Kick Back: Bootcamp Investment A Choice Of Prisons Over Housing For Homeless Kids
Press Release – Kick Back
The growing number of people sleeping rough, and young people and children walking through Kick Back's doors, is not an accident. Kick Back is currently monitoring over 140 children and young people and has significant concerns that the crisis of …Kick Back, a youth development and social justice community responding to Youth Homelessness, is calling for urgent action to address Tamariki and rangatahi homelessness.
Kick Back is concerned about the Government's decision not to invest in a specific response to tamariki and youth homelessness in Budget 2025.
With winter coming, and the crisis of homelessness escalating, the Government could have decided to invest in a bold and comprehensive strategy to prevent and end youth homelessness.
Instead, the Government's decision to invest more resources into Boot Camps and child prisons, while pulling more funding from Emergency Housing, and choosing not to invest in housing and crisis support services for children and young people, reveals a clear decision to allow prisons to remain this Government's solution for kids experiencing homelessness.
'By choosing Boot Camps and investment in the children's prison system, the Government is choosing to allow the justice system to be the solution for children experiencing homelessness.' Says Aaron Hendry Kick Back's Co-founder and General Manager. 'Kick Back is meeting an increasing number of children experiencing homelessness, these kids are forced into conflict with the law simply because they don't have access to their basic human needs, such as housing, kai and a safe place to sleep.'
Kick Back is concerned that the ongoing cuts to Public and Community Services is limiting the resources available for our children and putting some of our most vulnerable kids at risk of harm.
The growing number of people sleeping rough, and young people and children walking through Kick Back's doors, is not an accident. Kick Back is currently monitoring over 140 children and young people and has significant concerns that the crisis of youth homelessness is escalating.
Homelessness is a political choice. If the Government had wanted to begin working towards ending youth homelessness in Aotearoa they could have taken meaningful steps to address this growing crisis in Budget 2025. Such as:
Rolling back their Emergency Housing and Welfare reforms to ensure everyone can access the support they need
Investing in developing a strategy to prevent and end youth homelessness
Committing to developing #Duty2Assist legislation to ensure no one is denied access to shelter when they needed
Reinvesting the 20million dollars, cut from the last budget, back into building youth specific housing projects
Committing to prioritizing young people on the Public Housing list and developing a strong Public Housing build plan
Investing in Immediate Housing and Crisis services to replace motel-based Emergency Housing
'The crisis is escalating! Winter is coming! More and more children and young people are at-risk of homelessness and our Government has chosen not to respond.' Says Aaron Hendry, Kick Back's Co-Founder and General Manager, 'Instead of investing in our kids safety and ensuring all our children have access to safe and stable housing this Winter the Government has decided that the solution for children sleeping on our streets, for youth homelessness, is to invest in prisons for children.'
Kick Back calls on the Government to listen to the voices of rangatahi and tamariki experiencing homelessness and to act urgently to respond to this crisis!
'Without urgent action the lives of some of our most vulnerable children and young people will be put at-risk this winter! The Government must act now to prevent any more of our kids sleeping rough this winter! We can end youth homelessness, we are in this mess because of political decisions, the Hope is in the fact that we can make different ones.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
12 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: Absence of economic evaluation of commercial GMO raises concerns
Photo / Food HQ Letter of the week Gene technology - at what cost? The Government is hypocritical in claiming it is over-riding local government powers for economic reasons when it is already doing so in the Gene Technology Bill without any economic risk-benefit analysis. The absence of an economic evaluation of the
NZ Herald
13 hours ago
- NZ Herald
The real cost of Government retreat on gender equity
Dellwyn Stuart is critical of the Government for halting pay equity claims and gutting the Equal Pay Amendment Act. Photo / Marty Melville There's a reason The Emperor's New Clothes is an enduring story. It's not just a children's tale – it's a sharp allegory for political vanity, wilful blindness and the cost of silence. In the story, the emperor is convinced to parade through town in invisible garments, woven only for
Newsroom
14 hours ago
- Newsroom
Seymour's ‘light up' message alarms tobacco researchers
Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour's comments to a London audience calling smokers 'fiscal heroes' – and declaring people should 'light up' to save their government's balance sheet – are reprehensible and make light of addiction, tobacco researchers say. Seymour largely stands by his remarks, arguing smokers are a net economic positive through tobacco tax and reduced superannuation from early deaths – but has conceded he was wrong to describe as 'quite evil' the Labour government's plan to create a smokefree generation. Early in its term, the coalition Government sparked controversy by repealing a law that would have banned the sale of tobacco to anyone born after January 1, 2009 and dramatically reduced both the number of outlets able to sell tobacco and the nicotine levels in cigarettes. Seymour spoke about the decision following a speech to the Adam Smith Institute, a neoliberal think tank based in London, during a visit to the UK this month. Asked about the smokefree generation concept, which has been taken up by the British government, Seymour said the New Zealand policy had been 'quite evil, in a way' and described smokers as 'fiscal heroes'. 'If you want to save your country's balance sheet, light up, because … lots of excise tax, no pension – I mean, you're a hero,' he said to laughter from the audience. Seymour told Newsroom his remarks were based on arguments he made before about the role of the Government when it came to smoking. 'I'm not seriously suggesting that we should encourage people to smoke to save the Government money. It's clearly an absurd statement, but you do have to have a bit of a sense of humour in this life, otherwise it would be too dull.' The state should make sure the public was aware of the dangers of smoking, while stopping smokers from doing harm to others (such as through second-hand smoke) and ensuring they did not impose financial costs on others. 'As far as I can tell, that condition is well and truly satisfied: I mean, the Government gets $2 billion of tax revenue from about, what is it now, 8 percent of the population?' (The Customs Service collected $1.5b in tobacco excise and equivalent duties in 2023/24, while that year's NZ Health Survey reported a daily smoking rate of 6.9 percent.) Seymour said it was 'just a sad fact' that smokers were also likely to die younger, reducing the amount of superannuation they collected, while he was unconvinced their healthcare costs would be markedly higher than those who died of other illnesses. 'If anything, smokers are probably saving other citizens money.' However, he backtracked on his suggestion the last Government's smokefree generation plans were 'quite evil', saying: 'I'm not sure that was the right word, on reflection. 'I certainly think the idea that, in 30 years' time, someone's going to have to prove that they're 49 rather than 47 does seem draconian – it seems almost a bit of an Orwellian situation.' While the Adam Smith Institute's event page billed Seymour as the Deputy Prime Minister, he said his speech was delivered in a private capacity rather than on behalf of the Government, while he had not used taxpayer money for his travel (he also confirmed the Institute did not cover any of his costs). Labour health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall says the last Labour government's smokefree policy was fundamentally based on humanitarian grounds. Photo: Marc Daalder Labour Party health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall told Newsroom the minister's remarks showed the Government had the wrong priorities when it came to its smokefree policy. 'They are prioritising balancing the books on the misery done to smokers due to the harms of tobacco.' Verrall said there was clear evidence of tobacco's cost to the health system, and the last government's smokefree generation policy had been 'fundamentally based on humanitarian grounds'. 'This is an addictive product: it is unique in that it kills half the people who use it. It's not like the more nuanced debates we have about … social media for kids.' University of Otago associate professor Andrew Waa told Newsroom Seymour's 'perverse' arguments were further evidence of the Government placing tobacco tax revenue over other concerns. 'It's literally blood money: it's money that the Government taxes on a deadly product, and yet they're still treating it as a profit margin for them.' Waa said the minister's comments ignored the social costs of tobacco, and would only help an industry 'intent on exploiting addiction at whatever cost'. 'I don't know if it's naive, or if it's [his] ideology that it's all personal choice – there's no choice when it comes to smoking some of these things. 'There's a reason why certain communities are more likely to smoke, because they get tobacco products shoved in their face all the time; by the time they decide to think that they don't wanna use the stuff, it's too late.' Janet Hoek, the co-director of tobacco control research partnership ASPIRE Aotearoa, told Newsroom that the comments were 'really ridiculous and reprehensible'. 'It just seems incredibly disappointing that Mr Seymour apparently thinks it's amusing to suggest that addiction, and early and often painful death, are a good way to generate government revenue.' Hoek said the environmental and productivity costs associated with smoking also needed to be taken into account, as did the social harm done to communities when their loved ones died prematurely. While some politicians dismissed public health experts as 'muppets … living in ivory towers', the suggestion that smokers were making an informed choice was itself out of touch with reality.
