Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to our final debate, and this is on clauses 1 and 2. These are the “Title” and “Commencement” clauses.

Thanks, Madam Chair. In terms of the title of this bill, I think that the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill is a missed opportunity and a missed direction for what this bill actually serves. I would recommend that this bill be renamed the “Gangs (Fearmongering and Division) Bill”, because that is what this bill serves.

What we have been seeing, and what we have been hearing from the Minister, is around the fear of gangs, but at no point is the Minister actually addressing the root causes of gangs in Aotearoa. What we are hearing, the Minister has mentioned, is a lot of talk about the fact the Greens have mentioned colours and that we can’t wear certain colours in certain places. But there are many other instances when we may not wear a certain colour—for example, when you are supporting a particular sports team. I think if you a supporting a particular football team in the UK—you support Manchester instead of Liverpool—there will be certain colours that you will not be wearing, both in terms of the respect you have for the team but also in terms of other things. For example, I would not be wearing certain colours. I would not be wearing blue in certain instances for fear that I might be mistaken for someone from a particular political party, because a lot of people think that Chinese people all vote for one particular party.

There was no evidence, as we’ve seen in the regulatory impact statement, particularly page 30—this is from the Ministry of Justice—that ever suggested this legislation was going to do anything but harm the relationships that we have within our own communities. But I think that one other thing that also could be an alternative, when we are looking at the title of this bill, could be something like “Unwilling to Address Systemic Trauma That Contributes to the Root Causes of Gangs Amendment Bill”. I do think that is quite a long title, but it is an important point. This bill itself does not address any of that. It is simply putting a plaster on a much bigger wound, and there is nothing that suggests this plaster is going to work for that. So I would seriously implore the Minister to reconsider the necessity of this bill and what this bill will do to our communities.

Throughout this debate, we have mentioned a variety of factors that mean this bill is not evidence based. There are things that we have not thought out in terms of this bill. If we look at this purest—all things aside, I would go to my Amendment Paper on the change of the title, because I do think that “Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill” does not reflect the true intent of this, or any sort of specific element of this. Just to be particularly factual and process based, in terms of the content, when we were looking at Part 2 and Part 3 of this bill, which are the substantial elements of this, I think “Gangs (Insignia and Dispersal) Amendment Bill” is a much more accurate reflection of the content of the bill, as opposed to “Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill”, which is not incredibly descriptive of its content.

So I would hope that, with everything else I mentioned aside, the Minister would seriously consider my amendment to the change of the title to “Gangs (Insignia and Dispersal) Amendment Bill”. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think the appropriate name for the bill would be, probably, “Kick the Māoris in the Guts Again Bill”. I think that’s probably a better title. I’m serious about this, because this is happening every week from the Government, if we think about it. I know that was a nice title from my friend over there, the Green member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, but I just think “Kick the Māoris in the Guts Again from the Government Bill” would be a much better title.

I think that this bill—and I’m not the first one to say this; so many people are saying that out there. I think James Meager agrees with me too in his heart, if he thinks about it. Every week, Māori are under attack. So that’s why I’m saying—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I just ask the member for a moment just to lift the conversation. I’ve heard a lot of debate in this piece of legislation and I’ve also heard very good, forthcoming speeches about how, actually, this is about the gangs, and there’s a small proportion of those gangs who are, in fact, Māori, so can we keep this conversation—and I did hear the Minister who was in the chair at the time acknowledge that, because I was sitting here. So I think could we make it about the gangs and the title and the commencement of the gangs bill—yeah. Thank you.

Yeah, well, I’m giving you a suggestion in terms of the title, and I’m giving you some basis for the title. I want to elaborate, because I’ve had Māori leaders, gang leaders talk to me. I think I know, with respect, probably more gang members than most people in this House. I suppose that’s not something to be proud about, but I’ve been raised around many gang members, many who have turned their lives around—many who have turned their lives around—some of them who will be working with this Government.

Good on this Government for wanting to work with some of those gang members, because you’re never going to get to the root of the problem if you don’t work with the Eugene Ryders of this world, if you don’t work with the Denis O’Reillys of this world, if you don’t work with the gang leaders. I’ve been around many of them and I’ve been no big fan of gangs at all. In fact, for the committee’s information, we bar patches on my marae, and we’ve had that gang patch ban—

💬 Simon Court: Is it working?

—for many years. I’ll tell you why it’s working, and that’s a good question. I’ll tell you why it’s working: because we work with the whānau too—we work with the whānau too. So I accept some of the kōrero that the gang patches can be intimidating. All people can get intimidated by gang patches—Māori, Pākehā, whatever. But one thing we can’t walk away from—and this is the problem with the legislation—is that you’re actually affecting whānau; that’s the problem.

In our school that we set up at my marae at Ngā Whare Waatea, which is open to everyone, 25 percent of our kids had gang fathers. Gang fathers—they know when they attend the marae, no patches. So we need to bring in laws. See, here’s the thing: National has got some history in terms of working with gangs. A very famous or infamous Prime Minister—Rob Muldoon—had a relationship with gangs. He had the gangs in here. He knew the way forward. The way forward was to keep them busy, to keep them in work. When Muldoon died, the Black Power performed a haka at his tangi. He wanted to find a way through. He was someone who knew there had to be a strategy around gangs, not just getting rid of patches. What we did was try to dismantle the assets where this former Minister over here did some wonderful work.

We have to cut to the chase, cut to the root of the problem. Just taking their patches is not going to make communities any safer; it’s got to be a bit more than that. I appreciate the fear. I appreciate the fear that is out there amongst some of the communities. I’ve debated this at length with people like Michael Laws, who I worked with some years ago. We used to debate this on radio in terms of the effect of taking patches off. At the time, Michael Laws was the Whanganui mayor and he was going down this track, and so my partner in crime there John Tamihere, who became the president of Te Pāti Māori—[Time expired] Madam Chair? Thank you, Madam Chair.

So, if I could just continue, my partner in crime John Tamihere, who is now the president of Te Pāti Māori, absolutely supported getting rid of patches. Just for Te Pāti Māori’s information, he 100 percent supported getting rid of patches of gangs, but, of course, I know Te Pāti Māori has evolved, and so has John Tamihere, I believe. But, at the time, he was absolutely clear that those patches had to come off the gangs. He was in Michael Law’s court, believe it or not. I never was, because we needed to think this out. We needed to think about the broader strategies. Were we looking after whānau? Was employment being put in place? Were the gangs being, I suppose, looked after? When people, whether it’s gangs or whatever have nothing to do, they do what they shouldn’t do, we should know that.

Now, my organisation, back in the 1980s and 1990s, we were contracting Black Power, and the president at the time was a guy called Abe Wharewaka, who you would know—Abe Wharewaka. They were contracted to our organisation, and so we had the Black Power members all in work, all busy, all active. This is what Muldoon said, one of the National Party icons and heroes. He said you just can’t leave them to their own devices. People like Muldoon said it’s not just about taking their patches; it’s about providing work. It’s about looking after whānau. It’s about getting these guys out of what they’re involved with.

I am not a supporter of gangs. Sorry about that there, sister, but I am not a supporter of gangs, and I have told the gangs this, but I’m a supporter of their whānau. When I see them, I see their families, I see their wives, I see their tamariki, and we have an obligation as Māori and Māori community organisations to look after their whānau, no matter what the hell their fathers have done sometimes. We all tell them off. These people in the Chamber will tell them off, but you can’t just take patches off them and think that “Oh, it’s all been solved now.” It’s too superficial. You have to hit them in the pocket. You have to hit the asset side. What this legislation is threatening to do—you need to listen here. You need to listen. I’m not just trying to grandstand here. You need to think about things in a whānau aspect.

This is a Government that prides itself in terms of supporting Whānau Ora. This Government has supported the funding in terms of Whānau Ora. I’ve given Tama Potaka some credit with that. Part of Whānau Ora is looking after people who might upset you, who might have upset your whānau and upset your community, but you have an obligation to look after that whānau. So I say to this Government, you’ve got to look beyond the patch. You’ve got to look beyond the patch—what’s happening at home? What’s happening in the community?

I think the Prime Minister fronted very well in terms of when we had the abuse victims here. It was a very good day, I think, for this Parliament, when we had a Prime Minister and parties supporting people who have been dealt to by the State. Then the next day, you start pushing this type of legislation. Māori and communities have had enough. So I implore this Government—I know they’re not going to change this legislation now—to think about this, because you’ve got communities in an uproar. You’ve got communities in an uproar. You saw some of the—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Don’t bring the Chair into the debate, please.

My apologies, Madam Chair. We have communities in an uproar. You saw some of the performance on television last night in terms of the Māori seats—you saw that. Do we support that sort of violent response? Of course not, but this is what happens. People get emotional. I know people will say, “Oh, these are only gang patches and so who cares?” Families care. Communities care. Iwi care.

So I say today that I can’t give you any other title apart from “Kick the Māori in the Guts”. That’s the best suggestion I could come up with at this stage, but I’ll keep talking, if you like, and I might find another title over the next five minutes, but I’m asking the Government to consider the overall strategy. How do we best hurt these gangs? You hurt them by dismantling their asset space. There’s no easy fix. How do we go through the rehabilitation? How do we? We go through—[Time expired]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I thank the member for turning that into a constructive call, and I’ll take a call from Tamatha Paul please.

Thank you, Madam Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): On title and commencement—let’s go back to the title and commencement. Thank you.

Yes, back to the title—100 percent. My question is whether the Minister considered the title “Suppression and Surveillance of Indigenous People Act”. I know that we just listened to 10 minutes relating to the impact of this bill on Māori, but I have some different points to make and they’re more related to the consorting orders within the bill, which is one of the three key tenets of this bill. The first is the gang patch ban, the second is the non-consorting order, and the third is the dispersal notices. We actually didn’t really have an opportunity at all to touch on the consorting orders during the committee of the whole House phase, but I think if we look at the way that they’ve been applied, you can see why this would relate to the suppression and surveillance of Māori, or the suppression and surveillance of indigenous people, which is what I wanted to talk about in this call.

When I did a bit of background research, when the Government announced their plan around gang patches, I think it was Minister Mitchell who said that he would be basing some of these laws on Australian laws and similar legislation that’s been in place in Australia, and so I reached out to one of my Green colleagues in New South Wales David Shoebridge to ask him the success of these laws and how they had been applied. He said that—and I looked this up and there is heaps of evidence of this—those consorting orders have been used disproportionately against young Aboriginal people in Australia, which is why I think that the title of this bill needs to reflect the discriminatory impact and use that is used disproportionately against indigenous people. I’ve got the report here; it’s from the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission. It’s called Discussion Paper: Review of the operation of the amendments to the consorting law under Part 3A Division 7 of the Crimes Act 1900, and it’s from last year. In that, it talks about the use of these laws.

For context, in Australia, indigenous and Aboriginal people make up about 2 percent of the general population. But these consorting laws—which, I again repeat, we have not had the chance to talk about in this committee of the whole House phase, despite the fact that it is a major piece of this legislation. During the review period, 1,797 of the 4,257 people who were on the receiving end of a consorting order—so 42 percent—were Aboriginal people. Then, you look at a breakdown of how it’s been used in different jurisdictions within New South Wales, you can see that of the use of these consorting laws, 48 percent were used against indigenous people,;39 percent used against indigenous people—51 percent; 48 percent. For 75 percent of the times that these consorting orders were made, they impacted Aboriginal and indigenous people, and we know that it’s going to be no different in Aotearoa because we already know that we have a system that surveils and suppresses Māori and that picks us up and takes tens of thousands of pictures of young Māori and stores them illegally, even after the Privacy Commissioner has said to the police, “You need to delete those photos.”

When we had submitters on this bill coming to the Justice Committee, I think it was the Police Association that said that this was about giving extra tools to police—it’s extra tools in the tool belt. But those are extra tools in the tool belt to surveil and suppress Māori, and we know that. The reason we draw that connection to Māori is because when you look at the list of gangs identified within this piece of legislation, you don’t see white supremacist gangs in there. You don’t see a whole range of other gangs in there. Not even Destiny Church is in there. It’s a whole bunch of Māori gangs, and we know that that is a statistical fact, because 80 to 90 percent of gang members are Māori.

So these are just tools to contribute to the surveillance and suppression of Māori, which is why I suggest that that should be the title. Thank you.

The Hon Ginny Andersen, and it will be title, commencement, or questions for the Minister, and not wide-ranging views. I did allow that speech because there was a cut-off the other day, when the member didn’t have the opportunity to do that.

All right, my contribution, Madam Chair, is in relation to the commencement, but I was wondering if I had to make it climate-change related, given who’s sitting in the Minister’s chair, but I’ll try and keep it on gangs. So, in terms of commencement, I understand this bill will come into effect immediately after it receives the Royal assent, which will be in couple of days. So it should be, all going well, up and running by the third reading coming up. That should be sort of, I guess—what are we now? Late August—in October or November, it should be up then.

So my proposal, and the Minister who’s available may wish to address this, is that I actually think that in order for this legislation to be effectively able to be implemented there needs to be an extension to that commencement date, because currently there’s insufficient police resources for this legislation to be enforced. I consider it’s really irresponsible of this Government to pass a law without having the resources in place to be able to actually enforce it. We know that there’s around about 124. There’s been a wing, but a few more have left. We’re sitting at around about the 120 mark. There are fewer police officers on the front line than when this Government came into office and so this legislation is quite resource-intensive for police officers.

My major concern is that the additional police officers that this Government has promised—the 500—actually need to be fully recruited before police are at an operational capability to be able to effectively enforce this legislation. So my suggestion would be to kick out this commencement date until they actually reach their 500. I think that would be a far more realistic way to make sure that we’re not putting, I guess, unattainable expectations upon the front line to be able to roll this out.

We get regular updates on the vacancies currently carried right across New Zealand Police and those vacancies are heavy in our rural areas. We know that there are places around New Zealand where there are one or even just two officers in a station where they might be currently carrying four, five, or six vacancies in different roles. That’s a huge administrative burden on our police service. If this legislation is enacted and there is a clear public expectation for police officers to enforce this as soon as it comes into force, then that’s not fair on those police officers because they need that resource in place to be able to do that.

My proposal is that this Government gives some serious consideration to effectively recruiting the additional 500 police and making sure, by talking to those district commanders and the Commissioner of Police, that those staff are put into areas that are able to make sure that legislation is able to be enforced as it’s intended. Otherwise, what’s the point of this bill? What’s the actual point of passing this if the law is in place but it can’t be enforced? That would seem like it was just kind of stuff to look good on the telly, wouldn’t it? Of course, I’m sure they’re not doing that. It can’t be that; of course they want to make sure it’s actually going to have some effect.

I actually think that that’s a pretty fair idea: to kick out that commencement date to make sure the Government meets their target of 500 additional police, and I think that that actually would give police—it would allay some of their concerns. The New Zealand Police Association have come out really strongly on this. They’re quite concerned that having laws that can’t be enforced by police officers undermines the credibility of the New Zealand Police service and, effectively, undermines the rule of law in New Zealand. Why pass a law you can’t enforce? That gives people the understanding, or the impression, that all laws don’t necessarily have to be enforced.

So, if we are talking about restoring law and order, as promised by those members opposite, why are we passing laws that can’t be enforced? That would just seem to be good clickbait or a pretty good slogan, but it wouldn’t actually be delivering on what’s being promised to voters in New Zealand.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and I thank the member the Hon Ginny Andersen for the question. As the member will be aware, the commencement date was covered as part of the select committee process. The agreement around the commencement of the bill being 21 November 2024 was through discussion in the select committee process and was actually based on the date on which the police requested that the legislation would be commenced. So, on that basis, we are happy to accommodate the police’s request of 21 November 2024. That is the date on which this bill will commence and that is how we are going to proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Now, I’ve talked very carefully about this and—

💬 Hon Matt Doocey: Come on, no irony!

Well, Mr Doocey, on this side of the committee, we do think carefully, unlike the people who came up with this bill, who really didn’t think it out.

💬 Hon Matt Doocey: Come on.

No, because this bill should be called—and the title clause should be “Amendment”—have put an amendment in if the Minister’s happy—the “Gang (Intimidation) Amendment Bill”.

What this bill actually does is it’s really just Paul Goldsmith saying, “You gangs, you got to watch out. We’re coming for you.” That’s about how effective it is. It’s as effective as Paul Goldsmith with his “Make America Great Again” cap on saying, “We’re coming for you” and the gangs—you know what? The gangs are quivering in their boots. That’s about how effective this is, because this is Paul Goldsmith trying to intimidate gangs out of their patches.

We know for a fact—we heard quite clearly that the police are not going to go around and hunt out gang patches. This is utterly window dressing. It’s just an utterly ineffectual attempt by that Government over there to address gangs by trying to scare them out of their gang patches—boom. It’s just not going to work. So it’s a ridiculous bill and the fact of the matter is that it’s, effectively, posturing, but the posturing would be fine if it was effective—

💬 James Meager: Oh, pot kettle!

—but it’s absolutely ineffectual posturing. As we went through this—and I know why James Meager hasn’t taken a call: because he’s absolutely appalled by his own Government’s bill. He sat there in the Justice Committee with his head in his hands as we went through and worked out how hopeless that bill was.

💬 Hon Member: We know that’s not true!

Now there, you’re still—take your head out of your hands, stand up, and take a call and talk about the so-called merits of this bill. This bill, as we went through it in committee of the whole House here, time and again it was demonstrated how it was unworkable. So it can’t be anything other than window dressing and an attempt to intimidate.

So, really, the fact of the matter is that the bill, as we went through it—although we were, and I do want to say this; I want it on the record: we were precluded from talking about non-consorting orders. That debate was shut down in a way which was most unfortunate. Those are a really good example of orders that will never be made, just like non-association orders which already exist under the Sentencing Act and are pretty much never used because they’re not useful, they’re not effective, they don’t have any actual criminal justice purpose.

What we have here is a bill which is ineffectual window dressing. None of the things—gang patches, dispersal notices, consorting orders, sentencing, aggravating factors—are workable. As you look through them, none of them actually work, so it can’t be anything other than either a window dressing bill or an attempt by Paul Goldsmith to stare down the gangs with his tough-on-crime, real-consequences approach which is simply unworkable.

So there you go. If the Minister’s happy to have it called the “Gangs (Intimidation) Legislation Amendment Bill” or perhaps the “Gangs (Paul Goldsmith Intimidating Them) Amendment Bill”, that might be a more appropriate title.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I call the Hon Willie Jackson—on the title and commencement.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I was thinking about its commencement, Mr Chair. I was thinking about it. Given the Government’s strategy around te ao Māori, the commencement is very, very important. As we all know, they have this Treaty principles idea up at the moment. So I think, strategically, this type of legislation should go after the Treaty legislation process is completed. I mean, I think that would make sense to all of us, wouldn’t it?

💬 Andy Foster: No.

Well, you want to hear from your coalition partner. The coalition partner Mr Seymour wants to hear free thinking and free speech. He wants all this free thinking. He wants everyone making a contribution through his rotten select committee process. I’m thinking, “Well, you’ll have gangs” you know, this is only fair. I’m sure, if the Government thinks about it, a primary date, when we could do this all again, is probably 12 months from here. I’m thinking 8 August 2025 is when we should resume this, because it would fall in line with the strategy that this Government is imploring, which is about attacking Māoris every week.

A question for the Minister: given the ramifications of the Treaty principles bill and this legislation, has the Minister read the Waitangi Tribunal report with regards to colonisation and the effect of gangs? Has the Minister read the recommendations from the Tribunal which talk about working in tandem with Māori and not against Māori? That’s a really important area when we consider what type of legislation we’re trying to put in place at the moment, and I think it’s only reasonable to ask that question. Then the types of consultation: what has gone down—because we’ve had iwi leaders in the last week meet with the Government—

💬 Hon Member: Give us an example.

Yes, that’s right—Hūhana’s relations there. Some of them walked out. Some of them stayed in to try and do a few deals, but, you know—

Hūhana Lyndon: Oppose from the inside.

Mariameno’s relations—some of them stayed in and did a few deals and then they came outside and criticised the Government. So, you know, Māori are playing it both ways.

What type of consultation has the Minister—and I respect we’ve got a new Minister in the chair today. Has the Minister seen, with regards to this, particularly in terms of the commencement—I come back to the commencement because of the strategies from this Government; strategies where Māori, sadly—and I had another kōrero tonight. Apparently, there’s an attack now on Te Arawhiti. Yesterday, it was about te reo Māori from Mr Goldsmith. The day before, it was about iwi rights; it’s about Māori rights. Given the type of kaupapa—oh, yes, I’m coming back to the commencement, Mr Chair. Given the types of things that are happening with the Treaty principles bill, I’m saying today: would the Minister consider relooking at this in 12 months? We’ll help him in that area. We’ll be quite open in supporting the Government in delaying this because of the ramifications.

I’m worried about the Government, because people are getting angry out there. You saw some of that behaviour up north yesterday from Mariameno’s relations up there, very upset over the—

💬 Hon Matt Doocey: Only your mates.

No—Mariameno’s relations up there.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Jackson, let’s use some surnames, shall we? We’re not in a bar now.

I think I did. I used the full name. But thank you for that. I’ll just continue.

In terms of the commencement, it’s really, really important because of the consequences in terms of Māori, and tribunal reports have to be considered. Consultation, in terms of Māori, has to be considered. All through this debate, you would have heard the concerns from te ao Māori, from Māori members, from Pākehā members on this side of the Chamber, and Asian members. This is an Opposition focused on the rights of people. There’s no big love affairs going down with gangs. People are talking about community—[Time expired]

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to support the members in the Opposition who have pointed out we don’t have the capacity nor the capability now for commencement. I worry about the time frame of waiting for Royal assent—that’s just around the corner. We’ve heard from the Hon Ginny Andersen: 500 police short, and yet we’re going to lump this on top of them, in a short period of time. If we were realistic around capacity and capability—have we discussed with the judiciary? Are the judiciary ready to be flooded by more gang members in court? Are the prisons ready to take more Māori? Well, yes, they are, because they’re building the mega-prison at Waikeria—not houses for our people. Kāinga Ora’s been shut down—there’s a big halt. That’s the thing: are we preparing to house Māori in prison? This bill here is hazardous for te iwi Māori.

Looking at the time frames, we are not ready. The infrastructure and services are not ready, let alone rehabilitation, let alone engaging with the community support services that Matua Willie has explained and provided examples time and time again on behalf of Ngā Whare Waatea. There are many programmes around that could be a part of a wider solution than just locking up our people. The judiciary needs to be ready. Prisons, are they ready? The cops are not ready. When we have a place like Ōpōtiki, with 2,000 gang members and two police, is Ōpōtiki ready? Is Kohukohu ready? Is Kaeō ready? Is Kaikohe ready? That’s the reality on the ground.

When you have the Police Commissioner and the Police Association coming up and saying, “No, we are not ready. We need more gang liaison officers. We need more takawaenga, those specialist support services within the police who are well-trained and have the skills, to be able to support this bill.”—but it’s not going to be ready in time for Royal assent; that’s just around the corner—we need to be realistic around the time frames for implementing this, because there will be a flood of notifications, and, next minute, our whānau are going to be hauled before the courts. Will we even have enough for security to start driving our people around from Ngāwhā correctional facility? You know, this is the ground reality for us in Tai Tokerau, and it will be no different to those of our whānau in Bay of Plenty, or even Tairāwhiti, where Matua Willie’s from. So I want to ask the question: what’s the rush?

If we want this to be an effective law and we want it to be something that, actually, the police and the full system are ready for, why are we rushing to Royal assent instead of giving it a year, instead of really scoping it out? Has anyone priced this up? Has anyone in the Government priced up the implications of implementing such a law? What is the price to society? What is the price to police? What is the price to prisons and to the judiciary to implement this, when we are ignoring things such as the Matariki Court or in terms of the taitamariki court, which have very successful gang liaison officers and takawaenga? All of these specialist positions need to be expanded if we’re going to go down this route and start banning people wearing their patches in public. These are things that the police have been doing well, and same with the judiciary, but are we really ready, New Zealand?

Are we really ready to start isolating a small number of whānau in our community—and they are our whānau—locking up more Māori because they affiliate with gangs, because they come from the product of colonisation? Two weeks ago, we were giving a mihi to all of the mōrehu in this Whare. Two week ago, we were giving a beautiful mihi and acknowledging the harm: 90 percent of gang members come from the State harm that’s been inflicted upon them. They don’t even know how to read, some of our whānau. They are neurodiverse, and they’re already in prison. So can we focus on the rehab services that are required in prison, the community services that Ngā Whare Waatea and others perform in our communities? Because we’re going to need a backstop. We’re going to need a backstop in implementing this legislation, because, ultimately, the system is not ready.

So, for me, in terms of where we’re at, Royal assent is too quick. Can we look at 18 months to ready the system? Can we look to work on the specialist positions that are required, and “oomph up”, expand, those community services and also the rehab services that are in prisons to support whānau once they are caught by this bill? Kia ora.

Well, thank you to the member for that question. I would refer the member to clause 2 of the bill, which states that the commencement of this bill is from 21 November 2024. If the member wants to be reminded about the select committee process—which, to the other member’s question, involved a full process in terms of feedback from all related members—those questions were covered in detail and the date is based on feedback and the date requested by the New Zealand Police that aligns with their operational requirements. On that basis, that is the date that has been selected. So everything that has been commented on is lovely, but it doesn’t correspond to the reality of what the decision is based upon.

Members, we’ve had some quite good contextual speeches. Right now, title and commencement will be the subject of any talk. The Hon Tracey McLellan. Sorry, Tracey McLellan—too early.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I wanted to specifically also focus on the commencement date, because as we’ve heard, the commencement date of 21 November is the commencement date, and I think that my colleague from the Green Party makes a really, really valid point, particularly in relation to prisons. We know, for instance, that, sure, there is some extra capacity coming on board. That won’t be viable until at least third quarter, probably, next year, and we’ve heard from the Hon Ginny Andersen about the shortage of police.

It was interesting; I know that the Minister was briefed earlier this year about what is the impact that the Government’s policies might have on the prison population, certainly in the short term, and whilst it’s just modelling and it’s a bit of a guesstimate, it is, in fact, what we base that on. I notice that there was four particular lines in the table that were provided. The first one was section 27 reports, and that was assumed would increase the prison population by about 380 prisoners, and the second one was adding 300 police, which I note wasn’t 500; it was 300. I’m not sure whether that indicates, for instance, the Government’s lack of confidence that they’ll get to the 500 target, but nevertheless the estimate was that that would increase the prison population by 100. So we’re already up to 400 of the increased capacity of the 500 beds that are coming on at Waikeria in the middle of next year.

Then, there were two lines that were redacted, and I’m wondering whether the Minister, obviously, probably will have some further information about what those two entries were in, because we can’t see (a) what they were. We can surmise that one of them may have been this gangs legislation—that would make sense in so far as it being the next cab off the rank. But what we can tell is the total, and the total was 800. So we know there’s an expectation of about 320 increased prisoners because of these two redacted pieces of policy that we’re due to endure.

When I think about 21 November as the commencement date, it really does create—as has been said—quite an impetus for some urgency. We know that prisons are bursting at the seams. We know that there are some infrastructure challenges in so far as rebuilds and people being moved all over the show to accommodate that and the huge cost that that incurs. So I would be interested in the Minister expressing a little bit more confidence in the commencement date on 21 November with some specifics about how that will be handled when we know full well that it will require that capacity and acknowledgment of such. Any information will be much appreciated, but particularly if he could comment on those two pieces of information that we’re unable to get our hands on because they’re redacted, but almost certainly are related to this bill.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I’ll go to the Hon Willie Jackson with the expectation that you will not drift very far, if at all, from the title and commencement.

I’m really concerned about this bill, as the committee knows. I would like to talk about the title.

💬 Hon Matt Doocey: Point of order. Mr Chair, the Standing Orders make it very clear that title and commencement in committee of the whole House is about getting up and asking the Minister questions. We’ve had that member get up successively and give us 10-minute rants about nothing—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Doocey, sit down! As you well know, that is a job for the Chair. Any more of that will be trifling with the House, so no more. Carry on.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m a bit disappointed that that member’s not enjoying my submission, but I hope that he’ll be able to learn something from this kōrero, because I’m talking about the title.

I want to help the other side of the committee out there because they’re struggling with this title. Coincidentally, I got a phone call about the title just in the last few minutes from a gang member who wants to help out—fully rehabilitated. His name’s Martin Cooper. I’m quite happy to name some of these gang members. In fact, Mr Chair, you would probably know some of them too, given your background and history in dealing with gangs too. This is someone who’s really concerned about the title, which is what we’re talking about. He sees the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill, and he was part—I’m just giving you some background and history, Mr Chair—of the work programmes that were in South Auckland. Martin Cooper worked and put young gangsters into work. He’s suggesting, and I’d have to agree with him, to call this the “Gang Legislation (Can You Find Us a Job?) Bill”.

I thought that was a pretty good suggestion from someone who’s working at the grassroots. His story is one of redemption. You can google his story and you’ll see that this guy has gone through the system, gang boss, everything, and now he’s working on our committees, on our maraes at Ngā Whare Waatea, rehabilitating, working with young people, getting patches off gangsters.

💬 Hon Matt Doocey: What’s your question?

Do you not want to hear these stories? These are beautiful stories. I know a lot of them. I can keep going till 6 o’clock, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): As they relate to the title and commencement, Mr Jackson.

Mr Cooper is saying the title is misnamed. That’s all I’m trying to say here: the title is misnamed. He wants work, so why wouldn’t you include—this is the “Gang (We Want Work) Amendment Bill”. That’s all he’s saying, you know? He’s not a supporter of the young people going into gangs; he’s a supporter of getting them busy, getting them activated, getting them rehabilitated, getting them to be productive so that our communities will be safe. This is what the Government wants. This is what we want. We’re all on the same waka here, and they want to shut me down here today. I don’t get this. I am trying to contribute and help—particularly Mr Meager, he’s done a wonderful job chairing the committee; I’m trying to help him along, trying to help the Government along, and all I’m getting is insults from the other side of the committee.

These are real people. These people wouldn’t know gang members if they fell over them. We work with them on our marae, which the Government funds—can I be very clear: funds our marae. They’re all very welcome to come to the marae. I’ve got an open invitation to the Government to come to our marae. They will see firsthand how a community deals with some of these gang members, ex - gang members. I can tell you now, it’s not a soft hand given. My mother, Mr Chair, 20 years on the Parole Board, as you well know—some of the gang members used to hide from her because she was so tough on them. There’s no softly, softly approach here. I know now that, if Mum was alive, she would agree with the new title on this gang legislation. Yes. Bless her soul, my mother. She would say, “Let’s find them some work, son, and you’ll stop them from all the nonsense that they’re doing.”

But, seriously, if we activate, motivate, get these whānau involved, we would stop some of this nonsense that’s happening out in our communities. We all want the same thing, but it’s not just about taking patches off the backs of these gangs; it’s about working at the coalface, it’s about dismantling their assets, it’s about taking away from them what is dear. You heard Eugene Ryder through the select committee process: you take the patches off, and they’ll just wear colours. It’s just nonsensical legislation.

Let’s all work together on this. Let’s delay this for another 12 months. I’m going to seek the call again, too, Mr Chair. I don’t know if I’ve quite reached the point I wanted to, but I think I’ll get there over the next 10 minutes, if you give me the call again. But it’s about supporting our communities, supporting our country—[Time expired]

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 be agreed to.

on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move Amendment Paper 50, dividing the bill.

I’ll report this bill with amendment and so divided.

Bill to be reported with amendment and divided into two bills.