Gangs and Organised Crime Bill

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.

As we have said throughout the previous stages of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill, Labour will be supporting this legislation. It builds on a large amount of work that Labour did when in Government. In supporting Part 1, I will raise a couple of issues with the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nathan Guy. I agree with the powers being given to the police in respect of attempts to disrupt crime and to disrupt those who participate in organised criminal groups, especially gangs.

The issue I raise, which I have raised in respect of a number of other law enforcement bills that this Government has put up, concerns resources for enforcement. I think the powers that are put forward here in terms of interception are appropriate. I think the recommendations that the select committee made in respect of reasonableness are appropriate, as are the amendments to the definitions in section 98A of the Crimes Act on offences that are committed by participating in an organised criminal group. But I raise the following point with the Minister. Again, as with other legislation the Government has proposed in order to empower police, the measures are only as good as the resources that are provided to police to implement that legislation.

Today we saw an interesting announcement by the New Zealand Police in my home town of Christchurch. Following the loss, as the district commander himself has advised me, of 32 police vehicles—and a number of those vehicles were from the front line, when we were told they would not be—today there was an announcement, which I have some support for, that the police had gained four bicycles. So there was an announcement today that we will have police on four bicycles running around the four avenues in Christchurch. I have to say, in all seriousness, that in itself that is not a bad thing. A police press statement, which rattled off the objective of this measure, noted that the police laughed heartily at some particular issue. It was an interesting press release.

We want police in our communities, we want police within our suburbs, and we want them visible. That is all true. But I just wonder whether it is a net gain for Cantabrians when they have lost 32 police vehicles—

💬 Paul Quinn: And the Ranfurly Shield!

—and they have gained four bikes. Mr Quinn makes another so-called useful contribution.

The point I make to the Minister is that criminals, as we know, do not adhere to the ethical rules of law enforcement. For instance, criminals will not say that because the cops are on bicycles, they will not use cars but bikes. What is next? Horses? Donkeys, possibly—and there are one or two donkeys opposite. Criminals do not adhere to the ethical rules of cricket. Just because the law enforcement men and women in blue are on a bicycle, criminals will not decide to rob the bank or department store, or shoplift or carry out an assault, and then get away on a bike. They tend to use whatever means they can to circumvent the law and the law enforcement agencies.

I say to the Minister that we are supportive of this bill. But, again, it comes down to the credibility of the resource packages through the Budget that are put up to implement these measures. We know, for instance, that 340 police vehicles have been taken from the police fleet. We know, because the Minister Judith Collins is fond of telling us, that she gave Counties-Manukau 43 new vehicles in the Budget. Yet, as we look at Part 1 and the resourcing issues around it, we see that we have to ask why the Minister of Police took 340 vehicles away from the police fleet. We know that $21 million has been required to be taken out of the police budget. Part of that budget related to dealing with organised crime, and part of it was to deal with implementing this legislation.

In all seriousness I make the point, as I think I did with the Minister’s colleague, that we are supportive of this legislation, because gang and organised crime activity is insidious—and it is tragic. Some very interesting but tragic points were made on a show that I could watch when it aired last night on TV about the spouses of those in prison, and about gangs and organised crime and their impact on families in our community. But this piece of paper is only as good as the resources that are given to the men and women in the blue and black uniforms to actually make it work. So I simply ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nathan Guy, whether he will consider giving us some reassurances around the resource implications of the bill.

Labour will be supporting the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. We on this side of the Chamber agree with the Government that some of the most insidious crime in our society is perpetrated by gangs and organised crime. Some of us in this Committee have had family members who have been traumatised by gangs or lured into involvement in gangs. The more we can do to take away the power of gangs and other organised crime units the better, as far as we on this side of the Chamber are concerned.

It is important to mention that the previous Labour Government had legislation similar to this bill before the Law and Order Committee when the National Government came into power. Had the National Government genuinely wanted to expedite this measure at a faster pace, perhaps even within its first 100 days of action, all the Minister of Justice needed to do was to support, and possibly amend, the bill that Labour had before the committee. Despite the fact that this Government decided to ignore that bill and start from scratch for the simple sake of political point-scoring, Labour supports this bill and the intention behind it.

Part 1 amends the Crimes Act 1961. It makes it easier for people to be charged with involvement in a gang. Its provisions cover the nature of participation in an organised crime gang, and involvement in a crime where three or more people share one objective, even if the person in question does not share this objective but merely knows that the three people do. It also broadens the scope of offences that are punishable and changes some penalties from 10 or more years’ imprisonment to 7 or more years’ imprisonment. The legislation also changes provisions on warrants. If a person is believed to be in a gang, authorisation to intercept a private communication will be easier for the police to obtain.

The Minister of Justice was right when he said that some concern about the bill was expressed to the Law and Order Committee. Some of the 11 submissions that were put forward were opposed to the bill because submitters were concerned that the proposals would impinge on the right to freedom of association, freedom of expression, or freedom from discrimination. Other submitters were concerned that it would infringe the rule against double jeopardy. Some submitters conveyed support for this bill while suggesting further proposals. Labour did not believe that those concerns were sufficient to propel us to oppose the bill; therefore, we support it.

Although we support this bill, it is important to point out a slight contradiction or irony. It would be fair to say that the Ministry of Justice cannot work in isolation from some of the other Government departments. In fact, it needs to work coherently alongside other departments like the New Zealand Police. Unfortunately, the reality is that as we move to put this bill into place the police budget has been cut. That is something that Mr Cosgrove talked about earlier, and it is concerning.

It is concerning that, as the Law and Order Committee is aware, as we are putting through this legislation there has been a 10 percent cut in police vehicles, a cut in police firearms training, and a $21 million cut in the police budget. All of these things will limit the ability of the police to do their job well. We as New Zealanders know that if we intend to do something better, as this bill purports to do, and if we are asked to increase the workload, our chances of being able to do so are minimal when funding is cut, and when the expectation is that more can be achieved on a much smaller budget with much tighter resourcing levels. The Government cannot say it is backing the police to deal with issues like organised crime while it pulls away the resources that are necessary for police to do their job.

Labour supports this bill because we are committed to removing criminal gangs from our society. We are prepared to work in a bipartisan way to tackle the scourge of gang crime and drug trafficking in our communities. We on this side of the Chamber recognise crime as a serious and growing problem. We also recognise the complexities that are involved in crime, particularly, and this is something that has not been raised often, in respect of low socio-economic circumstances and high levels of unemployment, and the impact that those two factors have on levels of crime. Those are two factors that the Government must address if it is serious about cutting crime levels. It is estimated that up to 30 percent of prisoners currently identify as gang members or affiliates, and that figure paints a thousand words.

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.

Kia ora, Mr Chairperson. Without a sliver of doubt, I will enjoy supporting the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. Unfortunately, it is said too rarely that some of the greatest victims of gangs in my part of the world are the very people who are related to members of gangs.

Although we have to be mindful that the police have to respect the bounds of the law—we have to have confidence, for example, in the ability of a judge to ascertain that the information being put before him or her is satisfactory—we should be under no illusion: when looking at gangs we see the worst of human nature. They are hugely well resourced and well organised. To those people who suffer some anxiety from time to time as to whether, in our pursuit of gang criminality, we are turning parts of our system into something that is aping a police State, I say that if they were to fall into the clutches of a gang, they would find that it made the police State look like a kindergarten. Gangs know no bounds. If people move into their business and threaten their existence, then not only will they menace and threaten them and their children but also they will kill them. If members have any doubts, then they should talk to the grieving families in Murupara.

Let us take the gloves off here. This measure is the way that the deep, menacing forces behind the dunderheads who run around wearing jackets and blazers with “Black Power” and other filth written on their backs can be dealt to. Interception warrants, which at the end of the day presumably have to pass muster with a judge who is seized of all the information, are not a bad thing. It is unfortunate that Dr Sharples is not here, because when we deal with crimes associated with gangs, we are dealing with organisations. We are not dealing with random events. We are not dealing with people who have had a wee bit too much to drink or who have been smoking dope or popping pills. We are dealing with well-oiled, highly armed organisations. They have not one iota of respect for Parliament. They giggle, mock, and laugh if one ever asks them to contribute something to honour the legacy of the men and women who are memorialised in this Chamber.

We need to get with the game plan. Gang members do not want to be a part of civil society. That is why I have not a sliver of doubt about the wisdom of supporting legislation that gives better powers and forces to those whom we trust to keep us safe, because, rest assured, gangs do not want people to be safe. Gangs want people to be scared, they want them to be fearful, they want them to be constantly coughing up dough through their kids being addicted, and they want their women to be afraid. People become so indifferent to life that they start slowly but surely to give up, until such time when they are forced to begin to arm themselves to make themselves feel safe. That is the reality in large parts of the north, which is where I come from.

That is why I am sad that Dr Sharples is not here today. For those of us who are of Māori descent, this bill is important. Not all gangs are Māori, but they are disproportionately full of our young people, and some of our people who are old, fat, and corpulent, but still very violent. Dr Sharples has to stop believing that simply by holding wānanga and hui we will get those people to change their lifestyles. Those leopards have deep-etched spots that ain’t going to change. The only way that those people will change is when they putrefy in the earth. Let us hope that not too many victims go through that process before we put the gang members where they belong: out of our sight and out of our lives.

If this expansion of powers causes that to come to pass, a poll taken tomorrow would show that a vast number of New Zealanders would be happy about it—although they might not feel proud that it is a feature of our modern society. People in gangs are driven by forces that are well fuelled and well funded. They do not want to join with the rest of us in terms of looking for markets, jobs, and new growth opportunities. They want to get rich on Easy Street, and they want to come north, and they do. That is why Part 1—and I acknowledge the sensibilities of some members of the Committee in relation to expansion of the State’s powers—needs to be supported.

I am happy to take a call on the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. Much like Mr Jones, the previous speaker, I have come across a number of gang members in my electorate, and I am very familiar with the impact that some of their activities have on communities, on the people who live in those communities, and on many innocent victims, including the families of the gang members concerned. Gangs are repugnant. Their activities are repugnant. The negative impact that they have on families, young people, and innocent members of the community absolutely must be dealt with.

The Labour Party will support this bill to go through the Committee stage. We want to provide the police, in particular, who have to deal with gangs and organised crime, with all of the resources that we possibly can, so that they can do that effectively. If this bill contributes, and adds a little bit more, to their arsenal, then that has to be a good thing.

These are weighty issues and there are no easy solutions to them. They need to be dealt with properly. That is one of the reasons why at the last election the Labour Party pledged to establish a commission of inquiry into organised criminal gangs. It was part of our manifesto at the last election. We need to draw on evidence and research not only from within New Zealand but also internationally. Although I would like to stand here and say that I think this bill will be the silver bullet to magically cure all of the problems relating to gangs, I am realistic enough to know that it will not be. In fact, a whole heap of issues this bill does not address need to be dealt with. They need to be aired and we have to draw on evidence to be able to do that. I know that that is something that the National Government—

💬 Sandra Goudie: Ha, ha!

Sandra Goudie in particular gets very bored when evidence is involved, because it involves a bit of reading, a bit of listening, and a bit of thinking. I do not think that she is really engaged in that level of detail. I understand that she finds evidence-based policy and decision making quite frustrating—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: She can’t spell it.

—because she cannot spell it, but it does work and it is worth thinking about.

I will talk about a couple of things related to the things that drive gangs. I will go back to one of the pieces of legislation related to this one, which we discussed earlier in the term of this Parliament, and which was about choking off the supply of money to gangs—the criminal proceeds—and giving the police much greater powers in that respect. If we really want to go after gangs, I think we have to go after two things. We have to go after the money, and we have to go after the supply of recruits to the gangs.

The supply of recruits for gangs is something we need to think quite carefully about. If we go to the prisons, for example, where 30 percent of prisoners currently identify as gang members and affiliates, we will find a couple of common characteristics amongst the prison population—illiteracy and innumeracy being two of the key ones. Coming from a lower socio-economic area is another characteristic of prisoners, as is being victims themselves of child abuse or family violence at some point, quite often in their childhood, and being totally disconnected from society. The reason those prisoners relate to gangs is that they are the people gangs prey on in order to gain gang membership. Gangs prey on the same people, who end up in prisons, and that is how they draw their members. If we really want to go after gangs, we will go after the gang recruits. We would choke off the supply of recruits by dealing with those issues—by dealing with illiteracy and innumeracy, and by dealing with the massive socio-economic gap that exists in our society, which gets bigger every year.

We would also deal with domestic abuse, child abuse, and domestic violence. People who have been victims are much more likely to end up being offenders themselves. It is absolutely true. Those are the sorts of things that could be canvassed if we had a commission of inquiry into organised criminal gangs. But unfortunately this Government has not picked up a proposal put forward by the previous Labour Government, and I think that is a bit of a shame.

Finally, I want to pick up a theme from my colleague Clayton Cosgrove, which is that all of the things in this bill may be worthy, but if the police are not adequately resourced to use the powers they are being granted in this bill, then it all amounts to very little. In my own area, the police have had to give back the police cars they previously had access to; they have had to give them back. There are significantly fewer police cars on the streets in the Hutt Valley today than there were before the election.

I am happy to stand and take a call in the Committee stage of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. I endorse the comments made by my colleagues earlier. Labour takes this issue very seriously. We believe that we need to listen—

💬 Sandra Goudie: How come they did nothing about it for 9 long years?

Sandra Goudie should get up and make another speech.

💬 Hon Members: No, no.

I know that it may pain us, but I think the public need to see the depth of talent on the Government benches. I think they need to see the extent of its thinking about this important legislation.

💬 Sandra Goudie: Marvellous, marvellous!

The member says: “Marvellous, marvellous”. I think the public needs to see the future front-bencher and future Minister of Finance, Sandra Goudie, and get to know her before her promotion comes.

This is a very important bill. It extends work that Labour did when in Government to try to give police the tools to be able to deal with organised crime effectively. This is not an easy area of legislation. Parliamentarians constantly walk a fine line between ensuring that the rights of innocent citizens are protected and ensuring that our police are able to use whatever powers we can give them to bring criminals to justice. We need to do whatever we can to break down the organised crime that exists in New Zealand. This issue is not peculiar to New Zealand. Many countries grapple with how to deal with organised crime; New Zealand is not alone in that regard.

The bill increases the penalty for participating in an organised criminal group from 5 years’ imprisonment to a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment, and it clarifies the evidential requirements under section 98A of the Crimes Act, which will help to improve the rate of successful prosecutions. If the police are not able to get successful prosecutions, then it will all come to nothing. The bill requires the sentencing judge to take into account any offending that is committed due to involvement with an organised criminal group as a specific aggravating factor. That is also another important aspect of this legislation.

I endorse what my colleague Chris Hipkins said, on two fronts. The first relates to resourcing, which is an issue that I raised in the debate on the previous bill. If we do not resource this issue properly, then all the legislation in the world will not mean a thing. I really endorse what Chris Hipkins said about evidence-based policy-making. It is crucially important, especially in the area of law and order, that we, as parliamentarians, are able to challenge our very strongly held views on law and order, and stack them up against the evidence. When it comes down to a choice between doing what is popular and what works, we should do what works, every single time. We need to be prepared to challenge ourselves to say that something that we—

💬 Sandra Goudie: Ha, ha!

Sandra Goudie thinks that is a joke. She does not think we should do what works. Sandra Goudie might want to look at the evidence about boot camps. I think that a reason why this Government does not want to go down an evidence-based approach, which is very relevant to this bill before me, is that if we look across the law and order spectrum, we see that sometimes what we believe might not actually be what will work and help us to reduce organised crime in this country.

One of the strongest pieces of evidence about what works in terms of reducing crime and organised crime is visible policing. It is having the police properly resourced to be out there—not to have cars taken away from them, as we have heard is happening in Rimutaka and in Christchurch, but to be out there. If we do not resource our police properly, this bill will not do anything.

💬 Sandra Goudie: Try telling us about the bill. Have you even read it?

Yes, I have read it, I say to Mrs Goudie; I have read it. If the member had been listening to me, she would know that I told her what it was for. The bill will increase the maximum sentence from 5 years to 10 years. It will require the sentencing judge to take into consideration involvement in a criminal organisation as an aggravating factor at sentencing. Does the member want me to go on? I know what the bill does. What I am saying is that it means nothing if our police are not resourced. All the nice words in the world do not put a police car on the road. Money puts a police car on the road. This Government has been cutting funding to the police. Labour’s point is that this legislation does not matter. We can keep passing law and order bills under urgency, but they will not work if we are not adequately resourcing the police. That goes for the previous bill, which was on DNA testing, as well.

The other point my colleague Chris Hipkins made—and it concerns the evidence-based approach to crime, as well—is that we need a commission of inquiry into organised crime. I do not think that any one member of this House truly understands the range of organised crime that exists in New Zealand and how to deal with it. Do we know why people enter gangs? Do we know what stops them leaving gangs, which is a very important point? Do we know the range of activities they are involved in? If we do not know the enemy, how will we combat it? I say that we do not fully understand the extent of organised crime in New Zealand. I urge the Government, as well as passing legislation like this, to pick up that suggestion and say that we will go out there and find those things out. It might be scary for us to do that, it might be intimidating, and I guarantee that we will not like what we find, but if we do not know what we are dealing with, how can we as parliamentarians comes up with the adequate legislative tools to combat it? How can we give the police the tools they need if we do not know what we are dealing with? If we are serious about an evidence-based approach to policy in this area—and I know that Sandra Goudie is not; she has made that quite clear—then we need to be prepared to go out and find the evidence. We have very, very good professionals and experts in New Zealand who can do this and who would be very happy to be funded to do this properly, alongside the Government, and I know that Labour would—

💬 Sandra Goudie: The evidence is that she’s being specious with the facts and specious with what’s been said in the House.

I have been what? I have been “specious with the facts”? I do not even know what that means, but that is all right. The other thing that this legislation does is expand the ability of the police to undertake surveillance—

💬 Sandra Goudie: There’s a dictionary in the foyer.

Thank you very much. I do not need the dictionary; that is fine.

This bill expands the ability of the police to undertake surveillance of gangs by allowing the offence of participation in a criminal organisation to be used as a basis for an interception warrant. I know there are people who are concerned about the extension of powers in this area in particular. I come back to the point I made earlier, which is that, as parliamentarians, we walk a fine line all the time. We want to be able to give the police tools, and we know that this is an area in which they can reap great results when it comes to dealing with organised crime. I say again that we need to make sure that our police are resourced properly, so that they are trained properly to know when it is appropriate to use this power and when it is not. We have a lot of trust in our police, and they do a great job, but there is potential for great abuse if this legislation does not have the proper safeguards put around it and it is not funded properly.

💬 Sandra Goudie: If she can’t understand the word “specious”, how would she understand evidence?

I tell Sandra Goudie that I know what evidence is. Seriously, oh my God—

💬 Chris Hipkins: There’s plenty of evidence on you, Sandra!

I know. Sandra Goudie might actually want to listen, because, although she seems to think that this is some kind of big joke, the fact is that we are greatly extending the powers of surveillance that the police are allowed to use when they are dealing with people who are involved in a criminal organisation. There are people in this country who want to know that parliamentarians take this seriously, that this is not just something they do so that they can go out and say: “Rah, rah! We’re really tough on law and order.”, whilst at the same time putting into place a lot of policies that will undermine law and order in this country, and that do not do anything about helping people into jobs and lifting children out of poverty. They want to know we are dealing with the causes of crime, which is just as important as dealing with people once they are criminals—in fact, it is more important. I think that people would prefer that we did not have criminals in this country rather than just having tougher laws to deal with the ones we already have. I urge the Government to take that part of the equation seriously, as well.

I reiterate, because I do not think that the Government is listening—I know that the chairperson of the Law and Order Committee has made it clear that she thinks this is funny and a bit of a joke—that the public of New Zealand wants to know that these decisions and policies are being based on evidence internationally and domestically, and that they will work. We believe that we are giving the police some useful tools here, but we say to the Government—

💬 Sandra Goudie: Oh, she does!

I said that earlier, if Mrs Goudie was listening. I know that she cannot listen and talk at the same time, so why does she not try listening for a bit instead of talking?

💬 Sandra Goudie: You’re so contradictory in your comments.

So contradictory? We are not allowed to talk about the safeguards that need to be put around these extensions of power. We are not allowed to say that the Government needs to fund our police properly, and that we support giving extra powers to the police, but when our police are undermined by their police cars being taken away, by their funding being cut—

💬 Sandra Goudie: The only people undermining the police are her and her colleagues.

I am undermining the police by saying that they need to be resourced properly?

💬 Sandra Goudie: Absolutely, when she’s being specious with the facts.

I am being “specious with the facts” and undermining the police by saying that I think they should be resourced properly! I think that sums up that member.

I have to say that the exchange between my colleague Moana Mackey and Sandra Goudie was interesting. For those who do not know, Sandra Goudie is actually the chairperson of the Law and Order Committee, and was charged with shepherding the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill through the process of reporting back to this House. I say to Ms Goudie that this is actually very serious legislation. That is the last time I will bother addressing that member in a speech, because it is a waste of time.

I want to raise a very serious issue. In terms of the resourcing issues that other colleagues have talked about, an issue that I think is of great concern, certainly to the Police Association, and that will go to the heart of how this bill is implemented, is how the police protect themselves in respect of dealing with gang members and organised crime. The evidence that Ms Mackey and others speak of, and that some on the other side of the Chamber might want to look at, is very, very clear in terms of the violence that is put upon our communities, family members, and others, especially by gangs and organised crime. Yet for the first time in history, to my knowledge, firearms training for the police force is being rationed. An allegation was put up by the Minister of Police that the police have always reviewed firearms training, and that reviews occurred under our Government, or whatever. That is true, because the police are independent and they are charged with reviewing their own operational requirements. But in 9 years of a Labour Government, no requirement was put on the police to ration firearms training.

We are not talking about some sort of gung-ho attitude here; we are talking about incidents such as the tragedy in Napier, when Senior Constable Len Snee was killed and two other officers were critically wounded. The first responder was not the armed offenders squad; it was a Youth Aid officer. In that case—and it is very germane to this bill—it was not organised crime, although there were organised crime connections. We now know a lot of drug cultivation and drug selling was going on, but there was no intelligence that that day would be a problem for the police. There was no intelligence inside the police. That is not a comment on them; it simply was not anticipated. No one knew. There was no evidence. There was no one from the public to say that something strange was going on at this person’s residence. There was no evidence in respect of firearms use. It was a routine drug warrant. The first responder was a Youth Aid officer, and then we had a tragedy. So when it comes to resourcing, if the Minister of Police, Judith Collins, wanted to, she could communicate very, very clearly to the Commissioner of Police that the pressure is off in terms of resources. She could communicate that he is not required to cut cars, to ration firearms training, or to find $21 million in the Police vote because this Government says it is committed to implementing this and other law enforcement legislation. The Minister of Police and the Minister of Justice could pick up the phone and say to Commissioner Broad that it is OK and that he is exempt from the razor gang requirements that are going through Government agencies, because they believe that if they require him to protect our community there is a requirement on them to allow police officers to have the tools to protect themselves.

There is a lot of hot air about this bill. We support the bill, but I am concerned about the man or woman in the blue uniform. We know from our communities that there is an expectation from people wearing the blue uniform. It does not matter if that person is a police educator, driving a desk, a front-line police officer, a Youth Aid officer, or whatever. When it hits the fan, our communities assume that if a police officer is wearing the blue uniform he or she will have the skills to intervene at any time and at any level, at least as first responders until specialists like the armed offenders squad and others can come to finish the job, as it were. The problem we will have implementing this legislation is that there will be police officers—people in the Criminal Investigation Branch (CIB) and all sorts of folk—who will have their firearms training rationed, or who will not get firearms training at all, and will not renew their skills every year, or every second year, as they are required to. My challenge to the Minister of Justice is to guarantee that when a man or a woman in a police uniform is going around dealing with people who are involved in organised crime and gang violence, they will not be required to use firearms, because they will not have the training to execute that job.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendment to Local Government Act 2002