New safeguards on the use of physical force against children have been recommended for the Government’s proposed bootcamp regime by a parliamentary select committee that has spent the last six months scrutinising the controversial legislation.
The bill has also been overwhelmingly rejected by New Zealanders who engaged in the select committee process, while Opposition MPs are continuing to criticise it as taking a “demeaning and punitive approach” to addressing youth offending.
Children’s Minister Karen Chhour says she appreciates the amendments, but argues the submissions should “not be conflated into being a reflection on the public’s views around a piece of legislation”.
The committee’s report comes as a pilot for the bootcamp programme run by Oranga Tamariki continues. An early evaluation has found some “positive” results with the residential stage, though several of the participating youths have allegedly reoffended during the community component.
The military-style academy (MSA) legislation seeks to make a bootcamp regime permanent. The policy is intended to address persistent offending by young people by giving the Youth Court the power to send serious young offenders to a youth justice residence. That would be followed by a period in the community, with ongoing rehabilitation and educational support.
Concern has been raised with the proposal, particularly regarding the legislation giving MSA providers the power to use force against the children.
The Herald revealed last year a leaked ministerial document from Chhour showed an admission these powers may be seen as “increasing the potential risk of abuse in custody”. Comprehensive safeguards were also not fully outlined in the legislation and are instead intended to be introduced in regulations at a later point.
Chhour has said physical-force powers are expected to be only used as a last resort to restrain young people from attempting to abscond or harm themselves. She said this was to keep both staff and children safe and conversations were ongoing about appropriate safeguards.
Since passing its first reading in November, the Social Services and Community Select Committee has been considering the legislation. Reporting back this week, the committee recommended by majority the bill be passed.
However, in its current form, the legislation did not garner significant support from the New Zealanders who participated in the select committee process.
A report from Oranga Tamariki on the feedback received found there were 5405 submissions in total, made up of 5152 unique submissions and 253 form submissions or petitions.
“Nearly all submitters expressed a clear position on the bill. Of the total submissions, 24 supported the bill and 5346 did not; 253 submissions were form submissions or petitions, all of which did not support the bill; 35 submissions had no discernible view. All oral submissions did not support the bill.”
According to the analysis provided, submitters opposed to the legislation believed there was an over-reliance on punitive measures, a disregard for proven community-based solutions and a lack of evidence for the changes.
The committee recommended a number of amendments, including to clarify what circumstances use-of-force powers can be used in and by whom.
Its report acknowledges “many submitters expressed concern about the use of physical force on young people and suggested that the powers ... might not be administered safely”.
To respond to these concerns, the committee proposed amending the legislation to stipulate that “non-physical de-escalation approaches must be the first approach wherever possible, and that the use of force must always be a last resort”.
The legislation would also make clear that physical force “excludes mechanical restraints” like handcuffs, head protectors and waist restraints, the committee said.
Any young people against whom physical force is used would also have to be examined by a health professional as soon as practicable afterwards, as is the current practice for adults in justice facilities.
The use of force would have to be recorded and provided in writing to Oranga Tamariki’s chief executive, in line with the ministry’s operational practice.
One key concern expressed about the legislation was the lack of information about who could be eligible to be a “qualifying provider” with the power to use force.
Speaking to the Herald last year, Chhour said there would be a “strict process” for groups wanting to run an academy, including appropriate vetting and training.
The committee said it considered it “extremely important that all providers contracted by the ministry for the purposes of military-style academies are suitably qualified and appropriate for these situations”.
“We therefore propose some amendments to strengthen safeguards relating to qualifying providers,” it said.
These included clarifying that to be a qualifying provider for the MSAs, a body or organisation must be approved by the chief executive. Regulations would set out actions or steps to be taken to assess the safety and suitability of a community service provider and to approve it for running an MSA.
“Because of the importance of ensuring that qualifying providers are fit for purpose, we also recommend that the Chief Ombudsman be given authority to investigate any complaints against qualifying providers.”
In a statement, Chhour told the Herald today that she appreciated “the very useful contributions of the select committee and will seek to support those amendments that make productive technical improvements”.
“This is the great value of the select committee process, it allows us to improve legislation and resolve technical questions before they become law,” she said.
“The volume of submissions should not be conflated into being a reflection on the public’s views around a piece of legislation, the only true judge of that happens on election day.”
While the committee had a majority view supporting the legislation, Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori opposed it.
Labour presented various reasons for its opposition, including that it says military-style approaches to youth offending “do not work and can cause harm” and accordingly “this bill should never have been drafted”.
It believed the extension of use-of-force powers under the legislation “is of deep concern and should not be being considered” and criticised leaving the detail to future regulations.
“The Royal Commission into Abuse in Care highlighted decades of egregious neglect, abuse and harm of young people, including in military-style youth justice programmes,” Labour said.
“Today, young people continue to experience abuse and harm in youth justice facilities, both from their peers and from staff. The Royal Commission recommended a move away from institutionalisation because it is harmful. This bill further ingrains it.”
Last year, Chhour told the Herald the bootcamps proposed differed from those scrutinised by the Royal Commission, noting they had greater oversight from the Children’s Commission and local mana whenua.
“I would never put young people into a position where I thought they wouldn’t have a voice if something was happening to them,” she said.
Te Pāti Māori said it “unequivocally opposes this bill”, describing it as “fundamentally flawed” and arguing it would “only deepen the systemic inequities that tamariki Māori [Māori children] face within the state care system”.
The party, like others, believed describing the youth as “Young Serious Offenders” or YSOs was “dehumanising” and when paired with the “state-sanctioned use of physical force, reinforces to our tamariki that they are undeserving of care or dignity”.
It wants more focus on “community based, mana-enhancing solutions to youth offending, rather than the demeaning and punitive approach that has been laid out in this bill”.
The Green Party raised similar issues with the bill, including the “morally indefensible” Young Serious Offender label, the lack of evidence supporting MSAs and the ability to use force.
Speaking to the Herald, Green MP Tamatha Paul said “we are outraged” and the strength of opposition in the submissions should send a clear message to the Government.
“I would have thought with such strong opposition through the formal submission process, but also informally through media and op-eds and young people coming out and speaking, I thought that this would be enough to make them take a serious look at the legislation they’re proposing and walk it right back, but that hasn’t happened at all.”
She said the changes being recommended to the legislation were “really minor” and it was concerning they were being added this late in the process.
“To see them push through with this bill and then retrospectively try to put in some really mild safeguards is not good enough,” Paul added.
The Green MP supported requiring a health examination following a use-of-force incident but questioned the amount of care given to the young person after such an event.
“The safeguards don’t go far enough by any means. I really want people to understand what kind of lifelong impact the use of force can have against children,” she said.
“The really big point that many submitters made was that children don’t try to escape environments that meet all of their needs.”
Paul also said there wasn’t enough detail about future regulations.
“It’s really poor governance and just really poor practice to pass a law that gives power to these providers that we haven’t seen.”
She also highlighted that the regime being legislated has clear differences to the current pilot programme. For example, the pilot participants volunteered, while a court would order young offenders to take part under the proposed law.
Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald Press Gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub Press Gallery office. In 2025, he was a finalist for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.
The tax was forecast to bring in $479m over four years, starting from January 2026.