Mark Ron: Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mark Ron: Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17088. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Oh how slowly the wheels of democracy turn! That is what springs to mind when I look at the Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill and reflect on the history of this issue. It is timely to point out to the House that when I first came to Parliament in 1996 I was part of a coalition Government—New Zealand First and National—in which some attempts were made by the then Minister of Justice to improve section 98 of the Crimes Act with the similar intent of tightening the legislation to enable the successful prosecution of criminals who consort or associate with each other and act in a coordinated and organised manner against the citizens of this nation. 
On reflection I guess we would have to conclude that the approaches taken by the National Minister of the day were timid—very timid. But they were an improvement we thought on the legislation at that time. Subsequently the Labour Government in 2002 attempted to make some improvements to the Act again. It was an interesting time; the Labour Government was in coalition with or heavily dependent on—was it the Greens? It was interesting because at the same time it was also heavily dependent on United Future; I think it was in formal coalition with United Future and relied on the Greens for support. We saw improvements in the legislation but again as history and time have shown us those improvements have proven to be inadequate. 
Let us look at the history of section 98A. Going back to 2006 I asked on behalf of New Zealand First a number of written questions of the Minister of Justice about the number of prosecutions brought under this provision. It is interesting to note that in 2003 there were 76 prosecutions in 2004 there were 209 and in 2005 there were 58. The small number of actual convictions obtained is sobering. If we go back before that I have to give credit to Marc Alexander a former United Future member who raised questions about the small number of convictions obtained from prosecutions brought under that section of the Crimes Act. That again highlighted the flaws that existed in the provision. 
The fact is that when we talked to police officers they said that they know that these people are organised criminals they know they are members of gangs they know they act in an organised manner and they know they are specifically and deliberately involved in organised criminal activities for profit. Some of them said that it was difficult—indeed pointless—to attempt to prosecute those people under section 98A because it was too open and the offence was too difficult to prove and the chances of getting a conviction were slim. It is interesting that we had to wait until the killing of a baby girl in Wanganui before something was done. She was killed by people whom we knew were gang members and organised criminals and who conspired through their silence and obfuscation to attempt to defeat the course of justice and our attempts as a nation through our judicial process to bring to trial the people who killed that wee girl. It is interesting that other aspects of section 98A were again discussed and pored over as a result of Graeme Burton’s release and his murder of Mr Kuchenbecker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I say to Harry Duynhoven that it gives New Zealand First some concern that of late there seems to be a pattern emerging whereby citizens who are riled come to Parliament go to MPs or approach the Government with their concerns about an issue—and indeed members of Parliament come to the House with members’ bills that attempt to deal with some of these issues—and one after the other in turn they are turned away. It is only when events transpire that result in a death that the Government moves. It saddens me that this Government is now seen in that light. To be specific I point to George Hawkins’ tagging bill. It was brought to Parliament in good faith on behalf of the people of Papakura in the electorate he represents and it was seen by the whole nation as a bill worthy of support but it got no support whatsoever from the Government until a young man was killed. That trial continues in our courts today. 
Martin Gallagher also brought a bill to the House—the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill—and in the report back on that bill we discussed at length the problems of the proliferation of liquor outlets and the social damage and social chaos being inflicted on communities. We did not have to look very far to see other nations that had done the same thing and taken a free-market approach to the sale of liquor at all hours of the night and through all sorts of avenues. Wherever we looked it was easy to find incidents of liquor stores being robbed—of armed robberies and people being killed. The Law and Order Committee’s report on Martin Gallagher’s bill pointed out that this issue needed addressing but nothing happened until a Manurewa proprietor a member of the Sikh community was killed. 
I hate to say it but that leaves the nation asking what it is about this Government that makes it dismiss out of hand on so many occasions issues such as this that citizens have brought to its attention and wait until someone is killed before it accepts the relevancy and the accuracy of the arguments and moves. It is a sad sad thing to reflect on. It may not be the Government’s intent to be seen in this light. It may argue that that is not a fact and that it was working on the issue but the wider public is left with the perception that the Government ignores the problem. 
One could argue that section 98A has been a little slow in getting to the House; there are many reasons for that and we have heard some of them. The point is that it is here. But let us not fool ourselves. Section 98A will deal with one end of the gang and organised criminal fraternity and that is in the main the people who drive BMWs and Mercedes wear suits and are never seen wearing a Hell’s Angel patch—never! We like to think that this bill will specifically target the types of people who cut a swathe through a Hawke’s Bay party with machetes and knives the other weekend. It will not. The people who did that are the dumb end of gangs and organised crime the “el thicko” end the end of organised criminal activity that will always be easy to deal with in the sense that they will be caught and locked up. But we should not kid ourselves that we will confiscate an absolute fortune in criminal proceeds from their activities because the big boys who this bill is really aimed at are at the top end. Those people wheel and deal and work the $1.5 billion methamphetamine market in this country which is causing huge damage to youth and young people who get hooked on P—arguably more damage than 101 dumb Mongrel Mob members cause. 
New Zealand First is very very clear about who this bill is aimed at. We are very very clear that it should have been introduced a long time ago. We are very supportive of it. We hope we can get this legislation through the House before the election so that it is enacted and the police are given a valuable tool that they need. We congratulate the Government on finally putting the legislation on the Table and we look forward to hearing submissions in the select committee seeing the report back and finally the bill being given the Royal assent. Thank you.