Cosgrove Clayton: Crimes Amendment Bill Local Government Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Readings 
Cosgrove Clayton: Crimes Amendment Bill Local Government Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Readings 
[Volume:658;Page:7528] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 As we have said throughout this debate the Labour Opposition will support the legislation. We believe that the provisions of the legislation will go some way to combating gangs and organised crime and limiting their activities in New Zealand. We do note though that if National had wanted to act far more swiftly it could have actually picked up the Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill which had gone through the Justice and Electoral Committee and sat on the Table of this House during the interregnum. The Government could have picked up that bill—it was a Labour Government bill—and dealt with those issues in a far more efficient way than sitting under urgency as we do today. 
I raise a couple of points that we have raised throughout the debate. The first is that we support any measures to crack down on the insidious nature of gangs because we know about the violence they put upon communities and the intimidation they put upon people especially young people and the infection and disease they spread in the form of pedalling drugs preying on young people using them as drones and effectively destroying people’s lives for profit and personal gain. Of course we support this legislation. Equally those not so visible gangs—whose members as I said before wear suits rather than patches do not have tattoos and live in some of the leafier suburbs around New Zealand—have to be focused on with the same amount of vim and vigour as the more visible elements like the Mongrel Mob Black Power and those white gangs throughout New Zealand— 
David Garrett 
: Hell’s Angels. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Hell’s Angels the Tribesmen and others. 
The issue I will focus on is this: although we support the legislation and it will rattle through the House and the Governor-General will put his signature on it the rubber will then hit the road. Then it is up to agencies like the police to implement the legislation—to put it into practice and to use the powers that Parliament has given it. For those powers to be used effectively and for this legislation to implemented appropriately and for it to have the positive effect on our communities—and negative effect on the gangs—that this Parliament would want there is a need for something called resources monetary resources. I find it difficult: we have done customs legislation and there is the war on P—and we have asked the Customs Service and the police to do more in those areas—but the resources have not followed. 
Again we have law and order legislation as good and positive as it is but the resources are not flowing. We are asking our police to put themselves in greater danger. We are asking our police to step up to the plate and do more yet we know that there is a requirement from the Minister of Police and her Cabinet—in the John Key Government—to take $21 million out of the police budget. Yet the Minister has the audacity to stand up here and deny that that cut is happening. It is like denying that daylight follows dark as it were. This is actually happening and as evidence of that 340 police cars have gone from the fleet. Parliament was told that front-line vehicles would not go—one would think police were sitting around in unmarked Holdens and the police station car parks were awash with cars that had never done a patrol in their lives. This is simply not true. We know that highway patrol cars have gone we know that front-line vehicles have gone. Youth Aid which often deals with the consequences of where gangs have moved in and impacted on young people is gone. 
We now know that Canterbury has lost 32 cars or 10 percent of its vehicle fleet and today there is a grand announcement that it has gained resources in the form of four bicycles—four bicycles. This is true. It came from a press statement put out and trumpeted by the Minister. So we have lost 32 police cars. In Kaiapoi the Youth Aid officer’s car is gone. In Rangiora the community police officer’s car is gone. Thirty other vehicles have gone from the Canterbury policing district but it has gained four bicycles! Although we agree with visibility and having police out in the community I just wonder about the gang members as the policeman cycles up to the gang headquarters to knock on the door and say “Hang on there’s some bad stuff going around here.” As the gang members rip out the back door of the gang headquarters and jump into their vehicles I wonder how that policeman will cope as he cycles after them on his penny farthing or something like that. I do not know. Although we may make light of it it is a very serious issue. 
Secondly we now know that for the first time in history—and this is very serious and very dangerous—because of this Government’s requirement to cut money out of the police budget firearms training to our police force will be rationed. There will be officers in our police force in the blue uniform and in plain clothes who now do not receive the mandatory ongoing training because they are deemed to somehow not be front-line officers. If that logic is correct then it could affect a Youth Aid officer knocking on the door of gang members or the parents of gang members who were being administered to by a Youth Aid officer. It could have affected the constable in the Len Snee tragedy in Napier who was a Youth Aid officer. No notice was given and no warnings were sounded because there was no evidence that there would be a problem in Napier. The first responder was a Youth Aid officer and we know the consequences of that. Len Snee was gunned down and two other officers were critically wounded. It could have been even worse than the tragedy it was. 
If staff knock on the door of a house and gang members are there or organised crime activity is going on and those in the house want to protect their patch or what they are doing and there is no hint of violence there is no hint of tragic circumstances or no hint of firearms being presented a tragedy could happen. The Minister of Justice will never guarantee that it cannot happen. If that firearms training and those resources are not provided then who is impacted on who dies? Well it is likely to be a police officer God forbid and/or it is likely to be members of the community whom that police officer is sworn to protect and who will whether man or woman do everything to protect the community. But if for the first time in history the police do not have the training if they do not have the resources and if they do not have the firearms capability to deal with that even though the community expectation is that if they wear that uniform they can save members of the community and protect them there is a gap between the rhetoric in this legislation and the community expectation and the political expectation that Government members have put on it. 
Labour supports the legislation but we have some real concerns about the protection of our police force in that its members will not be adequately resourced to protect themselves or the community that they serve when they implement the tools that have been given to them in respect of organised crime and gangs because we know that gangs and organised criminals do not adhere to the protocols. They do not say that because the police are on bicycles they will only bike and do the crime on bikes. No they do not. That might seem a bit spurious or silly but it is a fact that they will use any means they can to circumvent the law. 
The other point I make comes back to what has transpired at the tail end of this debate. We had a very eloquent speech from Mr Flavell on behalf of the Maori Party and I say that with respect because like Mr Garrett I think he made some very very solid points in that speech talking about his own experience and his community experience. But then we got to the nub of it. The Maori Party seems to think that it is OK to meet with gang leaders and spend $6500 having lunch with them—and that is not $6500 to lock them up; it is to meet with them—and that it is OK to have the kaumatua and the kuia in our communities deal with them but it is not OK to support this legislation and give those communities and the police that reside in those communities the weaponry and the tools they need to deal with this. 
What is the alibi for that stance which I cannot understand? I think Mr Jones may be able to counsel me but I think it is in respect of trying to say that these gang members are part of our people our community and our culture. Well this issue is cross-cultural. When somebody gets raped or murdered or preyed upon by organised crime or gangs it is not about culture; it is about insidious crime at its basic level. I do not care what culture people are. That should never be recognised. Members of gangs or organised criminals who have committed those crimes should never be put on an equal footing with people in our communities politicians or anybody else. They should be run out of town. But it should not be left to our communities to run these people out of town and deal with them; Parliament is set up to give our communities through the police and other law enforcement agencies the tools and weapons they need to do it for them. 
I say to Mr Flavell that a great thing is happening in his community with his elders. It is a great thing but those elders have the respect and the right to be backed by Parliament and he should change his vote. He should support this legislation because one cannot be a lion in here and a lamb out there.