Power Simon: Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Power Simon: Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17087. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 The Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill will have the support of the National Party at its first reading as my colleague Dr Worth indicated in his opening remarks which I believe he commenced on Thursday afternoon and concluded today. 
I must say that I always find the preceding speaker Russell Fairbrother interesting with regard to the comments he makes about these issues. He is probably one of the people in this Parliament who is best placed to talk from experience on some of these issues. I have noticed that Mr Fairbrother is getting more free and open with his views on these matters as certain dates loom. That is to be encouraged because some of that wisdom is now being imparted on a more widely recognised and digested basis and indeed he does bring considerable experience to this debate. 
The purpose of this bill as no doubt preceding speakers have indicated is to increase the maximum penalty for the offence under section 98A of the Crimes Act. This section relates to participation in an organised criminal group. That is important to state because for many many years we have heard political discussions about how to deal to gangs. This amendment to the section assists with dismantling organised criminal activity by increasing the penalties that are contained in that section from 5 years to 10 years. Increasing the maximum penalty from 5 years to 10 years for participation in an organised criminal group brings with it certain benefits as not only will it involve seeing those found guilty under section 98A taken out of circulation and society for a longer period of time but also it will reflect the range of culpability that may attend section 98A offending. 
Of course an offshoot of this increase in sentence length as indicated by Mr Fairbrother means that interception warrants will be made available for investigations under section 98A. That is a particularly helpful mechanism to make available to law enforcement authorities with regard to the offence of participation in criminal activity. As members will be aware the two suggestions contained in this bill were first floated by the National Party in August of last year. We have since discovered through discussions in this House that Cabinet had approved the two matters contained in this bill in early July last year. Under questioning in the House it became apparent—as one political editor made clear in his blog—that the reason for the delay in the introduction of this particular bill dealing with such a crucial issue of public safety was the then preoccupation with the Electoral Finance Bill and the fact that it kept various attendant Ministers busy at the time. 
What we saw there was clearly a decision made by the Government to put the Minister of Justice’s energies into the Electoral Finance Act ahead of issues relating to gangs. That is not acceptable. We know for a fact that the Government is now keen to see in force the two out of the four initiatives that National had suggested be adopted in the Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill. The only regret we have in supporting this bill is that the other two points we made were not also adopted at this time in order to provide the police and other law enforcement authorities with a suite of tools that would be effective legislative measures for dealing with the influence of gangs and in particular their organised criminal activity. 
That point leads to the second part of this legislation which proposes a change to section 9 of the Sentencing Act that relates to the aggravated and mitigating factors to be taken into account by a court at the time of sentencing. This bill would provide that it is an aggravating factor where an offence is committed partly or wholly because of the offender’s participation in an organised criminal group. In other words if it was the intent of this individual to be associated with a wider network or association of criminal activity then that would be seen by the court and should be taken into account by the court as an aggravating factor at the point of sentencing. The message that Parliament would be giving judges and courts through amending this section is that this Parliament believes that membership of an organised criminal activity is a very big negative and that it should lengthen sentencing or at the very least should be taken into account at the point of sentencing. 
I am still a bit concerned that the ideas contained in the bill lack perhaps some of the detail of approach we suggested around things like gang fortifications and surveillance on gangs and gang fortifications—which curiously is contained in the Local Government Act—and I think that those issues should be dealt with at the same time as the ones I have already outlined. We know that any organised criminal group that is involved in the supply manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine or the drug P as it is commonly known should be dealt to by Parliament with a range of punitive tools that makes it clear that the drug P is an unacceptable scourge on our society. It is a drug that is having a devastating effect not only on our young people but also across all sectors of New Zealand society. This drug must be stamped out and those who manufacture supply and distribute this drug must be stamped out alongside the drug itself. 
Although this bill lacks a range of measures—in fact it is only two pages long—and a range of tools it is a start. At the select committee National will be interested in exploring the scope of this bill to include other methods or tools to increase the tool kit for law enforcement agencies to take the necessary action that is required. 
There has been some confusion amongst the media about whether it is this bill or the Serious Fraud Office (Abolition and Transitional Provisions) Bill that we are debating. The Serious Fraud Office (Abolition and Transitional Provisions) Bill is of course already at the Law and Order Committee under the watchful eye of the committee’s chairman Mr Ron Mark. This bill is of course a different piece of legislation—one that is designed specifically to zero in on sentencing options for a judge or court at the point these matters come before that jurisdiction. Mr Fairbrother is quite right when he says that those who are involved in an organised criminal group live to a different moral code. From time to time Parliament has to make judgments about moral codes on a range of issues that are always controversial. This particular bill though is not controversial. It is a small step in the right direction. It is a late step in the right direction. It has been a delayed and hesitant step in the right direction as far as the Government’s actions are concerned. National which has incorporated in its original four-point plan released in August last year two of these matters will be supporting the bill through its first reading to I believe the Justice and Electoral Committee.