Public Finance (Prohibition on Providing Public Funds to Gangs) Amendment Bill

Public Finance (Prohibition on Providing Public Funds to Gangs) Amendment Bill First Reading RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (17:37): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Public Finance (Prohibition on Providing Public Funds to Gangs) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. I would like to ask the House to imagine for a moment that—in a different country, in a different world—someone sold a teenager a lolly filled with poison. The teenager in this distant world reacts violently to the poison. The Government of this imaginary country pays the person—who sold the poisonous lolly to the youth—money to give the youth the antidote. Indeed, many would agree that this sounds like a twisted plot from a disturbing movie, but this actually happened right here on our beautiful shores of New Zealand merely a few years ago. A few years ago, $2.75 million of public funds were given to an organisation linked to the gang named the Mongrel Mob. As many of us around this House know, the Mongrel Mob is responsible for, and continues to engage in, selling drugs, including methamphetamine, to many communities around New Zealand. Carl Bates: It’s shameful. RIMA NAKHLE: What’s even more shameful, as my colleague Carl Bates just said, is the fact that this is legal, right now, in New Zealand. What my member’s bill proposes to do is make sure that giving public money to gangs, who peddle violence and drugs in our communities, will never happen again. Now, I’d like to acknowledge the Hon Simeon Brown. This member’s bill was indeed his idea, thought out and drafted out of sheer disgust and being mortified after that $2.75 million was so blazingly given to this group, closely associated with, and run by, the Mongrel Mob. The simple principle behind my member’s bill, which I inherited from the Hon Simeon Brown, is that public funds should never end up in the hands of gangs. New Zealanders rightfully expect funds to strengthen communities, not to benefit criminal organisations. This bill closes the loophole that currently exists. That public money should not be given directly or indirectly to gangs or groups affiliated with gangs. I feel very strongly about this. I feel very strongly that the person administering the poison should not be the person or group administering the antidote. I feel very strongly that the ones selling the drugs are not going to pull the wool over New Zealanders’ eyes and say that, all of a sudden, they’ve become the saviours. Also, it not only prohibits Crown agencies from giving even $1 to gang groups or groups affiliated with gangs closely; it also creates offences for knowingly providing or making money available to gangs without reasonable excuse. It also says that Crown agencies need to apply due diligence when they’re granting public funds to different groups. I’ve heard a number of people across New Zealand—because we’ve heard comments on the radio, via social media, on different news outlets—have their different views. I want to make one thing extremely clear: this debate is not about whether addiction recovery matters; it does. I’m extremely proud of the fact that our Government is the first Government to ever have a Minister for Mental Health. It shows how much we take mental health seriously. We’ve heard that drug addictions are a form, are an issue, under the mental health milieu. Mental health, drug addiction recovery, rehabilitation matters a lot to our Government. Every New Zealander struggling with addiction deserves support and the opportunity to rebuild their lives. But who are the ones giving the support? What are we saying when we allow groups that are run by current gangs to be the ones that emerge as though they are going to be victorious in helping people through their meth addictions. It’s a joke. It’s offensive. It’s offensive that these groups and these gangs, as I said earlier, are the ones that are contributing greatly to the horror, the living hell, that many families, parents, grandparents, are going through watching their children and their grandchildren go through the living hell of a drug addiction—drugs supplied many times, often, by organised gangs, organised crime. It is shameful. For us to continue to allow this loophole, which we saw in 2021, $2.75 million of money that is actually supposed to be for victims, for community organisations, for the members of public, go to a group that is effectively, was effectively and still is, run by the Mongrel Mob. It’s not right. This is why my bill is needed. Back when that happened, we saw serious concern from front-line police. I know my colleagues on this side of the House have spoken to many of our excellent hard-working police people that thanked us for the changes we’ve made with respect to gangs and the banning of gang patches in public because it’s helped them combat crime, combat violence, combat drugs even more. Back in 2021, when this $2.75 million was handed to this group that’s run by the Mongrel Mob, Detective Sergeant Mark Moorhouse publicly rejected claims—and he’s based in Hawke’s Bay, where this programme was being run—that local police broadly supported the programme. He said, “the bulk of us do not support it.” He also said that he had seen no evidence that the gang wanted to move away from profits generated through methamphetamine dealing. Now, we hear a lot. We hear a lot about lived experience, and we hear a lot about people that were part of gangs. They can offer their lived experience to these poor souls that are addicted to drugs. What I’d like to say is this: hopefully we will be going through a select committee process and we’ll be able to hear from officials from different organisations that provide these rehabilitation services. Good, decent organisations, for example, Salvation Army, and many around South and East Auckland. But what I’d like to say is this: lived experience is absolutely very important. But I’m not going to expect the lived experience of someone that is still living the life of a current, lifelong, very proud gang member. What we want to do with this bill, as I said, is prohibit Crown agencies from funnelling any public money to groups that are part of gangs or that are strongly linked to gangs. But for those groups, those decent organisations doing the hard mahi, helping people through their addictions, as long as they’re not being run by a lifelong gang member, for example, then absolutely, they don’t need to worry. Public money should go towards communities, towards victims, towards health services, towards prevention, and genuine rehabilitation providers—not towards gangs that are wolves dressed up as sheep. I hope the parties across the House also commend my bill today because it is small but it’s mighty in its effect and its mighty in what it tells victims: that your voices are heard and we’re not going to slap you with the audacity of those that caused the crime against you being given money that’s actually owed do you. I commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (17:47): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to first start by congratulating the member for having a bill drawn from the House. It’s always a good opportunity to put forward some possible change to legislation through the member’s bill process, so congratulations to Rima Nakhle. First of all, I just wanted to start by saying that gangs are a terrible thing to have in our society. They are a negative impact on public safety, they participate in a disproportionate amount of violent crime and drug trafficking and firearms offences—also with homicides and violent crime. This is a serious part of what having gangs means to New Zealand. We shouldn’t be supporting gang activities, and, certainly, I think probably everyone across the House would agree that gangs have a very negative impact, overall, in New Zealand. That is certainly not something that the Labour Party supports. I think also just, in terms of the history of this, and I appreciate that the member maybe did not, herself, discuss this exactly, but money has gone to the Mongrel Mob starting in 2017, when the previous National Government gave $30,000 to the Hard2Reach programme for methamphetamine treatment. And, of course, as the member has alluded to, that was then extended by the following Labour Government. I think it’s important to recognise that this isn’t something that the Labour Government has only done itself; this was actually started under a National Government. If we’re reflecting on the decisions to give people associated with gangs money and whether we should do that or not, then that is something that we, collectively, as the two major parties, have to both wear. I think it’s important just to have that history set out. There are issues in this bill which I think are serious, and if this bill does get to select committee, which I suspect it will, I think need to be looked at carefully by the select committee. I’m a member of the Justice Committee, and I know that the Justice Committee will do the work and hear the submissions needed to look into these issues. The main concern that I wanted to raise on behalf of Labour was: as the bill is drafted now, it does not, to me, reflect exactly what the member stated its aim was. In the change that is made to the Public Finance Act, the change is that the Crown must not pay money directly or indirectly to a gang. Now, I think everyone in the House will be united in not wanting to see this extend to student loans, to student allowances, to Work and Income New Zealand payments of family members of gang members, or even to gang members themselves who are wanting to better themselves through education. I think it is really important that—I’m sure that’s not the member’s intention, but I do think we need to make sure and clarify that the mischief that the member is attempting to prevent is a direct Crown grant to an organisation that is meaningfully connected with an existing gang or gang member. That is my understanding of how she described the bill, and it would be good to have this bill amended to clarify that that is what the case is. I’ve already stated that gangs are not a positive part of society at all, to say the least; they’re responsible for a huge amount of crime, but we must not be a society which taints those who have family members who participate in illegal activity with the same brush as those who perpetrate that. I’m sure that’s not the member’s intention. Again, as I say, I just think, because in legislation we need to be really specific, we need to make sure that that isn’t the case. Also, this is not a directly related—well, I was hoping it’s related to this bill; not directly affected by this bill, but hopefully those in gangs can be provided with paths to become good members of society who contribute. I think that would be all of our aim, and not to write people off. I don’t think this bill says that, but I certainly think that’s a sentiment that, hopefully, most people would share. We will support this bill to select committee. Like I said, I do think there are some problematic issues with the drafting that I hope we can iron out, but we do share the view of the negative impact that gangs have on society, and we do encourage people to submit on this bill in terms of how the impact might actually work. Again, I recognise that both sides of the House have previously engaged in the activity that the member is seeking to prevent, so if we are as a Parliament deciding that’s not what we are going to do, let’s look at that together at select committee and see if we can find a way forward that doesn’t provide, as the member said, money to criminal organisations but also doesn’t mean that their families, who are blameless, are disadvantaged, and also provides a way for those members to become good citizens and participate in society in the way that we would hope for every New Zealander. Once again, congratulations to the member for bringing this bill. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:53): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to oppose this bill, the Public Finance (Prohibition on Providing Public Funds to Gangs) Amendment Bill. I want to sort of cut through some of the fearmongering that we have heard from the member who proposes this bill, Rima Nakhle, as well as the predecessor of this bill, the Hon Simeon Brown, and actually talk about the fact of why we think as the Green Party that this bill is non-practical and ill conceived. I think, to start off with, what this bill does is actually not address the issues we’re seeing and the harm that’s being perpetuated by gangs here in Aotearoa New Zealand. The Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor in 2023 stated that the “ ‘zero tolerance’ style of policy builds distrust in … communities” and “risks fuelling gang membership and [increased] gang dislocation and isolation.” Indeed, under this Government, since this Government came in, gang membership has increased by 13 percent. There are now more gang members than there are police officers. I think that’s an important thing for people to consider and let sink in. What is the impact and broader impact that this bill will have and the chilling impact this will have on funding being provided to community organisations that potentially are in the best place to serve vulnerable communities? We already know that the New Zealand police force, in various areas, have to work with gangs, so does that mean that we are using public funds in the style of the money that we have for the Public Service—though increasingly limited, as we have seen from this week’s announcement? Is that going to be a part of consideration for this bill? Also, with this particular Government, what we’re seeing is that they are not actually addressing the root cause. They have all of the levers to address the root cause of gang membership in terms of housing, in terms of welfare, in terms of mental health support—all of those things—but instead we’re seeing that they are cherry-picking who they choose to punish via a suite of bills like the gangs legislation bill—which, by the way, is also against the Bill of Rights Act here in New Zealand—but at the same time allow groups like Destiny Church to run absolutely rampant in our communities and do harm to our migrant and also rainbow communities. They seem to be fine with that. Just to finish off, in terms of my contribution, this Government claims that they care about victims, but let’s be clear: this is also the Government that has punished victims when they changed the accommodation supplement. This is the Government that has punished victims with their latest Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill, after so many people in Aotearoa New Zealand have been harmed at the hands of the State. This is a Government where they talk about experiences and also funding. This is the Government that has decided to defund prevention against sexual violence, like RespectEd. This is the Government— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can the member relate his contribution to this bill. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: This relates to the purpose of this bill, Madam Speaker, which is that the bill itself is aimed to address gang membership and also address the kind of harm that we’re seeing in our communities. This is a bill that is steeped in this Government’s “tough on crime” approach, and that’s the overall intent and purpose of this bill. What I want to just pick up on as one last thing is what the member in charge of this bill has said: experience matters. I want to finish off by saying that this is also the same member from the same political party that opposed my friend Kahurangi Carter’s member’s bill, the good Samaritan bill, and has decided, despite hearing the experience of those like Jacob Gunnell and their families, to go against and oppose that particular bill. There is nothing in here, in this bill, that will do what it is intending to do, so the Green Party will not support this bill. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (17:58): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it actually gives me real pleasure to rise on behalf of ACT and speak on the Public Finance (Prohibition on Providing Public Funds to Gangs) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge my parliamentary colleague Rima Nakhle. I am lucky enough to sit beside Rima Nakhle in the Justice Committee, and— Hon James Meager: Great member. TODD STEPHENSON: Yes, she is a great member, and it’s great that she’s had this bill drawn from the ballot. One thing I can tell you about Rima Nakhle is she is very passionate about victims’ rights and about a tough criminal justice system. Occasionally, I have to talk her down from hanging everyone, but we work through those discussions, because her heart is in the right place, and she has actually brought this piece of legislation with the truest of intentions. We absolutely are going to support it in ACT, and I want to acknowledge Labour for supporting it as well. This is going to the select committee, I can tell you that now. I actually did try to talk Rima Nakhle out of sending it to the Justice Committee and sending it to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, because it does actually deal with the Public Finance Act, but I would’ve ended up dealing with it either way, so I’m happy to be dealing with it in Justice. It is a simple bill, but it’s an important bill, and it’s actually a little bit scary, in a sense, that we actually have to have this bill saying that we shouldn’t give public money to, basically, criminal organisations. While it’s simple—and, again, I want to acknowledge Camilla Belich’s contribution. There may be a few things to work through, but I know Camilla Belich is on the Justice Committee. I think she’s raised some points, but we can work through those. I think we can actually get somewhere where we can deliver what I know the member has intended. The other thing I really like is that it actually fits in with the Government’s overall law and order agenda. It is, basically, victim focused and public focused. One of the things I just want to reflect on is that, on this side of the House, I think we can say that in all three coalition parties we actually are listening to what the community wants in law and order and trying to reflect that back, and, actually, what they want is us to take a stand on some issues around criminal justice. That’s why we have reintroduced things like three strikes, the gang patch ban, etc. Also, I think they would be very happy to see that we’re taking action on how their public funds are supported. It also fits in nicely—and I think Minister McKee earlier today talked about the Resilience to Organised Crime in Communities programme, which actually takes money from the Proceeds of Crime Fund, which is where we actually take money off the gangs. We actually seize their assets and take their money and then put it into approved programmes. Again, I just want to acknowledge our justice team on this side here. We’ve got Paul Goldsmith, we’ve got Nicole McKee, we’ve got Casey Costello, we’ve got Mark Mitchell, and, again, they are working together, supported by their excellent MPs from across the coalition parties, in saying, “What do New Zealanders actually want reflected in their law and order policies?” I just think that this ban on providing public funds just fits so nicely into that, where we are actually taking money from criminal organisations—the gangs—putting it into programmes that are not are affiliated or related in any way to these criminal organisations, and actually trying to get results in our community, actually help people back on the path to being contributing members of society. I just see that this bill actually fits in perfectly with what we are trying to achieve. I actually really look forward to the discussions we’ll have. I think there’ll be some robust discussions. We’ll try and make sure this is totally workable, but I think we can actually make this work. We can actually ensure that the community’s expectations about how their money is being spent—because if we’re giving money to criminals, regardless of whether the programmes that they deliver are good or not, it means that, actually, we can’t spend money on something else: can’t spend money on health; can’t spend money on education. Again, the mantra of this Government is we actually are looking at every dollar that the taxpayer gives us and asking: is it delivering value? Is it going to the right place? This bill is certainly a piece of that puzzle. It’s going to ask the right questions, and I really look forward to working on it in the select committee. I commend it to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, I’m terribly sorry, but it’s time for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m. Sitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Good evening, members. We’re on the first reading of the Public Finance (Prohibition on Providing Public Funds to Gangs) Amendment Bill. We’re on call No. 5. Dr DAVID WILSON (NZ First) (19:30): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Public Finance (Prohibition on Providing Public Funds to Gangs) Amendment Bill. It addresses concerns that public money, including the Proceeds of Crime Fund, could end up in the hands of legitimate-looking entities. The bill mandates due diligence by the Crown and introduces criminal offences for knowingly facilitating payments to gangs. It also prohibits the Crown from paying money directly or indirectly to a gang unless expressly authorised, and so it’s by exception and not as a matter of course. It also creates a new offence of paying or making money available to an entity while knowing it is a gang, without some kind of reasonable excuse. New Zealand First likes the pragmatic solutions that have been offered up in this bill. We like it that the proceeds from ill-gotten and illegal activities are not recycled to the very people who have committed the crime in the first place. We look forward to the select committee process, and we commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (19:31): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Public Finance (Prohibition on Providing Public Funds to Gangs) Amendment Bill. This is a fantastic member’s bill from my colleague Rima Nakhle, whose passion for victims and for making sure that we look after victims and that we respect victims is unchallenged in this House. This bill is about making sure we honour and respect and acknowledge victims and the role of victims in our criminal justice system. Let’s reflect for a moment on what has gotten us here, and I heard earlier one of the members from the other side trying to compare what was, I think, some $30,000 that a previous Government gave to some programme with the $2.75 million that the last Labour Government gave to the Mongrel Mob in the Hawke’s Bay. Those two things are very, very different. It’s a little bit like our inflation rates being down here, and Labour’s inflation rates being up there. But let’s not talk about all of the problems the previous Labour Government had. Let’s get back to the bill and focus on what this bill is about. It’s about understanding that that happened because there were proceeds from crime, and those members said, “Hey, you guys have been involved in this crime. You guys did this deed. You’ve created this fund through your ill-gotten gains, and we think we should give some of it back to you to see if you can amend things and help out in solving some of the challenges you have created in our society.” I appreciate that the Opposition have said that they will be voting for this bill this evening. Let’s hope that that continues not only through the first reading but through the select committee process, through the second reading, and, ultimately, through to turning this into law. That would show that if you did a crime and you got some dough from it, and you had to give that dough over to the Crown because you were caught, that doesn’t come back to you as clean money through a programme in the future. Where should it go instead? Well, it should go to organisations that actually do the work, do the mahi, in our community from the right place and that have the right values and have the right heart, like, for example, the Salvation Army, or the Billy Graham Youth Foundation, which has got some of this money from the proceeds of crime fund in the past. I’d like to think that even great organisations like the City Mission in Whanganui, which serves the underprivileged in our community—and it serves those who have been affected when someone has come in and they’ve robbed them out of house and home and they’ve left them with nothing. It’s the City Mission that is there that evening and the next day, and the week ahead, maybe, to support those victims of crime, and those are the sorts of organisations that we should be supporting. It’s not the Mongrel Mob—not gangs. It’s not people who have literally—and I loved the analogy, or the metaphor is probably the better word. I loved the metaphor that Rima Nakhle used at the beginning of her contribution. It’s probably not in the context of something that one should love when we’re talking about gangs, but she used this analogy of giving someone a lollipop full of poison, and then paying the person who gave that person the lollipop full of poison—paying the person who gave them the lollipop—to give the person the antidote. That’s literally what the law allows right now, and what the work of Rima and the Hon Simeon Brown—who put together this member’s bill and handed it to Rima—is trying to do is to ensure that that cannot happen in the future. This is part of ensuring that we restore law and order in this country, and that includes not allowing any future Government to hand money over to the Mongrel Mob. I commend the bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I’d just remind the member that we use full names when we’re in here, Mr Bates. The Hon Dr Duncan Webb. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (19:36): Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is my full name, and so thank you for that. First of all, look, I think we all accept across this House that gangs are invidious organisations. That’s the starting point for this bill, and, as the member Carl Bates has just noted, we are going to support this bill to select committee to have a good look at it. But it’s a little more complex than the member has suggested, and that’s why we want to send it to select committee to have a good look at it. For example, he’s just mentioned the funding of the Whanganui City Mission. It’s a great organisation, but I’m pretty sure, knowing the gang communities in Whanganui—of which there are several—that the City Mission will be supporting families which are gang families. They will have people in their day shelters who are gang members, and so Government funds will be going to the City Mission and going to support people who are in gangs. When we have a piece of legislation which says—and this is the key phrase—“Except as expressly authorised by any Act, the Crown must not pay money (directly or indirectly) to a gang.”, then we need to be careful about what we are saying. If giving a gang member money to buy groceries for their kids is, in fact, indirectly funding a gang, we need to be careful, and we also need to make clear that—over here, we agree. I repeat: gangs are invidious organisations. We should do our utmost to do two things, which are to get rid of gangs but also—more importantly—stop young people getting on the path which puts them into gangs. If funding programmes which address meth addiction is necessary, we should do that. If taking people who are on the path to gang membership in order to take them off it requires Government resources, we should do that, and so we’ve got to be really careful. If we have a piece of legislation which is so sweeping that it cuts across what both this side of the House and that side of the House want to do, which is to reduce the influence of gangs and, ultimately, get rid of gangs, we need to be very cautious indeed. So, yes, we agree that, in terms of money coming from Government to fund the invidious activities of gangs, the absolutely despicable activity of gangs recruiting young people into a life of crime and violence and coercion—of course we don’t like that; of course we want to get rid of it. But in terms of Government funding that addresses the genuine drivers of crime that cause harm in our communities, we want to send Government funds where it is most effective, where it has the greatest impact in reducing crime and harm and violence and sexual harm in our communities. Let’s not get too picky about whether that’s going indirectly to someone who has had some affiliation with a gang. Of course, the big question about this—one of the other questions in terms of gang membership—is there is no test for gang membership. In her letter to members, the member Rima Nakhle said that there’s a national gang list, the secret Police intelligence list, that they won’t tell people whether they are on it or not. We can’t use that. That’s not useful information. This is a bill that has a good heart and we’ll look at it in the select committee, but let’s be clear about the purpose: to eliminate the harm that gangs cause and to eliminate gangs. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (19:42): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The previous speaker seems to be a gang apologist, standing up and saying, “Well, you know, it’s not about the gangs. What they do in the community, who really knows?” They peddle harm, they peddle meth in our community. To earn gang patches, they have to have committed some of the most heinous and ridiculous crimes that put the victims across New Zealand in real safety, and yet we’re apologising for them on that side. What a disgrace. Then we see and we hear from their friends on that side of the house, the Green Party, who are saying also— Hon Member: I don’t think you actually heard his speech. Didn’t listen, did you, Mr Rutherford? TOM RUTHERFORD: No, no, no, no—remember what Kahurangi Carter said? “Who would you be more afraid of seeing down an alleyway; would it be a police officer or patched gang member?” Which one would it be? They’ve chosen to choose the side of the gang members. What a disgrace. My colleague Rima Nakhle, whose member’s bill this is, is probably the strongest victims’ advocate in this House. She stands up every single time on the side of victims in New Zealand to say, “Let’s put them back at the heart of our justice system; let’s put them in place No. 1.”—and Rima, to you, I take my hat off, because your tenacity, your passion, your strength, and your advocacy in this place on behalf of victims across New Zealand is really, really appreciated. Ricardo Menéndez March: Why didn’t she support sensitive claimants then? TOM RUTHERFORD: And yet, here we go: Ricardo Menéndez March from the Green Party is going to heckle, to apologise on behalf of the gangs, to say, “It’s not their fault, don’t pick on them. They’re nice people, they do good things in our community.” What a disgrace from the Green Party to stand up and heckle from their side to say, “Please don’t pick on the gangs; they’re actually really nice people.” That is the Green Party of 2026, that is the Green Party of today, and that’s the people the Labour Party want to be mates with, and I think that’s disgraceful. Rima Nakhle, in bringing together this bill to the House and having it drawn, is really wanting to say that we’re sick and tired of the people who peddle the misery in our communities, then being the ones to receive taxpayer funding—it’s not Government funding, it’s taxpayer funding from hard-working, everyday New Zealanders—to then rectify the problem that they have created. That is the hypocrisy that we see. It’s the issue of, they’ve created the issue—the gangs have peddled the meth in our communities, for example—and now we’re going to pay them money to clean up the mess that they created. Then it creates this infinite loop that never ever gets rectified. Whereas Carl Bates rightly said in his contribution, there are many, many fantastic organisations up and down this country in all of our communities who would be crying out for that Government funding, that taxpayer funding, to actually create greater support for our communities rather than those gangs themselves that have created the exact harm we’re trying to eradicate. When I read through Rima Nakhle’s member’s bill, it was really clear and her focus was really direct; that New Zealanders do rightly expect that taxpayer money goes towards supporting victims and trustworthy support programmes—trustworthy, not those run by gang members and gang affiliates; not the criminal gangs that bring fear and harm to our streets and our communities. Up and down this country, men and women every day are tormented by members of a gang, and yet those that want to defend them in this House say we should continue to reward them by giving them taxpayer money so that they can keep on that cycle of causing harm and misery in our communities. Let’s focus on the particular detail that this bill will change. It’s going to insert a new clause 73A into the Public Finance Act which will, “(1) Except as expressly authorised by any Act, the Crown must not pay money (directly or indirectly) to a gang.”. That’s the really simple change that this piece of legislation is going to bring about. It’s going to have a really positive influence on our communities, because for too long New Zealanders have been scared of the damage that gang members have caused across New Zealand. Today we put a full stop, we put a line in the sand, and we say enough is enough. No more taxpayer funding is going to go to them, because they are the ones that peddle the misery across our community. Gangs absolutely represent the worst of our society. They peddle the misery in our communities. They do terrible things to earn their gang patches, and they are the scum of our community across New Zealand. I recognise and acknowledge the advocacy and hard work of my colleague Rima Nakhle, and I commend the bill to the House. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (19:47): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Labour Party and want to be very clear that we are supporting this bill going to select committee. I want to place that on Hansard, because the contributions of late would seem to indicate that that is not the position that the Labour Party is taking. That is far from it. When the votes are cast on this bill, the Labour Party will be voting in favour of a first reading for this bill. I don’t like gangs. Gangs, as many members have said, are insidious. They are a part of our community that create harm, create violence, and create poor opportunities for some that are involved in it. But the interesting point is that there are often people who are caught in that cycle of gang life who actually don’t have the element of choice. They are children, they are women, they are family members that have grown up in this community knowing nothing different. For them, they have no choice around this, and that’s not right—that is not right. So any suggestion that the Labour Party seems to support or condone gang behaviour and activity is far from it. We are supporting this bill through to select committee and I think there will be some robust conversations at select committee, because there are a few things that do need to be ironed out to ensure that, for the people that need to be punished by not being able to receive or access public finance or funding, the line is in the right place. I think what we can’t afford to have is a circumstance, perhaps, where the people that are going to be worse off—that are going to pay, in many circumstances, perhaps, the ultimate price at some point in the future—are our young people, are our children, are those who are innocent, who haven’t actually got into this cycle of life because they have chosen to be there themselves. I would hate to think that there was a group that was operating and the support was being given in a way that actually made life a bit easier for those young people and those children, those babies who can’t speak for themselves. This is the real nature of the sort of conversation that I think will need to be had at select committee. I know the Justice Committee is a hard-working one, it seems, and they will certainly turn their minds to it. What this bill does is it seeks to limit the direct and the indirect nature of public finance or assistance to various individuals or agencies or organisations, and we have fantastic agencies and organisations out in our community. But it’s the indirect nature that, I think, is going to be a tension point. Whilst it might be OK to be able to identify a direct form of a link between a gang organisation, perhaps, and public finance or funding, for the indirect stuff, I think there is a real conversation that needs to be had around how far that goes. What is the nature of the link between gang activity or the gang organisation and the funding? That’s why I agree that this does need to go to select committee—so that we can hear from the community and we can hear from officials and others to form a view to make sure that this bill is in a better place. We could, in this House, talk about the blame game of different Governments over years. Members opposite have talked about previous stuff, and we could talk about John Key and his last days of his administration and signing off on just under $1 million with links to a life member associated with the Black Power. Now, we could do that, but, actually, that’s not going to make a heck of a lot of difference in terms of moving this issue forward. The support, in terms of sending it to a select committee today, is so that these issues can be canvassed and they can be ironed out. Maybe the Labour Party won’t support this bill when it comes back—maybe it will; I don’t know—but we need to be able to tease out those opportunities through the submission process. Likewise, with the penalty provision that I see from the member’s bill and in her own explanatory note, are those quantums, including a potential period of imprisonment, appropriate, or are they not? You only get that, as you know, from listening to the community and landing on what is right. We will support this at first reading tonight. It will go off to a select committee. I hope that the community will engage with it and, when it returns for second reading, that there will be a pile of information that will make an informed decision easy. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): In reply—Rima Nakhle. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (19:52): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First and foremost, I’d like to thank all the parties across the House that have supported the bill to select committee and the profound and important intentions behind my member’s bill. It’s shame—it’s a shame—that we don’t have that support from the Green Party, the party that professes to care a lot about victims. I’ve been in Parliament for about two and a bit years, and it constantly astounds me as to the length the Green Party would go to stick up for criminals. It astounds me, to be honest, and it’s a shame. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan from the Green Party said that I’m fearmongering people with this member’s bill and that there’s going to be a chilling impact that this bill will have on community organisations that have to work with gangs, and he spoke about the fact that police work with gangs and asked: does that mean we’re going to stop public funding going to Police? Well, unlike the Green Party, we are not aspiring to “Defund Da Police—Whoop, Whoop”. No, we’re going to continue to fund the police. Unlike the Green Party, victims are actually first on our agenda and at the forefront of our minds when we’re drafting bills. It’s a shame. It’s a shame that they seem to think—if I can make a conclusion from their members’ conversations—that, because we have more gang members now, does this mean we should continue to give them money through various paths? This bill is going to amend the Public Finance Act, and it’s, essentially, going to amend it in a way that closes a loophole that exists because part of our work—not just writing letters of support for people that do graffiti all over cities for some parties—on this side, is looking at laws that need to be amended where loopholes exist and working towards closing those gaps. There is a loophole in the Public Finance Act, and we saw that loophole being exercised grossly in 2021, where $2.75 million was funnelled to a group that is basically run by the Mongrel Mob. We need to close that gap. Yes, someone from the Labour Party mentioned $30,000 going under a National Party Government. This Government—this 54th Parliament—is extremely focused on sending a strong message to the friends of the Greens, the gangs, saying that enough’s enough with them tormenting our good, innocent, decent people; enough is enough with them creating more victims; and we’re not going to stand by and allow a loophole to let more money funnel through to gangs that already make enough money, ruining the lives of many people through their crime. I’m glad that most sensible people across the House have supported this bill tonight. There’s a lot to unpick in the select committee. There is going to be a lot to unpick, and I respect the fact that this was conveyed by members across the House that are supporting the intention of this bill, the good intention, which, at its core, puts victims at the forefront. So, if we were to just wrap up for the benefit of those that have just walked into the debating chamber screaming but weren’t here earlier, this bill would prohibit Crown agencies from giving any public money to groups that are run by gangs or strongly affiliated to gangs. In the select committee process, we are going to unpick how that would look in a clear and very easy to understand manner, because it’s important. I’m glad that the Gangs Act 2024 has Schedule 2, which has a list of current gangs—including the Green Party’s best friends, the Mongrel Mob. I look forward to this going to select committee. I commend this bill to the House. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Public Finance (Prohibition on Providing Public Funds to Gangs) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 101 New Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 21 Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time.