Jones Shane: Crimes Amendment Bill Local Government Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Readings 
Jones Shane: Crimes Amendment Bill Local Government Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Readings 
[Volume:658;Page:7532] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena tatou katoa. This has been a spirited discussion. The opportunity was afforded us during the Committee stage as we considered the provisions of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill to range quite widely. That ignited various exchanges that actually brought honour to the Chamber. It was not a tepid set of exchanges where well-rehearsed lines were trotted out. Of course that pattern was not followed by Shane Ardern the previous speaker. He lapsed into a set of very hackneyed phrases inversely related to the truth and then would have had us believe that the gangs he had in mind are the people currently fossicking around the conservation estate on the West Coast sniffing coal gas and wearing their high-visibility vests. Fortunately at the very end of the speech he recalled what he was told to do by Mr Tremain the chief Government whip which was to talk about the legislation before Parliament. It was a rare sensation for that particular member. 
The bills focus on whether the machinery of the State is adequate to curb the criminality that we know exists within the gang environment. We always have to be mindful that for every additional power of investigation or seizure that we attach to the police we have to be very confident that the bulwark of the judiciary is up to the task because at the end of the day after the police have carried out their investigations they have to lay down the information in front of a judge. That judge has to have the confidence and not so much the professionalism but the wisdom to test in his or her own mind whether we are going too far in our zest to rid ourselves of this excessive criminality in so far as drugs are concerned. We know that certain levels of criminal behaviour will never ever be completely swiped away whether it is driving on the wrong side of the road or being dangerous while drunk and carrying on like that. But there is a big duty on the judiciary. 
I come back to some of the elements that were taken up during the Committee stage. I challenged Mr Flavell on the wisdom of regarding gang members as being “our people”. At a personal level I find that expression almost offensive because I think that when we belong to a people we are willing to embrace duties and obligations. I cannot detect any sign of that willingness within the gang culture that we are trying to break here. When I speak of the gang culture I mean the shadowy forces that import drugs spreading around their filthy lucre in a way that might avoid detection as well as the deluded young teenagers wandering around with smelly soiled bandanas. Both groups share a common problem: an unwillingness to take on board the burden of an obligation. We cannot manage a civil society nor have the quality of life that we in this House want to continue to promote in our communities unless families are confident that the people who live around them are obliged to observe a certain level or threshold of decency honesty fairness and respect. 
How do we as a Parliament using legislation like this further entrench recognition of that obligation and our desire to embrace it? Naturally those of us who have raised children and who are still raising children try to entrench it in the way in which we send our kids to school teach them their table manners and teach them the ritenga and tikanga of how one treats one’s brothers and sisters one’s parents one’s tupuna and one’s friends and neighbours. But this legislation is designed to deal with people who obviously either did not have that experience of upbringing or had it but realised that it is far too cumbersome to maintain if what they want out of life is a quick buck at someone else’s expense. 
It then falls back to us. Mr Flavell made the very good point that I as a Maori MP cannot repudiate that the jails are overflowing with our young men. Although we have a different approach in relation to how staunch we should be in terms of our antagonism towards gangs his point is beyond cavil: we as a society are watching that tidemark grow higher and higher. It is a New Zealand problem but it is a particularly Maori difficulty to deal with as a Maori MP. Obviously the focus has to be on what we are doing in our communities to ensure that we can help our children. These children may not be our blood relatives but they will bloody us with their crimes if we are not able to cause them to change their ways. 
That is probably one of the unspoken lessons of today: as impassioned as someone like me gets about the excessive levels of criminality we must never overlook the rangatahi and the potential of the darling eyes belonging to the kohungahunga—the young girls and the young boys—and their mothers. I would be the first to state—based on personal experience and possibly a provincial upbringing moderated by a stint overseas and study—that I take a pretty hard line about these things because I get very very emotional when I look at the squandered potential in the young faces I am talking about. 
There were a number of references during this morning’s set of speeches to questions about what communities can do. Members asked whether communities can be staunch and whether we as parliamentarians will be able to support the police to stand with communities. I salute the community leaders from Murupara who have taken a very very strong stance after the death of two teenagers. I cannot begin to imagine the pain and anguish of the close family members as they watched the lives of those two young teenagers snuffed out knowing that it was worthless. There was no virtue there was no justification and there was nothing that we could say that represented a progressive modern celebratory attitude towards life in terms of what we saw go down for those two boys. I give full marks to the kaumatua and the kuia. 
We as parliamentarians have a slightly larger burden to bear than the kuia and the kaumatua on the marae which is what I was saying to Mr Flavell earlier. We have a privilege while we are here as MPs that is occasionally undervalued. When we speak in this House we are able to point out which societal norms ought to be upheld and we have the chance to state on behalf of the communities that we come from that we recoil from the type of lifestyle conduct hatred hostility and animus that is associated with the gang way of life. E Te Ururoa mehemea e whai tuara ana wera kaumatua wera kuia ki te whakaparahako i nga kenge horekau wa ratou pu maripi taiaha engari ko te aroha o te ngakau me te kaha o te arero he aha oti te take te mahi penaka ai koutou i roto i tenei Whare? 
[ 
Te Ururoa if those elders and elderly womenfolk had the fortitude to stand up to those gangs without guns knives or taiaha but with the love of the heart and the might of eloquence why are you collectively not taking that stance in this House? 
] 
If it was good enough for those people without arms or weapons but with only the strength of character and hearts and the strength of verbal skill to step up to the plate and stare down those gangs then it is good enough for our colleagues from the Maori Party to abandon their ambiguous stance in relation to gangs and to stop the indulgence and the indifference. Kia ora tatou.