Unacceptable

Written By: - Date published: 10:28 am, December 7th, 2024 - 29 comments
Categories: act, crime, karen chhour, national, same old national, Social issues, uncategorized - Tags:

It appears that the Government’s intent to politicise youth offending by making an elite few dress up in army uniforms and march around in an effort to solve a lifetime of neglect is not working out so well.

The policy was always going to fail.

To think that a short term intervention was going to cure a lifetime of problems for troubled kids is frankly weird.

I can speak from a position of some knowledge. I have been on the panel of lawyers out West Auckland representing young people in trouble since 1989.

I have never met a client that I did not like. They are almost always kids from disadvantaged backgrounds who are just trying to make their way in the world, sometimes with disastrous consequences.

Teenage years are difficult. Many is the time I have thought there but for the grace of God goes my client and not me.

I grew up in Mangere. I like to think that I have an understanding of what they are going through. But I grew up at a time where working class kids had a chance to go to University and working class families could make sure their kids had enough.

And I am not black. It is clear to me that skin colour adds a whole extra load of complexity that us pakeha palangi do not need to worry about. Even if we are working class kids from Mangere whose father was a boilermaker.

My view is that the Youth Justice system works remarkably well in patching kids up and standing them on their feet again. But these can be really troubled kids. ADHD and FLAS diagnoses are common. Drug use is far too prevalent.

The Boot Camp announcement was always a PR job rather than a real attempt to deal with youth offending.

This is clear because no law change was needed when the pilot was launched. It was a supervision with residence sentence for kids who qualified with a uniform and some marching around thrown in for PR purposes.

All the therapeutic language thrown around the program, things like “focus on structure and routine, physical activities, education and vocational training, preparation for work and finding employment, and rehabilitative, therapeutic, and cultural components” do not require kids to dress up as soldiers. This can and should happen anyway.

On October 18 Minister Karen Chhour announced that the residence part of the pilot had finished and that the youhg people involved would now “head into the 9-month community stage, which will look different for every young person, depending on their needs”.

How has it gone?

Not well.

Recent news about the participants include the following:

  • One young person has died after a car accident that the police are investigating.
  • Two participants were on the run since the tangi for the deceased teenager earlier this week.
  • One person had allegedly reoffended. I do not know if he is the young person on the run.
  • Chhour seems to be more upset that she was not told about the second case than about the death.
  • One youth had previously exited from the program.

This is out of a total of 10 young people. And this is just what we know about.

I am not sure about the need to complete the review. I think they should pull the pin now.

And the Government has introduced amending legislation to introduce some tweaks to create the impression it is doing something about youth crime.

One of them is the creation of the “Young Serious Offender” category for the purposes of sentencing. Stand by as a plethora of YSO youth gangs appear throughout the country.

If you want to read a history of bootcamps then can I invite you to read my previous post. Short version the policy has been trotted out multiple times but has continuously failed with recidivism rates being pretty appalling. All that these reforms have done is create faster fitter recidivists.

Karen Chhour thinks it is unacceptable that she was not told about the second young person absconding. Which is funny really because this is the word that I would use to describe the handling of her Ministerial responsiblities.

29 comments on “Unacceptable ”

  1. Ianmac 1
    7 December 2024 at 10:53 am

    The worry is that this minister Chhour seems in denial. A fanatic who seems oblivious to alternative points of view. A bit like Luxon?

    Reply
  2. Mike the Lefty 2
    7 December 2024 at 11:20 am

    Minister Chhour has the audacity to complain that it is The Opposition politicizing these boys.

    Who campaigned last election about introducing boot camps as part of their foot stomping war on crime?

    It was National.

    It's a bit rich of them to accuse others of politicizing these poor wee lads when National have been doing exactly that without pause.

    But of course now the whole scheme is going pear shaped it is everybody's fault except their's.

    Reply
  3. Incognito 3
    7 December 2024 at 11:37 am

    Boot camps were only intended to stamp their authority and leave their ideological mark to appease their lobby donors supporters. They fit perfectly with laying all blame on individual personal choices with ‘corrective’ measures that have a strong streak of punitive controls.

    Chhour is just like Lester Levy in trying to deflect the real issues by making it about her; they’re absconding from being accountable. Just wait for the photo-op when there’s a ‘success’ to be reported, carefully orchestrated by the PR team – claiming and taking personal credit is what ‘winners’ do best.

    Reply
  4. AB 4
    7 December 2024 at 12:09 pm

    Boot camps are about more than PR. As Incognito noted at 3, they betray some central deformations in right wing thought. These are first, that people are born mostly bad and have the bad tamed and replaced with the good by forms of authoritarian control. Second and flowing from the first, that social failure comes from personal deficiencies, from those unreformed by discipline. And third, that if these principles are followed, the existing social order is essentially just, and people get more or less what they deserve. It all operates as a powerful justification of the status quo.

    Given that, providing evidence may not be an effective way to argue against it. Failures may simply be seen as indicating that it was not done properly and it needs to be done again, only harder.

    Reply
  5. CD 5
    7 December 2024 at 2:40 pm

    I fail to see how structure, rules, discipline, culture, etc set people up to "find employment". Anyone taken a brief look at the work scene and employer attitudes lately? I pity the person who gets "reshaped" by a boot camp only to once again find NZ doesn't work the way they've been told. Basically, Boot Camp (V2024) is a list of punishments that born-to-rule prats would hate to have to live by: culture, rules, structure, integrity, hard work, vocational training, the law… A best, it's a specific solution to a specific problem of a by-gone era, that has nothing to do with youth offending today. A sadist's wet dream, for people even less intelligent than the usual Luxon think-a-likes. So much time, effort, money, frothing and salivating to not just not solve a problem, but come anywhere close to understanding it. Isn't that what those Natborgs like to accuse Labour of doing?

    Reply
  6. SPC 6
    7 December 2024 at 2:44 pm

    A temporary period of sensationalised youth crime, Auckland and its media as self-absorbed as much as bored looking at themselves youth on social media), now gone and youth offending rates in decline.

    Yet we are stuck with the legacy of the C of C ad hoc policy responses (failed knee jerks of yesteryear in reprise).

    Over at Work and Income, the same. The SOP is a treadmill of accountability being set to a higher speed – because unemployment is up, or because it is down – so they are seen to be doing the same old thing in response. Being seen to be doing something. The same old something.

    The staff processing clients at a faster and faster rate of compliance. Making more work for staff, taking up more of the time of youth. Making people more accountable, being more accountable.

    More government bureaucracy and creating not a thing.

    This from a government promising less waste and no less front line service delivery to the public. Do the W and I clients feel like they are getting more service?

    Reply
    • Incognito 6.1
      7 December 2024 at 4:52 pm

      Do the W and I clients feel like they are getting more service?

      Maybe some do – I’m not so cynical to believe that no W&I ‘clients’ gain anything – but this service is not solely for beneficiaries and job seekers. It’s a service for ‘the market’, to ready and prepare human capital, driving down the cost of said capital, particularly of low- and medium-skilled workers; high-skill vacancies can be re-sourced through immigration when needed, which again tends to drive down cost (also of training, which is done elsewhere). All this at an overall reduced expense to taxpayers and a lower tax bill for businesses. It fits perfectly in the neo-liberal model of CoC and their supporters.

      Reply
  7. Christopher Randal 7
    7 December 2024 at 7:31 pm

    "This from a government promising less waste and no less front line service delivery to the public"

    And after a year in office Seymour has done precisely nothing with his Ministry for Regulation.

    Reply
    • tc 7.1
      8 December 2024 at 6:30 am

      Give him a chance hes been busy taking work from local businesses to enrich corporates at kids nutritional expense.

      That,a treasonous treaty shit stir and chartering out our education system has kept him very busy. Worry not atlas’s little helper will get there.

      Reply
  8. Binders full of women 8
    8 December 2024 at 7:13 am

    You're a better man than me. Police have apprehended the two escapees with two accomplices in a stolen car wearing gloves, masks and carrying machetes. I'm more concerned with the 100s possibly 1,000s of victims these four will affect over decades. If not boot camp, then some kind of juvvy is appropriate. Masked machete weilding 14-15 yr olds are generally scary AF.

    Reply
  9. thinker 9
    8 December 2024 at 7:36 pm

    "Unacceptable, that's what you are… Unacceptable, though near or far. That's why, Karen, it's incredible, that someone so unacceptable thinks her programme's so acceptable, too" (apologies to Nat King Cole).

    The thing is, this was the trial programme of 10 participants. Nothing's been said about the one who was killed on the motorway (a tragedy the government could have avoided and sympathies to his whanau and friends) but we have to assume he was an escapee, I guess, but the other two were definitely escapees and clearly hadn't benefited from the scheme as they were caught stealing cars, on the run from police and caught with violent weapons.

    If 30% of a small batch of 10 can't be controlled, how could this scheme possibly work for all of the country's vulnerable youth, or at least the same number as were being managed through the schemes that have been curtailed.

    It's a blatant disregard for human life and livelihood, both for the general public and for the youth criminals, who are now victims in their own right. Dog-whistle politics and pure self-interest have led to this disgusting outtcome that everyone saw coming.

    Even right wing supporters should be angry.

    Reply
  10. Descendant Of Smith 10
    8 December 2024 at 8:39 pm

    So I'm a young Maori kid on a bootcamp being used as a demonstration PR stunt for a government that outwardly hates Maori, poor people and The Treaty of Waitangi.

    I'd be pretty incentivised to make sure it didn't work rather than be a National Government patsy.

    If I was that age I'd be saying fuck you, you miserable pack of bastards.

    Reply
  11. tsmithfield 11
    9 December 2024 at 9:17 am

    I think the correct question is what approach would get better results with these youth?

    Interventions for these young people should have been happening at a very early age. At this stage they are likely very resistant to any sort of approach to bring change.

    I don't think the correct question is whether "boot camp"style interventions have been effective is the correct question either. But rather, how could these programs be changed to ensure they are more effective.

    Effectively, they are another form of incarceration. Other forms of incarceration haven't been great either in terms of reoffending. The MOJ has a study on the effectiveness of various interventions with in a custodial context. CBT (cognitive behaviour therapy) was found to be the most effective. Therefore, it makes sense, for example to include this type of intervention within a "boot camp" setting.

    I see the advantages in the "boot camp" style of program is firstly, that youth are isolated from the negative influences they are exposed to in the community; secondly, that they are exposed to routines and self-discipline that are lacking in their day to day lives. And, thirdly, that they are in a setting where the dysfunctional aspects of their lives that prevent them from progressing and keep them in a cycle of reoffending can be identified and a process of addressing these issues can begin.

    The main disadvantage I see is that the youth will likely return to the community from where they came, and be exposed again to the same normative pressures and influences which existed prior. Hence, the chance of relapse is very high.

    Hence, working with youth and their families in the community once the youth return is a critical aspect of successful rehabilitation in my opinion.

    But, in the end, I think we are discussing how to make incarceration generally more effective rather than focussing on the style of intervention. I don't see why boot camp style interventions should be worse than the status quo with these youth.

    And, the real challenge is how to intervene when children are young enough for interventions to be effective. But, that doesn't deal with youth who are already conditioned towards dysfunctional and criminal behaviour.

    Reply
    • Descendant Of Smith 11.1
      9 December 2024 at 2:19 pm

      When rap came out an interviewer – I think it might have been Parkinson – asked a rap artist why the lyrics were about guns and shooting, and hate for the police.

      His response was clear – I write about the environment I grow up in. You want to change my lyrics then change my environment.

      So you have hit on it here:

      The main disadvantage I see is that the youth will likely return to the community from where they came, and be exposed again to the same normative pressures and influences which existed prior. Hence, the chance of relapse is very high.

      Labour's failure to implement WEAG recommendations is a good example of not starting to fix the environment people go back to. There is plenty of research to show that children raised in poverty will have worse outcomes as adults. Reducing the number of children being raised on poverty is a better long term solution. Stable affordable state housing and decent benefit rates would be a good start.

      The irony is the mantra espoused by Luxon (lower tax so you get to keep more of your money i.e. don't trust the government) is the same mantra that poor and violent communities operate under.

      The outcomes in A are often tax rorting, benefit envy and voting for less and less tax and more and more punishment for people not like us, the outcomes in B are crime and violence. Driving A will always drive B.

      Reply
      • tsmithfield 11.1.1
        9 December 2024 at 2:47 pm

        So you have hit on it here:

        Thanks for that. And, I think that is the problem generally for any type of incarceration. Not just boot camps.

        The big problem is that I don't think governments are willing to give more than lip service to this aspect of the problem. I know that National have said they will connect social workers with families and youth after the program. But, I don't know that they are really willing to spend what it takes to make a true difference.

        When I was at uni, one of our lecturers was from a correctional facility in the US for youth on the verge of serious imprisonment. He said they could get amazing changes while the youth were in the facility. But, that was all lost when they went back to their environment.

        So, they implented a program in the community that included factors such as mentors in the community for the youth, finding them jobs, working with their parents who were often depressed etc.

        So, they were doing what they could to change the environment, not just the individual. I think this type of approach is what is needed to make programs more effective.

        Reply
        • Tony Veitch 11.1.1.1
          9 December 2024 at 4:16 pm

          I think this type of approach is what is needed to make programs more effective.

          Of course it is, Smithy. And this has been known for years, decades.

          The tragedy is that the ACT-led CoC also know this and are simply pandering to their base with their "Tough on crime" BS.

          Reply
          • tsmithfield 11.1.1.1.1
            9 December 2024 at 4:43 pm

            I don't think you can just blame National. Governments of all stripes have done sweet FA in this respect.

            Reply
            • Tony Veitch 11.1.1.1.1.1
              9 December 2024 at 5:40 pm

              We can, at least, say the last Labour govt was well-intentioned, unlike this present lost, who are indulging in a sort of neo-liberal wet dream of austerity, which necessarily increases poverty, a major driver of dysfunctional families and crime.

              But you know that, because you are doing laudable work in this field – yet you still venture to defend the absolute stupidity of this ACT-led CoC!

              Reply
            • Incognito 11.1.1.1.1.2
              9 December 2024 at 5:56 pm

              That’s one way to avoid or kill debate.

              Essentially, you’re saying that both apples and oranges are fruits. Or, put differently, they both did it, they’re as bad as each other, et cetera.

              It’s a dumb as a schoolyard fight in which both parties accuse each other of having started it first.

              Once you stop differentiating, as you did, there’s nothing left and nothing achieved.

              Reply
              • tsmithfield …
                10 December 2024 at 9:41 am

                Incognito, I think that there isn't much debate to be had about the solution being intensive intervention into at risk communities. That appears self-evident to me.

                I just don't think there is the political will or the funding available to support such initiatives at the level required, when there are competing demands from health etc.

                The issues facing these communities are intergenerational and have been persisting for decades without much change. So, I would argue that the evidence itself makes it fairly clear that governments across decades haven't done enough. Because, if they had, the problems would have improved significantly by now.

                It is probably one of the greatest political challenges and problems to solve in my opinion. So, the answer is easy to see. But, implimenting it is the problem.

                Probably it is something that would require cross-party support to ensure continuity of programs to address these issues, and probably is a discussion that needs to be had at the political level.

                Reply
                • Incognito …
                  10 December 2024 at 6:03 pm

                  Let’s try and unpack your comment somewhat and there’s too much to unpack.

                  Incognito, I think that there isn't much debate to be had about the solution being intensive intervention into at risk communities. That appears self-evident to me.

                  We’re talking about wicked problems here, so nothing is self-evident, and debate is absolutely necessary (but not sufficient); it must be trans-disciplinary and include all stakeholders.

                  I just don't think there is the political will or the funding available to support such initiatives at the level required, when there are competing demands from health etc.

                  Poor health, access to healthcare, and health outcomes do affect those same ‘at-risk communities’ – they’re inter-dependent factors where cause & effect and simple (linear) chronological order fall short in understanding, explaining, and addressing the wicked problem.

                  The issues facing these communities are intergenerational and have been persisting for decades without much change. So, I would argue that the evidence itself makes it fairly clear that governments across decades haven't done enough. Because, if they had, the problems would have improved significantly by now.

                  Again, nothing is ‘fairly clear’. Being fixated on one outcome as a measure of whether enough has been done is not helpful at all. It’s plausible that some problems would have worsened without government action. For example, because a lot has been done in public healthcare, life expectancy has improved across the board, but the gap between Māori and Pakeha has been widening. Instead of doing more of the same, it became clear that a community-focussed approach by, with, and for Māori had considerable merit. However, one of the first things CoC did was to disestablish the Māori Health Authority.

                  It is probably one of the greatest political challenges and problems to solve in my opinion. So, the answer is easy to see. But, implimenting it is the problem. [sic]

                  I agree that it’s a wicked problem and therefore, the (?) answer is anything but easy to see.

                  Probably it is something that would require cross-party support to ensure continuity of programs to address these issues, and probably is a discussion that needs to be had at the political level.

                  See above. CoC doesn’t have a genuine interest in addressing any of those issues, in my opinion. They’re not evidence-based but neo-authoritarians who defund the science research sector and tertiary education in NZ – they have no interest in listening to others with different or opposing views and this exclusionary way of governing is the main reason why they shouldn’t lead this democratic nation.

                  Reply
                  • tsmithfield …
                    11 December 2024 at 9:46 am

                    Thanks for that. And, you are right. The problems are indeed wicked on many dimensions:

                    Poor health, access to healthcare, and health outcomes do affect those same ‘at-risk communities’ – they’re inter-dependent factors where cause & effect and simple (linear) chronological order fall short in understanding, explaining, and addressing the wicked problem.

                    And that is part of the intensive intervention that I referred, which makes the issue even more complex and difficult for governments to deal with. I think governments generally struggle to address the deep causal issues involved. And, the fact that governments get replaced, and strategies chop and change doesn't help. I see this issue as part of the general malaise in politics. The amount of churn when policies chop and change is just money wasted that could have been spent addressing the core problems IMO.

                    It’s plausible that some problems would have worsened without government action. For example, because a lot has been done in public healthcare, life expectancy has improved across the board, but the gap between Māori and Pakeha has been widening. Instead of doing more of the same, it became clear that a community-focussed approach by, with, and for Māori had considerable merit. However, one of the first things CoC did was to disestablish the Māori Health Authority.

                    Again, part of the general malaise I was referring to. And, why there needs to be discussion and co-ordination between parties so that an agreed, consistent strategy can be applied so that funds can be maximised to make the most difference to these communities. I think, to a degree we are talking about differences in approach rather than differences in objectives. For example, National favours the social investment model. To me, that approach makes sense. But, I think it is something that parties could unite on to find the most effective solutions.

                    Reply
  12. Descendant Of Smith 12
    9 December 2024 at 4:11 pm

    Sometimes just returning home is enough. One of the saddest stories I've ever read in a newspaper. It has always stuck in my mind alongside a couple of similar events.

    Uncle James Tumarae said his nephew had been "tied up with the Mongrel Mob" for a while, but he was not a gang member, and had been through a six-week Limited Service Volunteer course with the army at Trentham in a bid to improve himself.

    "He chose to do that course to get away from the gang and chose to go to Christchurch after the course to stay away," he said.

    His uncle said yesterday: "I just can't imagine Lachan doing anything like this. He was not aggressive at all. He was just a really laid-back guy."

    Mr Kelly-Tumarae was an only child, born and raised in Hastings, with two half-sisters on his father's side.

    He had planned to join the army, Mr Tumarae said. "He'd gone back to do classes in numeracy and literacy to go into the army and he was looking to get back in there."

    He said one of Mr Kelly-Tumarae's friends picked him up on Sunday. "Whatever they did after they left here I don't know. Maybe something set him off."

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/4819285/Teenager-died-from-gunshot-wound

    Reply
    • tsmithfield 12.1
      9 December 2024 at 4:39 pm

      Yeah, tragic I know.

      One of the trusts I am on the board of, Crossroads Youth with a Future works with youth in the Wainoni/Aranui area of Christchurch. Our "stay real" program works with youth that the schools can't handle any more.

      One sad story was relayed by the chairman of our trust who had met the manager of the trust on site in Aranui. While they were talking they saw a six year old girl walking down the road crying. They went to see what was happening. The situation was that the father was in prison, and the mother had just been arrested for being drunk and disorderly, and the girl had just been left.

      Unbelievable that the authorities didn't do something about this situation that put this young child at considerable risk.

      And, it isn't hard to see why kids end up where they do when they have this sort of upbringing.

      Reply

Leave a Comment

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.