Gangs and Organised Crime Bill

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.

I thought I would make another very moderate contribution on the scourge known as gang criminal culture in my part of Aotearoa, known as Tai Tokerau. Of course I can see, unfortunately, the burden upon the judge when this new provision in the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill finally washes up and laps at his or her magisterial feet. Lawyers, unfortunately, are no doubt going to test these notions of both association and connection. It is unavoidable, unfortunately, that when we do change law, it takes a while for jurisprudence to emerge. But if we strip away all the verbiage, we see that at the guts of the issue is the question of whether this is a way of testing people’s motives and getting them to justify how they have acquired their lucre, or why they are doing what they are doing in association with obvious gang offenders, etc.

If the provision actually simplifies the task of the police, and of those of us who are other civic leaders, in being able to amplify the dangers of being indifferent to, or indulgent about, gang culture, then it will be a very useful provision. Admittedly, a test will be required for judging at what point a person is fatally involved in a criminal organisation. I see no other way, unfortunately, for the various lawyers to say that, no doubt at great cost, although Dame Margaret Bazley has a great deal to say about that. She, fortunately, is going to focus on the lawyers, some but not all of whom are ill-equipped to stand before the bench, unlike the majority of we parliamentarians as we stand before Mr Chairperson, but that is another matter. So I think that this is a small provision that is very useful.

But, as I said, let us not get away from the underlying problem. We must seize every device and seize every opportunity to prevent the normalisation of gang culture and of gang membership, so that more New Zealanders shun those families and those people who want to maintain that culture. If, God forbid, there was an element that came to Aotearoa with that Middle Eastern style of deep animus that shows itself in wanton violence, etc., we would shun that as a part of our tolerant society. But it is sad that, growing year by year, there is a hardened element. I fear over a longer period of time the attitudes of Kiwis towards this gang thing—given that we have been through indulgence, we have been through indifference, we have been through aspiration, we have been through anger, and we are going now in some cases into fury. What will happen in areas such as where I come from is that people slowly but surely will continue to take the law into their own hands, because they are genuinely frightened and scared of those people. I already said earlier that that fright is a massive weapon in the hands of gang criminals; having people frightened is at least 80 percent of the way. It might be said, as it often is by Dr Sharples and his colleagues, that this is hyperbole and rhetoric that does not actually advance the cause of understanding the underlying reasons for gang criminality and helping people move on. The only place I want them to move on to is a new wing at Ngāwha prison.

I am not interested one iota in normalising or enabling people to think—under the cloak of Māori culture and by using a few Māori words—that somehow we are going to weaken our resolve to marginalise those people and to have them face the full cost of their criminality. It is a very divisive issue. For those of us who are in the Māori world, it takes up a large part of our time. In Parliament we do not stay just in any world. We do not necessarily stay in a Pākehā world or a Māori world; we are there for all New Zealanders. But the place I come from in the North is a hugely strong Māori area, and it has a different culture. It has a different political culture. But, as lonely as it is, and although this approach of supporting legislation like this bill and supporting the ability of the police to be more penetrative and perhaps even more unforgiving, does cause us to be assailed in the Māori world as being anti-Māori, I think this provision is very important.

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.

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.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. Kia ora tātou i tēnei rā. I am aware that time is moving on and I will take only a brief call. I find myself stuck with the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. I tend to agree with many of the statements made by my colleague Shane Jones, because of the loss of two lives in Murupara, in my electorate. A young boy, Jordan Herewini, from Te Kura Kaupapa Motuhake o Tāwhiuau, was killed earlier this year. Another young man, Kaine Lewis, was killed about 5 or 6 weeks ago. Again, he was involved in a gang confrontation in Murupara. These deaths resulted in a hīkoi through the town.

If members do not know Murupara, it is a rural community way out in the middle of the bush. Once upon a time it was a thriving community. The vast majority of the people who live there are Māori. At this point in time many of them are unemployed. Basically, two gangs are involved in that town right now. The first is the Tribesmen, which has become established there. For all intents and purposes, that gang is made up of many people from the iwi of Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare. The Mongrel Mob has also moved into town. The two altercations that resulted in the deaths of those two boys came out of gang confrontations and the use of colours, which is being discussed today. Having been associated with the young boy Jordan—we had travelled together on various trips—his death really hit home to me, and it certainly made me feel really angry in respect of the way that gang culture has developed in Aotearoa.

In reflecting on this bill, I wonder whether we will ever get rid of the whole notion of gangs in Aotearoa, but I tend to believe that we will not, because overseas experience overseas tells us so. No matter what strategies have been employed thus far throughout the world, it seems that there still remains a culture of “ganghood”, if you like, and that is the difficulty. No matter what we try to do with gang members—lock them up and throw away the key, or work with them—there still remains the whole notion of gang culture. Yet there have been some examples where working with them has produced positive results. Not that I am the expert on gangs, but I think back to the work that Sir Robert Muldoon sort of started and that others have picked up in terms of moving towards employment schemes and so on.

The strange thing about this experience is that in Murupara the people decided to take the bull by the horns and come back to our own tikanga. I am talking only about this particular situation, not other gangs. I am talking only about these two gangs, which we might call Māori gangs. They have basically called a rāhui, which is a prohibition on violence in their town. It seems to be taking off and working. It means that there is a lot of dialogue and a lot of talk between the people involved.

The Māori Party has been talking a lot about this issue. In particular we have been saying that we have to do something, but we ask what the something is that would produce the best results against the context of the fact that gangs will stay with us. Sure, some measures might happen to be on the side, but one of the things we are absolutely confident about is the need for us to empower communities to allow them to get on and deal with the issues within their own environment.

Since the time that the rāhui has been imposed, it has even got to the point that Ngāti Manawa have basically banned patches from their marae. I am not exactly sure of all the circumstances, but the following example could be a real situation. Imagine that a gang member has died in Wellington, and his family say that they want his body to go back to Murupara for burial, but the people back in Murupara say no. They say that he cannot come back. They say that if he chose that life, then he should stay down in Wellington. He cannot go back and be buried amongst his people in Murupara. The Murupara community will not even allow him to go to their marae. If his body was to go back to Murupara, first, the family needs to find a place for him to lie, and, second, the family need to have the people there agree that he can lie in the same urupā, the same cemetery, as all the ancestors. That is happening right now, today. If it is not today, then it was yesterday; I have spoken to the people about it. That situation is the sort of thing that can happen.

I am caught with the whole notion of having to do something, but, at the end, having discussed the issue in our caucus, we struggle with the notion of simply keeping on locking those people up. It might satisfy our minds right now, but we are looking for some other solutions on top of that. There is no doubt that those who commit those crimes should serve the time; I have no problem with that. But we have to do something about rehabilitation to try to get these people back into society. If it comes at a hard cost, like not being allowed to go back to be buried amongst one’s people, then that is a big call.

Mr Jones will know that not being allowed to be buried amongst one’s own people is a very, very big call. In fact, not even being allowed to go on to one’s marae to grieve over one’s relations is a big call. Just 2 weeks ago, there was a tangi in Murupara for a kuia who was about 90 years old. Her children are teachers. As soon as the rāhui came in and Ngāti Manawa banned the patches, the Tribesmen could not go on to their marae. It got a little bit dicey there, I am told, but in the end the gang members respected it. Further, they tried to go down to the urupā to bury her, and women stood on the road. Kuia and koroua stood on the road and said that they were to get the patches off or else they would not be going in there. They could choose one or the other and take their leave.

Serious efforts are being made on the part of our communities to take back our communities, and I use Murupara as just one example. The hope would be that the notion of using our own tikanga spreads. I do not know whether it would work in Kaitāia, Kaikohe, or elsewhere, but I am confident, based on what has happened in Murupara, that we can change the mindset.

While this bill is before us, I want the House to understand that our vote is about looking at other solutions. Although we do not support this particular bill as such, we understand the reasons for it, but we also want to look at the bigger picture. The solution might come not just from the law and order field or the justice field; it might come from the bigger picture. I wanted to raise those points, just in case other speakers from the Māori Party have not yet put that view. It will be a part of the picture painted with our vote later on in the other stages.

I feel privileged—and I say this without a trace of sarcasm or insincerity—to have just heard that speech by Te Ururoa Flavell. It was a fantastic speech. I am aware of the case that occurred a couple of weeks ago, but I was not aware of yesterday’s case that he referred to. I say at the outset that I do not claim to be an expert on Māoritanga; it would be absolutely arrogant and ignorant of me to do so. But I know a little bit about it. What struck me about the case 2 weeks ago—and I am very sorry to have to point this out to my colleague—was that on the previous day it was revealed that his co-leader Dr Pita Sharples had met with gang leaders, in part to find out whether they were getting enough entitlements from the social welfare system. The next day the kuia whom Te Ururoa just referred to stood up and said that if gang members were going to dress like that, they should go away. I imagine the words might have been a bit stronger than that. Ordinary Māori people recognise those scum for what they are: scum and criminals. I think that speech was fantastic, and obviously that attitude towards gang members is a part of the solution to this problem.

It has been said by Te Ururoa and others that gangs will always be with us, and we just have to give up and accept that in some way. Not so! Not so! Dr Jennifer Walsh, a criminologist, was here to give evidence on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill earlier this year. I rang her the other day; we stayed in close contact. I just happened to say we do not hear as much as we used to about drive-by gang shootings in South Los Angeles, and she said they almost never happen now. I asked why that was, and she said it was because the gang leaders were all in jail—they were locked up. So the issue of gangs can be tackled. Yes, a multidisciplinary and multifaceted approach is needed, but the first step is to take the brave step that those kuia did on that marae in the Bay of Plenty two weeks ago, and to have a clear understanding that the gangs are criminal organisations that will not be tolerated.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson, for providing me with the opportunity to make a short contribution on the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. I really enjoyed hearing my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell speak about the Murupara experience, but for me it reveals a deep ambiguity about where those Māori politicians in this Chamber stand in relation to gangs.

I agree with a community that binds together and seeks to censure or exclude criminals—because that is what the gangs are. Members should stop calling them “our people”. They are not our people. Our people do not go to jail for killing teenage boys. Our people do not go to jail for raping and for selling P, and celebrating that as a mark of distinction and success. They are not our people. In fact, they are not people. We have a word for that kind of thing in Māori. It is “taurekareka”. They are the slaves that, before Christianity, would have been dispatched without a sliver of a doubt—because that is how they are treating those teenagers in Murupara.

If communities believe that by relying exclusively on those proud, noble traditions that define us as Māori, such as rāhui, we will penetrate that fog of criminality, I have news for them. Those people will understand only one thing: ringa kaha, the full force of the law. It will offend a number of us in this Chamber to think that we as New Zealanders will have to embrace that level of harshness, but if we do not, those of us who are condemned to live with those taurekarekas have to worry when our daughters, our sons, our mokos, and our families go about their lawful duties and activities. Will they fall prey to those locusts?

So yes, there is a small glimmer of hope in Murupara. I was at a tangi where I heard a Mr Goldsmith of Murupara, an elder who lived and worked with my Ngāpuhi relations in South Auckland. He explained very vividly the dilemma. How can they continue to live in Murupara without full access or recourse to the police? They do not want to take the law into their own hands. He gave a very good account.

I say to every marae and every Māori community that if they are not prepared to shun those people, they will infiltrate their communities and ruin their lives. It may not happen in the more leafy suburbs of Auckland, although Paul Holmes can give an account that would suggest something slightly different. Those of us who live in the provinces and see how those people live on a regular basis should mark my words. We need to take a very staunch approach to them and stop regarding them as our people. To me, that not only corrupts the notion that we as Māori want to celebrate kinship but it provides them with a new level of cover and camouflage.

Members of the Māori Party must step away from the moral ambiguity they have over this. They will not support this bill. I say: “Shame on them!” They should not come to this Chamber and give us lectures about how kaumātua and kuia are showing courage in the face of killers—because within those gangs are the killers of those teenage children—when they do not have the boldness or courage to support this bill. That is why I hope that the moral ambiguity the Māori Party has is fatal in a political sense. Kia ora tātau.

Before I call the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, I say that these are fine speeches, but I am trying to connect them to Part 3 of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: It’s gangs.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I know that. I have shown a great degree of tolerance and leniency in every part of the bill, but I ask members to address Part 3 at this stage in the debate.

I commend you, Mr Chairperson, on your tolerance, and on the way in which I think you have let this debate flow somewhat more widely than being simply on Part 3, which deals with aggravating factors at sentencing. Items have of course been brought to the debate that I think require answers. Mr Jones, Mr Flavell, and Mr Garrett, I think, have made points that are relevant, as we deal holistically with the insidious nature of gangs.

I am taking a short call to address, as my colleague Mr Jones did, Mr Flavell’s speech. It was full of emotion, and quite rightly so. Although he talked about the aggravating factors that had occurred in Murupara, where communities had been put upon, and where fatalities had occurred, I must say, in addressing what he said, that he told the Chamber that he would not be supporting this bill—and, I assume, this part, Part 3, which deals with aggravating factors. Mr Flavell is essentially saying that it is OK for those on the marae to lead the charge, as he rightly pointed out. But he is also saying, I think, and as Mr Garrett alluded to, that it is OK for his leader to meet with gangs and somehow put gang leaders on a platform. There has been a lot of debate about that, of course, in the community: is it a good thing or is it a bad thing to see them eye to eye and to spend $6,500 of taxpayers’ money doing it? It is OK, of course, to have gangs expunged from the marae and shunned from it, and to have those good people in our communities take that fight to the gangs, but the Māori Party is not prepared to support this legislation, and Part 3 particularly, and in supporting this legislation to support their own communities—the kaumātua, the kuia, and the others who are out there on the front line, as Mr Flavell quite rightly points out, doing their bit. They do not have to spend $6,500 of taxpayers’ money doing it, but they are telling people to get off the marae. My colleague Shane Jones leant across and said to me that in terms of expunging gangs from the marae, up in his part of the world that was tried 20 years ago, yet we are no further ahead.

I say to the Māori Party that I would like a reason why it will not support this bill, why it will not support Part 3, and why that party thinks it is appropriate to posture here in the Chamber and leave the fight back home out there. This issue is cross-cultural. This is not just a Māori problem; there are predominantly white gangs. We can have a look at the Christchurch Press this morning and read about them in the Dominion Post. This is not about culture. Like Mr Jones, whether they be brown, white, or any other colour or creed, I do not consider members of gangs “our people”, our citizenry, or part of our community. They are thugs, murderers, and rapists; they are those who do immense harm to our community. So I would be grateful if, at least for the Māori Party’s own constituency, Mr Flavell could get up and tell us why the kuia, the kaumātua, and our communities are left to take the battle against the gangs back in the home patch and on the marae, and why, hang on, the Māori Party, which purports to represent all Māori—I think wrongly, because that is ridiculous—will not stand up and support a bill that I think has most, if not all, parties’ support to crack down on the insidious nature of gang activity.

I mean, how many young people have to be killed, young women raped, or young people put into a life of crime and enticed by drugs, alcohol, and the other things that are peddled by these gangs? What will it take for the Māori Party to get the message right and consistent, instead of giving the strong message in here but the weak message out there? That Māori Party leader cannot meet with gangs, have lunch with them, spend six and a half grand on them, and then go around telling everyone that it was a great cultural experience and part of giving the message to gangs. That happened in June, and Mr Garrett and other members have spoken of the fatalities that have happened since then. The gang activity has rolled on.

I believe we should not give gangs a platform of equal status to anyone—not just to politicians but to anyone in our community—because in doing so it is recognised that somehow and in some way gangs are legitimate. Whether gangs be white, Māori, Pacific Island, Asian, or whatever, their activities are insidious, they are not part of our culture or community, and they should never be recognised. I invite the Māori Party to respond.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Part 3 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2