Bennett says sorry for gang remarks

National Party deputy leader Paula Bennett has apologised to the Prime Minister after saying serious criminals have fewer human rights than others.

She took the unusual step after Bill English publicly stated his deputy’s comments were wrong. English was beside Bennett when she made the controversial remarks on Sunday but did not contradict her at the time.

But yesterday Bennett said: “I don’t like that the Prime Minister has had to go out and defend me this morning, so I have apologised to him in regard to that.

“But I certainly don’t apologise for this policy that I think is really good work and will make a difference in keeping our streets safer.”

Earlier yesterday, English said Bennett’s remarks were a mistake and she had wrongly described National’s anti-gang proposals.

However, that did not reflect a deeper disrespect for human rights, English said.

Bennett said that proposed police powers to search gang members at any time would “stretch” human rights laws.

But she partly justified the policy by saying that serious criminals had “fewer human rights than others”.

The search powers were included in a $82 million drug addiction policy which would increase penalties for drug dealing, target supply chains, and boost funding for rehabilitation.

Bennett’s remarks sparked strong public reaction. Tribal Huk leader Jamie Pink, who has been leading an anti-P crusade in Ngaruawahia, said

I don’t like that the Prime Minister has had to go out and defend me . . . so I have apologised to him. Paula Bennett

the policy would effectively treat gang members like terrorists.

He says there are powerful syndicates, who don’t wear patches on their backs, who are driving the country’s P trade.

Pink says the policy’s “too heavy handed” and “a cheap shot” from National 19 days out from the election.

University of Canterbury sociologist Jarrod Gilbert agreed the policy unfairly targeted gang members.

“If we are quite prepared . . . [to] strip people of human rights in quite sober circumstances . . . certainly not when there’s not a massive pressing threat, yes gangs are an issue, yes methamphetamine is an issue . . . but nothing that existing provisions can’t tackle.”

He asks what will happen if the Government is tested more significantly than at present — during a terrorist attack or immediately after.

“If we’re prepared to so easily strip away rights now, then I fear what we might do under those circumstances.”

New Zealand Bar Association president Clive Elliott, QC, said: “No matter how unpopular you are or whatever wrong you may have committed, you are entitled to be treated in the same way as anybody else, according to law.”

Bennett was backed by the Sensible Sentencing Trust, which said her comments were “spot on”.

Former Act MP David Garrett said gangs were a “cancer on society” and it was wonderful that Bennett recognised that.

“We don’t have to be a society which aids and abets or even tolerates those that sneer and laugh at its most basic values.”