December 7, 2024 • 8 mins
Two participants of the youth offender bootcamp were missing after attending a tangi.
Police were responding to a carjacking in Hamilton when they found the two teens, who now look to be in some legal trouble.
The first youth to go missing was on bail following a court hearing, and was to be accompanied by two Oranga Tamariki stadd.
The Labour Party's Police Spokesperson Ginny Andersen joins with her take.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks
EDB Politics Central.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
So yes, you will have heard the news that two
participants of the Youth Offender boot camp were missing after
attending a went missing after attending a Tonguey. Police were
responding to a carjacking and Hamilton where they found the
two teens, who now look to be in some legal trouble. Surprise, surprise,
not their first encounter. I guess the first youth to
go missing was on bail following a court hearing and
was supposed to be accompanied by two ordering a Tamaiki staff.
(00:34):
Anyway to discuss that, Labour's police spokesperson Jenny Anderson is
with me now, good.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
Afternoon, chowder, good afternoon.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
So actually just on the on the absconding when they're
supposed to have I rang a Tamaiki people with them,
and if so is sort of part of this problem
on them?
Speaker 3 (00:53):
I think there are some big questions. The Minister won't
be pleased to be able to have to ask. For
a start, she was embarrassed when she wasn't even informed
that the second young person and had absconded. There's a
duty of officials to keep their minister informed. So I
think the whole thing has been a big mess, not
just for the minister, but for on a commod e
(01:16):
as well.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
Is it just a reality that things are going to
go wrong or what are your expectations from the I
don't like to use the word book camps. We've got
to find another word for it.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
But you know what I mean is military styled training
academies is the proper word. But it's quite long, isn't it.
The evidence we've always said right from the get go
is that these models don't work. They've been trialed in
the past and all of the analysis shows they fail.
What does work is programs in place now, like called
(01:48):
Tahite Picaro in South Auckland. We know that about eighty
percent of young people who go through those programs don't reoffend,
and so we should be keep we should keep doing
those programs. And it's really incumbent upon the government to
explain why. I think it's around thirty six million dollars
has been invested into a pilot where there's just no
(02:10):
evidence that it works.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
The Children's the Chief Children's Commissioner doesn't believe the program
has failed, and her comment was because you mentioned we
talk about the military style academy, the language of it.
She said, I saw how hard the staff there were
working to put in place that multi disciplinary support around
these young people, and she said she didn't see anything
(02:34):
that was vaguely military. Is she wrong?
Speaker 3 (02:38):
Well, this is where it's unclear. Why is the government
calling these programs military style and training academy if they're
not military? Why do the children have uniforms and boots
if they're not military? So the government can't have it
both ways. That the military style component is in there,
but where yet to see any evidence from that evaluation
(03:00):
as to how successful that component of the course is.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
Where are you at with it? Do you think? I mean,
how long do you think we should persist with the idea?
Because the evidence that people are calling for is from
the military style academies, but these seem to be different.
So how long would you give it or would you
pull the plug?
Speaker 1 (03:17):
Now?
Speaker 3 (03:18):
I think we have to be clear that the government
has lost control of this one. We've not only had
a tragic fatality, but too further have absconded ones with
a machete and attempted to kajack members of the public.
The Minister hasn't been informed of this. I mean, we
had officials Intellect Committee on Friday telling us that we're
(03:40):
not going to give up or we're going to keep
trying no matter what. They're a real consume that the
government is continuing to push on with a program that
is just causing damage not only to those young people,
but also putting our community at risk.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Are you saying that the programs caused those people to
go off and hijack a car.
Speaker 3 (03:58):
Not saying the program is, but the program's not working
properly if those things are happening.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
So, I mean the thing is the problem is it's
not going to be perfect. How would you define success
for these programs when.
Speaker 3 (04:15):
You have full wrap around support to the whole far No,
we know that works. Programs like FastTrak, it called Taheite
picardl have continued to be funded by this government because
they know that's what actually works. When you look at
mum and dad, sisters, brothers, making sure these school uniforms,
these lunches to go to school, all of those things
(04:36):
take time and take efforts up to eighteen months and
instances that I've seen, you know, a short term intervention
that has a military framework has just no real hope
of succeeding. And the real problem I see is that
government is pushing through legislation to create this new young
serious youth offender despite there being no evidence or evaluation
(04:59):
from the Spook camp.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
I guess eventually the evidence would come. So is there
a level of success? So so, obviously nothing's perfect. Prisons
not perfect either. We don't get people rehabilitated in there.
But if it does turn around a few lives, will
it have been worth it?
Speaker 3 (05:14):
The question is that thirty six million investment in this
space a good spend for taxpayers money when we know
that other programs with full rip around support are giving
eighty eighty percent not reoffending in that space. I guess
my view would be that's a better investment.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
I guess if it's the worst offenders, though, do we
need to have a multitude of approaches? And you talk
about the thirty six million for this and the other
programs that you that you've said you support, But is
there room for something like this, maybe even if we
rename it because the military name is kind of problematic,
isn't it.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
Well they've come out saying this this is a flagship
they've hung a lot on that as a brand, and
so that's that's what the concern is, that they've simply
hung out a brand of being tough on crime by
having these military style of candidies, but there's simply no
good evident to show they actually work in tuning lives around.
(06:08):
It's the wrap around services. It's the additional support to
give family, families life coping measures and support to be
able to deal with their own issues without having to
rely on police or ordering a COMMODIQI to step in
every inch of the way.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
So what about the Children's commissioner then, who doesn't want
to see it. It doesn't sound like she wants to
see it. Throw on it. He actually said, it doesn't
mean the program has failed. Where do you balance your
comments versus her sort of cautious support for it.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
We'd like to see more of the wrap around full support.
If that works, then that's a great thing. I want
to stress to you that we all aren't a risk
to themselves or to those around them. But we just
don't agree on the method of military style academies to
achieve that outcome. Okay, But if there are parts of
it that are wrap around support that the commit that
(06:56):
the Children's Commissioner likes. That's great point. We just don't
think they need uniforms of the book camp, okay.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
If we actually I mean, it sounds such a trivial thing,
and I don't mean it to be, but it's one
of the things I've been thinking about. The name is
just so problematic. What if it was called something like
a youth development academy or a youth reform initiative And
because it might not look any different from what the
Children's Commission has described, it sounds like it could equally
fit under that heading. I mean, it sounds trivial, but
(07:24):
would that change your focus be something you think, well,
that's at least a step in the right direction.
Speaker 3 (07:30):
If the government wanted to change their position and no
longer call them military style academies, we would be incredibly
supportive of that. We know that does not work. But
the problem is that the act Party campaigned hard on
having this tough on crime approach where boot camps would
be straightening out our young people and pulling them up
by their bootstraps, and that was the approach. The reality
(07:50):
is it's that part that does not work. There's no
evidence of that it's giving people good support and life
skills to be able to grow up without causing harm
to themselves or others. In the military style part simply
doesn't work.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
So there could be a future for if we're given
what we've just discussed now about the change of the emphasis.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
Well, if they did what they're already doing, which has
been going on for about eight or nine years, which
is fast track in quota dificado. Those programs work. If
they keep doing that, we're behind it. But calling them
little soldiers is a failure.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
Okay, Hey, Jenny, thanks very much for your time. Really
appreciate it. And when do you take When do you
guys go and break?
Speaker 3 (08:31):
I thank the house rives around the nineteenth of December,
so two more weeks of happening.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
No secret Sanders in Parliament are there?
Speaker 3 (08:39):
I did hear that? How inappropriate would your guest have
to be in order to get appired for it? Mind boggles?
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Google Tesco manager and you'll find Mery Christmas Dove. Jenny,
Thanks very.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
Much for more from the Weekend Collective. Listen live to
News Talk z'd be weekends from three pm, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks
EDB Politics Central.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
So yes, you will have heard the news that two
participants of the Youth Offender boot camp were missing after
attending a went missing after attending a Tonguey. Police were
responding to a carjacking and Hamilton where they found the
two teens, who now look to be in some legal trouble. Surprise, surprise,
not their first encounter. I guess the first youth to
go missing was on bail following a court hearing and
was supposed to be accompanied by two ordering a Tamaiki staff.
(00:34):
Anyway to discuss that, Labour's police spokesperson Jenny Anderson is
with me now, good.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
Afternoon, chowder, good afternoon.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
So actually just on the on the absconding when they're
supposed to have I rang a Tamaiki people with them,
and if so is sort of part of this problem
on them?
Speaker 3 (00:53):
I think there are some big questions. The Minister won't
be pleased to be able to have to ask. For
a start, she was embarrassed when she wasn't even informed
that the second young person and had absconded. There's a
duty of officials to keep their minister informed. So I
think the whole thing has been a big mess, not
just for the minister, but for on a commod e
(01:16):
as well.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
Is it just a reality that things are going to
go wrong or what are your expectations from the I
don't like to use the word book camps. We've got
to find another word for it.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
But you know what I mean is military styled training
academies is the proper word. But it's quite long, isn't it.
The evidence we've always said right from the get go
is that these models don't work. They've been trialed in
the past and all of the analysis shows they fail.
What does work is programs in place now, like called
(01:48):
Tahite Picaro in South Auckland. We know that about eighty
percent of young people who go through those programs don't reoffend,
and so we should be keep we should keep doing
those programs. And it's really incumbent upon the government to
explain why. I think it's around thirty six million dollars
has been invested into a pilot where there's just no
(02:10):
evidence that it works.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
The Children's the Chief Children's Commissioner doesn't believe the program
has failed, and her comment was because you mentioned we
talk about the military style academy, the language of it.
She said, I saw how hard the staff there were
working to put in place that multi disciplinary support around
these young people, and she said she didn't see anything
(02:34):
that was vaguely military. Is she wrong?
Speaker 3 (02:38):
Well, this is where it's unclear. Why is the government
calling these programs military style and training academy if they're
not military? Why do the children have uniforms and boots
if they're not military? So the government can't have it
both ways. That the military style component is in there,
but where yet to see any evidence from that evaluation
(03:00):
as to how successful that component of the course is.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
Where are you at with it? Do you think? I mean,
how long do you think we should persist with the idea?
Because the evidence that people are calling for is from
the military style academies, but these seem to be different.
So how long would you give it or would you
pull the plug?
Speaker 1 (03:17):
Now?
Speaker 3 (03:18):
I think we have to be clear that the government
has lost control of this one. We've not only had
a tragic fatality, but too further have absconded ones with
a machete and attempted to kajack members of the public.
The Minister hasn't been informed of this. I mean, we
had officials Intellect Committee on Friday telling us that we're
(03:40):
not going to give up or we're going to keep
trying no matter what. They're a real consume that the
government is continuing to push on with a program that
is just causing damage not only to those young people,
but also putting our community at risk.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Are you saying that the programs caused those people to
go off and hijack a car.
Speaker 3 (03:58):
Not saying the program is, but the program's not working
properly if those things are happening.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
So, I mean the thing is the problem is it's
not going to be perfect. How would you define success
for these programs when.
Speaker 3 (04:15):
You have full wrap around support to the whole far No,
we know that works. Programs like FastTrak, it called Taheite
picardl have continued to be funded by this government because
they know that's what actually works. When you look at
mum and dad, sisters, brothers, making sure these school uniforms,
these lunches to go to school, all of those things
(04:36):
take time and take efforts up to eighteen months and
instances that I've seen, you know, a short term intervention
that has a military framework has just no real hope
of succeeding. And the real problem I see is that
government is pushing through legislation to create this new young
serious youth offender despite there being no evidence or evaluation
(04:59):
from the Spook camp.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
I guess eventually the evidence would come. So is there
a level of success? So so, obviously nothing's perfect. Prisons
not perfect either. We don't get people rehabilitated in there.
But if it does turn around a few lives, will
it have been worth it?
Speaker 3 (05:14):
The question is that thirty six million investment in this
space a good spend for taxpayers money when we know
that other programs with full rip around support are giving
eighty eighty percent not reoffending in that space. I guess
my view would be that's a better investment.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
I guess if it's the worst offenders, though, do we
need to have a multitude of approaches? And you talk
about the thirty six million for this and the other
programs that you that you've said you support, But is
there room for something like this, maybe even if we
rename it because the military name is kind of problematic,
isn't it.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
Well they've come out saying this this is a flagship
they've hung a lot on that as a brand, and
so that's that's what the concern is, that they've simply
hung out a brand of being tough on crime by
having these military style of candidies, but there's simply no
good evident to show they actually work in tuning lives around.
(06:08):
It's the wrap around services. It's the additional support to
give family, families life coping measures and support to be
able to deal with their own issues without having to
rely on police or ordering a COMMODIQI to step in
every inch of the way.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
So what about the Children's commissioner then, who doesn't want
to see it. It doesn't sound like she wants to
see it. Throw on it. He actually said, it doesn't
mean the program has failed. Where do you balance your
comments versus her sort of cautious support for it.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
We'd like to see more of the wrap around full support.
If that works, then that's a great thing. I want
to stress to you that we all aren't a risk
to themselves or to those around them. But we just
don't agree on the method of military style academies to
achieve that outcome. Okay, But if there are parts of
it that are wrap around support that the commit that
(06:56):
the Children's Commissioner likes. That's great point. We just don't
think they need uniforms of the book camp, okay.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
If we actually I mean, it sounds such a trivial thing,
and I don't mean it to be, but it's one
of the things I've been thinking about. The name is
just so problematic. What if it was called something like
a youth development academy or a youth reform initiative And
because it might not look any different from what the
Children's Commission has described, it sounds like it could equally
fit under that heading. I mean, it sounds trivial, but
(07:24):
would that change your focus be something you think, well,
that's at least a step in the right direction.
Speaker 3 (07:30):
If the government wanted to change their position and no
longer call them military style academies, we would be incredibly
supportive of that. We know that does not work. But
the problem is that the act Party campaigned hard on
having this tough on crime approach where boot camps would
be straightening out our young people and pulling them up
by their bootstraps, and that was the approach. The reality
(07:50):
is it's that part that does not work. There's no
evidence of that it's giving people good support and life
skills to be able to grow up without causing harm
to themselves or others. In the military style part simply
doesn't work.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
So there could be a future for if we're given
what we've just discussed now about the change of the emphasis.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
Well, if they did what they're already doing, which has
been going on for about eight or nine years, which
is fast track in quota dificado. Those programs work. If
they keep doing that, we're behind it. But calling them
little soldiers is a failure.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
Okay, Hey, Jenny, thanks very much for your time. Really
appreciate it. And when do you take When do you
guys go and break?
Speaker 3 (08:31):
I thank the house rives around the nineteenth of December,
so two more weeks of happening.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
No secret Sanders in Parliament are there?
Speaker 3 (08:39):
I did hear that? How inappropriate would your guest have
to be in order to get appired for it? Mind boggles?
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Google Tesco manager and you'll find Mery Christmas Dove. Jenny,
Thanks very.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
Much for more from the Weekend Collective. Listen live to
News Talk z'd be weekends from three pm, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.