Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — First Reading 
Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1098] 
Gangs and Organised Crime Bill 
First Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 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) 
: 
 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. 
Hon Simon Power 
: That’s not true. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The Minister says that is not true. Mr Borrows might be able to confirm that. The best we have been able to get after a couple of phone conversations in the last 24 hours is for the Minister to produce a weighty document of one page and about three lines. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: That was for Gerry. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Quite possibly. No it is not in big print. A summary of one page and three lines has been distributed to members of the Opposition and it is exceptionally vague. 
The summary talks about how in this gangs legislation there will be additional powers as the Minister has illustrated to have gang fortifications removed if they are intimidating in nature but the summary the Minister delivered to us this morning does not even define what intimidating means. I have read it. I had a quick look at it as soon as it came out as have my colleagues. 
I ask the Minister through you Mr Assistant Speaker if this is such a big issue within the community—and it is—and if this is such flagship legislation for the Government why on earth he did not do what is normal: put it on the Table for 3 days and allow all members of Parliament to actually have a number of statutory days as they are entitled to to read and analyse the bill so that we could make a contribution on it. He says his own caucus has not even seen the legislation. I am sure Mr Borrows has a particular view about that. He will not articulate it tonight I am sure. 
The question is why the Minister dropped the bill on the Table with an hour’s notice unless he himself is not convinced that it will work unless there is something hidden in it that we do not know about—but that will be unveiled at the select committee; he can take my word for that—or unless it is a case of a rushed “tweak a bit here tweak a bit there” draft of a political pamphlet to try to convince the people that the Government is getting tough on crime as it did with the Bail Act when actually there is not a lot to this bill. The select committee will examine all those issues. 
I say to the Minister that he is making a habit of doing this. He has two other bills on the Table tonight—the DNA bill and the $50 an offence bill—that members of Parliament have been given no time to scrutinise. I think 60 minutes is what we have had. And we have to ask why that is if these are such critical issues to the community—and they are. Maybe the Government does not want the scrutiny but the public will get the chance to scrutinise the bill. We are assured of that because Opposition members will— 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It’s going to a select committee. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am sorry I could not hear the interjection from “Paris Hilton” over there but he did interject on me. We on this side of the House will ensure that the public get the right to have input on this bill. 
The Minister talked about Labour’s record in Government. Well I will give the Minister a few statistics. In 2007 police made 6134 arrests of persons with identified gang connections and brought over 26000 charges against them. That was in 2007. 
The Minister said there are a number of complex issues in this bill. For instance he said there is complexity in many of the provisions. He said quite rightly that legislating for association is exceptionally difficult. Yet he will not give anybody any time within this House in this first reading to actually scrutinise it. One wonders whether he was drafting in the dead of night last night to try to cobble the bill together. This is not the way to make decent law. For urgency to be called on the first reading of a bill that is being sent to a select committee is quite remarkable and strange. 
I will give the Minister another couple of items on the last Government’s record in power. It was the Labour Government of course that was increasing prison sentence lengths for those belonging to criminal gangs and was improving police surveillance powers over those gangs through the Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill which was awaiting its second reading. It was when Labour was in power that the police announced that the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand would receive 35 more staffing positions bringing it up to a total of 58. During the last parliamentary term 1250 additional police staff were added. The police now have 234 dedicated staff in organised crime units made up of 40 squads around New Zealand. The Minister might deride and try to put the boot in to the last Government’s record—I suppose that is his job as he sees it—but the increase in resources and staffing on the ground with 40 squads to deal with organised crime has had a real and practical effect. It is at the coalface not in this Chamber where one actually fights crime. 
In Government we introduced the Search and Surveillance Powers Bill to allow for more explicit powers for enforcement agencies to search computers and seize electronic data and streamlined examination orders for law enforcement agencies. We know that gangs are not what they were 20 or 30 years ago. In some cases the baseball bats have been replaced by computers cellphones and text messaging P and other drugs and the use of young people to traffic those drugs and substances. Through organised crime and money-laundering there are now more sophisticated ways to attempt to mask and dispose of those funds. 
I say to the Minister that we will be constructive in respect of this bill but he is getting a reputation. I invite him or one of his colleagues to give us an explanation. Somebody may correct me but I do not think there has been a Government or a Minister that has dropped more bills in the House with zero notice to members of Parliament—including now he tells us his own caucus. There have been three bills tonight and there were two before Christmas—that makes five. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: His nickname used to be “Due Process”. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes well he is a lawyer. I believe that he probably agrees with due process but I would be very interested to know— 
Sandra Goudie 
: We’ve got to catch up on 9 years—9 years of nothing. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Ms Goudie is chair of the Law and Order Committee which this bill will proceed to. I would be very interested to get an explanation. I say to Mr Power that I think the House is owed an explanation as to why these bills have been dropped on all members of Parliament with zero notice. If he wants an Opposition to be constructive then he has to play the game and be fair and he has to allow for due process in this House. 
I conclude by saying that I agree that gangs as with all organised crime are a scourge on our society. I agree that if we can toughen up and use new measures then we should implement those as long as they work and are practical. Before Christmas my leader Annette King—the deputy leader—and I had interaction with the South Australian Government and we have been looking very carefully at its gang legislation. The Attorney-General of South Australia has worked for 3 years with the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General—which is the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s group—in formulating that anti-gang legislation. It appears from initial reports and from having talked to the Premier as recently as last week that it is working and working well. So we are looking at innovative ideas that have been developed very recently across the Tasman. 
I think even Mike Rann the Premier of South Australia and his Attorney-General whom I know well gave the Opposition in their Parliament the courtesy and respect of due process to examine that legislation which indeed is quite controversial in Australia. It deals very heavily with anti-association issues in that non-association orders can be put upon individuals who are in deemed organisations. 
We will support this bill but I say to the Minister that it would be nice and it would be appropriate to give members an explanation—and I am sure the community listening would also like an explanation—as to why these bills have been dropped on the Table with no notice. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 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) 
: 
 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 
: Or not do anything for 9 years. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Well actually we did not introduce a lot of laws under urgency. For us to do that was on a very rare occasion indeed. Most of the laws we introduced over those 9 years—and this will definitely stand some scrutiny and checking by the Bills Office—lay on the Table for the 3 statutory days. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: And went to a select committee. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: And they went to a select committee. This bill is going to a select committee but I do not think that anyone should completely underestimate the lack of opportunity for an Opposition to properly scrutinise the content of the legislation. I honestly believe that it is nice to see the pre-Christmas desire to get things passed through all stages somehow now taking a back seat but I wonder whether Mr Key is actually regretting his “100 days of action” promise because those who are interested in the process of Government are very concerned at what are smoke-and-mirror measures so that action is seen to be done rather than actually being done. 
Gangs have been a problem that successive Governments have had to confront ever since I have been here. I have been a member of Parliament since 1990 and I remember in that first term in office the huge debates that were held with Jim Bolger as the Prime Minister of New Zealand and Mike Moore as the Leader of the Opposition constantly battling over the issue of the then Government’s response to gangs. So I do not think anyone should pretend that this is a brand new issue that suddenly somehow needs to be addressed immediately after the holding of an election. 
But I think that the Government has failed to recognise that many gangs have fundamentally changed the way they operate. The underlying criminality of course behind their activities has not changed at all but a lot more gang members are wearing suits today than in the 1990s. They do not all hide behind intimidating gang-like structures but I can tell members that where they do live is equally impenetrable. Any law to rip down gang structures does not actually give us access to the property as Chester Borrows somehow seems to think. What it does do is deal with the outer vision of the problem without dealing with the underlying problem. It does not matter whether they are hidden behind intimidating gang-like structures or whether they are hidden from public view because their activities are essentially underground and they want to stay out of view. 
The amount of money involved in the trade in P far exceeds anything these gangs were ever able to extract from marijuana—way more. Why do members think gang members are suddenly wearing suits and driving around in cars instead of on the traditional Harley Davidsons? It is essentially because they are not out there causing the kinds of public mayhem they may have been involved in in the past—some of the gangs are but many are not—and the reason they are not out there causing those kinds of public mayhem is that they do not want the close police scrutiny that that obviously causes. The reason they do not want that is that it is far more lucrative for them to be involved in those underground nefarious activities than it is to be exposed to the kind of scrutiny the police would bring to bear. Gangs want their customers to be able to come and go as they please and they want to stay out of the public eye. 
That is one of the reasons why the previous Government said it would establish a commission of inquiry into organised gangs. It was not to be the starting point of the Government’s policy on organised crime. Rather it was necessary to wrap up the work we had already done by bringing in the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand. We had introduced new search and surveillance measures. We had anti - money laundering provisions in front of the House and further strengthening of the proceeds of crime legislation not to mention the Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill which is on the Order Paper awaiting its second reading. 
 I ask the Minister why he does not progress that bill now—immediately. We are introducing a new bill when we have a bill already on the Order Paper that could proceed through all of its stages. It has been to a select committee. That level of scrutiny has been done. It is a bill that we could see immediate action on but we see a Government really wanting to be seen to be doing things rather than actually doing things. So I do not really buy the argument that this bill is the immediate priority when we have bills already in front of the House. 
There is another bill that the Minister I know has been supportive of which is the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill. That is something that could be progressed to a select committee. But I was surprised and shocked—stunned really—to find that it was not in the list of bills that we were going to deal with in this urgency motion because it feels to me that if we are looking at the whole issue of crime then we must see that alcohol lies at the heart of many of the challenges that are faced in our communities. 
In terms of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill which we are discussing at the moment as I have said—and as I think the Minister himself has accepted—many of the policies were in place with bills that the previous Government put in place. But it is really of concern to me that we have legislation brought to the House when we have not had time to give it the consideration it deserves. Yes the bill will go to a select committee and yes it will then be subject to the kind of scrutiny we want but I am slightly concerned that the Government seems to be addressing what the bill looks like from the outside. The bill almost feels like window dressing to me and it does not really tackle the depth of the problems we face with gangs. That is why I thought a commission of inquiry was such a positive suggestion by the previous Government because it really would have enabled the depth of scrutiny that simply is not available when we look just at the very narrow parameters of a bill that has been introduced into Parliament. So I encourage the Government in the context of this bill to reconsider its position on the previous Government’s announcement of a commission of inquiry. I do not personally think it would do any harm to have a commission of inquiry into organised criminal gangs in the context of proceeding with this legislation. 
Sandra Goudie 
: All hui no doey. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The member Sandra Goudie chips in and I think proves the ignorance of the argument which is that there is a complete lack of understanding of the nature of the changes that have occurred in criminal activity. I think that the Labour Government finally really came on board with that with the establishment of the Organised and Financial Crime Agency and by understanding that the establishment of the Serious Fraud Office really took away those police officers who were able at a very high level to investigate organised crime into the sphere of financial crime. There has been a real disservice done by this incoming Government in not pursuing that particular policy of the previous Government because I think it was on the right track—a real beef-up of the resources of the police in this area and a focus on what is now the serious financial and organised crime associated with gangs who have pulled themselves apart from the old gang culture that I think we would all recognise but that now is very much a more insidious and pervasive part of our society. So I ask the Government to consider that in the context of this legislation. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 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) 
: 
 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 Tuhoe 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 1000 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 Marama 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) 
: 
 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 whanau. 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 paua beds and selling paua to whomever. Sadly with Asian gangs coming in they are making money from contract killings extortion and protection. 
 Gangs are not whanau. 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— 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I notice that my leader the leader of our gang has entered the House but I cannot reveal our initiation rites here! 
But Ms Dalziel is correct: it is the ones in suits we have to fear and it is those gangs that this bill is targeting with interception warrants. The bill is a good start and we are proud and pleased to support it. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Tena koe. Kia ora tatau e te Whare. I te tau kua hipa i puta i a matou o te Pati Maori he inoi ki te Whare kia tika ra ano te whakahua i nga ingoa Maori me nga kupu Maori i roto i tenei Whare. Ae he mema hou te mema e korerohia ake nei kare au i pirangi ki te whawhati i tana korero engari ko taku he inoi ano ra ki te Whare kia tika ra ano te whakahua i nga kupu Maori kia tika kia Maori mai. Kaore au i te pirangi ki te whawhati i te korero a tenei kao engari i te timatanga o te tau me whakaputa enei korero kia matua mohio mai te katoa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings. Greetings to us the House. We the Maori Party made a plea to the House last year for Maori names and words to be pronounced correctly when used in the House. Yes the member referred to here is new and while I did not wish to interrupt his address it is timely to make that plea once again at this point that the House make an effort to ensure that Maori words are pronounced correctly and made to sound like Maori.  
I do not wish to interrupt this one’s address no indeed but it is the beginning of the year and these statements should be made to ensure that everyone is aware of the matter 
.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: 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 Maori language as well and all do our best to pronounce the words as best we can. Kia ora. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I a tatau e korero nei i te take nei anei au e noho i te awangawanga i te rangirua. E penei ana te korero i te mea kaore e kore i nga marama kua hipa kua rongo tatau katoa o tenei Whare i te ngau o-mate. No reira me penei rawa te korero haere koutou haere koutou haere koutou moe mai. Apiti hono tatai hono koutou ki a koutou apiti hono tatai hono tatau e hui nei i tenei ra nga mema o te Whare Paremata tena koutou tena koutou kia ora tatau. 
I mihia te hunga mate e Mr Assistant Speaker na runga i te mea i nga hararei kua hipa i natatanei i te wiki kua hipa ake i rongo te hapori o Murupara i te matenga o tetahi o wa ratau tamaiti. Ko Jordan Herewini tona ingoa. Tekau ma ono tona pakeke. I kohurutia e te mema o te kenge kia mate. Whanakohia te waka a tetahi o te kenge taraiwa tika tonu atu ki tera tamaiti ka hinga ka mate. Tekau ma ono noa iho ona tau. Ko wai te hunga i kohuru i a ia? He kenge. He Maori i patu i te Maori. No reira nei au e noho nei i te riri ki tera tangata i kohuru i tera tamaiti. Anei au e noho i te whakama na te Maori ano te Maori i patu. Anei ano au e noho i te pouri na runga i te pouri o te ngakau ki nga tamariki o tona kura tona whanau te tumuaki nga kaiako o tona kura. 
Anei au e noho i te rangirua ae ranei me tautoko i tenei pire kaore ranei. Ki te Minita he pai tonu te aronga o te pire nei. Ae kia hangai tonu ana ki te hunga e mahi nei i nga hara o roto i te ao. Kai te whakaae atu au ki tera. Engari anei au e whakaaro ake nei ka ngaki tera i te mate o Jordan? Kaore pea kaore pea. I mohio au ki tenei tamaiti a Jordan. Ko taku riri ki tera tangata nana tena i mahi. Engari e hangai tonu tenei pire ki tera? Te ahua nei kao. Kaore i eke ki tera taumata. 
Kua hoha te ao Maori ki nga mahi a etahi o nga kenge. Ae kua hoha kua riri ki nga kenge mo te mahi kohuru mo te mahi whanako mo te mahi hokohoko tarutaru. Ko nga korero o te mema i tu mai i mua i a au ae e tautoko ake. Engari koia nei te rongoa? E kore pea. Ahakoa ko te ngakau kei te ki ae me tautoko. Ko te hinengaro kai te ki taihoa. Taihoa ake nei. Ata wananga i te take nei. Ehara i te mea he take ngawari noa iho. He tamariki to wetahi o nga mema o nga kenge. He kuia tonu to wetahi o nga kenge. He koroua tonu he wahine tonu ta wetahi. No reira kai te korero tatau mo te tangata mo te tangata. Kai te korero tatau mo te whakapapa o te tangata kaua ko te whakapapa o te kuri. Ko te whakapapa o te tangata penei i a koe a koe a koe a koe a koe tatau he tangata. 
E ki ana i roto i te ao Maori: “He aha te mea nui o te ao? Maku e ki atu he tangata.” No reira kai roto i nga korero o te ao Maori. No reira tenei take he take nui whakaharahara he take nui. Me korero ki te take ka tika. 
Na ara ano nga awangawanga. Ko te ingoa o tenei pire kai te ki “Kenge me nga” kaore au i te mohio pehea te whakamaori i enei korero engari  
“ 
organised crime 
”.  
Tera korero. Ko te mate ke penei i taku korero ki te Minita i te rangi nei. Ko tenei kupu o te “kenge” e ai ki ta te titiro o Aotearoa hangai tonu ana ki nga kenge Maori. Ki ta te titiro o Aotearoa hangai tonu ana tana titiro ki te kenge Maori. Anei matau e wananga nei ara noa atu nga momo kenge. Ukuia tera ingoa. Ukuia tera ingoa kia kore tenei pire e rere tika tonu atu ki te ahuatanga o nga Maori. 
Katahi. Ka rua. Kua rongo au i nga korero a Metiria Turei ko tana ki mai mo te ahuatanga ki a Tuhoe. Nui atu roa atu i te kotahi tau te pirihimana e matakitaki atu ana e te pirihi. Pai mai kino mai koina te ahuatanga o te mahi. He aha te putanga mai? Katoa o te wharua o Ruatoki i rongo nei i te ngau o te pirihimana ahakoa ehara no ratou tetahi paku he. Anei matau e patai nei i te patai ka pehea te hunga e korerohia ake nei i roto i nga kenge? Ka pera ano hoki ratou? Ae ranei kaore ranei. A tera korero tera. Ko tetahi pea o nga tikanga e ai ki ta wetahi tetahi o nga tikanga o te kenge he utu te korero. He utu. Ka patua tetahi ana patua ano ra tetahi atu. Anei tatau e mahi nei i tera mahi ki a ratau. Ko taua ahua ano ra. Ko te utu. Kare e whakaaro ake mo te ngawari kia puta mau ratau ki te whai ao ki te ao marama kao. Tikina te ki mahia te mahi whiua ki te whare herehere. Tera korero tera. 
No reira kei te whakaae atu au ae he take nui te kenge. Ko taku e ki nei kei roto i o tatau ringaringa pea te rongoa. He aha te he o te titiro ki tetahi huarahi ke atu? Kaua ko te utu engari tera pea ki etahi huarahi e whai haeretia nei e te hapori o Murupara. I naponei i hui a Ngati Manawa ki runga i tetahi o wa ratou marae ki Murupara. I reira i korerohia te take nei. I puta te korero karangahia he hui o nga kenge katoa o Murupara kia hui tahi kia korero tahi a kua puawai tera moemoea. Apopo ka tu te hui mo nga kenge o Murupara. Apopo. Ko ta ratau ko te kimi rongoa i roto i a ratou ano. E kore nga pirihimana e tae atu. Kore nga mema paremata e tae atu. Kua waiho ake ma te hapori ano te hapori e korero. Kua waiho ake ma Ngati Manawa a Ngati Manawa e korero. Kua waiho ake ma Ngati Whare a Ngati Whare e korero. Ma nga kenge tera e whakatika. No reira kai te whakaae atu au ki tera. 
He aha te tikanga o tera hui? Kia haere i raro i te korowai o te mana orite ara ko te  
“ 
equal mana 
” 
. Orite te katoa o te hunga ka tae atu ki te hui. Engari kotahi anake te aronga o tera hui ko te anga whakamua kia kore a patu a whanako a tukino tane ki te wahine tane ki te tamaiti tane ki te tane e whakatinatinahia i roto i tera hapori o Murupara. 
No reira hei kupu whakamutunga ko te hunga ka mahi i wa ratau mahi nanakia e te mangai mena ka he i raro i te ture tukuna ki te whare herehere mena koina te huarahi. Engari e kore tenei pire e whakatinana i te wawata waiho ake ma te hapori ano te hapori e whakatika. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker. As we debate this matter I sit here troubled and concerned. I speak in this manner because without a doubt all of us of this House have experienced the death of a loved one in the months past. Allow me then to pay a tribute to them by saying: depart farewell journey on rest there. You the dead to the dead and we the living to the living—that is we the members of Parliament gathered here today greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to us.  
I paid a tribute to the departed Mr Assistant Speaker because in the very recent holiday period just past—a week ago in fact—Murupara suffered the death of a young one of their community. Jordan Herewini was his name. He was 16 years of age and murdered by a gang member. A gang member’s vehicle was stolen and driven on purpose towards that youngster who was felled and killed. He was only 16. Who murdered him? It was a gang member. Maori slew Maori. So here I am furious at the person who murdered that child—ashamed that a Maori killed another Maori. I feel as well for the pupils of his school his family and the principal and teachers of his school.  
Here I am in a state of confusion about whether to support this bill or not to support it. To the Minister I say that the emphasis of this bill is quite good. Yes the focus is on the ones responsible for the crimes in the world. I agree with that. But I really wonder to myself whether that will avenge Jordan’s death. I do not think so—no not at all. I knew this lad Jordan. My anger towards that person for that foul act knows no bounds. But is this bill really relevant to that situation? No it hardly seems to be. It is not quite up at that level.  
Maoridom is fed up with what some gangs get up to—yes hacked off with acts of murder theft and selling cannabis. Yes I support what the member who spoke before me said. I agree with it. But is this the solution? Perhaps it is not. Even though the heart is saying “Yes support it.” the mind is saying “Wait up. Hang on a moment.” Let us debate this issue carefully. It is not a clear-cut matter. Some gang members have children of their own. Some have their own elderly women and menfolk. Some have a wife. Therefore we are talking about people. We are talking about a person’s genealogy not about a dog’s one—the genealogy of a person like each and every one of us as people.  
The question in Maoridom is this: “What is the greatest thing in the world? I say unto you it is mankind.” So it is there in the aphorisms of the Maori world. This then is a huge issue. It is a great one a valuable one and important. It has to be discussed and quite rightly so.  
There are other concerns too. The title of this bill states “Gangs and”—I do not know how to translate the rest of it but leave it at “Organised Crime”. That is that one. The problem really is like what I raised with the Minister today. According to the New Zealand view this word “gang” relates directly to Maori gangs. Here we are debating but there are many types of gangs. That name should be deleted. It should be removed so that this bill does not refer directly to Maori circumstances.  
That is the first thing. Second I heard what Metiria Turei said in respect of the situation concerning Tuhoe. For more than a year—a very long time in fact—they were subjected to police surveillance. Good or bad that was the situation. What was the outcome? The entire Ruatoki valley suffered the consequences of police presence even though they could not be faulted not by one bit. Here we are posing the question: what about the ones referred to in gangs? Will they be dealt with in the same way? Yes or no? That is that matter. According to some perhaps an eye for an eye is a gang custom—revenge. When a life is taken it is paid for by the life of someone else. And here we are doing exactly that to them—taking revenge. No thought is being given to make it easy for them to emerge into the world of enlightenment the world of light—none. Fetch the key do what has to be done toss them in prison! That is it.  
I agree gangs are a big issue. I advocate that the remedy perhaps is in our hands. What is wrong with looking for another way instead—not an eye for an eye but perhaps some avenues like those being followed up by the community of Murupara? Just last night Ngati Manawa met on one of their marae. There they discussed this matter. The statement was released that a meeting of all Murupara be convened for them to meet and talk together collectively. So a dream bloomed. Tomorrow there will be a meeting of the Murupara gangs—yes tomorrow. Their objective is to look for remedies within themselves. The police will not be there neither will politicians. It will be left totally for Ngati Manawa to deal with Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare itself. The gangs will put it right. I agree with that totally.  
And what is the purpose of that meeting? It is to be conducted under the mantle of “equal autonomy”. Equality will be upon all who attend the meeting. But that meeting has one focus only and that is to move forward so that the male element that hits steals and molests women children and other men ceases to manifest itself in that community of Murupara.  
In conclusion those who conduct themselves in a reckless manner and err against the law should be sent to prison if that is the way. But if this bill does not realise the hope leave it for the community to deal with its own 
.]  
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 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) 
: 
 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) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. The issue of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill elicits all sorts of responses from the Maori community. We have heard one response from the Maori Party although I must say that I am unsure whether the party will back this bill or stand aside from it. Hiding behind the Maori 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 Pakeha and Maori—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 Maori 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 Maori 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 Maori 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 Maori 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 Ngawha 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 Maori community: to take a hard line but also to realise that the problem will continue to exist. I say to the Maori 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 to whakaaro maku 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 Maoridom to conceal criminality and to continue gang culture which is a blight as much on Maoridom as it is on the rest of the community. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 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. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Law and Order Committee.