy owners will disagree.  I would not be surprised in the slightest if he pops up on National’s list in a prominent position.

But Hipkins’ tack to the centre looking for a political solution that ignores the social and humanitarian reality causes me some concern.

If Hipkins could be accused of applying a political lens to issues involving crime National this week has unashamedly chose to use the recent Auckland’s mass shooting incident to politicise law and order in an egregious manner.

On the day of the Auckland shooting Christopher Luxon declared that it was not a day for politics, then in the same breath rolled out National’s law and order policies.  I am sure you know what they are, backing the police, tackling gangs, making sure there are serious consequences and ensuring we have stronger sentences.  His pledge to not politicise the day lasted about five seconds.

And yesterday he asked why the shooter was not in prison.  I doubt that he bothered to learn of the background of the shooter.  This Stuff article provides some detail.

The shooter did not have a long list of previous convictions but there were questions about his mental health.  The offending was bad but the complainant wanted him treated mercifully.  A cultural report prepared for his earlier sentencing said that he suffered from systemic deprivation, a disconnection from his culture, a history of family instability and hardship and he had been exposed to domestic violence and abuse as a young person.  He had spent time living in the street.  As the Judge said many young men with that sort of background appear in court.

This reinforces the need to deal with poverty.  Sure it is easy to get upset with offending and demand retribution but if as a society we want to improve things then long term fundamental change is required.

Unfortunately meaningful discussion about laura norda gets drowned out by the need to be tough on crime.  It looks like this is not going to change soon, especially during this election campaign.

57 comments on “Laura norda rides again ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. arkie 1
    22 July 2023 at 10:16 am

    I think it is appropriate to quote from the executive summary of Chief Science Officer Peter Gluckman's 2018 report; Using evidence to build a better justice system: The challenge of rising prison costs:

    1. Crime, especially violent crime, hurts individuals and society. Both direct and indirect victims of crime may suffer untold consequences that can endure for years and can even affect next generations. Those who do not suffer personally may nonetheless acquire negative perceptions of people or places because of criminal activity. The net effect of such perceptions can change societal attitudes creating a more negative environment. This is a loss for everyone. These perceptions can be disproportionately magnified by advocacy groups, media and political agendas.

    2. Policy responses are often viewed in binary terms: tough or soft on crime. This simplistic duality has long had political resonance, but its impact on our prison system is a major concern. The New Zealand prison population is increasing and is one of the highest in the OECD at a time when crime rates are actually decreasing. This can only be explained by the systemic and cumulative impact of successive policy decisions over time, often in response to public demand and political positioning.

    …

    6. Other countries, such as Finland, have significantly reduced their incarceration rates without crime rates rising. There is strong scientific evidence for putting resources into crime prevention, early intervention (identifying and mitigating risk), and a smarter approach to rehabilitation and subsequent social inclusion for those already in the criminal-justice system – not for building more prisons.

    7. To assist in such an approach, there must be adequate investment in piloting and evaluating early intervention and prevention initiatives. With leadership and knowledge, we can fundamentally transform the justice system, reduce victimisation and recidivism and make prisons only a part of a much more proactive and effective systemic response to a complex problem.

    https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2021-10/pmcsa-Using-evidence-to-build-a-better-justice-system.pdf

  2. Kat 2
    22 July 2023 at 10:25 am

    As Norm Kirk once commented:

    "There are four things that matter to people: they have to have somewhere to live, they have to have food to eat, they have to have clothing to wear, and they have to have something to hope for…………."

    They also need love, sadly this is not happening in the money driven society that we live in where poor and disadvantaged people are regarded as "bottom feeders" and houses are no longer homes but financial investments. We all know that charity begins at home.

    Hopelessness, unfairness, inequality…….ingredients for crime.

  3. pat 3
    22 July 2023 at 10:28 am

    "If you want to do something for them then focus on their needs when they are two. Waiting until they are twelve before doing something is too late."

    And how do we identify them when they are so young?…and assuming identification what action should be taken?

    As is frequently noted such interventions are presumptuous and invasive, not to mention unwanted.

    As an aside there appears a typo in your piece…"and diagnoses of ADHD or FLAS (FAS?) are very common."

    [Thanks will correct – MS]

    • mickysavage 3.1
      22 July 2023 at 10:39 am

      The depressing thing is that these kids can be spotted pretty easily at the age of two. The Otago Longitudinal Study indicates that if you have a combination of problems in a household, poverty, mental health issues, and drug and alcohol issues then the outcomes are not good and depressingly predictable.

      • pat 3.1.1
        22 July 2023 at 10:45 am

        Agreed…but the questions remain…what (acceptable) method of addressing these depressingly predictable outcomes is to be implemented….that is where the debate is.

        All the political parties agree upon this, where they differ is how to address it

        • miravox 3.1.1.1
          22 July 2023 at 11:43 am

          "All the political parties agree upon this, where they differ is how to address it"

          I don't think all political parties agree. I think the NACT and other conservative parties believe parents should just be better and the state has no role in interfering in the family life of a young child i.e. parental responsibility and ignore the plight of the 2-year-old kid.

          Placing blame on the young teens however fits with the narrative of 'good' middle class homes that are rewarded and shitty homelife of poor people who need to be punished.

          It also removes the idea that there is a social ladder to be climbed – except for the exceptional who they use to 'prove the point' that for people who grew up in the rough end of town, your fate is yours to make – make bad 'choices' and you will be punished and thrown back to where you came from.

          Weird how middle class kids who 'make a mistake' aren't judged in the same way by these political parties.

          • pat 3.1.1.1.1
            22 July 2023 at 12:02 pm

            The political parties all agree upon the (research backed evidence) of the predominant causes of youth offending (and ultimately adult offending)

            What you describe is the difference in how such offending should be addressed…and I would suggest described inaccurately…i.e".and the state has no role in interfering in the family life of a young child i.e. parental responsibility and ignore the plight of the 2-year-old kid."…on the contrary, suggestions from NACT have often suggested state intervention in 'family life' including fining parents, removal of welfare rights, removal of children from families etc.

            The problem ALL political parties have in applying the established evidence mentioned by MS is the 'assumptions' required to be made to attempt to prevent something yet to occur….and that in many instances may not.

            • miravox 3.1.1.1.1.1
              22 July 2023 at 12:35 pm

              " suggestions from NACT have often suggested state intervention in 'family life' including fining parents, removal of welfare rights, removal of children from families etc."

              None of those are interventions to improve the life of a child. Again – it's punishment of useless people (in their minds). I truly don't believe they agree with the research – the only reason they mention it at all is it allows them to treat people who don't (in their view) succeed in life. it's all about 'lifestyle' to them e.g:

              "We have got to call parents to account. It is not good enough that you just can’t wake up at seven o’clock and get your kids to school." Luxon

              If you want to have a go, and you want to make something of yourself — we don't just do bottom feeding and just focus on the bottom. We focus on people who want to be positive and ambitious.' Luxon

              I'm sure the only reason they support free preschool hours is because an influential donor is making massive profits, not because it might expand the world of a child living in financial and emotional deprivation. They couldn't give a toss about what the research says if it makes them a profit (imo). I expect military academies will be private ones as well.

              • pat …
                22 July 2023 at 12:45 pm

                Whether it "improves the life of the child" was not your claim….you stated NACT had no interest in intervening in family life which is contradicted by your subsequent post.

                What remains unaddressed in this debate is 'how' we intervene without 'profiling' as Belladonna said…I would suggest we cannot, so we (the left?) therefore need to accept that fact, or we continue to fail.

                Unless someone can demonstrate a workable alternative?….but this question has been posed often to no avail.

                • miravox …
                  22 July 2023 at 1:06 pm

                  The rest of my sentence you quoted was "….i.e. parental responsibility and ignore the plight of the 2-year-old kid."

                  Which explains the first part of the sentence (which I could have written more clearly, I agree). The interventions you describe are nothing to do with addressing the plight of the child. They are, as I said, based on the concept of parental resposibility and probably run counter to the evidence-based research you stated they agree with.

                  • pat …
                    22 July 2023 at 1:24 pm

                    The evidence shows that it is the family environment that is the greatest predeterminant for wayward youth, so if the responsibility is not predominantly parental then what is it?

                    The question , still unanswered, is how these are addressed….especially when unwanted?

                    • miravox …
                      22 July 2023 at 2:04 pm

                      "so if the responsibility is not predominantly parental then what is it?"

                      Mickey has spelled it out in the post you’re commenting on.

                      I think the environment part of your "family environment" has a great deal to offer in improving kids lives.

                      Over the years, communties have become more and more distant from each other in their social and built environments and children are defined by their neighbourhoods, social contacts and influences – and treated accordingly. And that's on all of us.

                      Treating kids well and addressing their needs in a variety of settings can make up for an awful lot of less that ideal parenting.

                  • pat …
                    22 July 2023 at 2:50 pm

                    "Mickey has spelled it out in the post you’re commenting on."

                    Then you must be reading a different post than that which I read…There is no attempt to apportion responsibility (or solutions) for the failings in the piece I read.

                    Perhaps you can point to the specific areas within the piece you think does so?

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      22 July 2023 at 9:23 pm

                      https://www.greens.org.nz/ending_poverty_together

                      Parenting (bad and good) doesn't happen in a vacuum.

                      Why poverty in New Zealand is everyone's concern
                      Liang describes poverty as a "heritable condition" that perpetuates and amplifies through generations: "It is also not hard to see how individual poverty flows into communities and society, with downstream effects on economics, crime and health, as well as many other systems. Loosen one strand and everything else unravels."

                      A Kete Half Empty
                      Poverty is your problem, it is everyone's problem, not just those who are in poverty. – Rebecca, a child from Te Puru

                      Our competitive ('winners and losers') society, increasing inequality, and the scourge of intergenerational poverty, all contribute to parenting challenges. Still, not my problem – "Let them eat cake!"

                      Profiles of Children and Young Persons Who Commit Serious Offences [2022]
                      Considering the social and economic impact of serious offending, and the effectiveness and cost-saving potential of early intervention programmes, it is baffling that policymakers worldwide are yet to fully embrace evidence-based crime prevention policies.

                      Not so baffling – easy to hold 'loser' children and/or their parents responsible – nothing to do with me. As for "evidence-based crime prevention" – sounds expensive. Best kick that can down the road – we will have bigger fish to fry soon enough.

                    • pat …
                      22 July 2023 at 9:42 pm

                      This is an exemplar of why 'the left' have to keep fighting this issue every election

                      What everyone here is doing is offering explanations as to why the problem exists…some more valid than others…however even if we somehow managed to correct all those causes into the future we are still left with the legacy to address, and there 'the left' are unable to detail a solution(s)…something 'the right" arre not short of (effective or not)

                      We can blame inequality. the competitive nature of modern society or claim a dearth of empathy compared to the past…a past we also criticize for being too rigid, rascist and homogenous….but after all that the problem remains.

                      If 'the left' have no solutions to offer, it is unsurprising that the public will gravitate to' the rights' rhetoric…as they well understand.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      22 July 2023 at 10:59 pm

                      https://www.greens.org.nz/ending_poverty_together

                      Decreasing the incidence of financial poverty would be a partial remedy for many ills – more effective/enduring than 'laura norda' approaches that kick the can down the road and solve nothing, imho.

                      This is an exemplar of why 'the left' have to keep fighting this issue every election

                      This is an examplar of why no progress is made on addressing poverty – no proposed solution will ever be good enough, because it can't "correct all those causes into the future", and even if it could other problems would remain. Some Kiwis will forever resist increased redistribution of wealth with every fibre of their being.

                      Still, recent polls found a small majority of Kiwis favoured tax reform – a hopeful sign?

                      Poll Shows Clear Appetite For Tax Reform [19 July 2023]
                      Better taxes for a Better Future is a Fair Tax Coalition initiative supported by:
                      Oxfam Aotearoa; Amnesty International; ActionStation NZ; Council of Trade Unions; The Salvation Army; Climate Club; Public Service Association; Council of Christian Social Services; NZ Nurses Organisation; Anglican Advocacy; Child Poverty Action Group; Post Primary Teachers’ Association; Closing the Gap; Renters United; EcuAction Canterbury; Tax Justice Aotearoa; First Union; Wellbeing Alliance for All Aotearoa.

                      Bloody do-gooders eh! I'm pessimistic about the outlook for this iteration of civilisation, but might be misjudging collective responses to increasing adversity – "United we stand, divided we fall"?

                    • pat …
                      23 July 2023 at 6:51 pm

                      and the self deception continues…

                      even if we somehow managed to correct all those causes into the future we are still left with the legacy to address, and there 'the left' are unable to detail a solution(s)

                    • miravox …
                      23 July 2023 at 7:47 pm

                      I think you should go read it yourself again… slowly, and follow links, but I imagine it still won't match your preconceptions about what you think it should say.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      23 July 2023 at 8:33 pm

                      and the self deception continues…

                      ??

                      even if we somehow managed to correct all those causes into the future we are still left with the legacy to address, and there 'the left' are unable to detail a solution(s)

                      It's not possible "to correct all those causes into the future", let alone address the entire legacy – I’m just observing that many child welfare experts advocate for partial solutions based on alleviating poverty.

                      https://www.greens.org.nz/ending_poverty_together

                      https://www.greens.org.nz/ending_poverty_together_james_shaw_speech

                      The means for such solutions are anathema to our usual suspects.

                      Is the Big Problem Facing Kiwi Kids Poverty Or Parenting? [20 June 2013]
                      What we need to understand, the real issue for us here tonight is that if we keep saying it’s bad parenting, it allows us to sanctimoniously pat ourselves on the back and say that’s nothing to do with us and it’s everything to do with us because they’re our children. – Celia Lashlie

                    • pat …
                      23 July 2023 at 8:43 pm

                      You both continue to avoid the natures of the issue…perhaps deliberately or perhaps not…you persist in only addressing part of the issue and ignoring (wilfully) the rest.

                      And so we will be having this conversation again in 3 years.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      23 July 2023 at 9:17 pm

                      And so we will be having this conversation again in 3 years.

                      Perhaps not Pat, if you can but bring yourself to articulate "the natures of the issue", as you see them – in particular that "part of the issue" I'm "ignoring (wilfully)" – and maybe favour us with solutions.

          • Belladonna 3.1.1.1.2
            22 July 2023 at 12:26 pm

            Whether or not you think it will work, or is good policy, National has had a strong theme of social investment in their policy for some time.

            https://www.national.org.nz/doing_good_better_a_new_approach_for_new_zealanders_in_the_greatest_need

            I think that all political parties (unless you can find an actual one with a policy which doesn't support this) – agree that early intervention is better.

            Even ACT – which does have an emphasis on smaller government – acknowledges that OT is still needed (and proposes reorganizing it, rather than disestablishing it)

            https://www.act.org.nz/oranga-tamariki

            The devil-in-the-detail is how to accomplish this.

            The 'markers' identified in the Otago study – look a lot like 'profiling' to many groups.

            • miravox 3.1.1.1.2.1
              22 July 2023 at 1:28 pm

              I do agree Bill English had a srong theme of social investment, not that he had time to do much about it. Nicola Willis was his researcher – I think she should go talk to her current leader if she wants the party to have another go at this if they're in govt again because he is signalling a morality-based opposite, rather than a researched based strategy.

              Of course ACT agrees kids from 'bad' families need to be locked away. It doesn't mean they agree with the research from the Otago study.

              And yes, I agree many groups will see the markers identified by the Otago study are 'profiling'. The problem with listing behaviours and people by characteristics is there's not a lot of context and meaning around why those characteristics are associated with the outcome. Bigots fill in the gaps to suit their worldview.

  4. observer 4
    22 July 2023 at 11:20 am

    One man walked into a crowded building in Christchurch in 2019, and killed 51 people.

    Another man walked into a crowded building in Auckland in 2023 and killed 2 people.

    Nobody in the media seems the slightest bit interested in pointing out why there is such a big difference. Or, asking who opposes the law that made that difference possible.

    The eyewitness accounts are clear. Reloading a shotgun is not a minor detail … it saved lives.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/auckland-shootings-gunmans-words-as-he-opened-fire/IXFA3GKQEZBQXKUKRSQZUNLDTA/

    • Belladonna 4.1
      22 July 2023 at 12:33 pm

      Witnesses have also been clear that this was (at least in part) a targeted shooting – he walked past people he could have shot – in an attempt to find those he wished to target.

      The motivation of the killer was quite different to the Christchurch incident.

      https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/auckland-shooting-construction-workers-describe-confusion-and-fear

      • observer 4.1.1
        22 July 2023 at 12:59 pm

        He shot at police. His shots hit and injured them.

        But he did not have a semi-automatic.

        • Belladonna 4.1.1.1
          22 July 2023 at 4:34 pm

          I don't believe any police were injured in the Christchurch case….

          Does that mean that shotguns are more dangerous than rifles?

          [Rhetorical question]

          The two incidents are not parallel. Different motivations. Different environments. Different outcomes.

          • observer 4.1.1.1.1
            22 July 2023 at 6:20 pm

            Different outcomes, because different weapons.

            Next you'll be resorting to "Guns don't kill people, people do".

            • Belladonna 4.1.1.1.1.1
              22 July 2023 at 7:10 pm

              Different outcomes because of different motivations and environments.

              Really – you don't need to beat this political drum.

              It's just as distasteful for you to do so, as for the political parties which have been castigated for doing so on TS.

  5. Mike the Lefty 5
    22 July 2023 at 12:42 pm

    I thought some of the media coverage of the shooting was quite despicable. You had Lisa Owens on Checkpoint virtually accusing the Police Minister of murder, ranting about how the new firearms registration system had "failed" the victims, despite that it has been operating less than a few months.

    And then ACT's leader David Seymour relishing the situation with all the regret of a ghoul who has found another victim's brains to snack on.

    So much for respect for the dead and their relatives.

  6. Peter Kelly 6
    22 July 2023 at 2:23 pm

    Until a majority of the electorate accepts that youth crime is a direct result of free market reforms and is prepared to support a political party that will address that damage, nothing will improve. Expecting tweaks to OT, Corrections, or Police to solve the ever increasing problem is as useless as expecting hospitals to cope with the ever increasing obesity and its consequences.

    • Stephen D 6.1
      22 July 2023 at 4:59 pm

      QFT

    • Phillip ure 6.2
      22 July 2023 at 5:59 pm

      Wot peter kelly said..

      (I also prefer lawn-order..to Laura norder…

      ..it opens the door to garden-metaphors..)..

    • pat 6.3
      22 July 2023 at 6:08 pm

      Surely you are not suggesting there was no youth crime pre the 80s reforms?

      It may be fair to attribute the increase to such, but it is simply too convenient to state such, especially when there is (again) no practical solution(s) offered.

      • Peter Kelly 6.3.1
        22 July 2023 at 8:44 pm

        Pat, of course we have, and always will have youth crime, but not of this intensity or number. Many factors appear to contribute to this. I would list the apparent on-going need for our economy to have significant levels of unemoyment to function as a large contributor; along with, even with 2 parents working, home ownership is unachievable for many families. The sale of our banks off-shore has created a huge drain on our economy allowing foreign economies to profit obscenely from the efforts of NZ/AO farmers and workers. The competition between capital and labour is as real today as it has always been, but even after the lessons (during covid) of who is an 'essential worker' many companies have not seen fit to raise wages to the 'living wage' level – we even have political parties campaigning against the living wage. Alongside these (and I am sure many more factors) we have the intense peer pressure applied through social media.

    • Ad 6.4
      22 July 2023 at 6:49 pm

      Tiresome fact free wussy pinko namby pamby bullshit.

      It's been going down consistently since 2015.

      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/youth-crime-big-increases-in-south-auckland-and-canterbury-rife-in-bay-of-plenty/MJOGNQ2CKJDGNHSBZZTCCWX5IU/

      It was going down even faster from 2009 to 2013.

      https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/child-and-youth-offending-patterns/index.html

      Let's go back further.

      "Apprehensions of young offenders declined in the 1980s and early 1990s. They increased until 1996, but in the early 21st century declined to 1980s levels. Further significant declines occurred in the 2010s."

      https://teara.govt.nz/en/youth-offenders/page-1

      But under Labour in 2022 and 2023 it is starting to trend upwards.

    • SPC 6.5
      22 July 2023 at 9:07 pm

      True in the general context, crime is low when the necessities of life – social and physical well-being – are catered to and more so when this is somewhat egalitarian, an in it together community.

      And one can see evidence of this when crime is higher (with the urbanisation of Maori youth back in the 70's without community support networks – thus gangs) and in the late 80's/to mid 90's impact of rising unemployment (only diminished by the migration to Oz in the 90's and the 1999 Labour-Alliance government).

      And of late, the dislocation to youth normality with the lockdowns, motel housing, and rising family stress due to rising costs – creating a younger form of the 70’s sub-culture (truancy) gang associated and connected to wider economic deprivation.

    • DS 6.6
      23 July 2023 at 10:27 pm

      Not just youth crime either. There's a substantial (and ongoing) spike in New Zealand's prison population from the mid-1980s onwards. Turns out that when you tell people there's no such thing as society, people take you at your word.

  7. Ad 7
    22 July 2023 at 6:55 pm

    How is it possible that Labour can do so much on gun crime, increase Police numbers, strengthen the system after multiple major tests, see crime go down in multiple categories, and still only look like the are 'waking up' to crime with less than 3 months before an election?

    No, it's not the media's fault.

    Labour have had so many opportunities to make this a political positive.

    This is purely down to woeful political management from successive Labour Ministers of Police.

    Why we have a policy wonk like Ginny Anderson in there and not Simon O'Connor is unfathomable.

  8. SPC 8
    22 July 2023 at 8:50 pm

    There are periodic/episodic concerns about youth crime.

    Here it began with loss of normal routine – lockdowns and for some constant home moves, so as to lose contact with a school.

    And with this came the lord of the flies youth community — social media connected, then exploited for criminal gain by others (in part the 501 sourced rise in gang numbers).

    Deterrence

    Getting those under 17 access to a vehicle for ramraiding should be an offence.

    Celebrating a crime on social media should result in cancellation of an account (suspension from)

    Having those age 11-13 subject to home detention, except for required school attendance (with the risk of youth facility attendance if lack of compliance) – they provide visible testimony of consequences.

    Youth Facilities

    smaller 11-14 ones (those who bully others being sent to larger under 17 facilities, with separate ones for Maori) as close to the community as possible.

    Big Boy discipline

    Any gang associated with supplying drugs to those under 17, or association with criminal activity by youth to face consequences.

    Wider Policy

    ban the gang patch of any Oz based organisation (stamp on the 501's as a conduit for international crime).

  9. SPC 9
    22 July 2023 at 9:30 pm

    Of course the National Party and ACT (the party led by the good Maori boy, the new Winston, who favours assimilation of everyone into white settler society), will pose the Twin Peaks threat and of course one part the religious solution (faith based providers to the penal, and welfare systems – see USA mid 1990's) and one part tougher on the crime of the underclass to keep the good people safe.

    Law and Order/Laura Palmer and the threat posed to decent society/the virtue of young women from dangerous one armed bandits (those profiting from gambling, alcohol, drugs, pornography and prostitution).

    One wonders if Kaushal really wants a crackdown on the retailing of alcohol, pokies in lower income areas, or the elimination of vaping sales from cubicles within dairies. Of course neither National nor ACT is proposing any of this, in fact it wants to reduce the impost of Labour's run down of tobacco sale outlets.

    So how much is SERCO donating to NACT to profit from building prisons?

  10. Drowsy M. Kram 10
    22 July 2023 at 10:11 pm

    Of course the National Party and ACT (the party led by the good Maori boy, the new Winston, who favours assimilation of everyone into white settler society)…

    I have a vague memory (from ~1970) of a high school history class discussion session in which I was given 'the evils' (justifiably so) after advocating for assimilation as the best approach to challenges facing Māori. More than 50 years later, look how far we've come!

    • Molly 10.1
      23 July 2023 at 9:42 am

      What is "white settler" society, as you see it?

      • Patricia Bremner 10.1.1
        23 July 2023 at 10:30 am

        Ok Molly… The settlers were mainly caucasian. From Ireland Scotland England with a few from other areas.

        A large group of Chinese for the gold, and a few European whalers who settled but they did not own or control land.

        The Chinese were badly treated, as were Maori having to accept new laws and cultural expectations and losing large tracts of land during and after the land wars.

        Two thirds of Maori died of the 1918/19 influenza outbreak, so the first 60 years were pretty rough after the treaty. imo

        "White settler society" were those who were given or bought land. imo.

        One of my family’s English settlers came as a shilling a day Fencible. He was given land in Howick, where his family still live.

        • Molly 10.1.1.1
          23 July 2023 at 11:50 am

          Patricia, you are relating history. Many families can recognise such narratives within their own family trees, but we are talking about current political commentary.

          What is "white settler" society in present day?

      • Drowsy M. Kram 10.1.2
        23 July 2023 at 12:06 pm

        I prefer the terms "European settler" and "British settler".

        Another short story, this one from <20 years ago. My stepsister's family had joined our wider family for a Christmas get-together. For some reason, my six-year-old nephew referred to my stepsister's two pre-school children (on sight) as "poo-poos" – how 'we' laughed.

        And one more (sad) little tale, from nearly 60 years ago. While walking along Silverdale Rd to my (brand) new primary school in Hamilton, the children in one particular house often called out loudly (and repeatedly) "hey e hoa", and that frightened me enough to cross the road (against the instructions of my parents) before I got to that house. Over 50 years later the penny finally dropped, thanks to RNZ, and yet I have such doubts.

        Because its power remains naturalized: introducing the settler colonial determinants of health [11 July 2023]

        https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1137428/full

        • Molly 10.1.2.1
          23 July 2023 at 1:27 pm

          Wow, Drowsy. M Kram, supposedly powerful (yet actually trivial) stories from ages ago.

          Give a go at defining present day "European" or "British settler" society in terms of political discourse, instead of relating anecdotes.

          (Because many can also relate equivalent jocularity(?) from Māori towards non-Māori. Unless you don't actually hang out with such Māori jokers…)

          • Drowsy M. Kram 10.1.2.1.1
            23 July 2023 at 2:49 pm

            Wow, Molly – just wow. Thanks (for your "give a go" invitation), but no thanks.

        • Patricia Bremner 10.1.2.2
          23 July 2023 at 1:50 pm

          Drowsy M Kram. Thank you, and the final piece was very enlightening imo. and Molly…

          We still practice Law and most British holidays, have a Governor General as stand in for the King as final control on our Parliament? That is the current truth of political position, which ever party wins. British model with no upper house. smiley

          • Molly 10.1.2.2.1
            23 July 2023 at 2:00 pm

            Law and public holidays are accepted by many Māori as acceptable aspects of modern society, although improvements should always be in the table in terms of laws.

            The issue regarding being a republic, has both Māori and non-Māori supporters.

            Do you as – I assume here – non-Māori support all legislation that existed 100 years ago as just, or are you permitted to have a changing view of your place in the world as a modern member of society?

            That is – if we assume all Māori hold static supposed traditional methods of governance and justice, shouldn't that same assumption be made about non-Māori? What does that look like?

            • Belladonna 10.1.2.2.1.1
              23 July 2023 at 10:33 pm

              And, what place in this "Settler/British/White people" vs Maori dichotomy do those Kiwis who belong to neither 'tribe' inhabit?
              My teen's besties include Kiwis of Indonesian, Han Chinese, Korean, Hindi Indian, Kenyan, Argentinian and Samoan heritage. They are all New Zealanders, too. Some of 2 or 3 generations.

              New Zealand is a nation of immigrants. Our founding myths, for heavens sake, are all about migrating! Some of us migrated a long time ago (many generations), others are new immigrants. But all of us are Kiwis.

    • SPC 10.2
      23 July 2023 at 11:08 pm

      The current fashion is to refer to assimilation in terms of democracy, and to question any Treaty/UNDRIP context as an affront to "Kiwi democracy". This revivalism of assimilation politics (pre Bastion Point) began with the Orewa speech of Don Brash.

      Then one Kiwi New Zealand, now democracy vs co-governance.

      ACT's policy line on this, is to champion universal human rights (while ending the HRC which speaks to credibility) in "New Zealand’s laws, public affairs, and constitutional settings:

      1. Legislating that the principles of the Treaty are based on the actual Treaty, in contrast with the recent interpretation of obscure Treaty principles, and inviting the people to ratify it.

      They want to decide/determine the actual Treaty.

      2. Repealing recent laws, such as the Three Waters legislation, local government representation legislation, and elements of the Pae Ora legislation, that give different rights based on identity.

      Undermine plans for improved health service delivery to Maori.

      3. Reorienting the public service towards a focus on equal opportunity according to robust statistical evidence instead of racial targeting, along with devolution and choice for all, as achieved with the recent Equity Index and Isolation Index policy for school funding, and charter schools among other devolutions.

      Devolution being fine, unless services to Maori.

      https://www.act.org.nz/democracy

      One could go onto to look at their immigration policy, undermine our local labour market conditions to service the interest of business capital (from any source).

      Their policy is to reduce the role of government, which is to change the nature of our society to centralise organisation around free markets – that is assimilate New Zealand into the global market (diminishing the function of government in the formation of society and culture – which means the subordination of not just the indigenous people but all).

      https://www.act.org.nz/principles

      Then there is the National component of the said assimilation revivalist programme.