Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) : It is great to take a call on the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. Part 1 proposes amendments to the Crimes Act 1961 that will provide the police with more powers to investigate and disrupt organised criminal activity and assist the prosecution of those involved. Clause 4 increases the penalty for participation in an organised criminal group in section 98A of the Act from a maximum of 5 years’ imprisonment to a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment. This better reflects a range of culpability caught by offending under section 98A and offending by those who organise serious criminal activity such as methamphetamine manufacturing but who do not themselves directly offend.

Part 1 also clarifies the evidential burden in section 98A necessary to prove participation in an organised criminal group. Section 98A contains a number of criteria including knowledge requirements that must be proved before the offence of participation in an organised criminal group is made out. The amendments in this part make interpretation of the section clearer and should improve its effectiveness as a law enforcement tool.

The Law and Order Committee proposed an amendment to section 98A to align the penalty for serious violent offences committed by organised criminal groups with the penalty threshold for such offences for the purpose of obtaining an interception warrant. This amendment will expand the range of serious violent offences that will be captured by section 98A to include perverting the course of justice with a violent component, certain firearms offences, and certain wounding and injury offences.

Part 1 also amends the sections relating to obtaining interception warrants in Part 11A of the Crimes Act 1961. It provides the police with the authority to apply for an interception warrant to investigate those who participate in an organised criminal group. It also amends the definition of a “specified offence” for which police may apply for interception warrants, expanding it to “an offence punishable by a period of imprisonment for a term of 7 years or more:” rather than “10 years or more:”.

The select committee proposed additional amendments to this part by requiring that there be reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed or is committing an offence under section 98A(1) in order for an interception warrant to be obtained. That amendment reflects more accurately the actual circumstances that may lead to the police applying for a warrant to intercept private communications.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : As we have said throughout the previous stages of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill, Labour will be supporting this legislation. It builds on a large amount of work that Labour did when in Government. In supporting Part 1, I will raise a couple of issues with the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nathan Guy. I agree with the powers being given to the police in respect of attempts to disrupt crime and to disrupt those who participate in organised criminal groups, especially gangs.

The issue I raise, which I have raised in respect of a number of other law enforcement bills that this Government has put up, concerns resources for enforcement. I think the powers that are put forward here in terms of interception are appropriate. I think the recommendations that the select committee made in respect of reasonableness are appropriate, as are the amendments to the definitions in section 98A of the Crimes Act on offences that are committed by participating in an organised criminal group. But I raise the following point with the Minister. Again, as with other legislation the Government has proposed in order to empower police, the measures are only as good as the resources that are provided to police to implement that legislation.

Today we saw an interesting announcement by the New Zealand Police in my home town of Christchurch. Following the loss, as the district commander himself has advised me, of 32 police vehicles—and a number of those vehicles were from the front line, when we were told they would not be—today there was an announcement, which I have some support for, that the police had gained four bicycles. So there was an announcement today that we will have police on four bicycles running around the four avenues in Christchurch. I have to say, in all seriousness, that in itself that is not a bad thing. A police press statement, which rattled off the objective of this measure, noted that the police laughed heartily at some particular issue. It was an interesting press release.

We want police in our communities, we want police within our suburbs, and we want them visible. That is all true. But I just wonder whether it is a net gain for Cantabrians when they have lost 32 police vehicles—

Paul Quinn: And the Ranfurly Shield!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —and they have gained four bikes. Mr Quinn makes another so-called useful contribution.

The point I make to the Minister is that criminals, as we know, do not adhere to the ethical rules of law enforcement. For instance, criminals will not say that because the cops are on bicycles, they will not use cars but bikes. What is next? Horses? Donkeys, possibly—and there are one or two donkeys opposite. Criminals do not adhere to the ethical rules of cricket. Just because the law enforcement men and women in blue are on a bicycle, criminals will not decide to rob the bank or department store, or shoplift or carry out an assault, and then get away on a bike. They tend to use whatever means they can to circumvent the law and the law enforcement agencies.

I say to the Minister that we are supportive of this bill. But, again, it comes down to the credibility of the resource packages through the Budget that are put up to implement these measures. We know, for instance, that 340 police vehicles have been taken from the police fleet. We know, because the Minister Judith Collins is fond of telling us, that she gave Counties-Manukau 43 new vehicles in the Budget. Yet, as we look at Part 1 and the resourcing issues around it, we see that we have to ask why the Minister of Police took 340 vehicles away from the police fleet. We know that $21 million has been required to be taken out of the police budget. Part of that budget related to dealing with organised crime, and part of it was to deal with implementing this legislation.

In all seriousness I make the point, as I think I did with the Minister’s colleague, that we are supportive of this legislation, because gang and organised crime activity is insidious—and it is tragic. Some very interesting but tragic points were made on a show that I could watch when it aired last night on TV about the spouses of those in prison, and about gangs and organised crime and their impact on families in our community. But this piece of paper is only as good as the resources that are given to the men and women in the blue and black uniforms to actually make it work. So I simply ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nathan Guy, whether he will consider giving us some reassurances around the resource implications of the bill.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) : Labour will be supporting the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. We on this side of the Chamber agree with the Government that some of the most insidious crime in our society is perpetrated by gangs and organised crime. Some of us in this Committee have had family members who have been traumatised by gangs or lured into involvement in gangs. The more we can do to take away the power of gangs and other organised crime units the better, as far as we on this side of the Chamber are concerned.

It is important to mention that the previous Labour Government had legislation similar to this bill before the Law and Order Committee when the National Government came into power. Had the National Government genuinely wanted to expedite this measure at a faster pace, perhaps even within its first 100 days of action, all the Minister of Justice needed to do was to support, and possibly amend, the bill that Labour had before the committee. Despite the fact that this Government decided to ignore that bill and start from scratch for the simple sake of political point-scoring, Labour supports this bill and the intention behind it.

Part 1 amends the Crimes Act 1961. It makes it easier for people to be charged with involvement in a gang. Its provisions cover the nature of participation in an organised crime gang, and involvement in a crime where three or more people share one objective, even if the person in question does not share this objective but merely knows that the three people do. It also broadens the scope of offences that are punishable and changes some penalties from 10 or more years’ imprisonment to 7 or more years’ imprisonment. The legislation also changes provisions on warrants. If a person is believed to be in a gang, authorisation to intercept a private communication will be easier for the police to obtain.

The Minister of Justice was right when he said that some concern about the bill was expressed to the Law and Order Committee. Some of the 11 submissions that were put forward were opposed to the bill because submitters were concerned that the proposals would impinge on the right to freedom of association, freedom of expression, or freedom from discrimination. Other submitters were concerned that it would infringe the rule against double jeopardy. Some submitters conveyed support for this bill while suggesting further proposals. Labour did not believe that those concerns were sufficient to propel us to oppose the bill; therefore, we support it.

Although we support this bill, it is important to point out a slight contradiction or irony. It would be fair to say that the Ministry of Justice cannot work in isolation from some of the other Government departments. In fact, it needs to work coherently alongside other departments like the New Zealand Police. Unfortunately, the reality is that as we move to put this bill into place the police budget has been cut. That is something that Mr Cosgrove talked about earlier, and it is concerning.

It is concerning that, as the Law and Order Committee is aware, as we are putting through this legislation there has been a 10 percent cut in police vehicles, a cut in police firearms training, and a $21 million cut in the police budget. All of these things will limit the ability of the police to do their job well. We as New Zealanders know that if we intend to do something better, as this bill purports to do, and if we are asked to increase the workload, our chances of being able to do so are minimal when funding is cut, and when the expectation is that more can be achieved on a much smaller budget with much tighter resourcing levels. The Government cannot say it is backing the police to deal with issues like organised crime while it pulls away the resources that are necessary for police to do their job.

Labour supports this bill because we are committed to removing criminal gangs from our society. We are prepared to work in a bipartisan way to tackle the scourge of gang crime and drug trafficking in our communities. We on this side of the Chamber recognise crime as a serious and growing problem. We also recognise the complexities that are involved in crime, particularly, and this is something that has not been raised often, in respect of low socio-economic circumstances and high levels of unemployment, and the impact that those two factors have on levels of crime. Those are two factors that the Government must address if it is serious about cutting crime levels. It is estimated that up to 30 percent of prisoners currently identify as gang members or affiliates, and that figure paints a thousand words.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) : I am delighted to rise to speak to the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. This bill is another great step forward by National in dealing with the law and order issues of New Zealand, and making sure that people are safe in their homes and on the streets.

I take up a couple of comments made by the previous speaker, Carmel Sepuloni, talking about the rights and freedoms of people who are involved in criminal activity and associated with gangs. Quite frankly, when we think about their record of violence, intimidation, and theft perpetrated, and the increase in the use of P, why should anybody think that gang members have any rights and freedoms? We are not interested in their rights and freedoms. If they have done the crime, they need to do the time. We will also make sure they pay for it. With the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act they will pay for it. We will strip them of their assets and proceeds of crime.

This bill, including Part 1, “Amendments to the Crimes Act 1961”, is just a series of tools we will give the police in dealing with gangs and organised crimes. Gangs have infiltrated our communities in such a way that they are now virtually indistinguishable from other community groups, and purport to do community work with the community’s interest at heart. Gangs infiltrate our communities to give them a sense of reasonableness to the community, when, in actual fact, their primary occupation is the perpetration of violence, intimidation, theft, and the use of methamphetamine, or P, in our communities. These sorts of actions should have been taken long before now, and I am delighted that we are doing this now. National is making a difference on the law and order front, and this is just another step in making that difference.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) : Kia ora, Mr Chairperson. Without a sliver of doubt, I will enjoy supporting the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. Unfortunately, it is said too rarely that some of the greatest victims of gangs in my part of the world are the very people who are related to members of gangs.

Although we have to be mindful that the police have to respect the bounds of the law—we have to have confidence, for example, in the ability of a judge to ascertain that the information being put before him or her is satisfactory—we should be under no illusion: when looking at gangs we see the worst of human nature. They are hugely well resourced and well organised. To those people who suffer some anxiety from time to time as to whether, in our pursuit of gang criminality, we are turning parts of our system into something that is aping a police State, I say that if they were to fall into the clutches of a gang, they would find that it made the police State look like a kindergarten. Gangs know no bounds. If people move into their business and threaten their existence, then not only will they menace and threaten them and their children but also they will kill them. If members have any doubts, then they should talk to the grieving families in Murupara.

Let us take the gloves off here. This measure is the way that the deep, menacing forces behind the dunderheads who run around wearing jackets and blazers with “Black Power” and other filth written on their backs can be dealt to. Interception warrants, which at the end of the day presumably have to pass muster with a judge who is seized of all the information, are not a bad thing. It is unfortunate that Dr Sharples is not here, because when we deal with crimes associated with gangs, we are dealing with organisations. We are not dealing with random events. We are not dealing with people who have had a wee bit too much to drink or who have been smoking dope or popping pills. We are dealing with well-oiled, highly armed organisations. They have not one iota of respect for Parliament. They giggle, mock, and laugh if one ever asks them to contribute something to honour the legacy of the men and women who are memorialised in this Chamber.

We need to get with the game plan. Gang members do not want to be a part of civil society. That is why I have not a sliver of doubt about the wisdom of supporting legislation that gives better powers and forces to those whom we trust to keep us safe, because, rest assured, gangs do not want people to be safe. Gangs want people to be scared, they want them to be fearful, they want them to be constantly coughing up dough through their kids being addicted, and they want their women to be afraid. People become so indifferent to life that they start slowly but surely to give up, until such time when they are forced to begin to arm themselves to make themselves feel safe. That is the reality in large parts of the north, which is where I come from.

That is why I am sad that Dr Sharples is not here today. For those of us who are of Māori descent, this bill is important. Not all gangs are Māori, but they are disproportionately full of our young people, and some of our people who are old, fat, and corpulent, but still very violent. Dr Sharples has to stop believing that simply by holding wānanga and hui we will get those people to change their lifestyles. Those leopards have deep-etched spots that ain’t going to change. The only way that those people will change is when they putrefy in the earth. Let us hope that not too many victims go through that process before we put the gang members where they belong: out of our sight and out of our lives.

If this expansion of powers causes that to come to pass, a poll taken tomorrow would show that a vast number of New Zealanders would be happy about it—although they might not feel proud that it is a feature of our modern society. People in gangs are driven by forces that are well fuelled and well funded. They do not want to join with the rest of us in terms of looking for markets, jobs, and new growth opportunities. They want to get rich on Easy Street, and they want to come north, and they do. That is why Part 1—and I acknowledge the sensibilities of some members of the Committee in relation to expansion of the State’s powers—needs to be supported.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) : I am happy to take a call on the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. Much like Mr Jones, the previous speaker, I have come across a number of gang members in my electorate, and I am very familiar with the impact that some of their activities have on communities, on the people who live in those communities, and on many innocent victims, including the families of the gang members concerned. Gangs are repugnant. Their activities are repugnant. The negative impact that they have on families, young people, and innocent members of the community absolutely must be dealt with.

The Labour Party will support this bill to go through the Committee stage. We want to provide the police, in particular, who have to deal with gangs and organised crime, with all of the resources that we possibly can, so that they can do that effectively. If this bill contributes, and adds a little bit more, to their arsenal, then that has to be a good thing.

These are weighty issues and there are no easy solutions to them. They need to be dealt with properly. That is one of the reasons why at the last election the Labour Party pledged to establish a commission of inquiry into organised criminal gangs. It was part of our manifesto at the last election. We need to draw on evidence and research not only from within New Zealand but also internationally. Although I would like to stand here and say that I think this bill will be the silver bullet to magically cure all of the problems relating to gangs, I am realistic enough to know that it will not be. In fact, a whole heap of issues this bill does not address need to be dealt with. They need to be aired and we have to draw on evidence to be able to do that. I know that that is something that the National Government—

Sandra Goudie: Ha, ha!

CHRIS HIPKINS: Sandra Goudie in particular gets very bored when evidence is involved, because it involves a bit of reading, a bit of listening, and a bit of thinking. I do not think that she is really engaged in that level of detail. I understand that she finds evidence-based policy and decision making quite frustrating—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: She can’t spell it.

CHRIS HIPKINS: —because she cannot spell it, but it does work and it is worth thinking about.

I will talk about a couple of things related to the things that drive gangs. I will go back to one of the pieces of legislation related to this one, which we discussed earlier in the term of this Parliament, and which was about choking off the supply of money to gangs—the criminal proceeds—and giving the police much greater powers in that respect. If we really want to go after gangs, I think we have to go after two things. We have to go after the money, and we have to go after the supply of recruits to the gangs.

The supply of recruits for gangs is something we need to think quite carefully about. If we go to the prisons, for example, where 30 percent of prisoners currently identify as gang members and affiliates, we will find a couple of common characteristics amongst the prison population—illiteracy and innumeracy being two of the key ones. Coming from a lower socio-economic area is another characteristic of prisoners, as is being victims themselves of child abuse or family violence at some point, quite often in their childhood, and being totally disconnected from society. The reason those prisoners relate to gangs is that they are the people gangs prey on in order to gain gang membership. Gangs prey on the same people, who end up in prisons, and that is how they draw their members. If we really want to go after gangs, we will go after the gang recruits. We would choke off the supply of recruits by dealing with those issues—by dealing with illiteracy and innumeracy, and by dealing with the massive socio-economic gap that exists in our society, which gets bigger every year.

We would also deal with domestic abuse, child abuse, and domestic violence. People who have been victims are much more likely to end up being offenders themselves. It is absolutely true. Those are the sorts of things that could be canvassed if we had a commission of inquiry into organised criminal gangs. But unfortunately this Government has not picked up a proposal put forward by the previous Labour Government, and I think that is a bit of a shame.

Finally, I want to pick up a theme from my colleague Clayton Cosgrove, which is that all of the things in this bill may be worthy, but if the police are not adequately resourced to use the powers they are being granted in this bill, then it all amounts to very little. In my own area, the police have had to give back the police cars they previously had access to; they have had to give them back. There are significantly fewer police cars on the streets in the Hutt Valley today than there were before the election.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : I am happy to stand and take a call in the Committee stage of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. I endorse the comments made by my colleagues earlier. Labour takes this issue very seriously. We believe that we need to listen—

Sandra Goudie: How come they did nothing about it for 9 long years?

MOANA MACKEY: Sandra Goudie should get up and make another speech.

Hon Members: No, no.

MOANA MACKEY: I know that it may pain us, but I think the public need to see the depth of talent on the Government benches. I think they need to see the extent of its thinking about this important legislation.

Sandra Goudie: Marvellous, marvellous!

MOANA MACKEY: The member says: “Marvellous, marvellous”. I think the public needs to see the future front-bencher and future Minister of Finance, Sandra Goudie, and get to know her before her promotion comes.

This is a very important bill. It extends work that Labour did when in Government to try to give police the tools to be able to deal with organised crime effectively. This is not an easy area of legislation. Parliamentarians constantly walk a fine line between ensuring that the rights of innocent citizens are protected and ensuring that our police are able to use whatever powers we can give them to bring criminals to justice. We need to do whatever we can to break down the organised crime that exists in New Zealand. This issue is not peculiar to New Zealand. Many countries grapple with how to deal with organised crime; New Zealand is not alone in that regard.

The bill increases the penalty for participating in an organised criminal group from 5 years’ imprisonment to a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment, and it clarifies the evidential requirements under section 98A of the Crimes Act, which will help to improve the rate of successful prosecutions. If the police are not able to get successful prosecutions, then it will all come to nothing. The bill requires the sentencing judge to take into account any offending that is committed due to involvement with an organised criminal group as a specific aggravating factor. That is also another important aspect of this legislation.

I endorse what my colleague Chris Hipkins said, on two fronts. The first relates to resourcing, which is an issue that I raised in the debate on the previous bill. If we do not resource this issue properly, then all the legislation in the world will not mean a thing. I really endorse what Chris Hipkins said about evidence-based policy-making. It is crucially important, especially in the area of law and order, that we, as parliamentarians, are able to challenge our very strongly held views on law and order, and stack them up against the evidence. When it comes down to a choice between doing what is popular and what works, we should do what works, every single time. We need to be prepared to challenge ourselves to say that something that we—

Sandra Goudie: Ha, ha!

MOANA MACKEY: Sandra Goudie thinks that is a joke. She does not think we should do what works. Sandra Goudie might want to look at the evidence about boot camps. I think that a reason why this Government does not want to go down an evidence-based approach, which is very relevant to this bill before me, is that if we look across the law and order spectrum, we see that sometimes what we believe might not actually be what will work and help us to reduce organised crime in this country.

One of the strongest pieces of evidence about what works in terms of reducing crime and organised crime is visible policing. It is having the police properly resourced to be out there—not to have cars taken away from them, as we have heard is happening in Rimutaka and in Christchurch, but to be out there. If we do not resource our police properly, this bill will not do anything.

Sandra Goudie: Try telling us about the bill. Have you even read it?

MOANA MACKEY: Yes, I have read it, I say to Mrs Goudie; I have read it. If the member had been listening to me, she would know that I told her what it was for. The bill will increase the maximum sentence from 5 years to 10 years. It will require the sentencing judge to take into consideration involvement in a criminal organisation as an aggravating factor at sentencing. Does the member want me to go on? I know what the bill does. What I am saying is that it means nothing if our police are not resourced. All the nice words in the world do not put a police car on the road. Money puts a police car on the road. This Government has been cutting funding to the police. Labour’s point is that this legislation does not matter. We can keep passing law and order bills under urgency, but they will not work if we are not adequately resourcing the police. That goes for the previous bill, which was on DNA testing, as well.

The other point my colleague Chris Hipkins made—and it concerns the evidence-based approach to crime, as well—is that we need a commission of inquiry into organised crime. I do not think that any one member of this House truly understands the range of organised crime that exists in New Zealand and how to deal with it. Do we know why people enter gangs? Do we know what stops them leaving gangs, which is a very important point? Do we know the range of activities they are involved in? If we do not know the enemy, how will we combat it? I say that we do not fully understand the extent of organised crime in New Zealand. I urge the Government, as well as passing legislation like this, to pick up that suggestion and say that we will go out there and find those things out. It might be scary for us to do that, it might be intimidating, and I guarantee that we will not like what we find, but if we do not know what we are dealing with, how can we as parliamentarians comes up with the adequate legislative tools to combat it? How can we give the police the tools they need if we do not know what we are dealing with? If we are serious about an evidence-based approach to policy in this area—and I know that Sandra Goudie is not; she has made that quite clear—then we need to be prepared to go out and find the evidence. We have very, very good professionals and experts in New Zealand who can do this and who would be very happy to be funded to do this properly, alongside the Government, and I know that Labour would—

Sandra Goudie: The evidence is that she’s being specious with the facts and specious with what’s been said in the House.

MOANA MACKEY: I have been what? I have been “specious with the facts”? I do not even know what that means, but that is all right. The other thing that this legislation does is expand the ability of the police to undertake surveillance—

Sandra Goudie: There’s a dictionary in the foyer.

MOANA MACKEY: Thank you very much. I do not need the dictionary; that is fine.

This bill expands the ability of the police to undertake surveillance of gangs by allowing the offence of participation in a criminal organisation to be used as a basis for an interception warrant. I know there are people who are concerned about the extension of powers in this area in particular. I come back to the point I made earlier, which is that, as parliamentarians, we walk a fine line all the time. We want to be able to give the police tools, and we know that this is an area in which they can reap great results when it comes to dealing with organised crime. I say again that we need to make sure that our police are resourced properly, so that they are trained properly to know when it is appropriate to use this power and when it is not. We have a lot of trust in our police, and they do a great job, but there is potential for great abuse if this legislation does not have the proper safeguards put around it and it is not funded properly.

Sandra Goudie: If she can’t understand the word “specious”, how would she understand evidence?

MOANA MACKEY: I tell Sandra Goudie that I know what evidence is. Seriously, oh my God—

Chris Hipkins: There’s plenty of evidence on you, Sandra!

MOANA MACKEY: I know. Sandra Goudie might actually want to listen, because, although she seems to think that this is some kind of big joke, the fact is that we are greatly extending the powers of surveillance that the police are allowed to use when they are dealing with people who are involved in a criminal organisation. There are people in this country who want to know that parliamentarians take this seriously, that this is not just something they do so that they can go out and say: “Rah, rah! We’re really tough on law and order.”, whilst at the same time putting into place a lot of policies that will undermine law and order in this country, and that do not do anything about helping people into jobs and lifting children out of poverty. They want to know we are dealing with the causes of crime, which is just as important as dealing with people once they are criminals—in fact, it is more important. I think that people would prefer that we did not have criminals in this country rather than just having tougher laws to deal with the ones we already have. I urge the Government to take that part of the equation seriously, as well.

I reiterate, because I do not think that the Government is listening—I know that the chairperson of the Law and Order Committee has made it clear that she thinks this is funny and a bit of a joke—that the public of New Zealand wants to know that these decisions and policies are being based on evidence internationally and domestically, and that they will work. We believe that we are giving the police some useful tools here, but we say to the Government—

Sandra Goudie: Oh, she does!

MOANA MACKEY: I said that earlier, if Mrs Goudie was listening. I know that she cannot listen and talk at the same time, so why does she not try listening for a bit instead of talking?

Sandra Goudie: You’re so contradictory in your comments.

MOANA MACKEY: So contradictory? We are not allowed to talk about the safeguards that need to be put around these extensions of power. We are not allowed to say that the Government needs to fund our police properly, and that we support giving extra powers to the police, but when our police are undermined by their police cars being taken away, by their funding being cut—

Sandra Goudie: The only people undermining the police are her and her colleagues.

MOANA MACKEY: I am undermining the police by saying that they need to be resourced properly?

Sandra Goudie: Absolutely, when she’s being specious with the facts.

MOANA MACKEY: I am being “specious with the facts” and undermining the police by saying that I think they should be resourced properly! I think that sums up that member.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : I have to say that the exchange between my colleague Moana Mackey and Sandra Goudie was interesting. For those who do not know, Sandra Goudie is actually the chairperson of the Law and Order Committee, and was charged with shepherding the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill through the process of reporting back to this House. I say to Ms Goudie that this is actually very serious legislation. That is the last time I will bother addressing that member in a speech, because it is a waste of time.

I want to raise a very serious issue. In terms of the resourcing issues that other colleagues have talked about, an issue that I think is of great concern, certainly to the Police Association, and that will go to the heart of how this bill is implemented, is how the police protect themselves in respect of dealing with gang members and organised crime. The evidence that Ms Mackey and others speak of, and that some on the other side of the Chamber might want to look at, is very, very clear in terms of the violence that is put upon our communities, family members, and others, especially by gangs and organised crime. Yet for the first time in history, to my knowledge, firearms training for the police force is being rationed. An allegation was put up by the Minister of Police that the police have always reviewed firearms training, and that reviews occurred under our Government, or whatever. That is true, because the police are independent and they are charged with reviewing their own operational requirements. But in 9 years of a Labour Government, no requirement was put on the police to ration firearms training.

We are not talking about some sort of gung-ho attitude here; we are talking about incidents such as the tragedy in Napier, when Senior Constable Len Snee was killed and two other officers were critically wounded. The first responder was not the armed offenders squad; it was a Youth Aid officer. In that case—and it is very germane to this bill—it was not organised crime, although there were organised crime connections. We now know a lot of drug cultivation and drug selling was going on, but there was no intelligence that that day would be a problem for the police. There was no intelligence inside the police. That is not a comment on them; it simply was not anticipated. No one knew. There was no evidence. There was no one from the public to say that something strange was going on at this person’s residence. There was no evidence in respect of firearms use. It was a routine drug warrant. The first responder was a Youth Aid officer, and then we had a tragedy. So when it comes to resourcing, if the Minister of Police, Judith Collins, wanted to, she could communicate very, very clearly to the Commissioner of Police that the pressure is off in terms of resources. She could communicate that he is not required to cut cars, to ration firearms training, or to find $21 million in the Police vote because this Government says it is committed to implementing this and other law enforcement legislation. The Minister of Police and the Minister of Justice could pick up the phone and say to Commissioner Broad that it is OK and that he is exempt from the razor gang requirements that are going through Government agencies, because they believe that if they require him to protect our community there is a requirement on them to allow police officers to have the tools to protect themselves.

There is a lot of hot air about this bill. We support the bill, but I am concerned about the man or woman in the blue uniform. We know from our communities that there is an expectation from people wearing the blue uniform. It does not matter if that person is a police educator, driving a desk, a front-line police officer, a Youth Aid officer, or whatever. When it hits the fan, our communities assume that if a police officer is wearing the blue uniform he or she will have the skills to intervene at any time and at any level, at least as first responders until specialists like the armed offenders squad and others can come to finish the job, as it were. The problem we will have implementing this legislation is that there will be police officers—people in the Criminal Investigation Branch (CIB) and all sorts of folk—who will have their firearms training rationed, or who will not get firearms training at all, and will not renew their skills every year, or every second year, as they are required to. My challenge to the Minister of Justice is to guarantee that when a man or a woman in a police uniform is going around dealing with people who are involved in organised crime and gang violence, they will not be required to use firearms, because they will not have the training to execute that job.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) : I move, That the question be now put.

• Motion agreed to.

• Part 1 agreed to.

Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) : This is a very short part of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill and it amends the Local Government Act 2002. Section 216(a) of the Local Government Act 2002 currently provides that a District Court may grant a removal order if the court is satisfied that the property is occupied or regularly used by known or probable offenders. Section 216(b) provides that a District Court may grant a removal order if a fence, structure, or vegetation is either facilitating or contributing to the concealment, avoidance, or commission of crime, or is intended to injure a person. Part 2 proposes that an additional ground for the District Court to make a removal order is if it is satisfied that a fence, structure, or vegetation may reasonably be regarded as intimidating. This proposal will provide the police with an additional tool to have fortifications pulled down on properties used by known or probable offenders, but it also acknowledges the impact of gang forts on their direct neighbourhood.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) : Anything that causes local government to act expeditiously and aid the cause of the local community wanting to rid its neighbourhoods and suburbs of this walking, criminalised cancer known as gangs ought to be supported. I am no fan of much of what local government has done in relation to the Building Act—an area that I have some experience in. I found local government to be sluggish. The place was riddled with building inspectors who found things to justify their jobs but little to justify delivering the service. This is why, when I had the brief opportunity to promote a bill as a part of former Prime Minister Helen Clark’s team, it was rapidly embraced by members on the opposite side of the Chamber. I filled a void. Those members came with great promise but precious little results. But that matter is for another time. It is for the historians to write up the great things that the Helen Clark Government did, which will grow in stature as time moves on. The gangs, unfortunately, grow while we are distracted.

When New Zealanders move into a suburb or a neighbourhood, they create a home for their kiddies. They start to invest time and energy in schools and they look to beautify the localities where they live. Then all of a sudden a plague of locusts—or, as the Māori say, a tātarakihi—descends upon the area, and just as in biblical times the locusts sucked out the livelihood of the people by destroying the crops, these people begin to crop. They move into an area and choose dwellings or neighbourhoods where the trees, fences, or other accoutrements give them the privacy to carry on their criminality. Ordinary Kiwis do not know much about gangs, but they know when they are working in “Strugglers’ Gully”. When their TV, car, kid’s bike, or other taongas that they have amassed over a bit of time from dough that has been saved to actually afford those things start to get ripped off, they want those people out of their faces. That sort of behaviour not only lessens the value and the safety of their property but, most important, it lessens the security of where they live. So if the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill is to empower local government by allowing the court to remove gang fortifications, then we should all support it.

Of course, this is an obligation on the courts. We can imagine that District Court judges, not unlike their senior colleagues in the High Court, will be preyed upon by a different form of locust, known as the legal profession. Legal professionals go out of their way—unwisely, in my view—to represent many of these gang characters. They try to allow them to escape the full reach of the law when they have been peddling drugs and ruining the lives of young people. To illustrate my point, in Kaitāia the gangs that I am predominantly concerned about hurt their own the most. I read the local newspaper and gagged through an article to do with my senior National Party colleague John Carter, but that is another story. Then I found that the Tribesmen gang—if ever there was destruction of a proud word and the notion of a tribe, there it is—are now using dope, marijuana, cannabis to reward juvenile criminality. Boys aged 10, 11, 12, and 13—around that tender age—are running away from the whānau, etc. and being rewarded with marijuana if they go out and steal things. The people providing it belong to the gang. So when the parents go and find out who the hell is giving their young fella dope, they are confronted by a fortification. They are confronted by the intimidating presence of that gang culture. It could be someone who is ripe for a heart attack. In fact, I hope that everyone who is involved in Tribesmen criminality has heart attacks by the end of this week. They will get not one sliver of sympathy from me. They are taking young, dislocated boys and giving them dope so they will go around Kaitāia and other parts of the north and tāhae—rip things off. That is the role model that they are growing into. It will give my neighbour Wayne Brown something more useful to do: after he has stopped irking most of the local ratepayers, he can start assaulting, with the full force of the law, the gangs. He is likely to grow in our Māori estimation. Kia ora tātou.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : Part 2 is a practical measure. Labour supports it. I know that my colleague Clare Curran, a Dunedin member of Parliament, recently has had representations from a local school, I believe, where down the road, quite literally, there is a gang headquarters. I have not seen it myself, but I am told that it is relatively fortified—or, if it is not, that it will be. These structures put a level of intimidation upon communities.

There are those in this place who say that gangs form part of the culture and fabric of our country. I think Dr Sharples has been heard to say that from time to time. I tend to disagree, respectfully, with him. I think there are basic community norms. We are not talking about the height of pot plants, what colour we can paint our house, whether we can wash our car out the front, or have a barbeque, or park. We are talking about a high degree of intimidation. Gangs set up in communities, and often, as in the Dunedin example, not far from schools. As my colleague Shane Jones has said, they set up there for quite deliberate, nefarious reasons—so that they can prey on communities, particularly the young, and entice them, as he said, with dope and other things.

So suddenly a quiet community, which is law abiding and includes a local school, has some sort of great edifice that has been fortified far in excess of what we would expect for a bank, police station, or, in some respects, an army base. Those fortifications are generally ugly—ugly in an aesthetic way, and ugly in terms of what goes on inside and around them. They become magnets for other activity, sometimes from rival gangs, as we know, because we saw a year or so ago in Wanganui what can happen, and it happens in other places. Reprisals and turf wars take place. Who is sitting nearby, next door or three doors down, a block away or three blocks away? It is communities and often local schools.

We think Part 2 is a very practical measure. Their eminences in the court, the judges, as Shane Jones said, will have all sorts of interesting arguments presented to them to err on the side of being conservative and not to provide the means with which we can rip, tear, and destroy these fortifications. I think part of destroying them is exposing what is going on inside and around those headquarters. Indeed, that may provide some motivation for the gangs to move on. Sadly, it will be to another community, but if this measure goes through—and I assume it will—there will be universal pressure to deal with gang headquarters. We support the part.

• Part 2 agreed to.

Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) : Part 3 creates a new aggravating factor for consideration at sentencing. The Gangs and Organised Crime Bill originally proposed that the courts take into account that the offender committed the offence wholly or partly because of his or her participation in an organised criminal group, or involvement in any form of organised criminal association, as an aggravating factor at sentencing. That was amended by the Justice and Electoral Committee so that the court can take into account the nature and extent of any connection between the offending and the offender’s participation in an organised criminal group, or involvement in any other form of organised criminal association, as an aggravating factor at sentencing. This amendment removes the potentially onerous requirement on the prosecution to prove the motivations of an offender. Although Section 9(4)(a) of the Sentencing Act allows any aggravating or mitigating factor not specified in the Act to be taken into account, it is appropriate that gang and organised criminal connections be made a statutory factor to ensure that these are taken into account in all relevant cases.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) : I thought I would make another very moderate contribution on the scourge known as gang criminal culture in my part of Aotearoa, known as Tai Tokerau. Of course I can see, unfortunately, the burden upon the judge when this new provision in the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill finally washes up and laps at his or her magisterial feet. Lawyers, unfortunately, are no doubt going to test these notions of both association and connection. It is unavoidable, unfortunately, that when we do change law, it takes a while for jurisprudence to emerge. But if we strip away all the verbiage, we see that at the guts of the issue is the question of whether this is a way of testing people’s motives and getting them to justify how they have acquired their lucre, or why they are doing what they are doing in association with obvious gang offenders, etc.

If the provision actually simplifies the task of the police, and of those of us who are other civic leaders, in being able to amplify the dangers of being indifferent to, or indulgent about, gang culture, then it will be a very useful provision. Admittedly, a test will be required for judging at what point a person is fatally involved in a criminal organisation. I see no other way, unfortunately, for the various lawyers to say that, no doubt at great cost, although Dame Margaret Bazley has a great deal to say about that. She, fortunately, is going to focus on the lawyers, some but not all of whom are ill-equipped to stand before the bench, unlike the majority of we parliamentarians as we stand before Mr Chairperson, but that is another matter. So I think that this is a small provision that is very useful.

But, as I said, let us not get away from the underlying problem. We must seize every device and seize every opportunity to prevent the normalisation of gang culture and of gang membership, so that more New Zealanders shun those families and those people who want to maintain that culture. If, God forbid, there was an element that came to Aotearoa with that Middle Eastern style of deep animus that shows itself in wanton violence, etc., we would shun that as a part of our tolerant society. But it is sad that, growing year by year, there is a hardened element. I fear over a longer period of time the attitudes of Kiwis towards this gang thing—given that we have been through indulgence, we have been through indifference, we have been through aspiration, we have been through anger, and we are going now in some cases into fury. What will happen in areas such as where I come from is that people slowly but surely will continue to take the law into their own hands, because they are genuinely frightened and scared of those people. I already said earlier that that fright is a massive weapon in the hands of gang criminals; having people frightened is at least 80 percent of the way. It might be said, as it often is by Dr Sharples and his colleagues, that this is hyperbole and rhetoric that does not actually advance the cause of understanding the underlying reasons for gang criminality and helping people move on. The only place I want them to move on to is a new wing at Ngāwha prison.

I am not interested one iota in normalising or enabling people to think—under the cloak of Māori culture and by using a few Māori words—that somehow we are going to weaken our resolve to marginalise those people and to have them face the full cost of their criminality. It is a very divisive issue. For those of us who are in the Māori world, it takes up a large part of our time. In Parliament we do not stay just in any world. We do not necessarily stay in a Pākehā world or a Māori world; we are there for all New Zealanders. But the place I come from in the North is a hugely strong Māori area, and it has a different culture. It has a different political culture. But, as lonely as it is, and although this approach of supporting legislation like this bill and supporting the ability of the police to be more penetrative and perhaps even more unforgiving, does cause us to be assailed in the Māori world as being anti-Māori, I think this provision is very important.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : Labour supports this provision. I think the Minister made a good point when he noted that it changes the burden on the prosecution to prove motivation in respect of an offender. We know from current jurisprudence that from time to time that has been a very onerous requirement on the prosecution. Of course, as Mr Jones has said, the people involved in those sorts of offences and their legal counsellors will find very interesting and sophisticated ways to try to circumvent the court processes and try to prove that their motivation is other than how a prosecutor would argue it.

Not being a lawyer myself I will not go from there into the intricacies of that argument. Suffice to say, as other colleagues have, that if there are other devices like this that can be used to get to, and deal with, organised crimes and criminal gangs, then they should be supported and implemented. Again, I simply raise the question of resourcing, not so much in respect of the police in this issue but more in respect of the Crown prosecutors and the justice budget—those who are charged with resourcing the prosecutors to implement this bill. Again, we would like some reassurance that resources will be available to implement what I think is a positive provision within this bill.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) : I refer to Part 3 of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill, which amends the Sentencing Act 2002. I will continue on from some of the things that Mr Jones said. Largely, the focus of this bill, in respect of gangs and organised crime, has been on the larger gangs, like Black Power and other such gangs. One factor that has not really been taken into consideration is what we call, in Auckland at least, the “ABC” gangs, which are many of our youth gangs. They often name themselves after the street they live on. Say they live on Smith Drive; they would then call themselves the Smith Drive Boys, or whatever.

One thing we appreciate about this bill is the fact that, as Mr Jones said, it prevents the normalisation of gang culture. Many of the “ABC” youth gangs initially do not have the same intentions as some of the larger, more established gangs, but the issue with those smaller “ABC” gangs is that they often base their structure and what they intend to do on American gang culture. They are enticed by it and see it as something they can identify with, and then they go ahead and set up their own gangs. The other issue that comes into play with the “ABC” gangs is that they are often preyed on by much larger gangs, and by much older gang members and people in general, who use those youth who are just setting out in the gang lifestyle to do a lot of the groundwork in respect of selling their drugs and committing what can start as small crimes but can end up as something quite serious.

Labour supports this legislation. We support preventing the normalisation of gang culture. The more that we can do to take power away from gangs, the better it is for our youth. We need to take any opportunity possible to ensure that the gang culture does not become an avenue for our youth to go down, that it does not become attractive to them, and that it is no longer a possibility that they can get involved. I think it is very important to mention this issue relating to youth gangs—perhaps not in relation to the larger, more institutionalised gangs that we know of, which have been around for many years—that continue to emerge and plague the communities in which they are set. Thank you.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. Kia ora tātou i tēnei rā. I am aware that time is moving on and I will take only a brief call. I find myself stuck with the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. I tend to agree with many of the statements made by my colleague Shane Jones, because of the loss of two lives in Murupara, in my electorate. A young boy, Jordan Herewini, from Te Kura Kaupapa Motuhake o Tāwhiuau, was killed earlier this year. Another young man, Kaine Lewis, was killed about 5 or 6 weeks ago. Again, he was involved in a gang confrontation in Murupara. These deaths resulted in a hīkoi through the town.

If members do not know Murupara, it is a rural community way out in the middle of the bush. Once upon a time it was a thriving community. The vast majority of the people who live there are Māori. At this point in time many of them are unemployed. Basically, two gangs are involved in that town right now. The first is the Tribesmen, which has become established there. For all intents and purposes, that gang is made up of many people from the iwi of Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare. The Mongrel Mob has also moved into town. The two altercations that resulted in the deaths of those two boys came out of gang confrontations and the use of colours, which is being discussed today. Having been associated with the young boy Jordan—we had travelled together on various trips—his death really hit home to me, and it certainly made me feel really angry in respect of the way that gang culture has developed in Aotearoa.

In reflecting on this bill, I wonder whether we will ever get rid of the whole notion of gangs in Aotearoa, but I tend to believe that we will not, because overseas experience overseas tells us so. No matter what strategies have been employed thus far throughout the world, it seems that there still remains a culture of “ganghood”, if you like, and that is the difficulty. No matter what we try to do with gang members—lock them up and throw away the key, or work with them—there still remains the whole notion of gang culture. Yet there have been some examples where working with them has produced positive results. Not that I am the expert on gangs, but I think back to the work that Sir Robert Muldoon sort of started and that others have picked up in terms of moving towards employment schemes and so on.

The strange thing about this experience is that in Murupara the people decided to take the bull by the horns and come back to our own tikanga. I am talking only about this particular situation, not other gangs. I am talking only about these two gangs, which we might call Māori gangs. They have basically called a rāhui, which is a prohibition on violence in their town. It seems to be taking off and working. It means that there is a lot of dialogue and a lot of talk between the people involved.

The Māori Party has been talking a lot about this issue. In particular we have been saying that we have to do something, but we ask what the something is that would produce the best results against the context of the fact that gangs will stay with us. Sure, some measures might happen to be on the side, but one of the things we are absolutely confident about is the need for us to empower communities to allow them to get on and deal with the issues within their own environment.

Since the time that the rāhui has been imposed, it has even got to the point that Ngāti Manawa have basically banned patches from their marae. I am not exactly sure of all the circumstances, but the following example could be a real situation. Imagine that a gang member has died in Wellington, and his family say that they want his body to go back to Murupara for burial, but the people back in Murupara say no. They say that he cannot come back. They say that if he chose that life, then he should stay down in Wellington. He cannot go back and be buried amongst his people in Murupara. The Murupara community will not even allow him to go to their marae. If his body was to go back to Murupara, first, the family needs to find a place for him to lie, and, second, the family need to have the people there agree that he can lie in the same urupā, the same cemetery, as all the ancestors. That is happening right now, today. If it is not today, then it was yesterday; I have spoken to the people about it. That situation is the sort of thing that can happen.

I am caught with the whole notion of having to do something, but, at the end, having discussed the issue in our caucus, we struggle with the notion of simply keeping on locking those people up. It might satisfy our minds right now, but we are looking for some other solutions on top of that. There is no doubt that those who commit those crimes should serve the time; I have no problem with that. But we have to do something about rehabilitation to try to get these people back into society. If it comes at a hard cost, like not being allowed to go back to be buried amongst one’s people, then that is a big call.

Mr Jones will know that not being allowed to be buried amongst one’s own people is a very, very big call. In fact, not even being allowed to go on to one’s marae to grieve over one’s relations is a big call. Just 2 weeks ago, there was a tangi in Murupara for a kuia who was about 90 years old. Her children are teachers. As soon as the rāhui came in and Ngāti Manawa banned the patches, the Tribesmen could not go on to their marae. It got a little bit dicey there, I am told, but in the end the gang members respected it. Further, they tried to go down to the urupā to bury her, and women stood on the road. Kuia and koroua stood on the road and said that they were to get the patches off or else they would not be going in there. They could choose one or the other and take their leave.

Serious efforts are being made on the part of our communities to take back our communities, and I use Murupara as just one example. The hope would be that the notion of using our own tikanga spreads. I do not know whether it would work in Kaitāia, Kaikohe, or elsewhere, but I am confident, based on what has happened in Murupara, that we can change the mindset.

While this bill is before us, I want the House to understand that our vote is about looking at other solutions. Although we do not support this particular bill as such, we understand the reasons for it, but we also want to look at the bigger picture. The solution might come not just from the law and order field or the justice field; it might come from the bigger picture. I wanted to raise those points, just in case other speakers from the Māori Party have not yet put that view. It will be a part of the picture painted with our vote later on in the other stages.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) : I feel privileged—and I say this without a trace of sarcasm or insincerity—to have just heard that speech by Te Ururoa Flavell. It was a fantastic speech. I am aware of the case that occurred a couple of weeks ago, but I was not aware of yesterday’s case that he referred to. I say at the outset that I do not claim to be an expert on Māoritanga; it would be absolutely arrogant and ignorant of me to do so. But I know a little bit about it. What struck me about the case 2 weeks ago—and I am very sorry to have to point this out to my colleague—was that on the previous day it was revealed that his co-leader Dr Pita Sharples had met with gang leaders, in part to find out whether they were getting enough entitlements from the social welfare system. The next day the kuia whom Te Ururoa just referred to stood up and said that if gang members were going to dress like that, they should go away. I imagine the words might have been a bit stronger than that. Ordinary Māori people recognise those scum for what they are: scum and criminals. I think that speech was fantastic, and obviously that attitude towards gang members is a part of the solution to this problem.

It has been said by Te Ururoa and others that gangs will always be with us, and we just have to give up and accept that in some way. Not so! Not so! Dr Jennifer Walsh, a criminologist, was here to give evidence on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill earlier this year. I rang her the other day; we stayed in close contact. I just happened to say we do not hear as much as we used to about drive-by gang shootings in South Los Angeles, and she said they almost never happen now. I asked why that was, and she said it was because the gang leaders were all in jail—they were locked up. So the issue of gangs can be tackled. Yes, a multidisciplinary and multifaceted approach is needed, but the first step is to take the brave step that those kuia did on that marae in the Bay of Plenty two weeks ago, and to have a clear understanding that the gangs are criminal organisations that will not be tolerated.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) : Thank you, Mr Chairperson, for providing me with the opportunity to make a short contribution on the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. I really enjoyed hearing my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell speak about the Murupara experience, but for me it reveals a deep ambiguity about where those Māori politicians in this Chamber stand in relation to gangs.

I agree with a community that binds together and seeks to censure or exclude criminals—because that is what the gangs are. Members should stop calling them “our people”. They are not our people. Our people do not go to jail for killing teenage boys. Our people do not go to jail for raping and for selling P, and celebrating that as a mark of distinction and success. They are not our people. In fact, they are not people. We have a word for that kind of thing in Māori. It is “taurekareka”. They are the slaves that, before Christianity, would have been dispatched without a sliver of a doubt—because that is how they are treating those teenagers in Murupara.

If communities believe that by relying exclusively on those proud, noble traditions that define us as Māori, such as rāhui, we will penetrate that fog of criminality, I have news for them. Those people will understand only one thing: ringa kaha, the full force of the law. It will offend a number of us in this Chamber to think that we as New Zealanders will have to embrace that level of harshness, but if we do not, those of us who are condemned to live with those taurekarekas have to worry when our daughters, our sons, our mokos, and our families go about their lawful duties and activities. Will they fall prey to those locusts?

So yes, there is a small glimmer of hope in Murupara. I was at a tangi where I heard a Mr Goldsmith of Murupara, an elder who lived and worked with my Ngāpuhi relations in South Auckland. He explained very vividly the dilemma. How can they continue to live in Murupara without full access or recourse to the police? They do not want to take the law into their own hands. He gave a very good account.

I say to every marae and every Māori community that if they are not prepared to shun those people, they will infiltrate their communities and ruin their lives. It may not happen in the more leafy suburbs of Auckland, although Paul Holmes can give an account that would suggest something slightly different. Those of us who live in the provinces and see how those people live on a regular basis should mark my words. We need to take a very staunch approach to them and stop regarding them as our people. To me, that not only corrupts the notion that we as Māori want to celebrate kinship but it provides them with a new level of cover and camouflage.

Members of the Māori Party must step away from the moral ambiguity they have over this. They will not support this bill. I say: “Shame on them!” They should not come to this Chamber and give us lectures about how kaumātua and kuia are showing courage in the face of killers—because within those gangs are the killers of those teenage children—when they do not have the boldness or courage to support this bill. That is why I hope that the moral ambiguity the Māori Party has is fatal in a political sense. Kia ora tātau.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Before I call the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, I say that these are fine speeches, but I am trying to connect them to Part 3 of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill.

Hon Shane Jones: It’s gangs.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I know that. I have shown a great degree of tolerance and leniency in every part of the bill, but I ask members to address Part 3 at this stage in the debate.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : I commend you, Mr Chairperson, on your tolerance, and on the way in which I think you have let this debate flow somewhat more widely than being simply on Part 3, which deals with aggravating factors at sentencing. Items have of course been brought to the debate that I think require answers. Mr Jones, Mr Flavell, and Mr Garrett, I think, have made points that are relevant, as we deal holistically with the insidious nature of gangs.

I am taking a short call to address, as my colleague Mr Jones did, Mr Flavell’s speech. It was full of emotion, and quite rightly so. Although he talked about the aggravating factors that had occurred in Murupara, where communities had been put upon, and where fatalities had occurred, I must say, in addressing what he said, that he told the Chamber that he would not be supporting this bill—and, I assume, this part, Part 3, which deals with aggravating factors. Mr Flavell is essentially saying that it is OK for those on the marae to lead the charge, as he rightly pointed out. But he is also saying, I think, and as Mr Garrett alluded to, that it is OK for his leader to meet with gangs and somehow put gang leaders on a platform. There has been a lot of debate about that, of course, in the community: is it a good thing or is it a bad thing to see them eye to eye and to spend $6,500 of taxpayers’ money doing it? It is OK, of course, to have gangs expunged from the marae and shunned from it, and to have those good people in our communities take that fight to the gangs, but the Māori Party is not prepared to support this legislation, and Part 3 particularly, and in supporting this legislation to support their own communities—the kaumātua, the kuia, and the others who are out there on the front line, as Mr Flavell quite rightly points out, doing their bit. They do not have to spend $6,500 of taxpayers’ money doing it, but they are telling people to get off the marae. My colleague Shane Jones leant across and said to me that in terms of expunging gangs from the marae, up in his part of the world that was tried 20 years ago, yet we are no further ahead.

I say to the Māori Party that I would like a reason why it will not support this bill, why it will not support Part 3, and why that party thinks it is appropriate to posture here in the Chamber and leave the fight back home out there. This issue is cross-cultural. This is not just a Māori problem; there are predominantly white gangs. We can have a look at the Christchurch Press this morning and read about them in the Dominion Post. This is not about culture. Like Mr Jones, whether they be brown, white, or any other colour or creed, I do not consider members of gangs “our people”, our citizenry, or part of our community. They are thugs, murderers, and rapists; they are those who do immense harm to our community. So I would be grateful if, at least for the Māori Party’s own constituency, Mr Flavell could get up and tell us why the kuia, the kaumātua, and our communities are left to take the battle against the gangs back in the home patch and on the marae, and why, hang on, the Māori Party, which purports to represent all Māori—I think wrongly, because that is ridiculous—will not stand up and support a bill that I think has most, if not all, parties’ support to crack down on the insidious nature of gang activity.

I mean, how many young people have to be killed, young women raped, or young people put into a life of crime and enticed by drugs, alcohol, and the other things that are peddled by these gangs? What will it take for the Māori Party to get the message right and consistent, instead of giving the strong message in here but the weak message out there? That Māori Party leader cannot meet with gangs, have lunch with them, spend six and a half grand on them, and then go around telling everyone that it was a great cultural experience and part of giving the message to gangs. That happened in June, and Mr Garrett and other members have spoken of the fatalities that have happened since then. The gang activity has rolled on.

I believe we should not give gangs a platform of equal status to anyone—not just to politicians but to anyone in our community—because in doing so it is recognised that somehow and in some way gangs are legitimate. Whether gangs be white, Māori, Pacific Island, Asian, or whatever, their activities are insidious, they are not part of our culture or community, and they should never be recognised. I invite the Māori Party to respond.

Dr CAM CALDER (National) : I move, That the question be now put.

• Motion agreed to.

• Part 3 agreed to.

Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) : It is great to take a call on the title of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. I understand that there was some debate on the title when the bill was before the Law and Order Committee. There was some confusion amongst certain members of the committee about the fact that although gangs that offend are one type of organised criminal group, as the term is used in section 98A of the Crimes Act 1961, organised crime is, indeed, a wider concept.

The bill has application to organised criminal groups, including gangs, but the legislation is drafted with sufficient breadth to capture white-collar corporate fraudsters, and, indeed, any group of three or more people with a specified common unlawful criminal objective. Any person who participates in or with such a group will be criminally liable and will face a term of imprisonment of up to 10 years.

The title of the bill also recognises the strong link between gangs and organised crime in this country. For example, just under 75 percent of the clandestine drug laboratories discovered by police in 2007 were identified as being linked to recognised criminal gangs.

This bill was part of the Government’s first 100 days, and this has been a very busy Government under the leadership of Prime Minister John Key. It is my desire that this bill be brought into force this year in order to provide police with greater tools to combat gangs and organised crime in New Zealand.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : I will not take too much of the Committee’s time over what is a pretty simple debate on the title clause of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. I think the title is germane. The only question I would raise with the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Justice, Nathan Guy, who has failed throughout the Committee stage to address this question at all, is one of resources. I ask whether this legislation should be called the “Gangs and Organised Crime (But Do the Police Have the Resources to Do It?) Bill”. Equally, one could ask the Māori Party whether it has dropped the ball on this legislation. As I said in my speech a few moments ago, I fail to see how anyone can preach in this place about “taking the fight” out to the communities, then sell out the communities by saying it is up to them to get the gangs off the marae and out of the square, and to take the patches off the gangs, without backing the communities through legislation. The question before the Māori Party is why it is voting against this legislation.

The Associate Minister makes a good point in that the debate has centred around gangs. They are the most visible, if you will, element of organised crime in our communities. They wear the patches and are pretty naked in terms of their criminal ambition, but we know that there are criminals who wear expensive suits. There are criminals who shun any disinfectant in terms of the light of the law that might be put upon them. They do not want the profile; they want to get on with their activities. In fact, I am told by some law enforcement officers that those criminals deal to anybody who might go off in a maverick way and commit violence. They deal to them quite heavily because they do not want the profile. They do not want the police taking any notice of them. They want to appear to be low profile and unthreatening. They do not have the huge gang fortifications. In some places, I am told, they live in some of the most posh suburbs of New Zealand. They do not want law enforcement having its eyes on them. There are tools within this legislation that will give the police and law enforcement eyes or ears on those criminals in terms of surveillance.

It is worth noting, as others have, that organised crime is not confined just to what we might see when Television New Zealand does the “smash, bash, and crash” exposé, as it does from time to time when something tragic happens, because it is gang stuff. What we do not hear about, because it does not have the graphic violence that can be splashed on the 6 o’clock news, is the gang member or organised criminal in the suit who works behind the scenes but who is equally insidious because he or she is peddling drugs in a more sophisticated way. Those criminals do not have barbed wire up on the front fence. They may live in the leafy suburbs and we may not know exactly who they are, but they are as insidious and despicable as anyone who wears a physical patch and tattoos, whether they be white, brown, or any other colour or creed, and who goes around in a physically menacing way and is visible around our communities. So we support this title. We hope the bill will be backed up by appropriate resources.

We again ask why the Māori Party waves the white flag of surrender in here, leaving it up to the folks back home to lead the charge against organised crime, and does not support a bill that gives those communities the tools, through law enforcement, they need to back the kaumātua, kuia, and the organisations that are standing up and saying “Taihoa. We do not want these individuals here.” The question is why it is a case of lion in here and lamb out there. Why will the Māori Party not stand up and support this bill? Is it because the Māori Party has some sort of bizarre view, as Mr Flavell has said and Mr Jones pointed out, that these gang members and organised criminals are somehow “our people.”? Like hell they are. They are not our people, and they should be run out of town. They should be run out of town by the Parliament. We should not leave it to the kaumatua, kuia, and others to do our bidding for us.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I just make a comment here. I have been extremely tolerant. This is the debate on the title and commencement. The member went well beyond that, and, in a way, he has incited responses. But this is the title and commencement debate.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not want to debate the title and commencement. I had two shots and I have had two responses from two Labour members who have asked for a response. I want to make some comments in respect of the terminology—I definitely want to do that—but I want the chance to respond, if I could, and I will leave it at that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I gave some tolerance to members on the Labour side of Chamber; I have no option but to give the member some tolerance. But I will conclude the debate on those matters, and any subsequent efforts will be on title and commencement.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Kei te pai. Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Firstly, I will speak with regard to the terminology. If we ask most New Zealanders about the word “gang”, the notion that would come to the mind of most New Zealanders would be that of Black Power, the Mongrel Mob, maybe some bikie gangs, people on motorcycles, and that is about it. Carmel Sepuloni raised the issue of colours, and after talking with some people in this particular area I say that those people do not seem to be classed as gangs, in a sense. So I want to check with the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nathan Guy, about what he said a little bit earlier, by raising the point about the definition of gangs, how far and how wide that particular definition goes. Mr Cosgrove has raised the point of whether white collar crime fits into the notion of gangs, and there might be some catches. It might fit under the other part of the title of the bill—“organised crime”, and so be it. But I make the point that the connotation of “gangs” is around the notion of Māori gangs or those that, let us say, affiliate to those Māori gangs. That is the first point.

Mr Cosgrove raised the notion of the cost in finding solutions. I raise the point again that I had talked about at least one community taking an opportunity and that I supported them on that particular notion. That is what the Māori Party says.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Six and a half thousand bucks!

TE URUROA FLAVELL: I will come to the $6,500 shortly. If there was support to allow those communities to get on with those solutions, then we would be happy because that at least is dealing with the problem and will get away from going to the next part, which is the $6,500. Mr Cosgrove talks about the cost to the taxpayer, yet the end result of this bill will be to lock up more people, no doubt; therefore, there is a contradiction in what he is talking about in that regard.

The third point I would make is that already now in law there are opportunities for the police to move in on gangs. We know that, because that is exactly what happened in a number of scenarios that people will be well aware of. Sure, this bill might harden up the legislation and, sure, it extends certain terms, but the law as it stands at the moment is able to deal with those issues. I respond by saying that that is one line. The law is already there that can take care of those issues, so what do we do to deal with the situation afterwards? We are just breeding more and more and more of it.

The Māori Party approach is that we need to look at alternatives. That is not to say that we should not throw them into jail; I told the Chamber before that those who do the crime should do the time. There is no doubt about that. We do not have a problem with that. But we are saying that we should look at other solutions. At least one community has put its hands up over the issue and we hope that that spreads. It is not to say that Murupara has all the answers. It does not, but at least it is right for people there. Other places will have different solutions. The point about back-up, too, is exactly right. We hope that rather than put $6,000, or whatever, into sending a person to jail, we put $6,000 on issues of rehabilitation. That would be helpful; that would be really helpful.

Hon Shane Jones: Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Just before I call the member I say to members that my tolerance has been—

Hon Member: Exhausted.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): —exhausted and I will terminate the speech of any member not speaking now on the title and commencement. I say to members who want to continue this debate that this is a fine debate. The third reading is forthwith. I ask members to bear that in mind. If Mr Jones wants to make a contribution it must be on title and commencement.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 110/7, which states “When debating the preliminary clauses at the end, members should have some latitude to summarise, and make concluding remarks about, the issues they have raised during the committee’s consideration of the bill.” I do not want to challenge your ruling, because I think you have done very well in providing some latitude for members in the debate. I just want to ensure that members are actually given the opportunity in this to summarise comments and to respond to comments that have been made through the debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member is actually challenging me, but in a gentle way, and I am going to stand firm on what I have said. It is title and commencement from now on. I think we have got to the stage where both sides have been put, and we are having a third reading forthwith.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) : Thank you, Mr Chairperson, for observing some latitude; it was an impassioned issue. I would also like to acknowledge Te Ururoa Flavell. Both he and I are entitled to have our views recorded in the Chamber, and I respect the direction that he is coming from. I want that to be known because those of us who share common roots need to be of a common mind.

This is the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill, but I cannot resist the option of leaving the member with the feeling that the bill ought to be renamed. It ought to be renamed the “Māori Party Talks the Politics but Does Not Walk the Politics Bill”. The title reveals that the bill is not just about an ethnic problem; the problem, as we are warned, is how we respond as a legislature to organisations. The title of the bill contains the word “organised”; that requires a sophisticated response. We are also required to deal with the word “gangs”. Gang members want to have rights but not obligations, and that is probably where we differ from them. Unfortunately, I am unlikely to persuade a suitable number of people in the Chamber that the bill should have a new title. Therefore, as Labour is supporting the bill, we will tolerate the bill going forward with its current name, although we know that probably it could have been given a far more fitting moniker, given the contributions of some members of the Chamber.

• Clause 1 agreed to.

• Clause 2 agreed to.

• The Committee divided the bill into the Crimes Amendment Bill, the Local Government Amendment Bill, and the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3), pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper51.

• Bill reported without amendment.

• Report adopted.