edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Sepuloni Carmel: Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — In Committee 
Sepuloni Carmel: Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7519] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I refer to Part 3 of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill which amends the Sentencing Act 2002. I will continue on from some of the things that Mr Jones said. Largely the focus of this bill in respect of gangs and organised crime has been on the larger gangs like Black Power and other such gangs. One factor that has not really been taken into consideration is what we call in Auckland at least the “ABC” gangs which are many of our youth gangs. They often name themselves after the street they live on. Say they live on Smith Drive; they would then call themselves the Smith Drive Boys or whatever. 
One thing we appreciate about this bill is the fact that as Mr Jones said it prevents the normalisation of gang culture. Many of the “ABC” youth gangs initially do not have the same intentions as some of the larger more established gangs but the issue with those smaller “ABC” gangs is that they often base their structure and what they intend to do on American gang culture. They are enticed by it and see it as something they can identify with and then they go ahead and set up their own gangs. The other issue that comes into play with the “ABC” gangs is that they are often preyed on by much larger gangs and by much older gang members and people in general who use those youth who are just setting out in the gang lifestyle to do a lot of the groundwork in respect of selling their drugs and committing what can start as small crimes but can end up as something quite serious. 
Labour supports this legislation. We support preventing the normalisation of gang culture. The more that we can do to take power away from gangs the better it is for our youth. We need to take any opportunity possible to ensure that the gang culture does not become an avenue for our youth to go down that it does not become attractive to them and that it is no longer a possibility that they can get involved. I think it is very important to mention this issue relating to youth gangs—perhaps not in relation to the larger more institutionalised gangs that we know of which have been around for many years—that continue to emerge and plague the communities in which they are set. Thank you.
Cosgrove Clayton: Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7519] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Labour supports this provision. I think the Minister made a good point when he noted that it changes the burden on the prosecution to prove motivation in respect of an offender. We know from current jurisprudence that from time to time that has been a very onerous requirement on the prosecution. Of course as Mr Jones has said the people involved in those sorts of offences and their legal counsellors will find very interesting and sophisticated ways to try to circumvent the court processes and try to prove that their motivation is other than how a prosecutor would argue it. 
Not being a lawyer myself I will not go from there into the intricacies of that argument. Suffice to say as other colleagues have that if there are other devices like this that can be used to get to and deal with organised crimes and criminal gangs then they should be supported and implemented. Again I simply raise the question of resourcing not so much in respect of the police in this issue but more in respect of the Crown prosecutors and the justice budget—those who are charged with resourcing the prosecutors to implement this bill. Again we would like some reassurance that resources will be available to implement what I think is a positive provision within this bill.
Guy Nathan: Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7517] 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Part 3 creates a new aggravating factor for consideration at sentencing. The Gangs and Organised Crime Bill originally proposed that the courts take into account that the offender committed the offence wholly or partly because of his or her participation in an organised criminal group or involvement in any form of organised criminal association as an aggravating factor at sentencing. That was amended by the Justice and Electoral Committee so that the court can take into account the nature and extent of any connection between the offending and the offender’s participation in an organised criminal group or involvement in any other form of organised criminal association as an aggravating factor at sentencing. This amendment removes the potentially onerous requirement on the prosecution to prove the motivations of an offender. Although Section 9(4)(a) of the Sentencing Act allows any aggravating or mitigating factor not specified in the Act to be taken into account it is appropriate that gang and organised criminal connections be made a statutory factor to ensure that these are taken into account in all relevant cases.
Cosgrove Clayton: Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7517] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Part 2 is a practical measure. Labour supports it. I know that my colleague Clare Curran a Dunedin member of Parliament recently has had representations from a local school I believe where down the road quite literally there is a gang headquarters. I have not seen it myself but I am told that it is relatively fortified—or if it is not that it will be. These structures put a level of intimidation upon communities. 
There are those in this place who say that gangs form part of the culture and fabric of our country. I think Dr Sharples has been heard to say that from time to time. I tend to disagree respectfully with him. I think there are basic community norms. We are not talking about the height of pot plants what colour we can paint our house whether we can wash our car out the front or have a barbeque or park. We are talking about a high degree of intimidation. Gangs set up in communities and often as in the Dunedin example not far from schools. As my colleague Shane Jones has said they set up there for quite deliberate nefarious reasons—so that they can prey on communities particularly the young and entice them as he said with dope and other things. 
So suddenly a quiet community which is law abiding and includes a local school has some sort of great edifice that has been fortified far in excess of what we would expect for a bank police station or in some respects an army base. Those fortifications are generally ugly—ugly in an aesthetic way and ugly in terms of what goes on inside and around them. They become magnets for other activity sometimes from rival gangs as we know because we saw a year or so ago in Wanganui what can happen and it happens in other places. Reprisals and turf wars take place. Who is sitting nearby next door or three doors down a block away or three blocks away? It is communities and often local schools. 
We think Part 2 is a very practical measure. Their eminences in the court the judges as Shane Jones said will have all sorts of interesting arguments presented to them to err on the side of being conservative and not to provide the means with which we can rip tear and destroy these fortifications. I think part of destroying them is exposing what is going on inside and around those headquarters. Indeed that may provide some motivation for the gangs to move on. Sadly it will be to another community but if this measure goes through—and I assume it will—there will be universal pressure to deal with gang headquarters. We support the part. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Guy Nathan: Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7516] 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 This is a very short part of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill and it amends the Local Government Act 2002. Section 216(a) of the Local Government Act 2002 currently provides that a District Court may grant a removal order if the court is satisfied that the property is occupied or regularly used by known or probable offenders. Section 216(b) provides that a District Court may grant a removal order if a fence structure or vegetation is either facilitating or contributing to the concealment avoidance or commission of crime or is intended to injure a person. Part 2 proposes that an additional ground for the District Court to make a removal order is if it is satisfied that a fence structure or vegetation may reasonably be regarded as intimidating. This proposal will provide the police with an additional tool to have fortifications pulled down on properties used by known or probable offenders but it also acknowledges the impact of gang forts on their direct neighbourhood.
Young Jonathan: Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — In Committee 
Young Jonathan: Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7515] 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Goudie Sandra: Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7509] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise to speak to the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. This bill is another great step forward by National in dealing with the law and order issues of New Zealand and making sure that people are safe in their homes and on the streets. 
I take up a couple of comments made by the previous speaker Carmel Sepuloni talking about the rights and freedoms of people who are involved in criminal activity and associated with gangs. Quite frankly when we think about their record of violence intimidation and theft perpetrated and the increase in the use of P why should anybody think that gang members have any rights and freedoms? We are not interested in their rights and freedoms. If they have done the crime they need to do the time. We will also make sure they pay for it. With the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act they will pay for it. We will strip them of their assets and proceeds of crime. 
This bill including Part 1 “Amendments to the Crimes Act 1961” is just a series of tools we will give the police in dealing with gangs and organised crimes. Gangs have infiltrated our communities in such a way that they are now virtually indistinguishable from other community groups and purport to do community work with the community’s interest at heart. Gangs infiltrate our communities to give them a sense of reasonableness to the community when in actual fact their primary occupation is the perpetration of violence intimidation theft and the use of methamphetamine or P in our communities. These sorts of actions should have been taken long before now and I am delighted that we are doing this now. National is making a difference on the law and order front and this is just another step in making that difference.
Guy Nathan: Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7506] 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 It is great to take a call on the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. Part 1 proposes amendments to the Crimes Act 1961 that will provide the police with more powers to investigate and disrupt organised criminal activity and assist the prosecution of those involved. Clause 4 increases the penalty for participation in an organised criminal group in section 98A of the Act from a maximum of 5 years’ imprisonment to a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment. This better reflects a range of culpability caught by offending under section 98A and offending by those who organise serious criminal activity such as methamphetamine manufacturing but who do not themselves directly offend. 
Part 1 also clarifies the evidential burden in section 98A necessary to prove participation in an organised criminal group. Section 98A contains a number of criteria including knowledge requirements that must be proved before the offence of participation in an organised criminal group is made out. The amendments in this part make interpretation of the section clearer and should improve its effectiveness as a law enforcement tool. 
The Law and Order Committee proposed an amendment to section 98A to align the penalty for serious violent offences committed by organised criminal groups with the penalty threshold for such offences for the purpose of obtaining an interception warrant. This amendment will expand the range of serious violent offences that will be captured by section 98A to include perverting the course of justice with a violent component certain firearms offences and certain wounding and injury offences. 
Part 1 also amends the sections relating to obtaining interception warrants in Part 11A of the Crimes Act 1961. It provides the police with the authority to apply for an interception warrant to investigate those who participate in an organised criminal group. It also amends the definition of a “specified offence” for which police may apply for interception warrants expanding it to “an offence punishable by a period of imprisonment for a term of 7 years or more:” rather than “10 years or more:”. 
The select committee proposed additional amendments to this part by requiring that there be reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed or is committing an offence under section 98A(1) in order for an interception warrant to be obtained. That amendment reflects more accurately the actual circumstances that may lead to the police applying for a warrant to intercept private communications.
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7506] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill be now read a third 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 third time. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 108 Noes 13.
Quinn Paul: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Quinn Paul: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7505] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 As my very good friend and colleague “Rusty Robertson” might say it is great to be up on my hind legs. I will focus on a couple of points in concluding this debate on the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill. I will talk about judicial oversight and a wee bit about the cultural aspects that have been raised during the course of this debate and then I will wrap up by recommending the bill be given the Royal assent. 
There has been a lot of discussion during the course of this debate about judicial oversight the Bill of Rights Act and so on. The fact of the matter is that this legislation will be implemented in two parts. The first part sets out that the taking of a swab on the inside of the cheek will be implemented in the first round according to new Part 3 of the schedule. Swabs will be able to be taken on that basis. Once procedures have been established that comply with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act we will go to a second round of implementation which is where a swab can be taken in the case of an offence that is punishable by imprisonment. There seems to have been a lack of understanding by members opposite about how this system is supposed to work. I think it is very important that we understand the system in the first instance. 
The second issue I raise is that although I agree with members opposite that we cannot legislate against stupidity or against the situation where people want to break the law the simple reality is that members on this side of the House believe that there are sufficient safeguards in this legislation to protect people and provide a proper mechanism for implementation. 
The final point I comment on is the issue of cultural impact to which a number of speakers have referred. I am happy to defer to my teina because of his much greater experience and understanding in these areas. But I know that I have expectorated on the rugby field any number of times and I am sure that when any of us have been driving trucks or working in the freezing works we have done the same. I cannot understand the objection to taking a swab from the inside of a cheek to be put into storage. 
With those few concluding remarks it gives me great pleasure to recommend to the House that this legislation now proceed to the Governor-General to receive the Royal assent. Thank you.
Young Jonathan: Insolvency Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Young Jonathan: Insolvency Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7672] 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Nash for leaving me just a good couple of minutes to speak on the Insolvency Amendment Bill. 
This bill is to bring some necessary small but significant amendments to the Insolvency Act 2006 that will increase the integrity of particularly the no-asset procedure in order to prevent people from discharging debts that were acquired fraudulently. The bill covers four areas: fraudulent debts the discharge period under the no-asset procedure insolvency gifts and the personal insolvency public registers. 
Let me touch on one aspect in the moments that I have regarding insolvent gifts. When a person or company is in financial difficulty an unscrupulous person may attempt to remove assets that could otherwise be sold to pay a creditor. A person may gift money land a vehicle or some goods that have a realisable value. A person may sell an asset to a friend or family member for a nominal amount. This bill will stop that from happening. Thank you. I commend this bill to the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye the contrary No. The Ayes have it.
Vote: Insolvency Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Insolvency Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7673] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Insolvency Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Kedgley Sue: Insolvency Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Insolvency Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7672] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to call for a division—sorry about that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: All right. It is the end of the week. I am not sure whether I should put leave for that but I will accept what the member says. The member is now calling for a party vote. The Clerk will conduct a party vote.
Peachey Allan: Immigration Bill — Third Reading 
Peachey Allan: Immigration Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7652] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 The purpose or primary objectives of the Immigration Bill have been well outlined by the Minister of Immigration who spoke earlier and by other members. 
I will make a couple of general comments. The first is that if one reads the history of New Zealand one finds that immigration goes to the very heart of what this country is all about. I have heard suggestions during the parliamentary process dealing with this bill that somehow immigration has suddenly become significant to the social fabric of our country and to its economic well-being. In actual fact it has always been significant and we should not lose sight of that. We should not lose sight of the fact that as New Zealand has grown and developed so much of that growth and development has been based on migration and on immigration. 
It is important that we have legislation that is modern and appropriate to the 21st century and that it is enduring. Probably the most satisfying aspect of this debate has been the bipartisan approach that both major parties have shown. Immigration should not be a political football. It should not be a way in which politicians score cheap points at the expense of easily identified groups. It is good that the House is currently rid of that sort of thing. 
I acknowledge the work done by immigration Ministers in two Governments and by members on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee over two Governments. I have been particularly interested to pick up on the acknowledgments given to our previous colleague on the committee Mark Gosche. I was not on the committee when he chaired it and I am beginning to think maybe that was to my disadvantage. But I certainly knew Mr Gosche as a very very fine electorate MP in the electorate neighbouring my own constituency of Tamaki and I know that he was well-thought-of as a very hard-working and diligent member. He certainly set some standards that I felt obliged to maintain in the neighbouring electorate. 
I also acknowledge the hard work done by officials over a long period of time. This legislation has been a bit of a marathon but it was absolutely vital that we get it right because as I said immigration and migration go right to the heart of what New Zealand is as a country. Thank you.
Speaker’s Rulings — Tabling of Documents—Application of Standing Order 368 
Speaker’s Rulings — Tabling of Documents—Application of Standing Order 368 
[Volume:658;Page:7621] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Tabling of Documents—Application of Standing Order 368 
Mr SPEAKER 
: During both question times this week members have sought to use Standing Order 368 to table documents that were readily available to members. Standing Order 368 is new. It provides that a member may table a document by leave. Previously the tabling of documents was solely a matter of leave. The Standing Orders did not recognise the practice. 
Questions have arisen about the application of Standing Order 368. It is the Speaker’s role to decide the application of a Standing Order whenever a question arises. The Speaker is guided by previous Speakers’ rulings and the practice of the House. 
There are a number of rulings on the tabling of documents by leave. I refer members to the ruling of Speaker Tapsell Speaker’s ruling 142/2 and to the guidance of the Standing Orders Committee Speaker’s ruling 142/1. Both emphasise that the primary purpose of the procedure is to inform debate by making available to members documents that otherwise would not be available. 
Members have not always taken these rulings into account when seeking leave. From the next sitting of the House I intend to apply Standing Order 368 consistently with these rulings. It will no longer be in order to seek leave under Standing Order 368 to table documents of the following nature that are readily available to members: first current documents that are part of the published proceedings of the House such as replies to questions for written answer parliamentary papers select committee reports submissions to committees where the e-committee system provides for them to be published on the Parliament website  
Hansard 
 or the Standing Orders; second Acts and bills before the House; and third recent media articles from the major daily newspapers and national weeklies or their websites and from the major television and radio broadcasters or their websites. 
Copies of this ruling will be made available to members in the Bills Office. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek a point of clarification. In listing those documents you said you would not allow current documents in those classes to be filed. Are we to take it that for example leave could still be sought to table an old  
Hansard 
 that is not readily available to people unless it is pointed out to them? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising a perfectly fair point of order. The intention is that historic documents that are not readily available to members that may have significance and may be useful for members’ information can still be tabled. It is not the intention at all to prevent the tabling of those or likewise media articles from overseas publications that would not be readily available to members but would be relevant to them. The point the member makes is perfectly fair.
Goudie Sandra: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7620] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak to the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. It is fantastic that we are actually moving pretty quickly to raise the fines for people who bring in any foreign goods or food goods into New Zealand and who cross our borders with items they should not have on their person or in their baggage. I think the bill is fantastic. In actual fact I am probably more of the tendency to put up those fines even further. I think it is fantastic that we are now getting through this process. 
This legislation cannot come soon enough. The sooner we enact this bill and start imposing realistic fines on people for bringing unwanted goods into our country and threatening our biosecurity the better. I think that the select committee has done a great job across the House to progress this bill and I say “Well done!” to everybody. The legislation cannot come soon enough. Let us hit offenders in the pockets so that they know they cannot keep contravening our biosecurity rules. 
Bill read a second time.
Calder Cam: Crimes Amendment Bill Local Government Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Readings 
Calder Cam: Crimes Amendment Bill Local Government Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Readings 
[Volume:658;Page:7563] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 John Key’s National-led Government is principled pragmatic and inclusive. During last year’s election campaign we made promises about what we would do should we be privileged to form the Government. 
Hon Member 
: And we made them in our own name. 
Dr CAM CALDER 
: That is a very good point. We have that privilege and we are keeping our promises. We are working—a concept alien to others in the House—to find a solution to multiple challenges that have accumulated after years and years of ineptitude from an administration bereft of ideas where creativity was a distant dream and the concept of action a barely recoverable memory from a cobwebbed cerebral closet where the default position was inaction apart from the occasional languid wave from a legislative limp wrist a limp wrist on a leaden hand a leaden hand that stifled innovation and fresh thinking and formed a cloying embrace from a nanny seduced by the conviction that consideration of process equated action. 
Not surprising after year after year of this muddled mugwumpery when National formed a Government we found there was much to do. There was much to do in all portfolios and much to do in law and order. 
National’s principled pragmatic approach which is focused on finding solutions has led to a comprehensive quiver of measures to fight the scourge of crime gangs and drugs. Measures to date include the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act and the Sentencing Act and they are supported by the Search and Surveillance Bill and the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill. A significant weapon in the quiver is the gangs and organised crime legislation. It is thoughtful legislation. 
We do not have a magic wand and we cannot change things overnight but we are committed to making a difference. Gangs are a complex problem that requires reshaping of the mesh in a number of areas and at different levels. This legislation will hit participation in gangs allow police to gain intelligence on gang activities by increased surveillance and remove the ability of gangs to cower and hide behind high walls and fortifications. I commend the legislation to the House.
Smith Lockwood: Voting — Correction—Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill 
Smith Lockwood: Voting — Correction—Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill 
[Volume:658;Page:7563] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The result of the vote on the question that the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill be now read a third time was incorrectly announced. The correct result is Ayes 108 Noes 14.
Quinn Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Quinn Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7562] 
12.  
PAUL QUINN (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What is the Government doing to achieve better value for money in Government procurement? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 In June this year the Government launched a 4-year Government procurement reform agenda. The major reform is the establishment of new centres of expertise. These will be specialist teams to negotiate all Government contracts particularly where Government agencies duplicate their spending decisions. In other jurisdictions an all-of-Government approach to procurement has returned on average between 5 and 10 percent savings. 
Paul Quinn 
: What are the aims of the Government procurement reform agenda? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There are a number of aims to the Government procurement reform agenda including cost savings the building of procurement capability and capacity enhancing the opportunity for New Zealand businesses to participate in Government procurement and improving governance oversight and of course accountability as well. New centres of expertise will be focused mainly on driving cost savings in the first year but in the future will also support procurement capability to build and manage supplier relationships across the key purchase areas for Government expenditure.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — In Committee 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7525] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not want to debate the title and commencement. I had two shots and I have had two responses from two Labour members who have asked for a response. I want to make some comments in respect of the terminology—I definitely want to do that—but I want the chance to respond if I could and I will leave it at that.
Guy Nathan: Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7524] 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 It is great to take a call on the title of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. I understand that there was some debate on the title when the bill was before the Law and Order Committee. There was some confusion amongst certain members of the committee about the fact that although gangs that offend are one type of organised criminal group as the term is used in section 98A of the Crimes Act 1961 organised crime is indeed a wider concept. 
The bill has application to organised criminal groups including gangs but the legislation is drafted with sufficient breadth to capture white-collar corporate fraudsters and indeed any group of three or more people with a specified common unlawful criminal objective. Any person who participates in or with such a group will be criminally liable and will face a term of imprisonment of up to 10 years. 
The title of the bill also recognises the strong link between gangs and organised crime in this country. For example just under 75 percent of the clandestine drug laboratories discovered by police in 2007 were identified as being linked to recognised criminal gangs. 
This bill was part of the Government’s first 100 days and this has been a very busy Government under the leadership of Prime Minister John Key. It is my desire that this bill be brought into force this year in order to provide police with greater tools to combat gangs and organised crime in New Zealand.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7495] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the third reading of the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill. The first priority of this Government has been to improve law and order and public safety. The bill contributes to that goal by giving the police tools to resolve more crimes and catch more offenders. It accompanies other important law enforcement initiatives such as the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill the Search and Surveillance Bill the recently passed Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 and many more. This bill is one of the many steps this Government has swiftly taken following the election to fulfil its promise to the public of New Zealand. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee made a number of useful amendments to the bill particularly around improving the process of taking DNA samples from young people. One of the changes is to limit the range of offences for which a sample can be taken from a young person to more serious relevant offences specified in the bill. That will ensure that only the most serious young offenders are subject to this law. In addition the criteria for taking DNA samples from a young person have been significantly simplified. The Justice and Electoral Committee concluded that the criteria for taking samples from young people repeated the protection that already exists in the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act specifically in section 208. As such the bill has been amended to provide that section 208 of the Act will apply and will provide adequate protection for young people in custody. 
DNA carries a unique genetic code for an individual. Current technology allows bodily samples like blood saliva and semen to be processed and reassembled in a form of barcode that can be matched with the other samples taken from a crime scene. This procedure is an important investigative tool resulting in virtually conclusive proof of identity. It may be used to pinpoint an offender as well as to clear an innocent suspect. 
The bill will allow the police to collect DNA from a person whom they intend to charge with an offence and prior to that person’s conviction or acquittal the police will be able to match that person’s DNA against the profile from the scene of the crime in unresolved cases. Offenders who go on to commit serious offences in the future will be identified a lot earlier because their DNA will have been kept after they committed an offence in the very very early stages of their criminal offending. 
Over this year the Government has proudly brought before the Parliament a number of measures that impact squarely on the victims for the better. This legislation is one of them. It will save more victims than probably any other legislation that we have seen before this Parliament in a very long time. I commend this bill to the House.
King Annette: General Debate 
King Annette: General Debate 
[Volume:658;Page:7022] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document from a Parliamentary Library research request on pseudoephedrine in Oregon. It says that because of the measures that were taken the increase in trafficking of the finished product has now occurred in Oregon. The demand for the drug has continued and drug cartels have now stepped into the gaps with the local market increasingly supplying methamphetamine. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member should only describe the document. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The document can be tabled. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
[Volume:658;Page:7012] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a perfectly good point. I would ask the Hon Trevor Mallard to— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am not touching someone else’s—
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7045] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7044] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to.  
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7044] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 as amended be agreed to.  
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7042] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 12 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Part 12 as amended agreed to.
Hodgson Pete: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7041] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I do not know what my whip thinks but I am getting the sense that we might finish the Committee stage of the Immigration Bill at or a minute or two before 6 o’clock so I do not really want to spend a lot of time on this part. But I will say that one of the features of Part 12 is that it has been completely rewritten and most of Part 12 of the bill as introduced has been struck out. I suppose therefore it is a good time for me to say once more that this legislation which was reported back from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 15 months ago was subject to the most extraordinary examination by the select committee members. I was not one of them. I was not doing select committee work back then— 
Paul Quinn 
: Higher elevation. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes. But the chair the Hon Mark Gosche—a pretty experienced politician who is no longer with us unfortunately—and the members of the select committee put in the hours. I think it is time to reflect on the hours that were put in. The result is legislation that has bipartisan support despite the fact that the select committee members argued and grizzled about all sorts of things and despite the fact that the Minister of Immigration has subsequently come up with a particularly large Supplementary Order Paper. We have had the opportunity to go through that Supplementary Order Paper with the Minister’s officials whilst in Opposition and I again thank the Minister the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman for that courtesy. It has meant that this huge piece of legislation has been able to make its way through the Committee stage reasonably quickly. I say “huge” because it is more than 500 pages. 
I will sit down in 30 seconds but I record for the Committee once more that this Immigration Bill went through a fine select committee process and was chaired by a fine former member of this House. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to Part 12 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to.
Fenton Darien: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Fenton Darien: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7033] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I will make a brief contribution to Part 9. I will reflect on the work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee of which I was a member during its consideration of this very large bill which took a large amount of time. The committee was under the excellent chairmanship of Mark Gosche. 
Paul Quinn 
: Who? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I tell the member not to be disrespectful. 
This part of the bill caused some considerable angst for the committee. It is a highly sensitive issue in a highly sensitive area. I mentioned in my second reading speech that getting our heads around this Immigration Bill was difficult both for me and for other members who have any sense of humanity and do not like to see anybody detained and detained for any length of time. However as others have mentioned during the last Parliament we had a couple of high-profile cases and I came to understand that we need to have a system of trying to manage those non-citizens who have been through all the appeal processes and have not qualified as refugees. Therefore they have no right to remain in New Zealand but they deliberately hinder their departure by refusing to sign documents that would enable them to leave. As others have mentioned there were court cases that created an incentive for those non-citizens to wait out time in detention in order to secure their release into the New Zealand community. 
From Labour’s point of view we felt that this impacted negatively on the integrity of the immigration system. Therefore the select committee when weighing things up looked hard at this issue. It heard many submissions but it also supported the amendments to the bill that create the presumption of exceptional circumstances—that a non-citizen who hinders his or her departure will be detained after the first 6-month period—and also exclude the length of detention from being an exceptional circumstance for the purposes of detention and monitoring. 
As others have said also Labour supports the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 32. The intention of this Supplementary Order Paper builds on what we were intending to do as reported back from the select committee but I understand that Crown Law advice is that it should be amended to ensure that Part 9 should work as it was intended to. We support that amendment. As I said it is a very very difficult area as is the whole area of immigration. It is extremely fraught. We are dealing with human beings and with families and we do have to act humanely and fairly but on balance I support Part 9. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to Part 9 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 271A be agreed to.
Graham Kennedy: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Graham Kennedy: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7033] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 Allow me to address Part 9 of the Immigration Bill in the Committee stage in the absence of my colleague Keith Locke. The amendments we have proposed as set out in Supplementary Order Paper 31 of 22 July are first to clauses 271A and 285(10). Those measures would result in our view in allowing asylum seekers who have not committed any crime in the community but who are to be deported to remain in jail for the rest of their lives perhaps if they did not sign documentation necessary for their own deportation. The classic cases in the past forty-eighth Parliament were those of the Iranian Christian converts from Islam who were imprisoned for lengthy periods for not signing papers required by the Iranian Government for them to be deported from New Zealand to Iran. They refused to sign because they believed that they would be persecuted back in Iran and such conversion or apostasy as they saw it was a criminal offence there. The bill tries to eliminate any possibility that any such person might have a case for bail. It also eliminates the length of time in prison as a special case for release from prison. Our amendments try to stop this injustice happening and to stop New Zealand breaching the principles of habeas corpus. 
Our amendments are also to clauses 273 and 275 and keep the initial maximum detention time of asylum seekers arriving at our border at its present 72 hours rather than be extended to 96 hours as the bill proposes. There is no good case for such an exemption. Our amendment to clause 285 would reverse the proposal that “exceptional circumstances” would not include the period of time that a person has already been detained. Instead it would propose that such circumstances can indeed include such detention time. 
Finally our amendment to clause 289(2)(c) eliminates the phrase in the bill that “classified information must be treated as accurate.” What possible correlation can exist between secrecy and accuracy? Divine right to rule and the infallibility of the prince have gone out of fashion. It is information that must be tested like any other information. 
I recommend that the Committee revisit these five proposals for amendment in our Supplementary Order Paper. Thank you.
Upston Louise: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
Upston Louise: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
[Volume:658;Page:7012] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You ruled earlier in question time that any offensive material should be removed by the end of question time.
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7011] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an extract from page 6 of Professor Gluckman’s report on P which notes that the Ministry of Health intends to have 95 percent of pharmacies connected to secure broadband by July 2010—something the Prime Minister seems not to have heard of. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table page 6 of a report by Professor Gluckman. Is there any objection to that page 6 being tabled? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I seek leave to table page 8 of the same report which notes that based on Australian evidence electronic drug monitoring does indeed reduce pill shopping—again something the Prime Minister seems unaware of. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table page 8 from Professor Gluckman’s report. Is there any objection to page 8 being tabled? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.