Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill — First Reading 
Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17011] 
Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill be now read a first time. 
 I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 September 2008. In summary this bill increases the maximum penalty for participation in an organised criminal group from 5 years’ to 10 years’ imprisonment. It also makes participation in such groups an aggravating factor when sentencing an individual for offences committed as part of the offender’s involvement in organised crime. 
Organised criminal activity in New Zealand ranges from sophisticated transnational operations involving many millions of dollars to small-time street gatherings of patched gang members. It is those criminal groups both large and small who plague our communities with intimidation extortion illegal drugs identity fraud serious property crimes and violence. The tools needed to combat the diverse organised criminal gangs must therefore be comprehensive flexible and effective. This Government is dedicated to combating organised crime at all levels and has previously announced key initiatives such as the organised crime strategy and the intended establishment of the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand or “OFCANZ”. 
However the success of the Government’s strategy and of the Organised and Financial Crime Agency will depend on the provision of a strong statutory framework that provides an effective platform from which to launch our law enforcement interventions. Thus this bill is the third of four major pieces of legislation to tackle serious and organised crime in New Zealand—namely the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill the Serious Fraud Office (Abolition and Transitional Provisions) Bill the Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill and finally the intended search and surveillance powers bill. The new powers penalties and law enforcement improvements provided in these four bills will enhance investigations facilitate prosecutions and provide tougher action against organised crime and gangs. 
The first amendment provided in this bill increases the penalties under section 98A of the Crimes Act 1961. Section 98A was originally enacted to meet New Zealand’s international obligations under article 5 of the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. The section extends criminal liability beyond the traditional parameters of aiding and abetting or conspiracy by enabling the prosecution of those who direct criminal organisations without otherwise engaging in criminal acts. Section 98A enables the prosecution of the leaders and members of organised criminal groups who plan and organise those criminal businesses without getting their hands dirty. Those gang chiefs or kingpins are often the real controllers of criminal activity: the ones who direct others and make the big decisions; the ones whom prospects look up to and want to emulate. Therefore the formulation of section 98A is broad enough to capture the recruiting of gang prospects and the financing and strategic planning of gang activities. 
This bill will increase the maximum penalty for those activities from 5 years’ to 10 years’ imprisonment. I do not believe that the current penalty level adequately reflects the range of culpability caught by section 98A offending. In particular it does not reflect the potential application of the section to deal with crime bosses who organise criminal activity without directly committing crimes themselves. Increasing the maximum penalty for the offences covered by section 98A will not only send a strong message to gang leaders that their behaviour will not be tolerated but also greatly increase the ability of the police to combat those socially corrosive activities. 
Section 98A of the Crimes Act requires proof of the existence of an organised criminal group and of the gang members’ participation in that group. In the absence of proof of a completed crime communications interception is critical. However because section 98A does not carry a penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment or more an investigation undertaken under that section does not qualify for the issuing of an interception warrant. That also means that intelligence gathered when using an interception warrant obtained on other grounds cannot be used in a prosecution undertaken under section 98A. Those are critical deficiencies and they have resulted in the police being hamstrung when they have attempted to enforce the law. Increasing the maximum penalty for breaches of section 98A from 5 years’ to 10 years’ imprisonment will ensure that interception warrants will be available to the police when they investigate offending by crime bosses and will thus significantly increase the ability of the police to obtain a conviction. Although the availability of interception powers is not the substantive justification for increasing the maximum penalty it is an important consequence of the amendment. This bill will not only make it easier for the police to detect and prosecute gang leaders but also ensure that when crime bosses are held to account for their offending the penalties imposed reflect the seriousness of their actions. 
The second amendment in this bill adds gang or organised crime participation as an aggravating factor for sentencing under section 9 of the Sentencing Act 2002. The list of aggravating factors in section 9 already targets elements of violence premeditation and severity that are inherent in gang-related offending. But once again this amendment sends an important message to those organised crime leaders who try so hard to avoid direct responsibility for their actions. The Court of Appeal has acknowledged that gangs and other groups within the community who are responsible for major organised crime must expect those who represent them in committing crime to have their connections recognised as increasing the seriousness of the offending. Similarly the courts have long recognised gang leadership as an aggravating feature. This bill will extend section 9 in recognition that offending is more serious when it is committed for the benefit of at the direction of or in association with an organised criminal gang. The purpose of that is to provide parliamentary support for that judicial observation and it is aimed at deterring and undermining ongoing participation in entrenched gangs. 
This bill is an omnibus bill—that is a bill that amends more than one principal Act. As such it is intended that the bill be divided into the following two separate bills in the Committee of the whole House stage: a crimes amendment bill and a sentencing amendment bill. 
This bill will enhance the capabilities of law enforcement agencies and ensure that organised criminal gang leaders who organise and plan crimes are able to be brought to justice. I intend to move that the Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill be considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee and that the committee be directed to report finally to the House on or before 1 September 2008. I commend this bill to the House. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 There cannot be too many bills that come to this Parliament with only two pages but that is the case of the Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill which National unreservedly supports. These are serious issues and I think most members on this side of the House will ask why the Government has not moved more quickly to deal with those issues. The problem of organised crime in New Zealand which the Government has been hugely slow to deal with is an insidious growing and dangerous one. I note for example that Hell’s Angels is rated the most influential crime group in New Zealand and the hardest to catch. I raise its motto as an issue for consideration by this House as to the seriousness of this issue. What is its motto? Its motto is “Three people can keep a secret if two are dead.” 
I think we all know about the rise in violent crime in New Zealand. I think we all know also about the epidemic of methamphetamine otherwise known as P that is taking an increasing hold on communities—not only communities in South Auckland but communities where what might be known as the higher socio-economic groups live. It is truly frightening. As grandparents and as parents we must be very concerned about what might happen to our children who are exposed to these drugs which to a significant extent are distributed by gangs in New Zealand. We are not talking about only one gang. I have probably been wrong in singling out Hell’s Angels. We are talking also about groups like the Headhunters and Highway 61. 
National has been very committed in taking a strong stance on organised crime. I think we have felt incredibly frustrated that the Government has not been prepared to respond to some of the things that National has said as a matter of policy are very much part of the fabric of what I am certain will be a new Government in 2009. I will talk for a moment about some of the things we will do to deal with this issue some of the things we will do to give the police increased powers to listen in on gang communications and some of the things we will do to give the police increased powers to storm gang fortifications and destroy them. This Government is seemingly reluctant to do that even though—and I am looking at the Minister of Justice—there are already some powers in the legislation that the Government seems reluctant to employ. We will also make it illegal to be a member of a criminal organisation. I pause sadly I guess but with wry amusement to note that in connection with Part 2 of the bill our announced policy is to amend the Sentencing Act to make membership of a gang an aggravating factor in sentencing. Wow! The Government has taken that policy. Well maybe it is good that it has snatched the policy but it should have taken it a long time before this and it should have implemented it in legislation rather than leaving it to this very last moment. 
I think also when we look at these issues relating to organised crime that we need to focus a little more strongly on the plight of victims than this Government is prepared to do and I would like to say something about that. It may be the case that the Government will take these policies; if it does then good on it! That is an acceptance of the fact that the policies that National espouses are strong and an indication that they enjoy some degree of bipartisan support across this House. One of the things we will do for example is set up a victim compensation scheme funded by a levy on all offenders at the point of sentencing. To this point the Labour-led Government has dismissed that and I think in quite sneering terms. It is interesting to note that in Canada there is such a scheme and that the United Kingdom Government brought in such a regime as recently as April 2007. There are other things that we will do in connection with the plight of victims. 
Dealing with organised crime is very challenging and very difficult—I doubt anyone would dispute that—and we have a whole lot of policies that are firmly focused around that issue. It is unenviable police work and those who are present in the House who have had experience in policing will know how dangerous it is and what the consequences are for those involved. 
Debate interrupted.