Wall Louisa: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWall Louisa: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11874. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa):It is my pleasure to take a first call in Part 1 of the Committee stage of the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. It is a member’s bill. My contribution to the discussion will very much be about looking at what this piece of legislation is trying to achieve which is to prohibit gang insignia on these premises: Public Service departments the police Crown entities local authorities and through the select committee process the committee members added schools because they deemed schools to be part of the State sector.In responding to the previous speaker Mike Sabin I would like to talk about what he talked about which was about eradicating gangs. This is not a purpose of this bill in fact. Nowhere in this bill do we talk about eradicating gangs or why gangs were created in the first place. He made a very good point about why people end up choosing to be in gangs. People choose to be in gangs—according to people like Kim Workman who has worked in this area for a long time—because they are isolated. They have been for want of a better word dislocated from their families and dislocated from their communities. So whether we like it or not gangs have served to fill a collective identity that some people yes take pride in.We on this side of the Chamber are very aware of what gangs do. We do not support the activities of gangs—absolutely not—Mike Sabin: Clearly the member does.LOUISA WALL: No I do not actually but I have a bit of recognition about why they exist in the first place. So if we are going to analyse how they were created that is one thing. But if you were really interested in the issues about gangs then why is there not a purpose in clause 3 in this part about eradicating gangs and addressing some of the fundamental issues about people who end up in gangs because they come from abusive backgrounds? Why are we not talking about staircasing people from prison into vocations into housing into a better and more productive lifestyle? That has got nothing to do with this piece of legislation. All you want to do in this piece of legislation—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!LOUISA WALL: All this piece of legislation wants to do—sorry Mr Chair—is to say that if you are wearing an insignia then we are going to fine you $2000. What a wonderful solution that is! How many of those people do we think will actually pay $2000? When you look at the whole bill it is not very big at all. This is it. So someone with an insignia who is in these public places is going to be fined. Big deal. What does that mean then in terms of trying to assist people who find themselves in circumstances as I have just said where gang affiliation has become a normal way of life for them?The other point I wanted to make clear in my contribution was that the commentary we made on this particular piece of legislation is very clear that the Government already has the tools to address this issue. My colleague Andrew Little made that clear by showing you—even today in theNew Zealand Herald —a sign that courts can put up that prohibits the wearing of gang insignia. What we were really clear about is that under the Summary Offences Act of 1981 section 3 makes threatening behaviour an imprisonable offence section 4 makes offensive behaviour a criminal offence and section 21 states that people cannot intimidate anybody. So we do have tools within the current legislation to deal with this issue. I think that is our major reason for opposing this piece of legislation because it is not needed.So if the member in the chair Mark Mitchell wants to get up and talk about the rationale for this bill where did it come from? Who asked for it? Why have we got this piece of legislation before the House? Surely there is some evidence about the need for it. The only evidence that I have heard from my colleague Moana Mackey in reference to some of the conversations in Whanganui is that now there are a whole lot of gangs that want to be added to the list that is in this bill.Darien Fenton: Because it’s cool.LOUISA WALL: Yes because it is cool for gangs to be listed in a piece of legislation. Well if that is one of the outcomes of this then actually that is pathetic. That is a pathetic rationale for this bill—that we can have gangs that want to add their names to this piece of legislation. Obviously that is Part 2 of the bill where there are going to be certain powers—