Anti-gang measure before Parliament

Press, 17 June 1988, Page 4

Anti-gang measure before Parliament

The Disorderly Assemblies and Restrictions in Association Bill would also allow courts to impose non-association orders on people when they were convicted. Moving the bill in Parliament, the Minister of Justice, Mr Palmer, said it tackled what had become an increasing problem. “That is, the intimidating presence of people who congregate in public places to the alarm of other members of the public," he said. “It is a problem most commonly attributed to gang members.”

Ordinary citizens were afraid to go about their lawful business because they felt threatened when confronted by such groups. “That should not be allowed,” said Mr Palmer.

However, the Opposition spokesman on justice, Mr P. C. East (Rotorua), said it was “timid and weak” legislation which would not deal with the gang problem. The answer lay in employment, discipline and parental responsibility.

Mr Palmer said it was easy to be carried away

PA Wellington The Government yesterday introduced legislation aimed at stopping groups of disorderly people intimidating the public.

by sensational publicity about gang offending. Public order laws were already very broad.

What the new bill did was deal with group behaviour which caused members of the public to feel intimidated, but which did not necessarily amount to criminal conduct.

“The new offence of disorderly assembly will help the police in that type of situation,” he said. The new provision was not a solution for gang offending in general. “Rather, the object is to meet an identifiable public order concern with a precise remedy,” Mr Palmer said.

“That is the remedy of dispersal and, if necessary, arrest.”

The non-association provisions of the bill would play a useful role in preventing future offending. “The provisions in the bill are specific, workable and capable of being very effective,” he said.

Mr Palmer warned that Parliament’s response to public concern over violent offending and gang activity had to be “careful and considered. The

criminal law is a very blunt but dangerous instrument. If it is wielded indiscriminately, there is the risk of greater injury than the harm which is sought to be cured,” he said.

Under the bill, there must be at least three people in the disorderly group. There would be no requirement to prove they had assembled for a common purpose. “What is needed is a power to disperse assemblies before that point is reached, so that people can go about their lawful business without feeling threatened or intimidated,” said Mr Palmer.

Under the bill, a group deemed disorderly would be warned by the police to disperse. If they refused, they could be arrested. “The conduct of the group must be such as to cause a person in the immediate vicinity to be fearful, on reasonable grounds, of violence or disorderly behaviour. “A gathering does not become a disorderly assembly because it might generate an unreasonable fear,” Mr Palmer said. Mr Palmer said it was a

good bill, with definable and realistic objectives. “I have to say, however, that the bill is not a palliative for the gang problem or any other social problem,” he said. “What we are dealing with in this measure are only the symptoms of much deeper wounds in our society.” The heart of the gang problem was the number of young Maori males who lived in urban areas and had become separated from their tribal roots.

“The problem cannot be handled without addressing the underlying socio-economic issues,” he said.

Mr East disputed ’ this, however, saying that in many provincial towns gang members who had lived there all their lives committed “some of the most mindless thuggery and gang violence this country sees.” Setting up a committee to look at the underlying socio-economic problems would not help deal with gangs. “They need jobs and we need to have some discipline and some parental responsibility in our society,” he said.