Calder Cam: Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — Second Reading 
Calder Cam: Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6295] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 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 organisations 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 barely 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 this 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 broad 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 amendments to 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.