Alison Howe | Bring back national service, for our children's sake

For most parents it does not evoke the image of a child being incarcerated in an adult detention facility. But then, the children we are speaking of are not likely to be the ones who have known a consistent, loving and secure parental embrace.

Recently, the Queensland government expedited changes to the law which will allow police watch houses and adult prisons to be used as youth detention facilities. Queensland Police Minister Mark Ryan reassured us that these provisions will only be used in exceptional circumstances, to "... ensure that immediate capacity issues can be addressed while young people are held safely".

The proposal triggered a visceral response from many, but that does not obscure the stark reality; in recent years children have committed crimes including home invasion, violent assault, rape and murder. These children are not the waifish withdrawn victims of their upbringing, resonating from a Smith Family campaign - not anymore, but at one time maybe?

A 2023 report by Save the Children cites that "there are a range of intersecting historical, environmental, system and institutional factors that can contribute to a child coming into contact with the youth justice system". And once in contact with the youth justice system, they "experience complex and intersecting challenges and barriers, including those related to their environment, health and development, employment and education".

One facet of youth justice involves the concept of diversion. Court diversion programs typically involve deferring a case while the child or young person participates in a rehabilitation program or other process to assist with their needs. Diversions are generally applied to specific types of need, such as mental health, and to young people who have (so far) had minimal engagement with the youth justice system. But diversions are limited and, according to Save the Children, underserviced.

The question then emerges: what can be done for the children at the peripheries, those teetering on the precipice of criminality or disengagement? It's tempting to pigeonhole these children into neat categories - delinquents, dropouts, or lost causes. Yet in doing so, we fail to own our collective responsibility for root causes and mitigating actions.

MORE OPINION:

While the concept of diversion targets those who have had initial brushes with the youth justice system, a more holistic approach could serve a broader segment of the youth population. Think of the ones who leave school with no intention or means to pursue onward education or qualification. Think of the ones who, for a myriad of reasons, can't secure apprenticeships or jobs. These are young people with potential and promise, albeit unchanneled and unrealised. The biggest danger isn't that they will drift into crime; it's that they will drift away from contributing to the societal fabric, causing a disenfranchisement that can ripple through generations.

National service, occasionally tossed around in political discourse, predominantly emerges as a right-wing proposition. It's a concept shunned by the centre and the left, where the mention conjures up images of militarisation and curtailed civil liberties. But, faced with an escalation of disenfranchisement amidst a cost-of-living crisis, it might be time to take a bipartisan view.

Here's where the idea of a revamped national service in Australia could gain traction. Not limited to a military-style engagement, such a program could combine the rigours of military-style discipline with community-oriented service initiatives, ensuring that participants gain tangible training, skills, civic awareness and a sense of belonging. Such national service isn't just a reactive measure for those on the cusp of the justice system but a proactive step to harness the potential of the broader youth demographic.

Countries with active national service programs have witnessed an array of benefits beyond just military preparedness. For instance, South Korea has seen participants return with a reinforced sense of discipline and purpose. Finland trains its civilian service with skills including firefighting, coast guarding, and search and rescue. Similarly, an array of other nations have models from which Australia might learn. Whilst none are designed for our challenges and specific demographic needs, they do offer tried, tested, measured and costed scenarios on which to build, or redesign.

Of course, there are a range of arguments against national service. However, with a carefully designed, culturally appropriate, psycho-socially safe scheme that emphasises national resilience, community involvement with a focus on civic contribution, many of these concerns can be mitigated. Such a program, built on best practices from around the world and tailored specifically for Australia's unique socio-cultural landscape, could be both economically feasible and beneficial for the participants. It would not serve as a panacea, but rather as a complementary strategy in a broader effort to address youth disenfranchisement and broader societal challenges.

For Australia, a debate about national service does not need to be viewed as a right-wing sledgehammer to civil liberty. Rather this could be the mechanism to hold our children safely - within the embrace of a community that acknowledges their worth and invests in their potential. A structured, well-conceived national service program might be the scaffolding many Australian youths need to transition from aimlessness to purpose, from detachment to engagement, from self-absorption to self-respect. It's an investment not just in our children but in the future of the nation.