Sabin Mike: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSabin Mike: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11882. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):Sorry Mr Chair?The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Oh sorry Mike.MIKE SABIN: We are both former police officers. We obviously both cut a fairly fine jib. It is easy to see how one could get confused with these things. I trifle with the Committee.I just want to touch on a couple of points that have been raised. The member Rino Tirikatene raised what I think was a bizarre contribution. It was a long 10 minutes. Basically he showed a couple of pictures of some friends who were wearing dark clothing. He suggested—which I think was right on the limit—that because they wereMāori that somehow would have some impact on what the police may or may not be doing. I strongly hope that the member was not going down that path but it seemed to me that he was. But he suggested because they wereMāori because they had a black jacket on because they had some tattoos and because they ride a motorbike that suddenly they would be captured in this bill the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill that they are intimidatory that he cannot understand it and that it is all bizarre and confusing much like his speech was.Well here is a little something for the Committee to consider. I amMāori. I have tattoos—in fact quite a few of them. I ride a motorbike—not well I admit and generally I like them to have four wheels not two because I find I can stay on them more stably that way. I have also got a leather jacket that happens to be black. So would I be captured in this bill? That is the question I would like to ask the member. Does that then mean that I will be getting the once-over from the local constabulary because of that? Can the member answer that?Rino Tirikatene: You could be.MIKE SABIN: I could be and I do not look a shred intimidatory. I am sure the member Jacinda Ardern will agree that I am a very gentile member of this House—very gentile. [Interruption ] What is it I hear coming from the cross benches? I posed a question on this bill: what would the police say?Hon David Cunliffe: Tell us about the Judaeo-Christian tradition.MIKE SABIN: Well it just so happens—there is the next leader of the Labour Party. He is wanting to get in before he gets his call.Tim Macindoe: Andrew or David? Which one?MIKE SABIN: Oh well true—there are moreDavids than we can shake a stick at to choose from but I am backing that one.Tim Macindoe: I wouldn’t choose that one.MIKE SABIN: You would not choose that one?Tim Macindoe: No.MIKE SABIN: No—wrong horse. Right so I will get back to this. The police would rightfully have a view on this. As a former police officer working in the area of organised crime for a number of years and in particular working with the gang situation I think I can probably share a perspective from the police. I wonder what they would have to say. Clearly the Police Association wholeheartedly endorses this. The police are saying that this is a good thing. It is not the panacea and there is nothing to suggest that what this bill is about is solving the gang problems because actually the gang problem is a reflection of many other societal issues and many other problems and areas which I will touch on that we are addressing. But removing gang insignia and this bill itself is not about getting rid of the gangs per se. The police say it is a very good tool.What I would say to members on the other side is that even at its worst—if they think this will have little or no impact—it will certainly do no harm. I for the life of me—[Interruption ] Oh no it is very harmful when we lock up a gang member for intimidating others by wearing his big mobster patch! That is a shocking thing to do! I question why it is that on that basis even if we argue that it has little benefit and it would do no harm they would not support it. It just shows that those members are disengaged with the views of New Zealanders because there are no New Zealanders who actually think going anywhere in the area of being soft on gangs or soft on crime or anything—the Labour Party says no it is not doing that. But what does this bill actually say? Because if it is actually not doing anything other than giving the police the ability to arrest people when they think that they can intimidate others they can patch up and they can gangster their way around town—and that happens frequently in my electorate and I am sure many electorate MPs here have had that issue in their constituency and would attest to that. It does pose that question.I just want to touch on the other point that has been raised: “Oh if they were serious about gangs they would”—