Gangs and Organised Crime Bill

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) Link to this

I move, That the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill be referred to the Law and Order Committee for consideration, and for the committee to report back to allow enactment this year.

In August 2007 I announced that if National became the next Government it would make gang membership an aggravating factor in sentencing, strengthen the law that makes it an offence to be a member of a criminal organisation, make it easier for the police to intercept gang communications, and strengthen the ability of the police to remove and storm gang fortifications. The then Labour Government then revealed that it had developed a similar bill, which dealt with only the first two of those measures. That bill took another 11 months to be introduced in the House. The delay followed, in our view, an even longer hiatus in the previous Government’s policy to combat gangs that started in 2005, and was broken only, it seemed, by the drive-by shooting of a Wanganui toddler in May 2007. The lesson is that no Government can afford to get complacent when it comes to gangs.

The Gangs and Organised Crime Bill, which I have brought before the House tonight, fulfils the promise National made in 2007, and its first reading today fulfils the Government’s commitment to introduce the bill in its first 100 days. The bill amends section 98A of the Crimes Act 1961 to increase the penalty for participation in an organised criminal group, from a maximum of up to 5 years’ imprisonment to a maximum of up to 10 years’ imprisonment. The average prison sentence for this offence between 2004 and 2007 was 2 years. That does not adequately reflect the culpability of those gang leaders who organised serious criminal activity, such as methamphetamine manufacturing and distribution, without directly offending themselves.

The other side to this issue is the rate of successful convictions for participation in a criminal organisation under section 98A, which has historically been very low. From 2004 to 2007 there were 339 prosecutions, but only 19 convictions—a total of 5 percent. There are a number of reasons for this, in fairness, the first of which is the complexity of this provision. The second reason is the high evidential burden placed on the prosecution to prove the offence. The bill currently in its first reading before the House draws on case law to clarify the evidential requirements under that section, which should ease the burden placed on the Crown to prove that an accused participates in an organised criminal group. It is intended to result in more successful prosecutions for participation in an organised criminal group, without criminalising mere association—an extremely difficult thing to legislate for.

The bill also requires the sentencing judge to take into account any offending that is committed due to involvement with such a group as a specific aggravating factor at sentencing. Combined with a doubling of the penalty under section 98A of the Crimes Act and changes to the legal threshold, this amendment to the Sentencing Act should increase the penalties handed down to gangs.

However, this bill is not limited to the punishment of gang members. It also provides the police with tools to apprehend those who commit organised crime. The bill expands in two ways the ability of the police to undertake surveillance of gang communications. The first is by providing specific authority for the police to apply for an interception warrant to investigate the offence of participation in an organised criminal group. That, in turn, will disrupt organised criminal groups by capturing those who organise or facilitate illegal activity.

Secondly, the bill lowers the general threshold for those offences that can be used as the basis for interception warrants, from those attracting at least 10 years in prison to those attracting 7 years in prison, or more. This means that the police will be able to obtain interception warrants for a wider range of offences—such as car conversion, for example—and it sends a message to gangs that the net on their criminal activities is widening. This should enhance the prospects of successful prosecutions under section 98A of the Crimes Act.

The bill also provides that a removal order may be sought from a District Court in order to remove intimidating structures such as gang forts. For years fortified gang premises have concealed potential offending. The law currently allows the police or territorial authorities to seek court authorisation to remove these structures under the Local Government Act if they are connected to criminal activity or are intended to cause injury. The previous Government rejected law changes that would make it easier for the police to destroy gang fortifications, arguing that the current law “appears sufficiently broad”, yet it could not say how many gang forts had been stormed, and, strangely, in 2007 the law was removed as a key operational practice from the police statement of intent.

This Government argues that gang forts are not only a threat to public safety because they potentially cloak illegal activity, but also their very presence is threatening and makes a neighbourhood feel less safe. The Gangs and Organised Crime Bill will, therefore, give additional powers to have these structures removed if they are intimidating in nature.

Gang activity is insidious and, therefore, it requires a comprehensive, integrated response. The Gangs and Organised Crime Bill is but part of that response, by its providing more effective investigative powers and strengthening penalties. Although this bill is one of the first actions of this Government, it will not be our final action on gangs. I am determined that if we have the honour of serving the people for as long as the previous administration did, we will not wait until 10 days before the election to announce our sole law and order policy—which was, in the previous administration’s case, to establish a commission of inquiry on gangs. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this

Let me say from the outset that on this side of the House we share many of the Minister of Justice’s views in respect of the insidious nature of gangs. They are repugnant, their activities are repugnant, and the negative impact they put upon families, young people, and innocent members of our community needs to be dealt with.

That being said, we will support the referral of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill to the Law and Order Committee and give it close scrutiny. I have to say, though, as an aside, that there is an opportunity during a first reading debate, which we are now engaged in, to actually debate a bill. That is predicated on the fact that all members of Parliament, in Government and in Opposition, have access to the legislation so that they can read, chew over, discuss, and analyse it, and then make a constructive contribution on it to this House.

Phil Goff and others on this side of the House have said that as an Opposition, in respect of this bill, we will be constructive where things work and are appropriate, because it does a number of positive things. But I say to the Minister through you, Mr Assistant Speaker, that to drop a bill on the Table—and I think this is the fourth or fifth bill since this Government has been elected—an hour or less before a debate gives no one the opportunity to actually analyse it. I suspect that maybe the National Party members have had a chance to look at this bill—and Mr Borrows might be able to confirm or deny this—but no one else in the House has.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this

I appreciate the opportunity to take a call in support of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. It is interesting to hear the member who has just resumed his seat, Clayton Cosgrove, talk about this legislation’s being “dropped” upon the House. He has a very short memory if he can not think back to the emissions trading scheme legislation—that hallmark legislation from the last Parliament—and the 750 amendments that were dropped on the Finance and Expenditure Committee 2 days before the bill was due back before the House. One thousand amendments were dropped on the Committee of the whole House, and by that night the bill was law. That was not due process, and that was not giving people time to consider legislation before it was debated in the House, so that comment was pretty rich coming from him.

I want to focus the mind of the House on a couple of other things. One of them is that next Friday, on 20 February, is the sentencing of the offenders convicted of the murder of Jhia Te Tua. Next Friday the murderers of Jhia Te Tua will be sentenced in the court just across the road here—the High Court in Wellington. The legacy of that tragedy—and thank goodness there is one—is that it dragged the Labour Government kicking and screaming into a position where it was prepared to deal with gangs. In 2004 the police national gang strategy lapsed and was not replaced until the horrific death of Jhia Te Tua.

Out of that tragedy came legislation that we debated in the House last year that made a number of proposals. Some of them are replicated within the bill now before the House. So the House has actually previously debated this issue. We were on opposite sides of the House but we were generally in accord. We debated, for instance, the prospect of amending section 98A of the Crimes Act and how that would affect surveillance on gangs. We covered some of the points and we indicated to the House the National Party’s position; this legislation was on its way when we became the Government.

This legislation is crucial to allowing the police to move and take proactive steps in respect of combating gangs, as is the legislative change proposed to the Sentencing Act. If a person commits a crime as a gang member, no matter what it is, that person will get more of a penalty than if that person commits it as “Joe Citizen”. We need some real disincentives for people belonging to gangs, as well as offending as part of gangs.

The third piece of legislation that will be amended is the Local Government Act. The amendments will make it easier for the police to storm fortifications and rip them down. Sunlight is a fantastic disinfectant, as is the ability to look inside those gang headquarters to see and listen to what they are up to. Police will be able to prosecute gang members for those offences and get more severe penalties when they are eventually convicted. That ability is paramount in the mind of this Government and I am pleased and proud to be part of this bill.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) Link to this

As my colleague the Hon Clayton Cosgrove has said, Labour will be supporting the bill’s referral to the select committee. We are all very pleased that it is going to a select committee, because of course the bills we looked at before Christmas were not given the opportunity for the public scrutiny they ought to have been given. I do not know why the Government somehow seems to think that it is OK to introduce measures because they have been, perhaps, scrutinised in a different environment and under a different set of circumstances, or when they have not been subject to the degree of scrutiny one would expect of bills with significant changes to the law. I do not think it is a very good practice to do that, but this bill is going to a select committee.

My colleague makes a very good point, which is that when a bill is introduced under urgency it does not sit on the Table for the 3 days it normally would. Therefore, there is not the opportunity for the scrutiny and the discussion we all like to have in order to understand the particular features of a particular measure. I do not think that that is unreasonable—and the member on the other side of the House might laugh—but what goes around comes around, I guess. I do not want to enter into a debate as to who did what, when, how, and why, because of course we will always find examples where different Governments have taken a particular approach. But I am saying that when we change the criminal law—

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) Link to this

I am pleased to stand and speak on the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill and to support my most excellent colleagues the Hon Simon Power and Chester Borrows. I am totally supportive of our Government’s policy on gangs, which includes tougher penalties for membership of a criminal gang, expanding police surveillance powers in respect of gang communications, and providing greater powers to remove gang fortifications.

As chairperson of the Law and Order Committee I am delighted to hear that the Opposition is supporting the bill and is supportive of the content of the bill. We are looking forward to sharing those members’ expertise and knowledge in this respect and to progressing this bill to its final conclusion: to become very worthy legislation, totally supporting the police and the very important work they do.

In providing the police with these extra powers we can see them being able to take a greater stance against gangs. An example is their success in terms of their surveillance of the Killer Bees. The police have practically decimated that gang. I look forward to seeing this legislation being implemented so that they can do the same with the remaining gangs in this country. I look forward to the bill having the Opposition’s support in that regard.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this

First of all, I will address the matter of urgency, and I know that other members have done that this evening. The Gangs and Organised Crime Bill has not been made available to members of Parliament in such time that there can be any serious consideration of its provisions. In addition, it has not been made available to the public. The Green Party believes that this is an abuse of the parliamentary process and cannot be justified under any circumstances, especially given that we have heard that the Government members have had access to the legislation. It has been available to others in this House but not to Opposition members. That shows the lack of transparency that this Government is prepared to engage in.

It also shows a high level of mistrust of the public. The public are entitled to inspect the legislation that its legislators are to debate, and they expect us to make some serious consideration of its provisions. But for as long as the National Government refuses to make the legislation available even to the public, the public themselves are shut out from being able to understand the issues in the legislation and to make a contribution through their local representatives. It is a disgrace for a Government to have such a lack of transparency to the public, let alone to the parliamentary process.

Gang violence is extremely serious in this country, as it is everywhere. The community deserves to be protected. The community deserves to be safe in their homes and in their communities. There have been some terrible recent cases—for example, the man stabbed by a prospect while trying to protect a woman from violence, and the young man stabbed because of the colour of his kura T-shirt. There are other cases that are very well known and there are many other cases that Parliament and perhaps even the police do not know about—terrible acts of violence and crime that affect communities.

One of the concerns the Green Party has about this is that it is the working class communities that suffer the most from gang violence. It is not the wealthy who suffer but the working class—those who are already vulnerable and who are already on low incomes and have few resources to deal with the impact of this crime on them. These are the communities that have the least protection from the State, especially when it comes to economic and structural violence committed by the State. They also have to suffer from this violence committed by members of their own community, sometimes even their own families.

The Green Party will welcome any provisions that address the underlying causes of gang attraction for young people: poverty, under-education, and disempowerment. We welcome any provision that reduces violence committed by gangs. We welcome any provision that will enable the rehabilitation of gang members who are currently in prison, in order to reduce the recidivism rate. We support any provisions that will support the families of gang members—the children and partners of gang members—to break out of the violence and poverty cycles into which they have been trapped by structural, social, and personal circumstances.

So what does this legislation do? Well, let us have a look at a couple of the provisions. Of the two most significant provisions in the legislation—as far as we can tell, given the very short time we have had to look at it—one is about making interception warrants more readily available to the police. They are reducing the sentence provisions so that with crimes for which there could be a sentence of 7 or more years the police would be able to get an interception warrant if there is a suspicion that those crimes are being committed by an organised criminal group.

It is very difficult, without any evidence and without any time, to assess the extent to which this will make an appreciable difference to the powers of the police to access interception warrants. We simply do not know. It depends on the crimes that are involved. We simply have not had time to investigate that properly. There is very little useful information in the Government’s own papers. Those papers are very much policy papers. They are not really legislative papers. So we simply do not know. We will maintain an open mind about that when the bill goes to the select committee, which is a good thing, and will look at the usefulness or effectiveness of those provisions.

The other issue of serious concern, and which could be effective, but about which we will have a discussion, is increasing the term of imprisonment from 5 years to 10 years for those participating in an organised criminal group. First of all, that raises a question around groups or political organisations that are considered by the police to be criminal because they are subversive, or legitimate critics of political thought. We have had that problem before with the Tūhoe raids. A whole community was raided, identified as a terrible criminal community, but with absolutely no justification. Photos of children and families were splattered across the newspapers, and people were seriously damaged by the impact of that disgusting and disgraceful behaviour by the police.

Now we are giving the courts even more powers in terms of sentencing for members of those communities. Do we want the police to have that power? There is a big question about that. They have abused it in the past; why would they not abuse it again, if they find a community they do not like?

In addition, this provision will increase the prison muster. There will be increased costs on the taxpayer, and there simply has not been any proper cost-effectiveness analysis of the impact of increasing the prison muster, versus other kinds of sentencing opportunities or rehabilitation that will reduce recidivism and be more cost-effective. That would be a very useful piece of work to be done—particularly, by, say, the Auditor-General, who is very good at doing that kind of work, as we all know. But there is no evidence that it is cost-effective to increase the prison muster. Worst of all, simply increasing the length of a sentence will only increase recidivism. All of the research and evidence in New Zealand show that the longer that people are in prison, the more likely they will commit crime when they come out, and that the crime escalates. If people go in for a long time on a fairly minor charge, they are more likely to come out and commit a much higher-level crime, particularly crimes around violence.

If that is the case, if we have proof of that, why would the Government want to increase sentences and simply increase the chance of recidivism, and increase the likelihood that those persons will reoffend and that their reoffending will be more serious? It makes no sense. It is detrimental to community safety simply to impose longer sentences without other interventions at the same time. None of those matters is set out in this legislation.

If the causes of crime are not addressed, we will continue to have major crime issues in this country, and particularly around gangs because of the community connection, and the power and respect that often those people engender in their communities. Poverty is the single-biggest driver that leads young people to gangs, and in gangs young people can see the working class, older men with power and with respect. In gangs the young are provided with a comparatively safe environment in which to develop some levels of skills. They might be very antisocial skills, but none the less they are respected and there is comparative safety.

In gangs young people can advance. They can obtain some wealth. They can obtain some respect, but they do not get it from anywhere else in our community. There have been numerous examples of young people having had no other alternative but to find that respect and security in the gangs. There was a very good example when last year Alan Johnson from Manurewa described a league club in Manurewa that could not get enough money to keep its buildings in good enough repair to be able to support the young people who were involved in that club. They had 1,000 members, they had annual fees of $20, and they still had families who could not participate because it was too expensive. Those families had to choose between one child or the other being able to play league. Because those children got no support from elsewhere they had no other accessible participation that they could be involved with that would give them the kind of respect and dignity they were looking for. Where are they going to go?

Politicians will make political meals out of the tragedies of gang violence, but will do nothing to demonstrate the real leadership that our communities need in order to avoid those kinds of gang problems in the future. We need real leadership. We need to protect our communities. We need cost-effective rehabilitation programmes to be supported. A number currently exist in our jails—for example, Kia Mārama, Sycamore Tree, and faith-based units. We need to eliminate the poverty that blights those communities and drives them into gangs, as being the only option for them. We need warm, dry houses at least, for them to be able to live in. We need high-quality, truly free education for their children to participate in. We need affordable public transport so they can get to work, get to school, get to their community engagements. We need secure employment, but that was demolished by National in December of last year. We need secure employment that provides a living wage for families so they can care for themselves and each other, without having to resort to crime to find sufficient income.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) Link to this

I am happy to rise in support of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill, and I begin by saying I am happy to agree with two speakers on the Labour side. Ms Dalziel quite correctly said that the gang problem has morphed over recent years from men in stinking denims, with tattoos on their faces and elsewhere, into men in suits. That is true. They have moved more towards the Capone mob than they ever were before. I am happy to agree with Mr Cosgrove, who described gangs as a scourge on our society, because that is what they are.

The reason I was attracted to ACT is very simple. Its founding principle is that the first role of the State is the protection of its citizens—to protect its citizens and not to protect criminals. Sadly, that is where my agreement with the other side of the House ends. I believe that the concept of the protection of citizens rather than criminals was foreign to the previous Government. It let violent offenders out of prison, after serving just one third of their sentence, which William Bell, who had 102 previous convictions, roam around and kill Mary Hobson and three others.

I am very pleased that the new Government’s first 100 days has included emphasis on legislation to deal with these problems. I respectfully disagree with my colleagues on the National benches, who say that association laws are very difficult. I recall an exchange of correspondence between myself and that greatly respected éminence grise from the Labour Party, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, more than 20 years ago when he loftily informed me that we could not make laws to outlaw gangs, because no Western society had done so. I informed him—he did not bother to reply—that West Germany, as it then was, had successfully outlawed Fascist parties and that the Irish Republic had successfully outlawed the IRA. Neither of them was repressive, totalitarian regimes.

It is possible to pass non-association laws. If we talk to older policemen, we will hear that they used to go to the flying-jug hotel in every town—I think it was in Cambridge Terrace here in Wellington—pick out the guys who were subject to non-association orders, and lock them up. But then we started to say that, no, we could not do that because it was against people’s human rights. When we talk to retired policemen, they tell us that.

We support this bill as a good start. It is kind of ironic for me as I stand here that locals in my pub up in Kaukapakapa, who are mostly Labour voters, would say that this bill does not go anywhere near far enough and that we should have an “Extermination of Gangs Bill”. Those people are Labour voters, but crucially, they have mixed with those guys. They know what they are like. They know that the Mongrel Mob is not another kind of whānau. They know that what Metiria Turei was saying is simply nonsense.

Gangs are criminal organisations whose focus is making money. As Ms Dalziel has said, they are making a hell of a lot of money from P, and they are also making money from dope dealing, and from stealing cars, breaking them up, and selling them. They are making money from raping pāua beds and selling pāua to whomever. Sadly, with Asian gangs coming in, they are making money from contract killings, extortion, and protection.

Gangs are not whānau. They are not a rough version of the Lions club, as silly left-wing commentators used to say. We can differentiate in law between the Lions club and Black Power, the Hell’s Angels, or the Headhunters, just as the West Germans did and just as the Irish did. Sadly, my friends at the Kaukapakapa pub are wrong. An “Extermination of Gangs Bill” is not that simple—we all know that—and this bill is a demonstration of the complexity of the problem. It needs to be attacked on a number of fronts, and this bill talks about that, especially about interception warrants.

Ms Dalziel is absolutely right: the stupid fools who parade around barking like dogs and waving their blue scarves, or whatever they are—red is the colour of the other bunch of clowns, is it not—are probably too stupid to need interception warrants to be caught. But the P dealers, the Headhunters, and the Hell’s Angels—she is quite right—all keep quiet. They have nice houses in Herne Bay, they smile at their neighbours, and they help old ladies across the road. At Christmas time they have a nice run and collect teddy bears. But they are the really sinister ones. That is why we need these kinds of provisions to get into them, find out what they are doing, get the evidence, and lock them up for a very long time. None of these gangs are motorcycle clubs. As Ms Dalziel says, they have moved on a bit. But some of those old ones still exist.

I do not know how many members of the House have been in gang pads, but I have. A lot of gang members will say “We’re not a gang; we’re a club. See—MC, bro, MC: motorcycle club.” But that is nonsense. It is absolute nonsense. Another thing on the patch is “1%”. That is there because they claim, proudly, to be outlaws. That “1%” comes from a motorcycle association in California in the 1940s, when the whole gang thing and culture first started. That organisation came out and said that fewer than 1 percent of motorcycle riders were outlaws and law-breakers. So the gangs adopted the figure proudly and said: “One percent—you see, we’re outlaws.” That is what they are, and outlaws deliberately put themselves outside the law. They say: “We don’t give a stuff about your laws.”, or they say it in language a bit more fruity than that.

We should respond by saying that they are outside the law and are not entitled to the same rights as you are, Mr Assistant Speaker, or as I am, or as the members on the other side of the House are. They have fewer rights because of their behaviour—they are outlaws—and this bill is a good start. Those gangs are no more—even the motorcycle gangs, the prominent gangs. They used to be the Capone mob in stinking denims, but now the smart ones have moved on. They have given away the denims and they have bought the pinstriped suits—

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koe. Kia ora tātau e te Whare. I te tau kua hipa, i puta i a mātou o te Pāti Māori he īnoi ki te Whare, kia tika rā anō te whakahua i ngā ingoa Māori me ngā kupu Māori i roto i tēnei Whare. Āe, he mema hou te mema e kōrerohia ake nei, kāre au i pīrangi ki te whawhati i tana kōrero, engari ko tāku, he īnoi anō rā ki te Whare, kia tika rā anō te whakahua i ngā kupu Māori, kia tika, kia Māori mai. Kāore au i te pīrangi ki te whawhati i te kōrero a tēnei, kāo, engari i te tīmatanga o te tau, me whakaputa ēnei kōrero kia matua mōhio mai te katoa.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this

The member’s point of order is well made, and I am sure all members will acknowledge it. I think that it is a general reminder to members that we should pay our respects not only to the English language but certainly to the Māori language as well, and all do our best to pronounce the words as best we can. Kia ora.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I a tātau e kōrero nei i te take nei, anei au e noho i te āwangawanga, i te rangirua. E pēnei ana te kōrero i te mea, kāore e kore i ngā marama kua hipa kua rongo tātau katoa o tēnei Whare i te ngau ō-mate. Nō reira me pēnei rawa te kōrero, haere koutou, haere koutou, haere koutou, moe mai. Āpiti hono, tātai hono koutou ki a koutou, āpiti hono, tātai hono tātau e hui nei i tēnei rā, ngā mema o te Whare Pāremata, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau.

I mihia te hunga mate e Mr Assistant Speaker nā runga i te mea i ngā hararei kua hipa i nātatanei, i te wiki kua hipa ake, i rongo te hapori o Murupara i te matenga o tētahi o wā rātau tamaiti. Ko Jordan Herewini tōna ingoa. Tekau mā ono tōna pakeke. I kōhurutia e te mema o te kēnge kia mate. Whānakohia te waka a tētahi o te kēnge, taraiwa tika tonu atu ki tērā tamaiti, ka hinga, ka mate. Tekau mā ono noa iho ōna tau. Ko wai te hunga i kōhuru i a ia? He kēnge. He Māori i patu i te Māori. Nō reira, nei au e noho nei i te riri ki tērā tangata i kōhuru i tērā tamaiti. Anei au e noho i te whakamā, nā te Māori anō te Māori i patu. Anei anō au e noho i te pōuri nā runga i te pōuri o te ngākau ki ngā tamariki o tōna kura, tōna whānau, te tumuaki, ngā kaiako o tōna kura.

Anei au e noho i te rangirua, āe rānei me tautoko i tēnei pire, kāore rānei. Ki te Minita, he pai tonu te aronga o te pire nei. Āe, kia hāngai tonu ana ki te hunga e mahi nei i ngā hara o roto i te ao. Kai te whakaae atu au ki tērā. Engari, anei au e whakaaro ake nei, ka ngaki tērā i te mate o Jordan? Kāore pea, kāore pea. I mōhio au ki tēnei tamaiti a Jordan. Ko taku riri ki tērā tangata nāna tēnā i mahi. Engari, e hāngai tonu tēnei pire ki tērā? Te āhua nei, kāo. Kāore i eke ki tērā taumata.

Kua hōhā te ao Māori ki ngā mahi a ētahi o ngā kēnge. Āe, kua hōhā, kua riri ki ngā kēnge mō te mahi kōhuru, mō te mahi whānako, mō te mahi hokohoko tarutaru. Ko ngā kōrero o te mema i tū mai i mua i a au, āe, e tautoko ake. Engari, koia nei te rongoā? Ē kore pea. Ahakoa ko te ngākau kei te kī, āe, me tautoko. Ko te hinengaro kai te kī, taihoa. Taihoa ake nei. Āta wānanga i te take nei. Ehara i te mea he take ngāwari noa iho. He tamariki tō wētahi o ngā mema o ngā kēnge. He kuia tonu tō wētahi o ngā kēnge. He koroua tonu, he wahine tonu tā wētahi. Nō reira, kai te kōrero tātau mō te tangata, mō te tangata. Kai te kōrero tātau mō te whakapapa o te tangata, kaua ko te whakapapa o te kurī. Ko te whakapapa o te tangata pēnei i a koe, a koe, a koe, a koe, a koe, tātau, he tangata.

E kī ana i roto i te ao Māori: “He aha te mea nui o te ao? Māku e kī atu he tangata.” Nō reira kai roto i ngā kōrero o te ao Māori. Nō reira, tēnei take he take nui, whakaharahara, he take nui. Me kōrero ki te take ka tika.

Nā, arā anō ngā āwangawanga. Ko te ingoa o tēnei pire kai te kī, “Kēnge me ngā”, kāore au i te mōhio pēhea te whakamāori i ēnei kōrero engari, “organised crime”. Tērā kōrero. Ko te mate kē pēnei i taku kōrero ki te Minita i te rangi nei. Ko tēnei kupu o te “kēnge”, e ai ki tā te titiro o Aotearoa, hāngai tonu ana ki ngā kēnge Māori. Ki tā te titiro o Aotearoa, hāngai tonu ana tana titiro ki te kēnge Māori. Anei mātau e wānanga nei, arā noa atu ngā momo kēnge. Ūkuia tērā ingoa. Ūkuia tērā ingoa kia kore tēnei pire e rere tika tonu atu ki te āhuatanga o ngā Māori.

Kātahi. Ka rua. Kua rongo au i ngā kōrero a Metiria Turei, ko tana kī mai mō te āhuatanga ki a Tūhoe. Nui atu, roa atu i te kotahi tau te pīrihimana e mātakitaki atu ana e te pirihi. Pai mai, kino mai koinā te āhuatanga o te mahi. He aha te putanga mai? Katoa o te whārua o Ruātoki i rongo nei i te ngau o te pirihimana ahakoa, ehara nō rātou tētahi paku hē. Anei mātau e pātai nei i te pātai, ka pēhea te hunga e kōrerohia ake nei i roto i ngā kēnge? Ka pērā anō hoki rātou? Āe rānei, kāore rānei. Ā, tērā kōrero tērā. Ko tētahi pea o ngā tikanga e ai ki tā wētahi, tētahi o ngā tikanga o te kēnge, he utu te kōrero. He utu. Ka patua tētahi, ana, patua anō rā tētahi atu. Anei tātau e mahi nei i tērā mahi ki a rātau. Ko taua āhua anō rā. Ko te utu. Kāre e whakaaro ake mō te ngāwari kia puta mau rātau ki te whai ao, ki te ao mārama, kāo. Tīkina te kī, mahia te mahi, whiua ki te whare herehere. Tērā kōrero tērā.

Nō reira, kei te whakaae atu au, āe, he take nui te kēnge. Ko tāku e kī nei, kei roto i ō tātau ringaringa pea te rongoā. He aha te hē o te titiro ki tētahi huarahi kē atu? Kaua ko te utu engari, tērā pea ki ētahi huarahi e whai haeretia nei e te hapori o Murupara. I nāpōnei, i hui a Ngāti Manawa ki runga i tētahi o wā rātou marae ki Murupara. I reira, i kōrerohia te take nei. I puta te kōrero, karangahia he hui o ngā kēnge katoa o Murupara, kia hui tahi, kia kōrero tahi, ā, kua puāwai tērā moemoeā. Āpōpō ka tū te hui mō ngā kēnge o Murupara. Āpōpō. Ko tā rātau, ko te kimi rongoā i roto i a rātou anō. E kore ngā pirihimana e tae atu. Kore ngā mema pāremata e tae atu. Kua waiho ake mā te hapori anō te hapori e kōrero. Kua waiho ake mā Ngāti Manawa a Ngāti Manawa e kōrero. Kua waiho ake mā Ngāti Whare a Ngāti Whare e kōrero. Mā ngā kenge tērā e whakatika. Nō reira, kai te whakaae atu au ki tērā.

He aha te tikanga o tērā hui? Kia haere i raro i te korowai o te mana ōrite, arā, ko te “equal mana”. Ōrite te katoa o te hunga ka tae atu ki te hui. Engari, kotahi anake te aronga o tērā hui, ko te anga whakamua kia kore a patu, a whānako, a tūkino tāne ki te wāhine, tāne ki te tamaiti, tāne ki te tāne e whakatinatinahia i roto i tērā hapori o Murupara.

Nō reira hei kupu whakamutunga, ko te hunga ka mahi i wā rātau mahi nanakia, e te māngai, mēnā ka hē i raro i te ture, tukuna ki te whare herehere mēnā koinā te huarahi. Engari, e kore tēnei pire e whakatinana i te wawata, waiho ake mā te hapori anō te hapori e whakatika.

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) Link to this

I observe the irony of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill being rushed through the House, when the member responsible for it has indicated that it is to go to a select committee for the full period of 6 months. One might wonder why we had to wait until just before the House came together tonight to get a copy of the bill. One would think that he is trying to impress somebody; I do not know who.

If I could sum up this bill in one sentence, it would be that the National Government has wildly raised expectations on the issue of dealing with violent crime in New Zealand. The Labour-Progressive Opposition will support this bill, but it is not the silver bullet that National has promised it will be. It will not significantly reduce violent crime in New Zealand, as National has promised. It will not make a huge dent in crime, as National has promised most New Zealanders. The previous Government was already promoting this kind of legislation and would have passed something similar to this bill, but we would not have pretended—as National has—that this was a major part of what we needed to do.

I have no trouble in declaring that the major factors involved in crime should be on the wrong end of tough law. Gangs are a cause of crime, so we should be tough with them. We should be tough on all the causes of crime, as well. But there is one factor linked to crime that this Government does not mention in this bill and does not talk about. One factor is linked to 60 percent of all the people who are arrested for criminal acts. Can Government members tell us what that factor is, or even say the word that is common to the majority of all crime in New Zealand? It is not gangs, and it is not methamphetamine or P. Both of those are serious threats that need to be dealt with, of course. But if a party is serious about them, then logically it should be much more serious about a much more common cause of crime. What is that common factor? It is alcohol abuse, and 60 percent of all those arrested in New Zealand are under the influence of alcohol at the time when the offence for which they have been arrested was committed—60 percent. No other factor comes even close to that. Because the Government will not even mention that alcohol is involved in the committing of most crime, it will not do anything about 60 percent of those who are offending.

If this bill is passed before the National members have dealt with the low-hanging fruit, before the biggest factor in crime is dealt with, then they are not serious about crime. They are joking. They have raised expectations, which will ultimately disappoint people, and those members will be held up to ridicule. The National members made a big issue out of crime when they were in Opposition. I am not going to quickly forget their pledges to seriously reduce the rate of violent crime. I remember John Banks coming in as the Minister of Police and saying he would end all violent crime within 3 weeks of the Aramoana massacre; we did not hear much more from John as the Minister of Police after that. The National Party promised that if elected, a National Government would put an immediate end to the kind of violent crime that terrorised shopkeepers in South Auckland. I ask members to remember those shopkeepers and the Indian community being terrorised by attacks in those neighbourhoods. How much neighbourhood crime is linked to the sudden proliferation of liquor outlets there? How much is linked to the low drinking age, which lets teenagers buy as much alcohol as they want in nearly every corner of those suburbs? This bill will not tackle that. Alcohol abuse is not even mentioned in it.

The National Party made promises such as the one about significantly reducing violent crime. Having raised expectations, this Government is now accountable if it does not deliver on them. The Government should not necessarily be culpable for all violent crime, of course, but the National Party has made it that way. It promised the New Zealand public that it would make a difference. Here is item No. 4 in National’s blueprint for change from August last year: “National knows New Zealanders are sick of worrying about the surging levels of violent crime in this country. We are not going to put up with it. So National will launch a full-frontal attack on gangs and the ‘P’ trade they support.” OK, so National is passing the law that it said it would pass. I say “Good on its members for doing that.”, but now the acid is on Simon Power and John Key. This is National’s full-frontal assault on gangs and the P trade, and if it does not deal effectively to the surging levels of crime that National knows New Zealanders are sick of, then National will be held accountable for that failure.

Mr Key said over and over again on stages and in TV debates that the major problem is the gangs, because the gangs make P and P is the major cause of crime. He said that when his party took office, it would pass this bill and violent crime would be significantly reduced. It is remotely possible that he may be right. I hope the bill really does make a huge difference—who would not? That is why I and the Opposition are voting for this bill. We absolutely want any bill of this kind to be successful, but I am not actually naive enough to make the promise Mr Key and his National candidates made up and down the country that they would significantly reduce violent crime. Mr Key said in his speech on 29 January last year “Violent youth crime is at an all-time high. Robbery is up. Grievous assaults are up. Aggravated robbery is up. Youth criminals are graduating from petty crime to more serious crime; unexploded time-bombs on a fast-track to Paremoremo.” Will this bill make a major difference to that? I tell members not to hold their breath. Mr Key wildly over-promised, and now National is under-delivering.

I ask Government members here in the Chamber whether violent crime will be significantly reduced as from the date of the passing of this bill. Will that be virtually the end of it being in the headlines? I suggest that the answer is an unequivocal no. Are those members confident that they have fixed crime? Do they still want to tell New Zealanders that they will significantly reduce violent crime, as they promised on the hustings? I wish this bill could have that effect; I do not believe it will. Every violent crime from now on will show the failure of this key promise of National’s members that they could stamp out violent crime by targeting gangs. They have raised expectations far beyond what they can deliver on, never mentioning in the bill the key drug abuse that causes and is associated with the overwhelming majority of crime in New Zealand. Alcohol abuse is not mentioned. Are those members really serious? It seems to me that they have raised expectations far beyond what they can deliver on, and thus they have failed, and will fail, the communities that they promised to protect.

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Associate Minister of Justice) Link to this

I am very pleased to support the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill in the House today. The National Government is not afraid to walk the talk and get tough on crime. What a curious speech we have just heard! Is the compelling proposition in the mind of the Hon Jim Anderton that we should outlaw alcohol? Is that where that argument might take him? New Zealanders deserve to feel safe in their homes and in their communities. I would say we listened for too long as the Labour administration talked the talk over gang violence. Its failure to walk the talk has allowed the P trade to flourish in New Zealand.

The police have told us that the abuse of drugs is a factor in a substantial proportion of offending. The effects, of course, spread across many dimensions of our society, with social, economic, and technological consequences. Those social costs include family breakdown, relationship problems, and neglect of children. The personal costs include methamphetamine-related psychosis, psychological disorders, and general cognitive damage. The cost to society has been cited by some in the alcohol and drug sector as a lost generation of P users whose dependence on, and heavy use of, methamphetamine has made them socially dysfunctional. That, of course, has led to many other problems that society is left to deal with.

The rise in methamphetamine and associated offending presents a significant challenge for the police, with the discovery of more clandestine laboratories each year, and offenders committing crimes to feed their addiction. In 2007, just under 75 percent of clandestine drug laboratories were identified by the police as being linked to recognised criminal gangs. I guess there are those who naively believe that New Zealand gangs will eventually self-destruct through their exposure to methamphetamine and P, or that senior members may actively discourage their own offspring from following in their footsteps, but the reality is that for every gang member who leaves, there are many disenfranchised and alienated youths ready to take up the colours.

Our police officers deserve to have effective tools to fight this scourge on our society. As we saw only too clearly last year, undercover police work is dangerous. These legislative changes will expand police surveillance powers in respect of gang communications. The changes will also introduce tougher penalties for membership of a criminal gang and provide greater powers to remove gang fortifications. Amending the Sentencing Act will ensure that it will be considered an aggravating factor when an offender has committed an offence wholly or partly because of his or her participation in an organised criminal group. An amendment to the Local Government Act 2002 will enable a District Court to order the removal of gang fortifications.

Unlike what the previous speaker has said, these are practical, specific, and measurable initiatives designed to achieve results, and National is happy to be measured on that basis. New Zealanders deserve to feel safe in their homes and communities, and our Government is wasting no time to walk the talk and look after them.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. The issue of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill elicits all sorts of responses from the Māori community. We have heard one response from the Māori Party, although I must say that I am unsure whether the party will back this bill or stand aside from it. Hiding behind the Māori language and providing unwanted cultural remedies to a multigenerational problem of criminalities will not, at the end of the day, cut the mustard. It is disappointing that this bill has been brought forward in such an ad hoc and almost furtive manner and that it will sit in a select committee for 6 months. It is part of a cynical attempt to hoodwink both Pākehā and Māori—all segments of the community—into thinking that fantastic things are happening as the hot air balloon goes around the political globe in 100 days. Air is disappearing as they speak.

Let us just go back to my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell with a very simple question. Does he stand in the Māori community as an unremitting, unrelenting foe against gangs, or is he an apologist? Any group that organises its young people and its women through menace and fear to continue criminality will never, ever be saved through tikanga Māori, singing “Kumbaya”, or any other soft approach. These people see softness as an invitation to continue their menace. When these people hear that they are not welcome on the marae any more, they giggle. They will go wherever they like and do whatever they like until they meet ringa kaha—the hard, solid fist of law and order. That is why I am happy to see this bill go to a select committee.

However, it damages the reputation of this House that the bill arrives in a fashion that is surrounded by furtiveness. Gang culture thrives partly through the profit motive. If people cross the gangs, they mark them. They mark them because they are a threat to their established order, which is based, No. 1, on scaring the wits out of the community; and, No. 2, on recruiting through showing that down Easy Street lies easy money and easy fame, but also hardship for the victims of those who perpetrate the crimes on Easy Street. That is why we should have no tolerance of them. We should not normalise them. We should not use kinship or culture as a basis for explaining their ills. If they want to behave like criminals they should be stripped of the Māori cloak and treated as the most dangerous, menacing form of criminals, which exist to kill, maim, rob, and be villains. Somehow or another, we are told that at the end of the day that will not solve the problem. Why? It is not because of 100 years of colonisation—which is the reason parroted by the various speakers from the Māori Party—but because in our communities people exist who are so disconnected from the institution of work and regular education that simply locking them up has proven to create a new recruitment ground, à la Ngāwhā prison. The Department of Corrections has a great deal of explaining to do, and I look forward to the Minister of Corrections coming back to the House to explain why a successful drug ring is operating from one of our main prisons.

That is the dilemma for those of us from the Māori community: to take a hard line, but also to realise that the problem will continue to exist. I say to the Māori Party and to our colleagues here that the problem has to be smashed on both the supply side and the demand side. This bill should go to a select committee. It should be the subject of great submissions. It should build on the fact that it is largely a plagiarism of what Labour was going to do anyway. It actually filches all sorts of very sensible ideas that have been subject to great community consultation and that will allow the Minister, Simon Power, to build on those foundation blocks.

Of course, the big test that the new Minister of Education has to face is what interventions there are for teenagers and the kids of gangs to ensure that a better pathway is made available to them so that they choose not to follow their parents and grandparents into that gang culture. They will follow them for as long as they are menaced and threatened, and for as long as we allow them to live in this false, detached world. As long as we, the community, fear them or are unwilling to have them face the full consequences of their fearmongering and their menace, they will continue to take us for a ride. Let us consider a bit of the Old Testament. “Utua te kino, ki te kino. Mehemea he pai tō whakaaro māku koe e awhiawhi.”

[A villainous deed must be repaid in kind. If your intention is favourable I will embrace you.]

If one does a villainous deed, then one will meet the full force of the law. If, however, one wants to redeem oneself, anei te ringa—here lies the hand to help one on the way.

So I say yes to education, but also to an iron fist reminding people that they cannot use the cloak of Māoridom to conceal criminality and to continue gang culture, which is a blight as much on Māoridom as it is on the rest of the community. Kia ora tātou katoa.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) Link to this

It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill, which will provide a greater range of tools to combat and punish gangs in the future. I say that anything along the road towards a tougher response to gangs has to be commended. I agree with the Hon Shane Jones, who said that this bill provides the hard, solid fist on law and order that is required. I say with respect, as a young, new, inexperienced member, that his speech had some touches of brilliance and it clearly marks him out as a leader of his party in the future.

I will briefly make a couple of points on specific matters in this bill. I have some familiarity with section 98A of the Crimes Act, having been involved in prosecutions based on it on a number of occasions. One such occasion involved the prosecution of a multiple number of accused persons in a trial in the Bay of Plenty. It was a case involving a shoot-out between several members of two rival gangs who were charged with offences under section 98A. None of those gang members were convicted. It was clear to me at that time that the provision was too hard to get convictions under—too complex, too hard to prove, and not worth pursuing—and I suspect this has been the experience of many a prosecutor in this nation. This bill goes towards addressing that issue, and I welcome that. The amendment to section 9 of the Sentencing Act in relation to aggravating factors that makes being a gang member an aggravating factor at sentencing is also all to the good.

I agree with the Hon Shane Jones that gangs peddle misery. We need to have the hard, solid fist of law and order here, and I believe that this bill will make very positive steps indeed towards doing that.