There is no adequate expression to describe the youth problem in this State.

Is the problem with the Police, the Courts, the juvenile legal services, the schools, parents or the mishmash of the government departments?

Quite clearly, the problems are with all of them. They all have one common denominator: they are not accountable in any tangible way for their failures.

It would be an interesting challenge to examine the performance of each resource and determine its effectiveness. Unfortunately, the spin doctors would have a field day explaining why their organisation is faultless; it will invoke the ‘it is him over there’ syndrome.

It truly is a mishmash when you ask Google AI to determine which Government department is responsible for youth-

The Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (DFFH) in Victoria is responsible for youth, and the Minister for Youth is Natalie Suleyman MP. The DFFH also supports the Minister for Children and the Minister for Disability. 

The Commission for Children and Young People (CCYP) is an independent body that promotes the safety and well-being of children and young people in Victoria. The CCYP’s vision is to respect and defend the rights of children and young people. 

The Department of Justice and Community Safety Victoria supervises children and young people in the criminal justice system.

Notably absent from CCYP’s charter is the promotion of the obligations and responsibilities of children that must go with protection of their rights.

It is not some aberration that the offences being committed by youths have been climbing in intensity for some time, highlighted by the level of violence currently being reported daily.

It is fast becoming a war zone out there.

What has become even more obvious is that the current systems, programs and strategies for keeping youth to be safe and away from violence and crime are not working.

Youths armed with machete-type weapons taking on Police at a Christmas Carol’s service has got to be the absolute last straw.

It would also not be a surprise if we found out the perpetrators responsible for the firebombing of the Jewish synagogue last week could well be the work of juveniles.

Juveniles again running amok in the CBD highlights the ever-present danger to all citizens by this crazy state of affairs.

There have been, and there will be, inevitable deaths as a result of this behaviour. Recently, it has become perilously close to being reality when a juvenile involved in a home invasion tried to attack a young mother who had a two-month-old baby in her arms. The baby suffered severe head injuries.

That the incident happened in another State is irrelevant but demonstrates the major danger of violent juveniles. They do not consider any consequences that deter them from this violence.

Many years ago, a highly respected trainer of police recruits, Les Harly, an ex-Olympic boxer, repeatedly warned recruits that the most dangerous perpetrator they would confront with a gun was a juvenile because they would not consider the consequences of pulling the trigger.

This is sage advice today as police will inevitably confront armed teenagers not with machetes as is the current favoured weapon, but guns.

The consequence of unchecked escalation of violence.

Still, the underscored effect on families whose safe haven, their home, is regularly violated is the most impacted and has the longest severe effect on the families.

Where do we start?

Our civic leaders of all political persuasions must first acknowledge there is a problem.

Then, a team must be assembled to advise on how the issues can be addressed.

As complicated as the problem first appears, the solution or solutions are easy to identify as the activities of the juveniles themselves provide the answers.

If a child is told not to put their hand in a flame but ignore the advice, then the pain of the burn will dissuade them from ever trying it again; there is a consequence for the action.

If they play on the roadway and ignore parental advice, with the parent resorting to dragging them off the road, the lesson is learnt: there is a consequence for their action.

Considering solutions from the top down would always fail, but we never expected the spectacular failure we are currently witnessing. The terrifying part of this trend, and like all trends, it will continue to escalate, is the current trajectory bodes very poorly for all of us, including the youth.

The arrest of a juvenile perpetrator is the closest we come to a consequence of their actions; however, the impact of the arrest is diluted by the legal process that follows.

While the judiciary believes their actions are compassionate and balanced, what they think is irrelevant as much as they won’t admit it. The key is what the perpetrators believe, being lectured doesn’t cut it.

The imperative is that the perpetrators understand that there are consequences for their illegal activities that are not palatable to them, irrespective of what the judiciary might consider appropriate.

What the judiciary might consider a consequence is useless if the perpetrator does not see it that way.

All the words directed at juveniles by the judiciary are just white noise to them, and anyway, their lawyer speaks for them, so in their eyes, it doesn’t impact them.

The youths consider walking out of Court, whether on bail or with a non-custodial sentence, as ‘I beat it again’. No matter the threats and lectures they are given during the process.

There is also the phenomenon promoted by older criminals that allows the youths to be recruited for crime; the nothing will happen if you are caught’ principle.

Many young people are aspirational to climb further up the criminal pecking order and share in the rewards, albeit ill-gotten, and this is a serious motivator.

The other motivator for youth is the influence (bragging rights) within their sphere, and that can become all-encompassing for younger people driving their lives. That there are no consequences for their behaviour has built their ethos.

In either of these two examples, the common denominator and drivers are the lack of consequences other than the risk of being arrested, and even that is diluted because the Courts do not fulfil their function as the community intends.

Some time ago, a high-profile person working in the youth space for a respected youth organisation reacted to our suggestion that as part of an accountability strategy, parents could, in consultation with the Police, have young people lose access to their mobile phones as part of the Police cautioning program for a period.

The response we received is a demonstration of how some with a socialist ideological bent view punishment or consequences as irrelevant and only promote more antisocial behaviour.

The person became very indignant at the suggestion and claimed that it was absolutely the wrong approach because all the young person would do was act out until they got it back.

Doh! That response proves the suspicion that many working in the youth space do not understand their role. Giving into the youth is the antithesis of effective youth management. Rewarding bad behaviour will never work.

The issues are monumental, but unless a new approach or an old one in part is re-introduced, then the consequences really do not bear thinking about.