Gangs and Organised Crime Bill

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.

I will not take too much of the Committee’s time over what is a pretty simple debate on the title clause of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. I think the title is germane. The only question I would raise with the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Justice, Nathan Guy, who has failed throughout the Committee stage to address this question at all, is one of resources. I ask whether this legislation should be called the “Gangs and Organised Crime (But Do the Police Have the Resources to Do It?) Bill”. Equally, one could ask the Māori Party whether it has dropped the ball on this legislation. As I said in my speech a few moments ago, I fail to see how anyone can preach in this place about “taking the fight” out to the communities, then sell out the communities by saying it is up to them to get the gangs off the marae and out of the square, and to take the patches off the gangs, without backing the communities through legislation. The question before the Māori Party is why it is voting against this legislation.

The Associate Minister makes a good point in that the debate has centred around gangs. They are the most visible, if you will, element of organised crime in our communities. They wear the patches and are pretty naked in terms of their criminal ambition, but we know that there are criminals who wear expensive suits. There are criminals who shun any disinfectant in terms of the light of the law that might be put upon them. They do not want the profile; they want to get on with their activities. In fact, I am told by some law enforcement officers that those criminals deal to anybody who might go off in a maverick way and commit violence. They deal to them quite heavily because they do not want the profile. They do not want the police taking any notice of them. They want to appear to be low profile and unthreatening. They do not have the huge gang fortifications. In some places, I am told, they live in some of the most posh suburbs of New Zealand. They do not want law enforcement having its eyes on them. There are tools within this legislation that will give the police and law enforcement eyes or ears on those criminals in terms of surveillance.

It is worth noting, as others have, that organised crime is not confined just to what we might see when Television New Zealand does the “smash, bash, and crash” exposé, as it does from time to time when something tragic happens, because it is gang stuff. What we do not hear about, because it does not have the graphic violence that can be splashed on the 6 o’clock news, is the gang member or organised criminal in the suit who works behind the scenes but who is equally insidious because he or she is peddling drugs in a more sophisticated way. Those criminals do not have barbed wire up on the front fence. They may live in the leafy suburbs and we may not know exactly who they are, but they are as insidious and despicable as anyone who wears a physical patch and tattoos, whether they be white, brown, or any other colour or creed, and who goes around in a physically menacing way and is visible around our communities. So we support this title. We hope the bill will be backed up by appropriate resources.

We again ask why the Māori Party waves the white flag of surrender in here, leaving it up to the folks back home to lead the charge against organised crime, and does not support a bill that gives those communities the tools, through law enforcement, they need to back the kaumātua, kuia, and the organisations that are standing up and saying “Taihoa. We do not want these individuals here.” The question is why it is a case of lion in here and lamb out there. Why will the Māori Party not stand up and support this bill? Is it because the Māori Party has some sort of bizarre view, as Mr Flavell has said and Mr Jones pointed out, that these gang members and organised criminals are somehow “our people.”? Like hell they are. They are not our people, and they should be run out of town. They should be run out of town by the Parliament. We should not leave it to the kaumatua, kuia, and others to do our bidding for us.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I just make a comment here. I have been extremely tolerant. This is the debate on the title and commencement. The member went well beyond that, and, in a way, he has incited responses. But this is the title and commencement debate.

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.

I gave some tolerance to members on the Labour side of Chamber; I have no option but to give the member some tolerance. But I will conclude the debate on those matters, and any subsequent efforts will be on title and commencement.

Kei te pai. Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Firstly, I will speak with regard to the terminology. If we ask most New Zealanders about the word “gang”, the notion that would come to the mind of most New Zealanders would be that of Black Power, the Mongrel Mob, maybe some bikie gangs, people on motorcycles, and that is about it. Carmel Sepuloni raised the issue of colours, and after talking with some people in this particular area I say that those people do not seem to be classed as gangs, in a sense. So I want to check with the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nathan Guy, about what he said a little bit earlier, by raising the point about the definition of gangs, how far and how wide that particular definition goes. Mr Cosgrove has raised the point of whether white collar crime fits into the notion of gangs, and there might be some catches. It might fit under the other part of the title of the bill—“organised crime”, and so be it. But I make the point that the connotation of “gangs” is around the notion of Māori gangs or those that, let us say, affiliate to those Māori gangs. That is the first point.

Mr Cosgrove raised the notion of the cost in finding solutions. I raise the point again that I had talked about at least one community taking an opportunity and that I supported them on that particular notion. That is what the Māori Party says.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Six and a half thousand bucks!

I will come to the $6,500 shortly. If there was support to allow those communities to get on with those solutions, then we would be happy because that at least is dealing with the problem and will get away from going to the next part, which is the $6,500. Mr Cosgrove talks about the cost to the taxpayer, yet the end result of this bill will be to lock up more people, no doubt; therefore, there is a contradiction in what he is talking about in that regard.

The third point I would make is that already now in law there are opportunities for the police to move in on gangs. We know that, because that is exactly what happened in a number of scenarios that people will be well aware of. Sure, this bill might harden up the legislation and, sure, it extends certain terms, but the law as it stands at the moment is able to deal with those issues. I respond by saying that that is one line. The law is already there that can take care of those issues, so what do we do to deal with the situation afterwards? We are just breeding more and more and more of it.

The Māori Party approach is that we need to look at alternatives. That is not to say that we should not throw them into jail; I told the Chamber before that those who do the crime should do the time. There is no doubt about that. We do not have a problem with that. But we are saying that we should look at other solutions. At least one community has put its hands up over the issue and we hope that that spreads. It is not to say that Murupara has all the answers. It does not, but at least it is right for people there. Other places will have different solutions. The point about back-up, too, is exactly right. We hope that rather than put $6,000, or whatever, into sending a person to jail, we put $6,000 on issues of rehabilitation. That would be helpful; that would be really helpful.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Mr Chair.

Just before I call the member I say to members that my tolerance has been—

💬 Hon Member: Exhausted.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): —exhausted and I will terminate the speech of any member not speaking now on the title and commencement. I say to members who want to continue this debate that this is a fine debate. The third reading is forthwith. I ask members to bear that in mind. If Mr Jones wants to make a contribution it must be on title and commencement.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 110/7, which states “When debating the preliminary clauses at the end, members should have some latitude to summarise, and make concluding remarks about, the issues they have raised during the committee’s consideration of the bill.” I do not want to challenge your ruling, because I think you have done very well in providing some latitude for members in the debate. I just want to ensure that members are actually given the opportunity in this to summarise comments and to respond to comments that have been made through the debate.

The member is actually challenging me, but in a gentle way, and I am going to stand firm on what I have said. It is title and commencement from now on. I think we have got to the stage where both sides have been put, and we are having a third reading forthwith.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson, for observing some latitude; it was an impassioned issue. I would also like to acknowledge Te Ururoa Flavell. Both he and I are entitled to have our views recorded in the Chamber, and I respect the direction that he is coming from. I want that to be known because those of us who share common roots need to be of a common mind.

This is the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill, but I cannot resist the option of leaving the member with the feeling that the bill ought to be renamed. It ought to be renamed the “Māori Party Talks the Politics but Does Not Walk the Politics Bill”. The title reveals that the bill is not just about an ethnic problem; the problem, as we are warned, is how we respond as a legislature to organisations. The title of the bill contains the word “organised”; that requires a sophisticated response. We are also required to deal with the word “gangs”. Gang members want to have rights but not obligations, and that is probably where we differ from them. Unfortunately, I am unlikely to persuade a suitable number of people in the Chamber that the bill should have a new title. Therefore, as Labour is supporting the bill, we will tolerate the bill going forward with its current name, although we know that probably it could have been given a far more fitting moniker, given the contributions of some members of the Chamber.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

The Committee divided the bill into the Crimes Amendment Bill, the Local Government Amendment Bill, and the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3), pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 51.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.