Goff Phil: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 07 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12469. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):Kia orana. Can I acknowledge Mark Mitchell who has taken over this bill the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill from Todd McClay but respectfully differ from him on the critical comment that he made. That comment was that there is no legislation covering the wearing of gang patches. Mark Mitchell was in the Law and Order Committee when I asked the officials whether right now Ministers or chief executive officers had the power to ban the wearing of gang patches on Government or school premises. The answer to that was yes. So my next question to Mark Mitchell and the National Government is if wearing a gang patch is threatening and offensive in Government premises how many Ministers in the last 5 years have issued the instruction that no gang patches be worn in Government premises? Do you know the answer to that? The answer is zero. Not one Minister—not Minister Coleman or Minister Bridges or any other Minister—has ever issued that instruction. That shows regrettably that this legislation is empty legislation. It adds no new power. The Government has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of House and select committee time pushing through a piece of legislation that makes absolutely no difference to the current law.Criminal gangs are organisations that set out to condone facilitate or encourage crime and I have zero tolerance for them—I have zero tolerance for them. But there are two responses. One is the response of passing legislation that has a real impact on the presence and the activities of gangs. I am really proud of the fact that as Minister of Justice in 2005 I introduced into this Chamber the Proceeds of Crime Act. The Proceeds of Crime Act did this: it said that where there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the cash or assets held by a gang were the proceeds of crime they could be seized by the police. They could be seized by the police on a court order. That legislation also said that the court would make a judgment about confiscation of those assets not on beyond reasonable doubt grounds but on the balance of probabilities which is the civil standard.The effect of that legislation in the first 2 months after introduction was to take $7.2 million out of the pockets of the gangs and put it under State control. That is real legislation. It made a difference. It hurt gangs where gangs needed to be hurt. Fundamentally they are about making money through criminal activity. The best way of dealing with gangs in that sense is to make sure that the money they make by criminal activity can be and is confiscated from them. That piece of legislation had a real impact. Every minute that the House spent in passing that legislation was money well spent.Another thing the member or his predecessor might have considered doing in this bill is deal with the problem of the association of gang members where those gang members have criminal convictions. If you want to break up a gang then non-association orders would be a very effective way of doing that—not simply on the basis of being gang members but on the basis of being gang members who have committed crime after crime after crime and who should not be able to associate. That would make a difference.What we have in the House today is legislation that actually makes no difference at all. The officials said that. The power exists right now if the Ministers or the chief executives chose to exercise it to ban the wearing of gang patches on Government premises. If the originator of this bill had wanted to make any difference he might have asked about a gang member wearing the patch outside the Government premises and loitering round the entrance of maybe the Ministry of Social Development or whatever. There is no power to remove that gang member—no power under law at all no power to deal with that gang member. But did they do that in this bill? No. They did nothing. That would have at least made a difference. This bill makes no difference at all. It is phoney legislation. It brings no change.I want to raise another point and I hope the National Party speaker who takes the next call will answer it. What we found out at the select committee was that this legislation is inconsistent and it is confusing. Do you know what this law will do? It will say that if you are wearing a gang patch in a swimming pool—not in the pool but in the surrounds of the pool—you are committing an offence under this legislation. But if you are wearing the gang patch up in the Hutt Valley watching the rugby league there is no offence at all—no offence at all. So if you are in the confines of the grounds of a swimming pool it is illegal but if you are watching a game of rugby or rugby league wearing your gang patch it is no problem at all. If you are a gang member wearing a patch and you are standing under a bus shelter you are committing an offence against this bill if it becomes law. But if you step two paces to your left and you are at the bus stop but not under the shelter it is no offence at all. If you are walking down the footpath no offence is committed. But if that footpath is covered by averandah then arguably you might be committing an offence.I say to the member who introduced the bill that good law is law that is clear consistent and enforceable and makes a difference. This law meets none of those criteria—none of those criteria. We even had the situation where the bill as brought to the select committee would have said it is illegal to wear a gang patch on a school property unless it is a charter school. A charter school is 100 percent funded by the taxpayer when it comes about. Well we got them to change that and while they were at it they changed the law on private schools as well.But to give you another example of an inconsistency if you wear your Black Power gang patch into a Government premise you are committing an offence. But if you wear a greasy jacket with a swastika on it that is no offence at all unless it is a gang emblem. If we are talking about wearing a symbol that is offensive and threatening what is more offensive and threatening in this country than the wearing of a swastika and everythingthat that represents? So if you have got a Black Power patch on your jacket it is illegal; if you have got a Nazi symbol it is OK and no offence. Well of course it is not OK. In any Government premise right now you can ban the Black Power jacket and you can ban the swastika. This legislation is phoney. It creates a perception; it does nothing. There is a real problem that something should be done about.If you are talking about behaviour the Summary Offences Act covers this already. Behaviour that is threatening is covered by section 3. It is an imprisonable offence. Behaviour that actually is intimidating is covered by section 21. That is an imprisonable offence as well. I say to the National Government that if it wants to do something about gang members and intimidating behaviour it should make sure the existing law under the Summary Offences Act is actually enforced. But it will not be doing that. One of the reasons as we found in the select committee is that police numbers are down by 446 over the last year. There was no Government announcement about that. Mark Mitchell was on the committee and he has got the written answer which I have got in my hand. There are 446 fewer police officers than this time last year—cuts disguised cuts never-announced cuts but cuts nevertheless.Do you know what else this shows? It shows that the Government is intending to cut the police budget in real terms every year for the next 4 years. The Government is worried about gangs and enforcing the laws against gangs. You do not start by cutting the police budget and cutting their numbers. But I want to say more than that. To deal with gangs you have got to deal with causes. Black Power said recently that John Key was its best friend. Why? Because there are 152000 people unemployed up 5000 today. If you want to create the environment where you can recruit young people into gangs do not give them a chance in life. Do not give them a job. Do not give them a trade skill. The Government if it is worried about this needs to deal with the causes. It needs to be real about its legislation not introducing phoney pretend legislation like this that will make no difference at all and that is why we are opposing it.