Garrett David: Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — Second Reading 
Garrett David: Gangs and Organised Crime Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6291] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the second reading of the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. In my view and in the ACT Party’s view the starting place for consideration of this bill and related legislation such as the gang patch legislation that the previous speaker Keith Locke referred to is an understanding and acceptance sadly not shared by my friend to my left Hone Harawira that gangs are not whanau or groups of people trying to find something to belong to. They are criminal organisations. That is what they are. They are not motorcycle clubs or groups with any other common bond but the desire to intimidate frighten hurt and commit crimes. I think it is very instructive that we have just seen the first conviction under the gang patch legislation and it is deeply ironic that the person convicted was himself a victim of gang violence by one of the purported clubs— 
Hone Harawira 
: The white boys! 
DAVID GARRETT 
: —indeed that is right—Hell’s Angels. Hell’s Angels claims to be just a motorcycle club. Well it is not. It is the most organised criminal group in the country and it has been since it was formed in 1961. It keeps a very low profile these days and that is why legislation such as this is necessary. Its members do not do gang rapes any more. They are very nice to old ladies and they take teddy bears to children at Christmas time. But that is not because they are nice guys; it is all a cover for their criminal activity. That is why the police need every tool they have to fight Hell’s Angels the Headhunters—another group of white boys—and others. 
ACT fully supports this bill. For far too long our police have been forced to fight gangs with one hand tied behind their backs because in part Parliament and others have been horribly concerned about gang members’ human rights. That needs to change and we need to recognise that those people are outlaws. They are literally saying by their badge on their filthy jacket “We are outside the law.” The previous speaker Mr Locke said the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Act has already thrown up an injustice. That is typical of the extreme rhetoric of the Greens. What has happened in Wanganui thus far is one conviction of the president of the Mongrel Mob for openly flouting the law. How is that an injustice? That is an injustice only if one is a defender of and apologist for criminals. 
While I am on the subject of the previous speaker he said in a somewhat tangled way that the Wanganui gang insignia legislation was too complex and will catch those who are not directly involved in gangs. I say that Mr Locke and others should be aware that for centuries we have had a law relating to parties to an offence. If a person is in a car being driven to an aggravated robbery in the full knowledge that that will happen that person is a party to it. This legislation is no different. Mr Locke also said that it would be dreadfully difficult because it was so complex to get convictions. If that is the case what is the problem? If it will be difficult to get convictions then people who are not guilty will not be convicted. It is as simple as that. 
The bill is part of a suite of measures that have been proposed by the National-ACT Government. The next one to come up will be the “three strikes” provision which will form part of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. That bill will prevent people from being killed. Many of those who would and will be imprisoned under a “three strikes” regime are gang members and associates. It will be a relief to prevent similar tragedies in the future. The most recent gang murder that I am aware of happened out in Porirua late last year. A gang member called Charlie Karaka had his gang patch skinned off him by some other clown so Karaka was duty-bound by his gang’s ridiculous code to go out and find it. Tragically the person he found whom he decided looked like the person who had skinned his patch was a Samoan choirboy—and I am not making that up—called Fitzgerald Risati. He was out celebrating his 24th birthday with his brother and Karaka killed him. Karaka had 84 previous convictions and was a proud member of a group of thugs but I do not know which one quite frankly. I think it was the Mongrel Mob but it does not really matter. The Gangs and Organised Crimes Bill is just another weapon in the arsenal of the Government and the police against those who group together solely to profit from bullying and intimidation. 
I am always happy to agree with members opposite and Mr Cosgrove made the point quite correctly that not all gangs wear patches. That is quite correct. My friend sitting to my left has said to me privately and during this speech that we have to remember they are not all brown gangs. That is absolutely true as well. In my first reading speech on this bill I noted that the better-dressed gangs and better-disguised gangs found it easier to escape prosecution. I think Hell’s Angels are probably the only gang who get their colours washed and do not stink. This bill will make it easier to get the evidence needed to bust those criminals and to lock them up for longer. It will make it easier for the police to intercept private communications when criminal activity is suspected and where as the bill states in clause 6(1)(b): “it is unlikely that the Police investigation of the case could be brought to a successful conclusion without the grant of the warrant.” 
Before the oversensitive members to my right become all concerned this amendment is there to deal with those whose business it is to hurt others or who seek to profit from hurting others. Speaking for myself I do not really care about their human rights. I am not interested. They have disqualified themselves from a number of the rights that the rest of us have by their conduct. I do not care. I do not care about their loss of privacy when they do not respect the privacy dignity or safety of other people. The bill will double the maximum sentence given to those who are involved with organised criminal activity from 5 years to 10 years. The current law requires any violent offence to be punishable by a sentence of at least 10 years before it can come under the ambit of organised criminal activity. In terms of the sentencing pattern from the recent submissions on the “three strikes” bill it is very clear that that 10-year threshold is far too high. It was pointed out earlier this year that of the 420 murderers with at least three violent convictions to their name none of them had had three sentences of 5 years or more. So setting a threshold of 10 years is far too high. 
The bill also adds much-needed flexibility to the Local Government Act 2002 with regard to removal orders. The bill will allow courts to confront head-on any behaviour that may reasonably be defined as intimidating. Again our criminal apologist friends will bang on about what is “reasonably” defined as intimidating. We know and ordinary people who are walking along the street know what is intimidating. The judges are sensible; so are juries. There is much in the bill that pleases the ACT Party and I have touched on a few examples. 
Finally I point out one further feature: the bill amends the Sentencing Act 2002 to allow judges to include participation or involvement in an organised criminal group as an aggravating factor when deciding how long to lock up an offender. I find this wholly appropriate. The previous speaker Mr Locke differentiated between gangs and terrorists. In my view that is a difference in degree only. Gangs like terrorists threaten the ability of people to live their lives freely without fear of attack and intimidation. Ask any victim of gang crime and he or she will agree. The ACT Party supports any legislation that will help police and courts to rid us of or at least reduce gang terror. As such we are very pleased to vote in favour of this bill. Thank you