Ross Jami-Lee: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoss Jami-Lee: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 15 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:9974. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): Andrew Little Kris Faafoi and Phil Goff should be hanging their heads in shame for coming to this House and arguing against this piece of legislation the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. What they are telling this Parliament is that the people out there in New Zealand who want to be kept free from gang intimidation and who want to be kept free from the threatening behaviour of gang members should not be protected by legislation like this which will ensure that gang intimidation and threatening behaviour by gangs cannot take place in public places.Those members over on the other side—and I include the Green Party members here—who oppose this piece of legislation are doing New Zealanders a disservice. They are doing New Zealanders a disservice because New Zealanders want legislation like this. New Zealanders know that gangs are a huge problem in New Zealand and they need to be tackled.We know that Labour did not do enough. Labour failed. Labour let gangs run rampant around New Zealand but this Government has passed multiple pieces of legislation to clamp down on gangs. This Government has put more police officers on to the streets of New Zealand and more police officers into the hot spots where they are required. We have passed legislation that has clamped down on the likes of P and we are seeing results.We are seeing results that the Opposition never got when it was in Government. We are seeing results like crime rates at a 30-year low. We are seeing results where P is starting to disappear off the streets. This is another piece of legislation that will helpwith that situation. The Labour Party minority view in the commentary on the bill started off like this: “Labour has no truck with gangs with a culture that promotes encourages facilitates or tolerates criminal activity collectively or individually among its members.” Never a more disingenuous statement have I heard. Never a more disingenuous statement have I heard because nothing in the way in which they are planning on voting on this legislation and nothing they have said in the House today leads us to believe that they actually support that point of view.The Greens are in a similar camp. They are not as strident as the Labour Party but to quote Steven Rollo who made a submission to the Law and Order Committee and who just so happens to work for the gangs—he is a paid lawyer paid to defend gang members—is appalling. To come into this House and quote somebody who acts in that capacity is something that I find appalling. I would not be listening to the lawyer of gang members because that lawyer is coming to select committees promoting and defending gang activity.Gang members and gang patches do not stand for anything good at all. The gang patch that a patched gang member wears stands for pride in what their organisation stands for and that organisation is criminal. The gangs sure have an element of collectivity that some gang members benefit from but predominantly gangs are causing crime. Gangs are intimidating New Zealanders. Gangs are threatening New Zealanders. Those very New Zealanders came to the Law and Order Committee. Murapara Area School has been quoted a number of times in this House so far. Todd McClay knows about Murapara Area School because he is a good representative of his people. Murupara Area School told us that children and students do not need to see gang insignia plastered about their school and they need to be protected from it.The Labour Party and the Green Party do not believe that children should be protected from gang insignia. They are trying to say that they do not think the legislation is going far enough but if they think something needs to be happening they should be voting for this legislation. Kawerau District Council also submitted to the committee. It is another area that Mr McClay represents and he is a good member for that area. Kawerau District Council felt the need to put on record its views. Its view was around the fact that if you are to require council workers and public servants to enforce trespass orders and to serve trespass orders on gang members then you are putting those very people at risk. The Opposition thinks there are enough laws at the moment to take action against gang patch - wearing individuals. Well the very people who have to take that action and have to serve trespass orders on gang members feel intimidated. They feel threatened.This side of the House wants to take greater action on crime. This side of the House wants to take greater action on gangs. The Opposition has told New Zealanders through the select committee process and through their comments in this House tonight that they support the gang members over the good law-abiding members of the public.Hon Phil Goff: That’s rubbish.JAMI-LEE ROSS: It is not rubbish Mr Goff. It is not rubbish because I heard your speech. I heard you saying that this piece of legislation should not be passed. I heard what you had to say. Labour’s comments in its minority report say it supports New Zealanders but actually Labour members are prepared to vote against the bill and I find that hugely disingenuous.I think that Mr McClay is the one who should be congratulated. Mr McClay is the one who is doing a good service for New Zealanders—his constituents know it and New Zealanders know it. This piece of legislation will be good for law-abiding people. Sure the gangs will suffer because they cannot wear their patches of pride the patches they wear to promote criminal activity but wearing those patches is what should be clampeddown on. That is what the Labour Party members should be supporting. They should be supporting this bill.