Logie Jan: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 15 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:9977. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise as the Green Party’s spokesperson on human rights to speak to the second reading of this Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. To be perfectly honest—and I do not mean any disrespect to the sponsoring member Todd McClay—I do need to say that I had hoped this bill would be scuttled in the Law and Order Committee and I am disappointed to see it back here when so much of the evidence has shown that this bill is unnecessary. For that and for significant other reasons this bill is unlikely to help people feel safer in our communities and it is even less likely to address gang-related harm.This bill says that it “seeks to restrict the display of gang insignia in the premises of departments of the public service statutory entities and local authorities in New Zealand.” and it defines gangs as “the gangs listed or any included by regulation.” Further this bill allows police to without warrant “arrest a person whom the constable has good cause to suspect” has displayed a gang insignia on Government premises and “seize and remove gang insignia … that has been or is being displayed …”. It also enables the police “to stop vehicle[s] to exercise powers of arrest or seizure”.The Green Party is not pro-gang. I am sure that all of us in the House have seen far too much harm surrounding gangs in all of our communities to even countenance the thought of being pro-gang. I will say though that the evidence suggests that our being anti-gang is not particularly helpful. What we support in the Green Party is evidence-based policy-making. I would like to reference—I did not realise my colleague David Clendon was also going to reference this—one of the submitters to the select committee Dr Jarrod Gilbert. He is a lecturer at the University of Canterbury and an expert on gang culture and gang control. He gave very clear evidence to the committee that this bill will not work.I know that members on that side of the House have scoffed at us referencing evidence and said you know “Here we go again with another academic reference.” as if we are not based in the real world. I would like just to push back on that and say that particularly on emotive issues we need sometimes to take some distance in order to have and consider the views of somebody outside of the system who can look at all perspectives and guide us in what is going to be most effective. Dr Gilbert is such a person. He acknowledged the will and the intent of the committee in considering this legislation and the hope that that committee had surely of minimising harm. However—however—he noted that this legislation was doomed to failure just like numerous other laws that have been ineffective in this area. He gave examples of the criminalising of gang membership under section 98A of the Crimes Act and the targeting of gang fortifications under section 695A of the Local Government Act. He noted that both of these laws have failed to have any discernable impact on the problems of gangs and that both those measures have had to be amended because they were not working and still are not working.He recognised that at the time of the introduction of those bills this House and those who were promoting the bills felt the same way that the member does and that that sideof the House feels now. They were adamant that this legislation would work. They were hopeful; they had the best intentions. But the evidence does not stack up that this type of approach will make a difference. We care about protecting people in our communities. There needs to be a substantive answer to it and this bill does more harm than it does good.