Cosgrove Clayton: Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — Second Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6284] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I thank the Minister of Justice for his contribution and I say he is right that at least from this side of the House there is widespread support for the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. We will be supporting it. I agree with the Minister that some of the most insidious crime in our society is perpetrated by gangs and organised crime and often it is done below the radar. Often it does not have the profile of some other crime— 
Hone Harawira 
: Corporate crime. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I agree with the member on that as well. But in terms of organised crime and the gangs the crime is often related to violence and preying on the young in order to traffick drugs for instance because there are different regimes in our courts and legal system for dealing with young people as opposed to adults. So we do support this bill. 
The previous Labour Government had legislation similar to this bill before the Law and Order Committee when this Government came to power. Had the Minister wanted to expedite this measure very quickly he need not have waited 9 months. He might well have looked to support and possibly amend Labour’s bill. But we do support this bill and we do support Minister Power’s intent in relation to it. 
The Minister was right when he said some concern was expressed about the bill to the Law and Order Committee. Eleven submissions were put forward. Some of the submissions were opposed to the bill because the submitters were concerned that the proposals would impinge on the right to freedom of association the right to freedom of expression or the right to be free from discrimination. Other submitters were concerned that it would infringe the rule against double jeopardy. Some submitters conveyed support for the bill whilst suggesting further proposals. But I am convinced and the Labour Party is convinced about the bill. We do not believe those concerns are sufficient to propel us to oppose the bill; we support it. 
But I say to the Minister there is quite a contrast in the House over this legislation. We have Simon Power whom one could characterise as a builder because he has put forward this legislation. But this legislation requires when it is passed implementation by agencies like our police force. We also have the Minister of Police Judith Collins who has become a wrecker. In order for the police to implement this legislation and enforce it they require resources and support. The Minister of Police has now become the wrecker as opposed to the builder Simon Power. She has demanded—and this is in a transcript—before the Law and Order Committee that there be a $21 million cut to police resources. Today in this House she has tried to walk away from saying that she required a $21 million cut. I asked the Commissioner of Police whether a $21 million cut in funding which has manifested itself in a 10 percent cut to the police vehicle fleet—and the commissioner will require vehicles offices money and resources in order to implement this legislation—would create risk perhaps a delay in response times and a degradation in service and would endanger our communities. He said it could create risk and he would have to manage that risk. I think that was a very honourable and honest position for the commissioner to put forward. 
I then asked the Minister whether after she had required $21 million to be cut from the police budget— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Tell us about the bill. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The chair of the select committee says tell us about the bill. Well the bill requires implementation once it is passed into law. The police budget is intricately linked to the implementation of this legislation. It will not be implemented by Sandra Goudie but by the men and women in the blue—and often in the black—uniforms. So that is the connection between this legislation and the police budget for the benefit of that member over there. I asked the Minister whether if it is the case that the $21 million of cuts that she has required in the police budget manifest themselves in a delay in response time a degradation of service to our communities and the endangering of our communities she will take responsibility for that. The answer—in transcript in writing on the record of this House—was that no that was an operational matter. I say to the Minister of Police as we move to implement this legislation that she has forced the police to carve out 343-plus police vehicles because of her wish to cut the police budget. 
Then we know that there are recommendations in papers which were hidden and were deleted from the Treasury website that cite the proposed sale of police stations. That was never made public by that Minister. She said in the House today that reviews were done by the police under the previous Government. The difference is that if those reviews were done then and were pushed up by Police National Headquarters they were not approved. They were not approved and they did not hit the previous Minister’s desk. Had they hit the previous Minister’s desk then they would have been killed on the spot. 
The next thing I will say is that because of this Minister’s cuts—and this goes to the heart of this bill—we now know that the police are restricting firearms training to particular sections and categories of police personnel. When the police go around to the gang headquarters often they have to tool up. We have seen that in the past because we know that those involved in organised crime—and Mr Garrett laughs away—have access to lethal weapons and can use lethal force. We know that the first responders to the scene of the Len Snee fatality in Napier were Youth Aid officers. They were Youth Aid officers. As we are talking about the murder of a policeman Mr Henare and Mr Garrett interject. That says a lot about them as we talk about the death of a police officer. 
The point I make is this. 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I object to the member accusing me of interjecting on his speech when in fact I did not say a word. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member well knows that that is not a point of order. It is a matter of debate and the member has simply interrupted another member’s speech. I want the House and the member in particular to know that I do not think it is a good practice to interrupt the flow of debate. If the member does that again I will ask him to leave the Chamber. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am putting a very serious issue before the House. If we do not equip the police with the firearms training that they need then when they come to implement this legislation I ask whether it will be the case that if they are confronted by gang members or members of criminal organisations in the course of their duties they will not be able to get access to firearms or if they can access them they will not have the training to use those firearms to protect the community they serve and to protect themselves. If there is a fatality as a result of the police looking to implement say this legislation then it will be interesting but unacceptable for the Minister of Police to wander into the House—if there is God forbid a tragedy—and say it is an operational matter. She will not be able to say it is an operational matter because she and her Cabinet colleagues have required cuts to be made to the police budget. She and she alone has now required the commissioner to break the golden rule whereby every woman and man in blue who went through the Police College received basic training in firearms. Everybody did whether they were Youth Aid officers or anybody else. 
Of course a Youth Aid officer was the first responder to the scene of what turned out to be the fatal siege where Constable Snee was murdered and two of his colleagues were seriously wounded. So who is to say if a Youth Aid officer was to knock on the door of a gang member’s house whether that officer may be confronted by weapons? If it is deemed that because of the Minister’s cuts a Youth Aid officer in executing a warrant on a gang headquarters while implementing this legislation should not have firearms training then the question will arise as to whether—to quote Greg O’Connor—we have a nightmare and that officer does not have the ability to protect the community that he or she serves or to protect himself or herself. 
I think it is quite poignant that as we support this legislation we note that this is the theoretical phase. This is the phase when the House passes the law. Then we hand the law out of this House to public servants—in this case to the law enforcement agencies—to implement. The Minister of Police has shown that she will refuse to give the police the resources they need such as basic firearms training police stations and vehicles with which to chase down criminals. So it may be the case that a community constable or a Youth Aid officer whose job is not specifically to fight this type of crime will pass by an incident and see that he or she should intervene but that police officer will not have the necessary resources at his or her disposal. I ask the Minister of Justice to ask his colleague the Minister of Police what is coming next. I ask whether we will start to ration the issuing of police stab-proof vests because it may be that a Youth Aid officer does not require a stab-proof vest. Will we say that only some police officers will require such equipment?