Gangs and Organised Crime Bill

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) Link to this

I move, That the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill be now read a second time. The Gangs and Organised Crime Bill was introduced by the National-led Government in its first 100 days in office. I take this opportunity to thank the Law and Order Committee for reporting the bill back in a little under the usual 6 months so that we can continue to advance this important package of reforms.

The Gangs and Organised Crime Bill amends the Crimes Act 1961, the Local Government Act 2002, and the Sentencing Act 2002 to expand and enhance the tools available to police to fight gangs and organised crime. The bill amends section 98A of the Crimes Act to make participation in an organised criminal group an offence punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment, which is a doubling of the existing penalty, to better reflect the culpability of those involved in this insidious activity. This section, which has rarely resulted in convictions, has also made it easier to prosecute although still requiring the Crown to prove appropriate knowledge of the accused. These amendments are complemented by provisions that will enable police to obtain an interception warrant where there are reasonable grounds to believe a person is participating in an organised criminal group. The Local Government Act is also amended so that police or territorial authorities can seek a removal order against gang structures where they are intimidating.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this

I thank the Minister of Justice for his contribution, and I say he is right that, at least from this side of the House, there is widespread support for the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. We will be supporting it. I agree with the Minister that some of the most insidious crime in our society is perpetrated by gangs and organised crime, and often it is done below the radar. Often it does not have the profile of some other crime—

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) Link to this

I commend the Minister of Justice, the Hon Simon Power, for introducing the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill to the House, and supporting the very, very important work that our men and women in blue—the police—do controlling the escalating rate of crime committed by people belonging to gangs. I also commend the members of the Law and Order Committee for their timely and efficient progress on the bill and their considered contributions to the bill. I will name them: Shane Ardern, the Hon Rick Barker, Simon Bridges, Dr Cam Calder, Clayton Cosgrove, David Garrett, Melissa Lee, Carmel Sepuloni, Metiria Turei, and Jonathan Young. It is commendable that we had such a timely process for the bill. However, I am disappointed that one of the participants on the committee, Clayton Cosgrove, has sought to do nothing but disparage the Minister of Police in speaking to this bill, because we had such a collegial response in support of the bill in that committee. The reason for that response was that the police wanted some action taken. They are fully supportive of this bill and of the tools that it gives them to be much more effective in what they do.

When speaking about this bill, people largely tend to think about gangs. They think that the bill is largely intended to curb the criminal activities of gang members. The Hon Rick Barker emphasised the fact that this bill is not just about gangs but also about organised crime, or crime perpetrated by any organised group. This includes white-collar crime perpetrated by an organised group of people or an organised criminal enterprise, as outlined by section 312B(1)(a)(ii) in clause 6: “a member of an organised criminal enterprise is planning, participating in, or committing, or has planned, participated in, or committed, criminal offences …”. The legislation is not restricted to gangs like the Mongrel Mob or other gangs; it could refer to groups of people who are not necessarily identified as a gang, but are, none the less, a group of people organised for the purposes of perpetrating crime. So that can include white-collar groups.

I refer to the police submission. The Police Association says that it welcomes the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill, and that the changes it proposes will be of some assistance in policing New Zealand’s serious and growing gang problem. In particular, the Police Association says it is important that the committee recognise that New Zealand’s gang problem is entrenched and continues to worsen, both in the growing emergence of true organised crime, and in the increasing prevalence of a gang culture. That is reflected in the worsening street gang problems, which have been well publicised in the media. We are all very, very aware of what has been happening. Everyone recognised that the changes provided by this bill are not silver bullets, but they are another set of tools in the arsenal that police can use to control gang activity.

The Police Association further said that its members estimate that there are now over 3,000 patched or full members of traditional gangs in New Zealand, spread across nearly 200 organisations or chapters. That is pretty significant for a small country like New Zealand. Youth street gangs and prospect numbers are hard to estimate, but that number could swell considerably. New Zealand’s goal for the police should be clear and unequivocal, and that is to reverse the growing gang membership and associated criminal activity. We fully support that goal. The proposals in the bill will contribute to that objective, which is what the bill seeks to do. The police recognise that the somewhat more effective policing of organised criminal gang membership allowed through the changes in this bill will enable them to effect their role in bringing the growing gang problems and membership under control.

As the Minister said, the bill is necessary because in the 9 years under Labour very little was done to combat the growing gang problem. Police see this legislation as a very positive step forward in bringing about some control. It was not until the Wanganui toddler Jhia Te Tua was shot in 2007 that some action was taken. It took 11 months for legislation to be introduced to Parliament. I am very pleased to hear that there is cross-party support for this bill, and that it will go through the process. I once again commend and thank the select committee for progressing this bill.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this

I rise to speak in support of the second reading of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. On this side of the House the Labour Party stands for policies that we think will make a difference in the control of gangs and organised crime. We do not support measures that we think will not work or are inappropriate. We drew the line, for example, at the gang patch legislation, which was promoted as a local bill on behalf of the Wanganui District Council, because we did not think it would work. I believe that history will show that that legislation is ineffective. We must remember that it applies only to a small geographic area, and it depends upon whether someone is wearing a patch, rather than on the nature of his or her criminal activities.

The Gangs and Organised Crime Bill, however, is in a different category. We think the legislation will make a difference and that it will inhibit people or penalise them for their gang associations, and criminal associations where they are involved in criminal matters. One of the ways the bill does so is by clearing up the wording in the Sentencing Act that relates to aggravating factors pertaining to participation in an organised criminal group. The change in the wording of section 9(1) will make it easier for judges to find that gang associations are relevant to their sentence and should be an aggravating factor. That means, in effect, that those who take advantage of gang associations to commit criminal offences will face higher penalties as a consequence. That change is appropriate.

Another change made in the bill that Labour supports relates to gathering evidence through police surveillance in respect of gang communications. Those powers need to be controlled; we do not want to give unrestrained powers to any branch of the Government to put other people under surveillance. We really do not want to make some of the mistakes that, in my opinion, have recently been made in Great Britain, in terms of going too far in extending the powers of surveillance. We need to protect the civil liberties of New Zealanders to go about their business without undue interference from Government agencies. But there are appropriate public policy exceptions, and where people are participating in organised criminal enterprises, then obviously we want to empower the police to have the communications surveillance rights they need in order to intercept communications that can help to prevent crimes, or, indeed, to prove prosecutions against those who are participating in criminal activities.

The balance is achieved in the bill by requiring that the police must obtain a warrant from a High Court judge to intercept those private communications, but relevant to whether they will get that warrant are the reasonable grounds for believing that the person in question has committed an offence under the Act; is a member of a criminal organisation; or is planning, participating, or committing a criminal offence, and at least one of those actions is a specified offence. So we support that change in the legislation.

In terms of the effectiveness of these different measures, my own view is that the most important of them all is the proceeds of crime legislation. The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill, which is also being pursued by the Government, reflects earlier legislation that was prepared by the previous Labour Government.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this

The Green Party will be opposing the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill, but not because we disagree with its aim. Its aim is to deal with criminality, particularly organised criminality such as robbery and all the rest of it, and dealing in drugs, such as P in particular, which is very damaging. We are very strong on opposing that form of criminality, and we are very strong on supporting the victims of it.

My former colleague Nandor Tanczos was very instrumental in bringing victims’ rights provisions into our legislation. I think this measure is going in the wrong direction. As a Parliament we have already made one move in the wrong direction by introducing the law criminalising gang patches. It will not be workable. It will throw up a whole lot of injustices, and we are starting to see that already.

The approach of this bill is to lengthen the sentence for participating in an organised criminal group from 5 years to 10 years, but that will only fill up our jails more and more. As we know, jails are often schools for crime more than places for rehabilitation. So to keep increasing sentences is not necessarily the right course of action for Parliament to take, but, unfortunately, it has been the pattern under both Labour and National Governments in the years that I have been in Parliament.

Clause 4 is headed “Participation in organised criminal group”, and when we look through the definitions in that clause, we see that they are vague, and it is difficult to apply legislation with such vague definitions to organised criminal groups. It is no accident that the previous legislation—the Crimes Act—on organised criminal groups has very rarely been applied in the courts. There have been very few convictions under that legislation, because of its vagaries and because of judges and juries not wishing to do injustices to people.

I make the point that the legislation does not apply just to gangs. Most gangs, as we know them, have patches and so on. But the charge of being a member of an organised criminal group has also been applied to five people who were arrested a couple of years ago as part of police Operation Eight, during which there were raids in Tūhoe country. I think that about 17 people were arrested, and five of those people are now being charged as, together, forming an organised criminal group. Those people have political motives, one way or another, as everyone knows—and, of course, I will not talk about the details or judge the guilt or innocence of the people involved. But it gives us an idea that this legislation can carry over to people who are engaged in political activities.

In that particular case, the police and the prosecution initially attempted to lay charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act. That failed. The police fell back on the Arms Act, and then they moved on to the provisions in the Crimes Act relating to organised criminal groups. The Green Party is concerned at the fact that the provision goes beyond what we would normally consider to be patched gangs.

The whole problem with this legislation—both the Crimes Act and this amendment bill—is that we can stray quite easily into guilt by association. It is very hard to know where to draw lines. Let us look at the amendments to the Crimes Act that are contained in clause 4. Subsection (1) of section 98A, inserted by clause 4, states: “Every person commits an offence … who participates in an organised criminal group—(a) knowing that 3 or more people share any 1 or more of the objectives …”, and it then mentions where those objectives are described. It goes on to state: “(whether or not the person himself or herself shares the particular objective or particular objectives);”. That is a bit vague for a start. People can somehow get into the orbit of a group even though they do not share its objectives, and they may then get caught up as being subject, perhaps, to a 10-year sentence. People do not need to be actively involved in committing the crime to be caught under this bill; they just need to be reckless as to whether their conduct contributes or may contribute to the occurrence of any criminal activity. That is very vague, as well.

Subsection (1)(c), in clause 4, states: “reckless as to whether the criminal activity may contribute, to achieving the particular objective or particular objectives of the organised criminal group.” That is separate from the previous bit I read out, which is to do with the crime; this is to do with the objectives of the group and, as is indicated in the other part of clause 4, which I read out earlier, the person caught up in the group does not even need to share the group’s objectives. But the person’s activity might, because of its recklessness, contribute to those objectives. So a whole lot of things have to be proved—it is a case of “and”, not “or” in terms of the requirements in the paragraphs of section 98A(1), in clause 4.

All those things have to be proved in a court setting. In the Green Party’s view, that leaves the door wide open to all sorts of problems. Family or friends could be caught up as being, in legal terms, members of an organised criminal group when they are not. When we look at how an organised criminal group is defined in the original legislation, we see that even that is very vague. In terms of the group, the Act states that only some of the people need be involved in the planning of a crime, not all of them. Section 98A(3)(c) of the original Act states: “its membership changes from time to time.”

Well, that is true; any group’s membership changes from time to time. People may be members today and not tomorrow. The whole thing gets very vague when we put it into law, and that is why I think it is a rather difficult path to go down. When judges and juries are looking at criminal activity—whether it be armed robbery, circulating P, or whatever—they can judge the circumstances of the criminality of the particular offender. To link it up with this highly confusing organised criminal group legislation is not helping us at all.

The other side of the issue is that the law and order bandwagon—adding bits to the Crime Act, extending sentences, increasing surveillance, and everything else—is not, from the Greens’ point of view, getting to the root of the problem. We have to be clear about the root of the problem, particularly as we have moved into a recession and unemployment is growing. We know that a recession often produces more people who are at a loose end. They are hard up, without income, their families are suffering, their kids are joining gangs, and all the rest of it. We have to look at the root of the problem and try to address it, and we have debates in this House about how to address the general financial and economic crisis—which the Greens see as parallel to the environmental crisis.

We need to look at benefiting the people at the low socio-economic end of our society. That is a much better way of reducing the prevalence of crime. We need to give kids alternatives to joining gangs. Most young kids join gangs not because they want to rob a bank or anything like that but because they want some social support or some group to belong to, and, unfortunately, gangs are the handiest groups around in some communities. We have to provide more sports clubs and social clubs. We have to provide more education and more ways to stop kids from leaving school. All those sorts of things keep them out of gangs. If people go properly through the education system and have aspirations to make a life for themselves in what we would call a proper way, they will not go out and join gangs. I think that is much better than the sort of legislation we have before us.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) Link to this

I rise to speak on the second reading of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. In my view and in the ACT Party’s view, the starting place for consideration of this bill and related legislation such as the gang patch legislation that the previous speaker, Keith Locke, referred to is an understanding and acceptance, sadly not shared by my friend to my left, Hone Harawira, that gangs are not whānau or groups of people trying to find something to belong to. They are criminal organisations. That is what they are. They are not motorcycle clubs or groups with any other common bond but the desire to intimidate, frighten, hurt, and commit crimes. I think it is very instructive that we have just seen the first conviction under the gang patch legislation, and it is deeply ironic that the person convicted was himself a victim of gang violence by one of the purported clubs—

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this

Tēnā koe. Kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. In following on from my colleague David Garrett, who has just graduated from the “Barney Rubble School of Criminology”, I say that there are some more enlightened issues and speakers on the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill in the House today, and I congratulate them on their comments.

Last Tuesday some 300 locals gathered in Wanganui to protest the local council decision to ban gang insignia within city boundaries. One of the locals, a man with a social conscience and no gang affiliation, called the decision “an erosion of civil liberties and a cheap publicity stunt by our mayor, masquerading as his attempt to solve a tragic social dilemma”. There is no question that gangs are a tragic social dilemma, and the social cost of their activities is reason enough for action.

Contributing 8 percent of court charges and 18 percent of the prison population, the Government’s gang strategy is costing the country nearly $200 million a year. That strategy has some interesting history, including Rob Muldoon’s interventions way back in the early 1970s; the 1979 Select Committee on Violent Offending; the 1981 committee of inquiry into gangs, out of which came the Group Employment Liaison Scheme; and the 1987 commission chaired by Justice Sir Clinton Roper. Here we are now in 2009 with a new plan to take away the patches, knock down the high fences, make gang affiliation a factor at sentencing, expand police surveillance powers, up the penalties, and cross our fingers that things will change. The background to this bill can be summed up in just a few words: wave a stick, and if that does not work, wave a bigger stick.

This bill, unfortunately, is all about penalties and punishment, yet all the research tells us that the heavy-handed approach that was adopted in Los Angeles, for example, led to a huge increase in the number of gangs and gang crimes, while over in New York a different strategy of community development, educational opportunity, and urban renewal has led to a massive decrease in gang activity. That is why the Māori Party supports more positive and effective strategies for dealing with gang activity. We know that we have to address crime by dealing to the causes, not just reacting to the effects.

I know that Pete Sharples and his crew have been working hard with networks to address some of the more disturbing issues associated with youth gangs in South Auckland through community initiatives built around employment and education schemes. I know too that youth gangs do not always buy into a lot of the youth at risk and Fresh Start programmes that work for others, so it is good to see some innovative stuff being done to change attitudes in youth gangs, and indeed to change the very nature of gang culture. So I say big ups to Pete, his Te Puni Kōkiri crew, and the outside connections as well for focusing on turning kids to the positive rather than just trying to bash the negative out of them.

The evidence is clear. The programmes that are effective in turning kids away from crime are the ones that give them a belief in themselves and hope for the future. That is where we should be focusing our attentions, our strategies, our resources, and our energies: investing in literacy, education, stable employment, decent housing, and the elimination of institutional racism. We should also focus on helping communities to respect one another, to care for their neighbours, to watch out for everyone else’s kids, and to turn themselves around.

Another concern we had was the proposed amendment to lower the test of gang association as an aggravating factor at sentencing, so that instead of having to be involved in a gang, or be a gang participant, an accused could be sentenced based on the nature and extent of any connection between the accused, the offence, and gangs. It would be kind of like hauling Minister Paula Bennett over the judicial coals if one of her hoodlum in-laws brought drugs into her house, convicting Shane Jones because he knew of one of his whānau putting the bash on somebody else who had threatened one of his daughters, Tau Henare ending up in court because one of his outlaws ran him out to the airport in a stolen car, or Georgina te Heuheu—maybe not Georgie, but members know what I mean.

It is not just men, either; it is women, too. The women’s prison population has doubled over the last decade, and, unfortunately, 60 percent are Māori. Indeed, just last month a book came out called Trust: A True Story of Women and Gangs. It is a story of a unique and unruly bunch of women with varying gang affiliations who lived together and stood side by side in a world that did not care a jot about their existence, their lives, their experiences, their struggles with poverty, and their hassles with the police. The final chapter contains a quote that fits right here: “Being Maori was always their foundation stone. But now, for most, it’s their search, their journey, their passion and their healing.”

I stand proudly alongside the Māori Party in opposing this bill, because it is a reaction based on ignorance and fear. I stand against it because it is based on failed theories of punitive action over positive thinking, and I stand against it because it will not lead to a more just society. It will, in fact, lead to greater injustice and a greater reaction to that injustice.

But I make one small concession. I watched TV on the first night of the ban in Whanganui and I saw all the brothers gathered in town. I have to say they looked different. They did not look mean, they did not look threatening, and they did not look like a volcano ready to explode. In fact, they just looked like whānau, like a lot of my cousins and friends from all around the country. Yet those same guys, when they are patched up and scarfed up, with hoodies on and gloved fists pumping the air in anger and defiance, look like a-holes, and they often act like a-holes to fit the image. I liked what I saw that first night after the ban. It is just a pity that this bill is all stick and no carrot, because I know, as I suspect most MPs in this House know, that we have to accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative if we want to latch on to the affirmative, or we will certainly get messed up by Mr In-Between. Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare.

Dr CAM CALDER (National) Link to this

It is a pleasure and a privilege to stand and speak to the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill, an omnibus bill that amends the Crimes Act 1961, the Sentencing Act 2002, and the Local Government Act 2002. Members of the House should be in no doubt that gangs and their activities are a blight on our country. Their activities are an evil miasma that overshadows all of society, and the despair and despondence directly attributable to gang-related activities can insinuate itself at all levels. I take my honourable colleagues’ comments to heart when they point out the complexity of the issue, because many gang members are not immediately recognisable as such.

This bill is yet another example of the Government keeping its promises. We are aware that the problem is complex. We do not have a magic wand, and we cannot change things overnight. This is not a place for silo thinking, and we must reshape the mesh at many levels and in different areas. The initiatives contained in this bill are but the first stage of the Government’s response. This bill had its first reading in the Government’s first 100 days in office, fulfilling a pledge made in the 2008 election campaign.

As I mentioned, the bill is an omnibus bill. It amends section 98A of the Crimes Act 1961 to increase the penalty for participation in an organised criminal group from a maximum of 5 years’ imprisonment to up to 10 years’ imprisonment. Between 2004 and 2007 the average prison sentence for this offence was 2 years, which is hardly adequate for the damage caused by the activities of many of those involved. The sentence does not adequately reflect the culpability of those gang leaders who organise such serious criminal activity as methamphetamine manufacturing and distribution, without perhaps directly offending themselves, and who engage in promoting an activity that has blighted, and continues to blight, thousands of lives.

The other side of the issue is the rate of successful convictions under section 98A for participation in criminal organisation, which has historically been very slow, and the number of prosecutions has been very low. From 2004 to 2007 there were only 339 prosecutions and only 19 convictions. I ask members how many that is. It is 19; a total of 5 percent. There are a number of reasons for this. The first reason is the complexity of that provision. The second reason is the high evidential burden placed on the prosecution to prove the offence. The bill draws on case law to clarify the evidential requirements under that section, which should ease the burden placed on the Crown to prove that an accused participates in an organised criminal group. That is intended to result in more successful prosecutions for participation, without criminalising mere association—an extremely difficult thing to legislate for.

The bill also requires a sentencing judge to take into account as a specific aggravating factor any offending committed due to involvement with such a group. Combined with the doubling of the penalty under section 98A of the Crimes Act and changes to the legal threshold, this amendment to the Sentencing Act should increase the penalties handed down to gangs.

This bill is not limited to the punishment of gang members. It also provides the police with the tools to apprehend those who commit organised crime or who are planning to commit organised crime. The bill expands, in two ways, on the ability of the police to undertake the surveillance of gang communications. The first is the provision of specific authority for the police to apply for an interception warrant in order to investigate the offence of participation in an organised criminal group. This in turn will disrupt organised criminal groups by catching those who organise or facilitate illegal activities. The illegal activities attributed to gangs range across the spectrum of malfeasance. There is no doubt, however, that the production, distribution, and sale of drugs is a prime financer of gang activity and a major source of revenue. Years of “hurry up and wait”, inactivity, and indolence by the previous unlamented, lackadaisical, lachrymose, and Luddite Labour administration has seen the scourge of methamphetamine—or P, as it is more commonly known—grow and grow. Police sources suggest that the vast majority of clandestine drug laboratories are inextricably linked to recognised criminal groups. The gangs, flush with funds, pay vast sums to expert P cooks, who oversee the preparation of their fiendish brew. The P produced is sold and used to entice more acolytes or associates to join criminal groups, and its subsequent use, often combined with the use of alcohol, fuels much of the violent crime reported so often in our media. This Government finds a daily diet of wormwood and gall unacceptable, and is committed to making improvements.

The bill also lowers the general threshold for offences that can be used as the basis for interception warrants, from attracting at least 10 years in prison to attracting 7 years in prison, or more. This means that the police will be able to obtain interception warrants for a wider range of offences, such as car conversion. The offence of car conversion is not normally regarded as serious in the whole gamut of things, but we can see that it allows the police to intercede before a more serious offence may occur. It sends a message to gangs that the net to catch their criminal activities is widening, and it should enhance the prospects of successful prosecutions under section 98A of the Crimes Act.

The bill also provides that a removal order may be sought from a District Court in order to remove intimidating structures, such as gang forts. For years, fortified gang premises have concealed potential offending. The current law allows the police or territorial authorities to seek a court authorisation, under the Local Government Act, to remove those structures if they are connected to criminal activity or the intention of their use is to cause injury. The previous Government rejected law changes that would make it easier for the police to destroy gang fortifications. The Government argued that the current law appears to be sufficiently broad, yet it could not say how many gang forts had been stormed and, strangely, in 2007 the law was removed as a key operational practice from the police statement of intent. As the august organ Private Eye may well have observed if reporting this: “Surely some mistake—Ed?”.

In 2008 I had the privilege of campaigning for 7 months in the vibrant and diverse electorate of Manurewa. The majority of people in this community are hard-working and ambitious for themselves and their children. Sadly, there are some, particularly among the younger residents, who lack a sense of purpose and a feeling of belonging. It is these young people whom the gangs are targeting, and regrettably they find a fertile source for new apprentices in crime. Not surprisingly, as a result it was clear to me last year that the wider Manurewa community was lacking the fundamental right that any Government should offer its citizens: the right to live with a sense of security. This Government finds that situation completely unacceptable. We are addressing it at a number of levels, and already more than 60 new sworn police have been assigned to the area—the first tranche of a promised 300 extra police. I turn to addressing the problem at other levels. Three new early childhood centres will be built in the area, and the local uptake of the home insulation plan to improve the health of the general community has been good.

I return to the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill initiative towards combating this problem. We will endeavour to improve security, and the feeling of security, in the community through this initiative as well. The Government argues that gang forts are not only a threat to public safety because they could potentially cloak illegal activity, but their very presence is threatening and makes a neighbourhood feel less safe. The Local Government Act 2002, as part of our proposed Gangs and Organised Crime Bill, will also provide additional powers to have those structures removed and with that the intimidation they represent.

This bill is yet another example of how this Government, with its principled, pragmatic, and inclusive manner, is listening to New Zealanders and working on their behalf. Thank you.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) Link to this

Kia ora anō tātou e te Kaihautū o te Whare. Te tuatahi, kei te tautoko te Rōpū Reipa i tēnei pire.

MELISSA LEE (National) Link to this

It is a pleasure to support the second reading of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. It is lovely to hear members opposite supporting this bill and speaking so passionately about it. There are some 3,000 patched gang members in New Zealand, who are spread across nearly 200 organisations or chapters. There are the gangs we know of, and, of course, there are gangs who operate without patches, without gang fortifications, and without other gang paraphernalia but who still operate gang businesses that have become a scourge on our society. New Zealand has a gang problem. Gangs are a very complex problem and they require a multi-faceted and multi-pronged resolution. I have no idea why young people feel the urge or the motivation to join gangs.

I support the honourable member opposite, Shane Jones, who has just resumed his seat. He talked about looking at different role models other than gang members. Mr Locke said earlier that young people join gangs to get social support. As a young child I left my country of birth to live in foreign lands. The sojourn ultimately moved me to New Zealand, and as a newcomer to this country I did feel like an outsider. It took a long time for me to feel as if I belonged here. But I did not join a criminal gang. I understand the desire to belong, to be part of a group.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) Link to this

I rise to speak on the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. I think it is very important to note that across the House there is widespread support for this bill. That is indicative of the fact that there is widespread concern about crime and criminal activity. So I am a little bit concerned that the previous speaker, Ms Lee, seemed to think that it was only a National Government concern, and that the rest of Parliament does not care about crime. That is incredibly unfair. We agree that many insidious acts have been committed by people who are somehow involved with gangs or organised crime.

One thing that has not been touched on much today is that we are talking about just the leather-wearing gang members. There are also the white collar criminals who are often let off the hook and perceived as being somewhat cleaner than those gang members that are associated with crimes and who wear leather jackets. I think we need to be very careful that when we talk about this bill we make sure we acknowledge the fact that it is not just leather-wearing gang members that we are talking about. We are also talking about white collar criminals.

Before I go into the specifics of the bill, it is really important to note—and Mr Jones touched on this before—that the National Government has pushed this bill through, and we are supporting it, but it did not really have to do that. It could have just supported the Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill, which had already been to select committee, and which had already had robust discussion and debate when Labour was in Government. Instead, National decided to start from scratch so that it could take ownership. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There has been a lot of talking going on with a particular member over there, and it is quite distracting.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) Link to this

I would just note that the only positive aspect of the speech from the previous speaker was the mention of Taranaki, so I thank Carmel Sepuloni.

National campaigned on getting tough on gangs. The initiatives contained in the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill represent the first steps this Government will take to deliver on its campaign promises. There has been a marked increase in drug-related crime and violent crime in New Zealand, and a very high percentage of that crime has been caused by gangs in our society. The Police Association estimates that we now have 3,000 patched or full members of traditional gangs in New Zealand, and they are spread across nearly 200 organisations or chapters. This is a major problem that affects and should concern every New Zealander. Let us not be misled by the claims of some people that gangs in New Zealand are groups of people who simply want to be left in peace—albeit behind their fortified walls—as if peace-loving citizens from outside are the real intruders.

The scourge of P that is destroying the lives and futures of our young people and creating untold heartache amongst families is perpetrated by people who do have not one ounce of concern, not one notion of care or responsibility, not one iota of decency and contribution to make to New Zealand society. A recent report from the New Zealand Police regarding clandestine P labs indicates that just under 75 percent of these labs are linked to recognised criminal gangs. They ply their evil trade at the terrible expense of innocent people. They ruin lives and devastate our society, and any defence of their activity, any calling for softening, is an outrage.

Although there may be some members of gangs who seek to be law abiding and respectful of other people’s lives, and who want to enjoy their lifestyle uninterrupted, unfortunately that minority is extremely small. I have met only two gang members who turned their lives round and sought to help other people to do the same by trying to stop them from entering gangs. I know there may be more, but I know of only two; both of them are former gang leaders. Why would they try to stop young people from joining gangs? Because they know that gangs are breeding grounds for lawlessness and untold misery for all those they affect. The wife of one of those men who was a leader of a gang spoke to me of years of violence inflicted upon her, until her husband turned his life round. The last I heard was that the district court in their home town was putting law-breaking young people under their care to help stop them from slipping into a life of crime and gang involvement.

I applaud people like that. They have turned away from a life of drug dealing and violence, and have now become contributors to our communities. But those stories are few and far between, and we must not be disengaged in the war against crime by the endearing and redeeming stories of a few. We cannot be soft on people who are staunch in their criminal intent. We cannot meet violence and drug trafficking with a soft response under the guise of nonchalance regarding the choices and responsibilities of people. We cannot defend the rights of dealers at the expense of the lives of our sons and daughters.

Let me read some of the effects of P, and why every decent New Zealander should be concerned and should be at war against this insidious drug and its dealers: “Burnt lips, weeping sores, rotten teeth: the faces of methamphetamine users stare from the computer screen. … The before-and-after pictures show the ravages of meth madness, the addiction to a drug of many names. In New Zealand, the synthetic drug often cooked up in clandestine labs is called speed, pure, P, burn, gooey, crank, meth, crystal, ice and Ya Ba. This highly addictive psycho-stimulant mimics adrenalin and triggers the brain’s fight-or-flight mechanism, which can make users aggressive and violent. P addicts can also suffer from ‘meth mites’, a side effect caused by the high toxicity levels in the drug. ‘The phenomenon occurs when the body can’t digest the hazardous additives in meth. It instead forces them out through the pores, causing sores, acne and chronic scratching,’ … Users feel like they have insects crawling under their skin. To get those insects out, these people scratch, claw and dig into themselves, making holes in their faces and bodies. The list of health problems that come with P addiction is long and terrifying. It can cause heart damage and strokes, memory loss, psychosis, delusions, extreme weight loss, hair loss, convulsions, depression, mood swings, kidney, liver and brain damage, respiratory problems and death.”

The Gangs and Organised Crime Bill presented by the National Government contains measures that are specific and practical. They are designed to achieve results that make New Zealanders safer in their homes and in their communities. This bill gives effect to key components of the Government’s policy on gangs by increasing the penalty for participating in an organised criminal group. The bill amends section 98A of the Crimes Act to increase the penalty for participation in an organised criminal group from a maximum of up to 5 years’ imprisonment to a maximum of up to 10 years’ imprisonment. As the Minister of Justice reported, the average prison sentence for this offence between 2004 and 2007 was 2 years. That does not adequately reflect the culpability of those gang leaders who organise serious criminal activities such as methamphetamine manufacturing and distribution without directly offending themselves.

This bill also expands police surveillance powers in respect of gang communications. The bill lowers the general threshold for those offences that can be used as a basis for interception warrants from those attracting at least 10 years’ imprisonment to those attracting 7 years’ or more imprisonment. This means that police will be able to obtain interception warrants for a wider range of offences, such as car conversion. This sends a message to gangs that the net on their criminal activities is widening. This should enhance the prospects of successful prosecutions under section 98A of the Crimes Act.

The bill also provides greater powers to remove gang fortifications. It provides that a removal order may be sought from a district court in order to remove intimidating structures, such as gang forts. This Government argues that gang forts are not only a threat to public safety but also potentially cloak illegal activity. Their very presence is threatening and makes a neighbourhood feel less safe. The Gangs and Organised Crime Bill will therefore give additional powers to have these structures removed if they are intimidating in nature.

We have heard of the intent of the National Government to bring some changes rapidly into our society to bring safety and security. Unfortunately, the previous Labour Government was very slow and very lax in this matter. It was stated on Wednesday, 29 October 2008—