Interview: Sue B on the causes of youth gangs
So here’s an interview with Sue B about what she sees as the causes behind the so-called ‘youth gang problem’ in South Auckland. (mp3, 1.2MB, 7:00 mins).
Sue also put out a media release with Rev Mua Strickson-Pua, ahead of him representing the Greens at a meeting on the gang situation organised by the Mangere East Family Service. In that release, Mua says:
“For me, as a Green from a Pacific and South Auckland background, sustainability means sustainable communities. While many people are doing very well indeed under the current economic and social support models, it is simply not good enough for whole cities and towns to be left behind.�
Bookmark to:
October 28th, 2005 at 9:56 pm
So, we chuck everyone on welfare? Stick a pacifier in their mouths, keep them quiet. More like the children of Muldoonism who as a result of increasing government control were left out in the cold when distortions were removed.
October 28th, 2005 at 11:15 pm
I don’t think those people are children anymore
October 29th, 2005 at 2:55 am
what a load of rubbish. it is because of the welfare state and welfare dependancy created by the Labour governments that we have this problem. Take the initative, get a good education and earn more, only to have the government take more of your money and give it to those that cant/wont get off thier bum and do it for themselves.
The only thing raising the minimum wage will do is put employers off employing more people. Thus creating more of an unemployment and welfare dependancy problem. Get more kids to take pride in their education and want to achieve something in thier lives rather than sitting back and getting money for nothing.
everyone has access to a good education in this country. use it! stop blaming people and get out there and do it. If you want something bad enough you can do it. i dropped out of school at 15 with not qualifications and came from a lower class family. after a few years and a few dead end jobs i decided to get off my bum and go to university as an adult student. so i took the student loan, got into debt, and got a degree. now i have a good job and have paid off my loan, without the help of the government!
we always need a social saftey net for people that cant look after themselves and thats what makes this country of ours great. but stop acting like everyone owes us something because we cant be bothered to get out and do it for ourselves.
gang problems in this country are mostly caused by drugs, and the money earned from growing and selling drugs. thats what boosts the crime in this country. im not takling about weed, that’s so 80’s. now they kids have speed, and P, crystal meth. those are the problem drugs! stop trying to legalise weed and work out how to get the other drugs out of the hands of 14 year olds! that’s the problem in this country!
rant completed!
October 29th, 2005 at 3:25 am
yeah right - National operates a low minimum wage of $6.40 and had unemployment at 7-10% through the 90’s. Labour cuts it to under 4% and this with a minimum wage of $9.50
So who was encouraging welfare dependency and not providing an economic incentive to work? Like most right wing propaganda, it’s unrelated to the facts.
5% pa and 9.50 is $11 in 2008. No one is talking about anything radical with $12.
Drugs are not that big an issue amongst Polynesians in South Auckland - they need “Polynesian” institutions and networks (wardens, mentoring) in Auckland (not just family and church and school). They want a place to be active and to be their own men making their way. They need youth cultural centres, sporting options, a “wananga” of their own etc.
Police need to hire some of them out of high school, so they know whats what in that area.
October 29th, 2005 at 3:50 am
the 5% unemployment rate we have now is due to the massive boost in the economy over the last few years. the 7-10% unemployment rate of the 90’s was due to the crappy shape of the economy at the time. the economy runs in cycles, what we do today affects us a few years down the track. so if the predicted crash in the economy happens soon, who will you blame for the high unemployment rate in 2008 after Labour have had 9 years to get it right?
sure, increase the mimimun wage to keep inline with inflation. but dont just whack it up there blindly believing that it will sold all our countries issues. cause it wont!
I completely dissagree with you on the drugs issue. but we are in a free country we can think what we want to. are you blind or just ignorant to the fact that teenagers are being sold ‘P’ by gangs and then have to go out and steal to pay for more as it’s so addictive? Drugs are not a Polynesian problem, but a multi cultural problem.
October 29th, 2005 at 6:00 am
NZ_Andy, i’m sure you are not a simpleton but your rant was very narrow minded…good for you that you got yourself a qualification and job but what if for some reason you had failed……and found yourself stuck with a job that was harder work manually and gave you bottom of the heap social status?
Life works best when there is a healthy sense of community, the corporate run amock imbalance that’s running the show here only has one kind of community $$$ and among other things it’s given us an impoverished food supply, omi-present right wing media dominance and people like yourself blaming everything on the welfare system-if u are such an anti-government individualist, go live in U.S where corporations are implementing a return to the “gilded age” or fuedalism while they pollute unregulated all natural resources.
People turning to dsyfunctional things to get a sense of community simply shows that there are no adequate pathways or alternatives and is a sign of desperation. Despite the message that is brain washed into the masses ad naseum, nature only gives up her bounty when people work together and cooperate; when the elites spend their resources guarding what they’ve got you get decay.
Nature doesn’t give a hoot wether u right wing or left wing or duckwalk, forget it’s wisdom n u well, melt the antartic beyond it’s point of no return for one thing of millions. Anyway, fact that people are getting involved in a community is a natural and proper instinct. Fact that it involves gangs and drugs etc is yet another sign of an empty right wing corporate maliase.
October 29th, 2005 at 12:31 pm
Sue Bradford’s statement is about the most absurd political comment that I have ever heard!
The culture of drugs and benefit dependency is rampant in South Auckland.
Not the wildest stretch of political point-scoring can permit the Labour-Green government from sliding out under the blame for situations which exist now.
South Auckland schools were funded and staffed in the late 80s on more generous and flexible terms and with better conditions than they are now.
Anyone who worked there in thew 80s and has been there recently can confirm that. Tomorrow’s Schools and devolution of the appointment of
teachers, the management and funding of schools to local parents has been a disaster for many schools in South Auckland. Check out the teaching vacancies advertised.
Children who truant and are left alone or unsupervised for long periods are the direct product of their own family’s values. The dependency cycle is a real alternative to many school-age children. “Living off the benefit” is a career choice and opnly spoken about.
Sue Bradford should spend a week or two in the Manukau Courts environment or with Manukau Police to get some understanding of what goes down in South Auckland.
It is absurd to blame government or policies of nearly 20 years ago.
October 29th, 2005 at 1:34 pm
well said ema!
spc: the the 7 - 10% unemployment rate of the 90’s was a direct result of the economy of the time. the 4% we have now is a direct result of the booming economy we now have and have had for the last few years. to have a 4% unemployment rate, wich equates to virtually full employment if you sit through any 1st year economics paper at uni, and still have masses of young people in gangs running amuck points to something more that just unemployment.
where is the dicipline? where are the parents, and why dont they take responsibility for for thier children? if i was wagging school, out late at night, or running amuck on the streets of auckland, i would have the jeepers smacked out of me! time to stop blaming everyone else and take some responsibility for your own actions.
that is the problem with the nappy wearing, socialist state we are becomming. blame everyone else for your short comings, and expect the state to hand you money.
evan: “Fact that it involves gangs and drugs etc is yet another sign of an empty right wing corporate maliase” … what ever buddy! blame the right wing corporate maliase for the drug problem in this country … wake up and hope out of your green shell! the greens are the ones who want to legalise it!
October 29th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
stop blocking my comments!
October 29th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
Labour has been the government for two full terms and has been elected for another, but it’s seems once again the liberal left has no idea about solving the problem.
All they can do is blame somebody else for problems that are occuring on their watch.
It seems to me that for get these gangs off the streets and the children back to school that more police resourcing in the right areas is required and stronger enforcement of the law.
If children are not getting an education and are to have opportunities in the future then it’s another wasted life.
If parents are allowing there children to run about at all hours it should came as no surprise when they are convicted of a crime.
October 29th, 2005 at 2:32 pm
nz_andy: your comments were just paused by the blog system’s automatic moderater, which it does sometimes for unclear reasons. I’ve pressed the button now. FYI, see here for my censorship rules.
October 29th, 2005 at 4:25 pm
“what ever buddy! blame the right wing corporate maliase for the drug problem in this country”
I don’t just blame it for the drug problem in this country friend, but your mind is obviously shaped by what you’ve been told and if you are angry about being an undifferentiated person, that’s the price u pay for one way streets.
Despite your security about the righteousness of unregulated capitalism, if u had the intiative to research the kind of notions and ideals that helped sustain and give a joyous quality of life through human evolution, you would find that your brainwashed ideals are in complete contrast and repeating same old mistakes inherent in its cycle….. if you were able to learn from history. They are ruining the planet, our quality of life and the future for new generations.
October 29th, 2005 at 5:59 pm
Andy
take a chill pill mate
I’m not sure if you’re purposefully trying to dress up like the stereotypical angry redneck with all the answers, or if you actually fit the bill. Either way, you’re adding nothing at all to the conversation by ranting the same old lines over and over again.
You can be sure that everyone reading this blog has heard these lines before:
“welfare state is the cause of blah de blah”
“the only thing raising the min wage will do is reduce number of jobs and make blah de blah worse”
“welfare recipients and their kids need to get off their bums and change their attitude and they will be fine”
If you repeat the mantra over and over again it doesn’t get any more true, mate! If those lines didn’t convince us before they’re unlikely to do so now…so have you got anything to add that your average crusty bugger in a Canterbury pub couldn’t already have told me?
How about digging a little deeper - what does raising the minimum wage ACTUALLY do? I’m sure clever people have studied that, right? Have you read any of their evidence? Or are your natural talents for diagnosing a problem so fantastic that you don’t need to?
What about how all welfare recipients need to do is change their attitudes - is it that easy? Do you think if you yell at them enough they will magically figure how right you are? Or are there some deeper, psychological, social, whatever, reasons why they can’t break out of poverty and welfare dependency? And when was the last time YOU got abused, scapegoated, and told what to do by some stranger, and you cheerfully took their advice?
And how about this - “to have a 4% unemployment rate, wich equates to virtually full employment if you sit through any 1st year economics paper at uni, and still have masses of young people in gangs running amuck points to something more that just unemployment”
What’s full employment? Isn’t that where everyone who wants a job has one, discounting the ones between jobs or searching, etc? Does South Auckland really fit that bill? And really, what do you think national statistics tell you about the causes of individual problems and crime? Does it necessarily follow that an improved statistical number relates to a better situation ‘on the ground’? (its great how 1st year economics holds the key to all knowledge too. I presume you don’t learn anything more complicated in 2nd and 3rd year)
By the way, you’d be interested to hear that the news that, actually, there is plenty enough food in the world to feed each of its residents. Ergo, there are no starving Africans. (Probably if they’re hungry they just need to adopt a more positive attitude, anyway). So lets all nip off for a round of golf with a clear conscience, yay.
I don’t know the answers - I hope I’ve begun to convince you that you don’t know them either. Probably the best thing we can all do is to acknowledge that, then try and work out solutions from the evidence and knowledge we have. Next time the blood boils up from your neck to your ears, try and divert it to your brain, matey.
October 30th, 2005 at 1:16 am
…its great how 1st year economics holds the key to all knowledge…
Thank you Tom, that expresses my sentiments just about right.
(though I’ll add that those 2nd and 3rd year economics papers tell you how simplistic and idealised those theoretical 1st year concepts are.)
Andy, just wanted to highlight one of your comments:
“Everyone has access to a good education in this country. use it! i dropped out of school at 15 with not[sic] qualifications”
I think right there you’ve made a strong point against your later arguments. Young people are not always equiped to make the best decisions for themselves. The idea here is that we stop people falling to the level where they can’t pick themselves back up. You call it a ‘nappy wearing socialist state’ - I’d call it not crapping on people when they’re down.
Anyway, real answers can’t be put forward or discussed in such simple terms, but I’m surprised you are dismissing progressive measures out-of-hand, given your background.
October 30th, 2005 at 1:17 am
bizarro, comment blocked? Didn’t like ‘crapping’?? Hmm..
October 30th, 2005 at 3:41 am
sorry i dont mean to sound like a redneck … im very concerned about the youth in this country and the track we are going down. You may not agree with my opinion, but it is my right to have that opinion.
i am just sick of the blame culture. the right is not at falt, nor are the left. they are both doing what they believe is the correct thing to do for the country. everyone has a responsibility to fix this issue.
the youth gang issue is deeper than unemployment, dicipline, politics, drugs. consider movies that glorify gang culture, can they not take some of the bame as well?
i dont know the answers, i wish i did. but as a country we need to sort it out together. opologies if i have offended anyone, was not my intention.
October 30th, 2005 at 7:23 am
Of course they are ultimately to blame, but the problem with blame is that it doesn’t really get you anywhere. So that is why we also look at other contributors.
These people have often taken a rough set of childhood experiences, usually associated with poverty; and based on their sense of rejection and anger they have made some very negative choices which can snowball on them, taking them eventually to a pretty evil sociopathic place.
So our approach is pretty simple really. If we can give people a less rough childhood, they are less likely to end up with such extreme anti-social behaviour.
: ) jim
October 30th, 2005 at 7:25 am
btw - when I say “they” - I am referring to the offenders themselves.
October 30th, 2005 at 10:20 am
My idea for it would be have extremely contrasting systems for minors and adults. Those under the age of 18, are not given responsibility and therefore cannot take responsibility for the hole they’re in - it’s the parents who have done that. Therefore, up until the age of 18, every child is made to be as equal as possible, avoiding the “I had a poor childhood” argument. *However*, past the age of 18, Government assistance is subsequently almost entirely cut off. Everyone starts off their adult life the same, so those who screw up must face that responsibility. The main problem with implementing it is it the time period when the parents are still on welfare, them never experiencing the program, while the kids are too, having it particularly expensive for a time. Also, you need to make sure it doesn’t encourage rapid uncontrolled population growth with no incentives to take care of your kids, which is problematic to control without ridiculous controls. There is still going to be inequality among the children, but far less so than before, and consequently in the future, less among adults.
October 30th, 2005 at 1:11 pm
well, as a young person who’s grown up in one of the poorest parts of South Auckland, with gangs and drug dealing pretty strong in my neighbourhood, i really feel I need to comment.
Anyone who reckons that the problem isn’t linked to poverty is kidding themselves. The children that become in these gangs are usually from overcrowded or large households with little or no personal space - in essence the streets become their living room. Bored youth will always cause trouble, some real, some imagined, and cities are pretty un-youth centric places, as any teenager you ask will tell you. The problem gets worse when you have no money, because you’ve got nothing to buy, and nowhere to go. Stagecoach’s ridiculous price rises are a classic example of this.
Respect is a key factor in the whole equation, but when your parents have lost their own self respect because they can’t find a job that isn’t absolute shit, or are working such a job, then it’s pretty hard to find your own. There are people who claim to aspire to a life on a benefit (I know a couple) but most of them would actually rather be working, if there was a job for them with decent conditions and wages and an employer that actually treated them as human beings, not instruments of economic output.
October 30th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
Nichlemn;
interesting ideas.
I’m just guessing that you have no idea how funding to support families with no/low income works at the moment; Working for Families is being rolled out over 24-36 months, beginning April 2004, with more changes coming in Oct 2005 and April 2006 still to kick in.
The amounts of targetted funding to improve the lives of children in poverty are not huge, say compared with the national superannuation payout annually, but they are significant for those concerned, and have been roundly condemned by most National spokespeople, including one of the pre-election “gone by lunchtime” statements.
However, they don’t even come near equalising outcomes for children of low-income families, to the outcomes expected by middle-income or rich families.
If you’re going to be a divorcee living on a benefit, as a career option, marry someone rich first; for the 95% of the population whose solo-parenthood doesn’t come into those paramaeters, learning to budget strictly, living without credit cards, new shoes, haircuts and little extras like holidays or birthday presents for your children can seem harsh at first, but you’re supposed to get resigned to it, or else miraculously the employment market will solve the problem by liberalising enough for a solo parent reliant on childcare to be able to find a job that doesn’t require working evenings/weekends/random rosters at times when the childcare centre is closed.
It’s a tough enough life for kids in poverty without someone telling them that their life could be different if their unemployed mother (often the only person in the family motivated to offer the child a roof over her/his head) was a bit more motivated and had a better work attitude. Nobody questions the choice of middle-class women to be stay-at-home mums, or calls then unmotivated when they put the early years of their children as a priority for their time; we often see mothers of handicapped children hailed as saints or angels, for giving up their choice to work full or part-time, in order to facilitate their child’s education.
The richness of home & community in places like Waitangirua or Wainuiomata is of an order that is unquantified by the “how much do you earn” school of parenting evaluation; the fact that some areas have ethnic gang problems might just trace back to 70’s immigration & employment policies which saw Pacific Islanders from areas which had historically been rivals for ocean resources in their native islands, resettled into State housing blocks with no regard for creating harmonious communities; along comes hip-hop music & movies to portray another culture’s response to ethnic marginalisatioon & conflict, and South Auckland erupts into a wave of inter-ethnic gang warfare; after the amount of “laissez-faire leave’em to stew in the wilderness” policy of the 80’s & 90’s, the question is not why is this happening, but why did it take so long?
After all, “West Side Story” was written about New York in the 1950’s. None of this behaviour is new to the world, we’ve just held it off for 45 years, give or take.
Solving the problem is not about saying that all of South Auckland should be ring-fenced to keep them in, or putting up more jails & prisons to incarcerate another generation.
Feeding,clothing & housing poor children adequately is an area that needs work; that is a decade by decade committment, to prevent the 5-yr-olds going to school for 10 years without lunch from turning into the gang-patched teenagers in the sunday papers.
None of these comments so far even touch on radical feminist positions for solving child poverty, and I’m not going to go there today. (but I might, soon…)
katie
October 31st, 2005 at 5:49 pm
um..katie..a fair post..i’d just like to point out it isn’t just women these days who make those choices/decisions..
i’ve done/doing it twice…..the first time it was rare for a male to be doing this role/job….but not now….
resistantsoy is also on the money re sth ak…..
phil(whoar.co.nz)