Borrows Chester: Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Borrows Chester: Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17094. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I realise there is not a lot of time left but I rise to make a few points in support of the Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill. I took some time to listen to the previous two speakers and their contributions to this debate. I say to my colleague the Hon Tariana Turia that although I accept that the long-term vision she has for addressing the gang problem certainly has a lot of merit and certainly is a way that we need to go I cannot get past the fact that we need to do stuff right now. You see when we are dealing with gang situations that have violent extremes in our community that leave people dead or injured and that leave communities scarred and scared someone has to do something. I notice that Keith Locke in the 10 minutes he offered us did not give a single solution on how we should deal right now with the situation we are confronted with. 
There is a level of philosophy that smaller parties are able to have that shows some sort of understanding of the triggers or the contributing factors that result in gang membership and gang offending. But it is left over to others if the responsibility is abrogated by smaller parties to take initiatives to deal with the nasty end of it. Just because legislation is proffered by the Government and supported by the National Party—legislation that actually deals with that messy end of it—that does not mean that no cognisance is taken of those triggers or factors that contribute to gang membership and the proliferation of gangs and gang offending in times to come. 
For one reason or another we all take various tracks on our way here and my path took me down a track where I ended up in gang premises on a lot of occasions standing nose to bottle or nose to whatever—with a bloody nose on occasions—with gang members who were about to take my head off or have the better part of me unless I responded in a certain way. Quite honestly giving them a classical musical instrument as Mr Keith Locke suggested was not going to cut it. I do not believe that the population of this country thinks that this will cut it—seriously. I am not saying it would never work. It might work somewhere on some drawn-out miniseries on television but it sure as hell will not work within our community. We would be abrogating our responsibility if we put our whole thrust into the long-term objectives and did not deal with those people caught up in the 20-year—if we are lucky—lag time between where the offending is now and where it will take us if we do absolutely nothing. 
This legislation addresses two things. It addresses issues around section 98A of the Crimes Act 1961. The problem we have there as outlined by Mr Mark is that we get precious little in the way of convictions—less than 10 percent in an average year. I am not sure that what we are doing here is the full answer to what we need to do with section 98A but increasing the penalty will allow easier monitoring of gang conversations and gang activity—and so it should because somebody needs to. Changing some definitions and allowing for the prosecution of people involved in that activity are other things that need to be addressed. 
This legislation also lists gang membership as an aggravating feature when it comes to sentencing and so it should. If someone does something as trivial—as some would say—as kick over a letterbox or pee in the street with a gang patch on and he is doing it in circumstances that intimidate maybe that person deserves a bigger penalty than a couple of silly kids doing that while wandering home from school. If a person robs a bank or a chemist or pack rapes a girl walking home and takes her back to his gang pad maybe he should get a heavier sentence as a member of a gang. Members on this side of the House and I am pleased to say members on that side of the House would agree with that. When people put on a patch it means that their presence is not just a passive presence; they are aiding and encouraging so the penalty should be harsher. 
National is pleased to support this bill. The point has been made on a number of occasions that this is National Party policy and has been for a long time but this is not just a case where people are putting their hands up and saying they thought of it first. I am pleased to say that the major parties in this House have taken an initiative. For once they agree which the public will be happy about to deal with the serious end of gang violence in this community while we wait for longer-term initiatives to sow their seeds and reap some growth.