Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
The government is continuing to defend not seeking public consultation on two late amendments to the gang patch ban, with two ministers arguing politicians' scrutiny is enough.
Attorney-General Judith Collins says she did not think it necessary to give advice on the changes, and Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith - who is in charge of the bill - says he's comfortable with the process.
Goldsmith confirmed on Tuesday evening the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill will be going back for a second Committee of the Whole House stage to have the second amendment added, to ensure the ban on gang patches will also affect insignia displayed from vehicles.
That is set down to take place on Thursday morning under extended sitting hours, with the bill expected to then pass through its third reading on Thursday afternoon.
It follows another amendment added during the previous Committee of the Whole stage without public consultation which would allow police to search the homes of those convicted for breaching the ban three times or more.
That part has raised concerns from the Law Society, and an academic has warned it raises questions of legislative overreach - and it is not clear how the changes will stand up to the Bill of Rights Act.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon previously said he was absolutely confident the right legislative processes had been used on that change.
But with the addition of the new vehicles amendment, Labour has urged the government to send the legislation back further, to select committee, for consultation on the changes - saying the amendments were significant.
Changes not subjected to Attorney-General's Bill of Rights analysis
Goldsmith defended the process and lack of consultation on both the changes.
"Well, making two amendments - I don't think it's the end of the world. And we're just wanting to pass legislation that gives the police extra powers to deal with the scourge of gangs in our community," he said.
"The car bit really just was a problem that arose very late in the piece when police were working out how in practical terms they were going to implement the legislation, and they raised this question of if people were holding their patches up to the windows of their cars driving around in convoys they wouldn't actually be captured by the legislation.
"They pointed this out a few weeks ago and we've been working through it and there is various legal advice and then we decided that we'd make this change before the law is passed."
Attorney-General Judith Collins confirmed she had offered advice in March about whether the original bill conflicted with the Bill of Rights Act, but "I did not consider it necessary to table a further report on the additions".
Questioned about that, Goldsmith said it was a question for Collins to answer, but "yeah, I'm comfortable with the process".
He said the amendments were to "clarify those two things, we don't think it needs to go back to the select committee".
Politicians' scrutiny sufficient - Mark Mitchell, David Seymour
Police Minister Mark Mitchell was similarly clear when asked about sending the bill to select committee.
"No, that's not happening," he said. "It's not needed."
Pressed on whether the ability for police to search a gang member's home was minor, he said it was "a really important deterrent part of the bill".
"Gang members in this country sort of think that they're above the law and they don't have to adhere to it. And so what we've done is if they continue to ignore the law they get three strikes and on the third one the police can go into their home and remove the patch."
Given its importance, he was asked why he thought it unnecessary to seek public and expert feedback via the select committee process.
"Well, that's already in the Bill now, so it went through Committee of the Whole House, it's gone through a Cabinet process, and it's in the Bill and I think it's going to be very good. It's going to be very effective in making sure the police are effective in applying and enforcing the gang patch legislation."
RNZ questioned whether the Cabinet process and Committee of the Whole House stage was enough to provide effective scrutiny of legislation, including for other bills.
"Well, for this one, absolutely it is," he said. "It's important we get this bill out, we want the police to use the powers as quickly as we can, so I've made the changes that we think are necessary and I think it's going to be very effective for the police."
He argued it was needed urgently.
"We're tired of the gang members [who] are responsible for a massive disproportion of the amount of harm and violence in our communities so we are treating this with great urgency to make sure that we can stop that."
ACT leader David Seymour had previously said his party was concerned about anything that would infringe on civil liberties and agreed the search power was "pretty intrusive" but justified in this case. He repeated that stance on Wednesday.
"In terms of is it a breach of some aspects of the Bill of Rights, yes it is. In terms of is it proportional to the purpose the government has in protecting other New Zealanders rights from intimidation and violence by gangs, I believe yes it is," he said.
Asked if it would be worth hearing from experts on that matter, Seymour replied: "Are you implying I'm not an expert?" he said.
"Politicians can be experts. This is the kind of prejudice we face on a daily basis, any other less biased or discriminatory questions?" he asked jokingly before marching into the Debating Chamber.
