Parker David: Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — Second Reading 
Parker David: Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6288] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 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. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: A very good Government. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It was a very good Government as my learned colleague Mr Hughes makes the point. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He’s not learned; he’s not of the law. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Oh that is true too. The proceeds of crime legislation enables the Crown to confiscate property of criminal organisations like gangs that has been built up through criminal enterprise. It changes the standard of proof that is required to be proven by the Crown when it is seeking to confiscate property. I think we all know that if people have no visible means of support have not got a job yet have accrued very substantial assets and are a member of a gang then the reality is that those assets have been accrued through their criminal activity. The accrual of those assets is at the cost of ordinary New Zealanders whether it be from thefts the illegal drug trade or stand-over tactics. Those sources of revenue have been the source of the gang members’ wealth and it is appropriate that we strip them of those assets. By doing so we remove from people one of the advantages of crime which is illegally and sometimes too easily acquiring wealth from criminal enterprise. 
I think the proceeds of crime legislation is more important than the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. Having said that I think the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill is good legislation and Labour is happy to support its passage.