Flavell Te Ururoa: Crimes Amendment Bill Local Government Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Readings 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Crimes Amendment Bill Local Government Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Readings 
[Volume:658;Page:7536] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora ano tatou katoa. In order to put my comments in some sort of context I just wanted to advise the House that today is an extremely important day for Aotearoa. For those who do not know on this day in 1835 He Wakaputanga o Te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni—the Declaration of Independence of New Zealand—was signed. The declaration bears the signature of 52 rangatira and is commonly perceived as the document that demonstrated British recognition of an independent Maori nation. Indeed that declaration in 1835 has become the symbol for many Maori of an assertion of autonomous rights or mana motuhake. 
Within the context of such a profound event I am pleased to bring to the House a very recent example of mana motuhake as it relates to the legislation from the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. Late last evening I was sent the resolutions agreed to by consensus at a hui held at Te Rangatahi Marae in Murupara exactly 1 week ago. The hui was held by a community that had had enough of living in fear of the brutal violence and murders that had been going on there. They wanted it to stop. Their key message is that they seek to unite to fight the violence not the gangs believing that actually it is the gangs that can stop this violence. 
The first recommendation endorses the decision of all iwi at that hui—namely Ngati Whare Tuhoe Ngati Haku Patuheuheu Tuwharetoa Te Whakatohea Te Whanau-a-Apanui and Ngati Awa—individually and collectively to publicly endorse the rahui to ban gang violence in the entire rohe. The other motion read that all who are members of the iwi amongst the Tribesmen and Mongrel Mob will take every step possible to ensure that gang members comply with that rahui declare an immediate truce a ceasefire and sign up to a peace pact in the presence of the iwi concerned on Rangatahi Marae within the next fortnight. 
I raised the concept of the rahui throughout the Committee stage of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill as I think it is an excellent example of communities being empowered to determine their own solutions. I talked about the practical application of this rahui as it was expressed at a local tangihanga where a number of kuia stood out and placed themselves in the extremely distressing position of preventing their own kin their own whanau members from attending a tangi as a result of a gang confrontation. There is probably nothing more profound in Te Ao Maori than being removed from the process of allowing whanau to grieve at the side of their loved ones and to pay their final respects. That is cutting; it is really hard for that to happen. 
We are talking about initiatives with extreme and severe consequences for Maori communities. These are bold and courageous moves and I fully commend those iwi for their initiative in this respect. So how does what is happening in Murupara deal with the types of amendments and proposals being entrenched in law today? I want to say for the record that the Maori Party is proud of our reputation for confronting violence and understanding how best to address these issues of huge moral significance for the development of our communities. I say to Mr Jones that there is no moral ambiguity at all when it comes to issues of lawlessness and injustice but there is moral ambiguity in the very notion of targeting one group of the population over and above all others and targeting a range of enforcement tools and penalties to respond to that group. 
Our concern has always been about the retributive nature of this legislation and its narrow focus on gangs and not the wider context of organised crime such as corporate fraud and international criminal networks. The Maori Party has continually advocated that there are more effective restorative ways to deal with gangs and their offending than by enforcement suppression and imprisonment. 
Mr Cosgrove made constant references to meetings with gangs—funny that! The meeting with my colleague Dr Sharples that was referred to actually builds on approaches that other Governments have introduced from both sides of the House. So let us be clear: everybody has had a turn. 
One of the more effective approaches was that taken in 1981. The committee on gangs acknowledged the social causes of gangs with a Community Education Initiative Scheme established in 1981 and the Group Employment Liaison Scheme the following year. The schemes sought to reduce youth gang recruitment through responding positively to the needs of underachieving students who had difficulty moving from school to employment. It also provided children and young people with constructive recreational and sporting activities outside of school. The main goal of the Group Employment Liaison Scheme programme was to encourage disadvantaged groups including gangs into various Government-funded schemes. 
In 1987 the Committee of Inquiry into Violent Offending concluded that many of the schemes “had positive results in reducing the offending and anti-social behaviour of those who participated in them”. As for the rest of the hostile rhetoric espoused by Mr Cosgrove this morning that supporting social justice efforts is akin to throwing up the white flag in defeat perhaps he might benefit from talking with some of his colleagues about their involvement in working with gangs. He might for instance talk with Mr Parekura Horomia about the initiative supported under his leadership of the community-led employment group; or to Mr Chauvel perhaps about his recent discussions with gang members in Farmer Crescent. 
There is nothing wrong with talking with communities and learning from the local people about solutions that work on the ground. This is the heartfelt call from the Maori Party. Rather than simply locking up gangs and throwing away the key we need to respond on the basis of a long-term goal rather than of the emotions of short-term hysterics. If we are to invest in the long-term health and well-being of our nation we need to acknowledge I say to Mr Cosgrove that we cannot just kick gangs out of town and lock the city gates. Gang members come from families. They have children their children have children and they go to schools. They go down to the shopping centre. So we must have creative courage to think of intergenerational solutions. 
We know that different strategies with regard to gangs produce very different results. In essence there are two schools of thought. One is elimination through enforcement—for example the Los Angeles approach. The second one is ensuring public safety through gang and community engagement—namely the New York approach. In Los Angeles the strategy of suppression and punishment has led to a huge increase in the number of gangs and gang crimes. The policy has resulted in thousands of young people killed in gang conflicts. Billions have been spent on policing and surveillance and the databases and the long prison terms. Spending on gangs has far outpaced spending on preventive programmes or community development. 
What is the great outcome of such a massive enforcement programme? Zip—very little. Los Angeles is home to six times the number of gangs and at least double the members while across the United States in New York City a strategy of community development educational attainment opportunities and urban renewal has led to a decrease in gangs to a point where the total gang population is estimated to be around 500 people. Investment in job training mentoring after-school activities and recreational programmes has made significant dents in gang violence. We are calling for investment in communities to restore balance to the debate not just to overload the prison cells with yet another punitive approach. We are calling for an even-handed approach to policing and justice a balance between enforcement and restoration. 
Despite the talk in principle the practice as enforced in this legislation has been the overwhelmingly prioritisation of enforcement. We are too hasty to call for the rule book to slam down laws and enforcement to punish and to sentence without understanding that the solution might be as simple as a work scheme or in supporting communities to determine their own approaches such as that put forward by Murupara. 
The Maori Party recognises that one of the keys to dignity and respect and the reduction of reoffending has to do with the right to work. We want to encourage that. Instead of locking away the problem the Maori Party calls for this House to face its fears—to provide opportunities for communities and individuals to address confrontational behaviour and to focus on solutions. It would be really helpful sometimes if some of the people who talk about gangs and our gang problem could go and talk with those people go and walk the streets with those people who have to tangi for their mate. Then they would know about some of the issues and have a little bit more of a closer connection.