A series of Guest Posts by David Garrett, shining light into dark corners in the debate around Corrections, Law and Order and the People involved:
Who is Kim Workman? Should we listen to him?
During my time in parliament, if I was the ‚Äúgo to‚ÄĚ guy for comment¬† in favour of punitive sentencing, Kim Workman was the ‚Äúgo to guy‚ÄĚ for the polar opposite view; that prison is a waste of time; that most if not all prisoners can be rehabilitated; and that love and a good dose of maoritanga and Christianity will be ¬†more effective than anything else in preventing re-offending.
After my demise, he has had the ‚Äúgo to‚ÄĚ field pretty much to himself ‚Äď which is of course just how he likes it. But who is Workman, and why should anyone listen to him? What is his background, and what does it tell us?
To best of my knowledge, I first met Workman in 2007 when he and I and ‚Äď ¬†some English criminologist ‚Äď participated in a debate with ¬†an author touring the country to promote his book. The author and I were the ‚Äúapplied properly, prison is the appropriate response to crime‚Äô‚ÄĚ team, Workman and the criminologist were arguing on ¬†the ‚Äúprison doesn‚Äôt work; all they need is love‚ÄĚ side.
Workman¬† is an apologist for gangs; in¬† his view, they are just another form of whanau. Presumably to support him ‚Äď ¬†but I suspect more¬† to intimidate the rest of us, including the audience ‚Äď he arranged for a number of ¬†members of the Mongrel Mob‚Äôs ‚ÄėNotorious‚Äô chapter to enter the hall just as the debate began. They included rapist Mark Stevens, once known as the ‚ÄėParnell Panther‚Äô, and most of them were masked with red bandanas.
The most obvious ¬†effect was to frighten the audience so that half of them left ¬†immediately for fear of violence ‚Äď among them ¬†two women of my acquaintance. I am ashamed to this day that I did not immediately appeal to the chairman of the debate ‚Äď former ombudsman Mel Smith ‚Äď to ask the masked thugs to leave, or at least take off their face coverings. I assumed Smith was in on this intimidatory tactic by Workman; he later assured me he had not known they would attend, and I apologise to him again publicly for suggesting otherwise.
So just who is Kim Workman? He is a former bureaucrat who rose to be Assistant Secretary ‚Äď Penal Institutions in the early 1990‚Äôs. He is best known among criminologists as the architect of He Ara Hou, ¬†a programme designed to rehabilitate recidivist offenders.
The programme was announced in July 1990. Among Workman‚Äôs many ideas was that prison officers should not wear uniforms or insignia denoting rank; inmates could wear what they liked; and¬† staff were encouraged to become ‚Äúfriends‚ÄĚ with their charges. The whole ethos was to remove the ‚Äúauthoritarian culture‚ÄĚ within prisons, and to develop instead ¬†a ‚Äúwe are all ¬†on this journey together‚ÄĚ culture between staff and inmates.
While the programme operated, Many prison managers allowed ‚Äúfamily days‚ÄĚ when relatives and friends of prisoners could bring food into prisons and visit in a ‚Ä¶ah‚Ä¶‚Äôrelaxed‚Äô atmosphere. In some cases staff and inmates formed friendships, ¬†with staff informally signing signing inmates out for excursions such as fishing trips on the officers‚Äô days off.
The early results of He Ara Hou ¬†were pleasing. A dramatic increase was reported in the numbers of inmates involved in educational programmes. Break out escapes fell [why would you need to break out of that environment!]. There was a decline in suicides. Interpersonal relationships between staff and inmates, ¬†and ¬†among inmates among themselves improved: (Newbold: ‚ÄėAnother one bites the dust: Recent Initiatives in correctional reform in New Zealand‚Äô; in ¬†2008¬† 3 Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology p. 384)
In the end however, the experiment was a disaster. Family days and the general relaxing of security left prisons open to the smuggling of drugs, money and other contraband, which flowed in unhindered. Close relationships between staff and inmates some times became corrupt and ‚Äď surprise surprise ‚Äď there were instances of sexual misconduct between female officers and male prisoners. There was an embarrassing series of scandals involving staff illegally trading with inmates, theft of department property, failure to supervise dangerous inmates and allowing them to escape, drug dealing and serious abuse of prisoners who were unpopular. At Mangaroa prison ‚Äď set up as a showcase of the new enlightened methods ‚Äď allegations of corruption, neglect and violence led to the firing of twelve officers, and court ordered compensation totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars to prisoners. (Newbold op cit. p.388) ¬†In circumstances that are unclear, Mr Workman and the Department of Corrections parted ways.
Fast forward ten ¬†or twelve years, and Workman pops up as the leading advocate of¬† ¬†some of the very methods to reduce re-offending which¬† he had already been given licence to implement, ¬†with such spectacularly poor results. He set up an organization ‚Äď which later obtained funding from the Clark government – ¬†called ‚ÄúRethinking Crime and Punishment‚ÄĚ, which has evolved into ‚Äď among other things ‚Äď a sort of anti Sensible Sentencing Trust.
Despite his spectacular failure, Workman established himself ‚Äď and remains ‚Äď the man the media interview to balance comment from people like Garth McVicar and me.¬† Workman is of course much better educated than either Garth or me ‚Äď a fact he makes sure is widely known. What he doesn‚Äôt do is talk about He Ara Hou, other than to use the well worn excuses that the funding for it wasn‚Äôt enough, that the programme wasn’t given enough time, ¬†or that his ideas weren‚Äôt fully implemented. A bit like those who still argue that if only it was done properly, communism would be a resounding success.
Next: Workman and ‚Äúthree strikes‚ÄĚ.