He said later that force should be allowed as a last resort.
Derek Cheng is a senior journalist who started at the Herald in 2004. He has worked several stints in the Press Gallery team and is a former deputy political editor.
These will be different to the current pilot, which is operating under existing legislation. Cabinet has signed off the blueprint for new legislation that will enable the “military-style academies” (MSA) that National campaigned on.
The issue is that enabling the use of force raises the possibility that this power will be abused. It has been in the past, quite horrifically, and in ways Luxon has acknowledged, and will apologise for next week regarding the abuse of those in state care.
This is specifically pointed out in the leaked document in the Herald story, which said using force “may be viewed as increasing the potential risk of abuse in custody, particularly in light of historic[al] abuse experienced by children and young people in similar programmes reported in the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care report”.
So what should staff do if a teenager under an MSA order looks like they might harm themselves or someone around them, or is trying to escape? If only nice words worked every time.
Use of force is already allowed in youth justice residences. Someone under an MSA order will be under a more serious sentence. It’s not surprising, then, that officials supported the use of force not only by staff at the boot camp, but also by third-party staff when the teens are attending a programme offsite.
“Not providing these powers would mean that activity outside a youth justice residence, such as overnight noho marae or multi-night camps would not be able to occur in a way that upholds the integrity of the MSA order, while still promoting public safety,” their regulatory impact statement says.
“Not being able to engage in these activities would also reduce rehabilitation and reintegration opportunities, which would potentially reduce long-term public safety.”
Officials were more worried about – and opposed to – police powers of warrantless detention and arrest. The potential for abusing the use-of-force provision will be mitigated by regulatory constraints. We have yet to see those, but officials have provided an idea of what it looks like.
“Providing these powers outside of residences, and to staff and providers, means impacting on the rights of young people, and may result in harm to young people. It is for these reasons that the extension of use of force powers would be limited only to physical restraints / physical holds so as to lessen the potential impact and harms on a young person.”
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon talks to Mike Hosking on Mike Hosking Breakfast in the Newstalk ZB studio. Photo / Jason Dorday
Not that Luxon seemed aware of any this when Hosking asked the Prime Minister about the Herald story. “We’re not playing this dumb game,” Hosking said when Luxon told him he couldn’t comment.
Hosking: “You’re setting the rules and the rules of engagement. Do you give the providers the power to use force or not?”
Luxon: “I haven’t had those conversations. I haven’t been briefed on that.”
Hosking: “Sorry, with who? What do you mean? Conversations with who? Who are you talking to or not talking to, as the case may be?
Luxon: “Well, I mean, it hasn’t been a topic of conversation that we’ve had with, you know, [Minister for Children] Karen Chhour and myself.”
When Luxon didn’t seem aware of the justification for using force, Hosking read it out to him: “Not providing these powers would mean staff outside of the residential setting would be exposed to legal risk if they try to prevent a young person from absconding or from harming themselves or harming another person. Given this risk, I [the minister] consider that clear authority is needed.”
Then followed the question that led to Luxon digging himself a hole. Hosking: “As a concept, then, given you haven’t had discussions, does that sit comfortably with you?”
Luxon: “No. I want to make sure that there is multiple, you know, approaches around oversight and protection of those young people. And so that’s where I’d be coming down in that conversation, when we get to have that conversation.”
He then clarified he meant multiple oversight in the ability “not to use force”, and that there needs to be a “culture shift” towards “child safeguarding”.
Children and young people advocates will rejoice in this surprising announcement that the use of force will be prohibited.
Luxon and National propose a military-style boot camp for youth repeat offenders. Rather than look at the long-term history of poverty. Cartoon / Rod Emmerson
The problem is that the conversation Luxon says hasn’t happened has, in fact, already been had. Cabinet, which Luxon chairs, has signed off the use of force.
Of course a lot of papers and details and policies come to Cabinet and across the Prime Minister’s desk, and it would be fanciful to think he would retain detailed knowledge about all of them.
But when there’s a story in Herald this morning related to the historic abuse Luxon will soon be apologising for, then Luxon should be across it in preparation for his Tuesday morning media rounds, or at least he should be informed about it by his staff or relevant ministers.
That seems to have happened immediately afterwards. Talking to media at 10am on his way to caucus, Luxon was singing a very different tune.
Yes, Cabinet had signed off the use of force, but it’s a “broad paper”, and what he meant was he “hadn’t had an explicit conversation with Karen Chhour about that particular issue”.
Is he not across everything Cabinet has agreed to? “I’m pretty much across everything. I’m just saying to you, I didn’t have a detailed conversation about how it is operationally applied.”
And by the way, he’s okay with using force “as a last resort ... under very strict guidelines”.
None of this is likely to inflict any sustained damage on Luxon. Politicians don’t always say what they should, and they are soon saying the right things in the aftermath.
But it will put more pressure on Cabinet to ensure the regulatory restraints around the use of force will minimise the possibility of those powers being abused.
And it will feed the Opposition narrative that Luxon doesn’t know what he’s talking about. At least momentarily.
