Lyndon Hūhana; Andersen Ginny; Goldsmith PaulHŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm wanting to address the really important issue of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and what Te Tiriti o Waitangi provides for tangata whenua for article 2 and their ability to execute their manawhakahaere according to their own tikanga. Now if we think about te Iwi Māori and the way that we have been impacted by colonial structures to date we only have to look at two weeks ago and the report from the royal commission into abuse in care and faith-based institutes. Our whānau came and they filled this Whare. They filled this Whare and they shared stories of harm. They are the products of harm by the biggest abusers in this country which is the State. I say that gangs are full of these harmed individuals these harmed whānau through intergenerational State abuse. When I think about some of our whānau who are in gangs and the way that they try to poipoi—they try to bring together a sense of whānau and connection—is their ability to find a place of connection. As per the regulatory impact statement it shares that Historically as children and young people many gang members suffered abuse and neglect in state and faith-based care creating mistrust and resistance to authority. The disproportionate rate of Māori tamariki placed in state care [has] contributed to the … overrepresentation among gangs." So it is a Te Tiriti issue because we have had the gross breach of the right to protection the gross breach of care for these young people these whaikaha these tamaiti and these adults who were placed into the care of the State or faith-based institutions and then [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.][Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]then they come out and they join gangs. They are the product of State harm.Now when I consider what our regulatory impact statement has already shared with us—and in fact that there's more learnings within this statement—it really outlines the connection of State abuse into these whānau trying to find a sense of connection and then they're in a gang.Now some of these gangs are doing quite positive things within our community. So I do worry about this part whereby it will prohibit their ability to congregate. I can think of a couple of recovery groups that we have in the North that are—CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just to inform the member that part is in Part 3; this is about insignia.HŪHANA LYNDON: Getting there. OK. I will go back to what I was talking about in terms of our ability for our whānau to exercise their rangatiratanga. Same as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Te Tiriti guarantees them the ability to express themselves according to their tikanga and that in fact if gangs are the place where they feel safe for once in their lives how come they can't wear their patch to find a sense of belonging and a sense of purpose?So my question to the Minister in terms of this is: what analysis or what consideration has the Minister given to these breaches of Te Tiriti and then the impact of the breaches in terms of this legislation for iwi Māori who are members of gangs? Because they do have rights through Te Tiriti they do have rights to express themselves and they do have rights to be equal citizens; not othered in a society that says "No you cannot wear your patch in public and in fact we're going to charge you. We're going to fine you $5000 or chuck you in jail." Kia ora.Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I'm pleased that the Minister referred to some of the work that officials have done because it's always quite interesting when as a problem solver—and I know there's some on that side of the committee as well who like to solve a good problem—is to define that problem and to look at what are the possible ways to address the problem that's being addressed. You always know you're in an interesting situation when the title in the regulatory impact statement says "What is the policy problem or opportunity?" The first line is: "The Government's coalition agreements commit to progress the policies in the Government's 100-Day Plan. This includes prohibiting the display of gang insignia." So the problem is that they came and they campaigned on stuff and said "We're going to do some stuff." and irrespective of there actually being a problem this is where we land now. So it makes it really tough when you're trying to be analytical and come up with defining the problem when it's just that it's been campaigned on—that's the problem that's in the problem definition. So I think it will be really interesting as this plays out because as the Minister stated New Zealanders did vote for change. This Government campaigned hard on cost of living and also law and order issues. So I think they are quite high expectations that this legislation will in fact make a meaningful difference to public safety. So I'll be interested to hear the views of the Minister as to if the overarching objective of this legislation is to reduce gang harm how does taking off gang patches reduce gang harm? It seems to me from reading this analysis that there is no real clear way of demonstrating what the impact of that is when you're looking at the different options. So the options that are laid out here in terms of the criteria used to compare different options to the status quo—the criteria they've developed is: improving public confidence reducing gang membership reducing rates of offending and also compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act; so we'll rule out the last one now! But those are the ones that we'll have to come back to once this legislation has in fact been enacted to look and see whether it's been effective in what it set out to do in the first place.Improving public confidence as has already been outlaid is that there are some real questions here that have been withheld under the Official Information Act—if there's not the ability to actually enforce this legislation it has the antithesis effect so it would actually go against the paragraph here that has a criteria showing that we want to improve public confidence. If that legislation or that new law is unable to be enforced it holds quite strong potential for the antithesis to happen which would be to undermine or destroy public confidence in having law and order being able to be enforced.Reducing gang membership—that'll be interesting. We keep a close eye on that one because we know that gang membership increased particularly since the 501s came back from Australia and added a layer of complexity that New Zealand had not seen before in criminal organisations. We will be watching very closely to see how that gang list tracks and also to see who's taken off it as well as put on it because the Government does have the ability to reassess who's going on there and take off people. So it wouldn't be great if the fact that some criteria were being changed or were taking people off just to give the appearance of a reduction in gang numbers when in fact there was just a bit of a vetting exercise to take people off. So it's important that we are holding the Government to account on being able to assess if those criteria are in fact being met.And of course reducing rates of reoffending is one of the criteria in deciding upon a policy option to address the problem. So reducing rates of reoffending is one that we're really interested in because from what I can see what this legislation does there will be a lot of reoffending going on in this space as people are repeatedly penalised and brought before the courts for wearing gang patches to the point of imprisonment. So I actually think that the legislation we're debating right now will do the complete antithesis of what the criteria says is going to increase reoffending particularly for gang members to the point where you're seeing those numbers go. The question is—[Time expired]Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): We talked a great length about the 50 percent increase in gang membership over the past six years under the previous Government. There were a whole host of reasons for that and the previous member Ginny Andersen referred to the 501s from Australia. We also referred to the very mixed response from the previous Government to gangs. It was a bit confusing. Sometimes they were against them and sometimes they wanted to give them money to do certain things and run drug rehabilitation courses and so it was a mixed message. I think that was rather perfectly exemplified by the Greens speaker Hūhana Lyndon too before who said that some gangs are doing quite positive things in our communities.Hūhana Lyndon: They are.Tamatha Paul: They objectively are.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well I'm sure they are doing the occasional positive thing but I think the positive things are greatly outweighed by the negative impact of gangs in our community. I don't think that big gangs are a force for good in our community on balance. I think most New Zealanders recognise the fear and intimidation that comes with gangs operating in our country and the association with violent crime and with drug crime. That is why we're setting out to reduce the harm caused by gangs.Now there was a reference made to the royal commission of abuse in care and of course everybody in this Chamber is very conscious of the recommendations and the pain of the survivors and the many people that went through it—of course. It's not particularly a Treaty thing in the sense that under any universal human rights people should be able to expect not to be abused in State care—any New Zealander. Nobody would justify that and that is why very serious stories have been told through that period and it's why the previous Government had formed the royal commission and why this Government is taking that extremely seriously and working our way through that.But of course we have to deal with not just the past but today and no society can function if people aren't held responsible for decisions and actions that they make today—whether or not to attack somebody whether or not to peddle drugs in our community whether or not to commit any crime. Reference was made to the science advisors and it's not a binary choice. You don't choose between on the one hand only dealing with the long-term causes and drivers of crime or deal with what we have here today and ensure that people are caught and held to account for actions that they are responsible for today. You have to do both. This Government of course recognises that you have to deal with those long-term issues and we recognise the reports of many people making that case and we continue to do so through the many billions of dollars that are spent across this country in social care and welfare and development. Yes you have to do that but of course it doesn't work if you don't also hold people to account for their actions today. No society can function if people are not responsible for their actions and there are not consequences for violent actions and for causing and peddling misery in our communities."