6. RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Is the Government still contemplating the amendment of consorting laws to limit the ability of criminals, particularly gangs, to meet and plan their crimes, and what progress can he report on his instruction to officials to review section 98A of the Crimes Act 1961 in order to further improve its effectiveness?
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) Link to this
Yes, we certainly are. As the member has previously told the House, the National - New Zealand First coalition Government changed the law around consorting in 1997. It had some difficulties. By introducing section 98A of the Crimes Act, this Government improved those provisions in 2002. More recently, we have progressed work to significantly strengthen and improve the sanctions under section 98A for those who participate in organised criminal activity. We will amend the Crimes Act to double the maximum sentence from 5 years to 10 years for the offence of participation in an organised crime group. Consequently, police powers will be expanded to allow interception devices to be used in investigations of offending suspected to be a result of organised activity, and to enable “participation” to be used as a stand-alone offence rather than an add-on to other charges. In addition, we will amend the Sentencing Act 2002 to provide that it is an aggravating factor when an offence is committed for the benefit of or under the direction of, or is associated with, an organised crime group.
Has he or his officials investigated the laws of overseas jurisdictions such as Singapore, Canada, Hong Kong, and Los Angeles where being a member of a gang is illegal; if so, is this Labour-led Government prepared to introduce similar legislation, as advocated by New Zealand First?
As I have indicated to the member, considerable work has already been done to arrive at the positions that Cabinet has considered and resolved on in recent months. Further work is being done, and although I do not have a specific response to the question the member asks, I can assure him that further provisions to toughen up this area of the law are under active consideration.
Does the Government not see the sick irony of its position where on the one hand it publicly proclaims its determination to clamp down on gangs, whilst on the other hand it is sending messages that it tolerates and condones the existence of gangs by refusing to outlaw them in the same way it does terrorist organisations?
That is not actually what I said. As I have indicated to the member, a decision has already been taken by Cabinet to make amendments to section 98A of the Act to effectively double, from 5 to 10 years, the sentence for the offence of participation in an organised crime group—
Simon Power—I note that Mr Power has borrowed yet another policy of this Government—and a significant enhancement of police powers will be possible as a result of that change.
Does the Minister accept that gangs, who are New Zealand’s home-grown domestic terrorists, pose a far greater and more immediate threat to the average New Zealander and his or her family than any of the international terror organisations his Government has listed and banned; if so, should New Zealanders conclude that the Government is more concerned about the security and well-being of citizens in other countries than it is about the safety and well-being of its own?
No, people should not consider that that is the case. The Government of the day does not have the luxury of dealing with one or other of those matters. International terrorism is a real and present danger to the people of New Zealand, as is organised crime. This Government has taken effective measures on both.
Has the Minister seen a press release of 6 May, following the gang shooting of toddler Jhia Te Tua, in which Ron Mark called for immediate action and said he would be seeking an “urgent meeting with the police Minister to discuss ways of dealing with gangs”, and can the Minister confirm that the response of his colleague—that is, his colleague Annette King—to written questions from my colleague was that she had never met nor spoken with Mr Mark in the week following that statement?
I cannot speak for my colleague’s diary, of course. He should put the question to the appropriate Minister.