Prosser Richard: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 12 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:11107. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First):Thank you Mr Chair. I will take that as a compliment. I am very pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in this Committee stage of the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. This is a fine bill. This is a very fine member’s bill initiated as it has been by one very finemember Todd McClay which has now been passed into the care of yet another very fine member indeed Mark Mitchell. New Zealand First supports this bill. We are proud and pleased to be able to support it. We agree with the aims and intentions of the bill and we are very happy that it is going to become law. As they might say in the House of Lords in England in that delightful turn of phrase that the British Upper House is wont to employ we are most content that the outcome of this process will be the passing of this bill into law here in New Zealand.I wish to congratulate Mr McClay again and for a number of reasons. I have congratulated him already in the earlier stages of this debate both on having the good fortune to have his bill drawn from the ballot and also on gaining the support of the House in terms of having the numbers to have it passed into law. But of course now that Mr McClay has taken up his new role as a Minister convention dictates that he is unable to continue as the sponsor of this bill. He has therefore passed the baton to Mr Mitchell and we are delighted to be able to work with the member for Rodney as he picks up the torch and carries it over the line.This bill is a fine bill but it is not perfect—not quite. There are there were and there remain one or two inconsistencies within it—just one or two anachronisms. One of these—perhaps one of the most obvious—is the reality that within the definition of “Government premises” as the bill encompasses it we are faced with the situation whereby buildings and structures are specifically covered but land and grounds associated with those buildings are not. During the second reading and before Mr Goff and others rightly identified this discrepancy. A sportsground for example a sports facility owned or controlled by a local authority would be in the position of having the bill applied to its buildings—its clubhouse for want of a better name or the pavilion or recreation centre or whatever structure is the centrepiece—but not to the playing fields outside. Similarly a Government office or an office utilised by a Government agency would be in a situation where gang members are prohibited from wearing their patches inside the office but no such prohibition would apply to the car park for example.For this reason I have introduced to the bill an amendment to clause 4 on Supplementary Order Paper 253 which seeks to include grounds associated with buildings and structures as well as the buildings themselves. In this it is my intention to enhance and improve the member’s bill as much as possible and as closely as possible within what I perceive and understand to be the intent of the bill. I do not seek to greatly alter the bill. We are acutely aware that this is after all a member’s bill and it is important that the will and intent of the member be preserved. We do not seek to include lands and areas outside what we perceive the member’s intent to be. We are not talking about all public places or all public lands under the control of the Government. We do not believe it is Mr McClay’s intention to ban gang patches for example from public roads or beaches or national parks. That might be a good thing if that were to come about but that we believe is another matter for another day. We do not seek to greatly or materially alter the direction or the intent of the member’s bill. Rather we seek to enhance and clarify one small part of it. We hope and trust that the member and his party will see our intention as being in line with that. We hope therefore that the Government will choose to support my Supplementary Order Paper 253.This we believe is part of the essence of what is required as far as constructive Opposition is concerned. The Government has the numbers to pass this bill with or without our support and with or without modification. This we know and we respect that fact. So we are not seeking to alter it dramatically. Rather we seek to enhance the bill which we would support anyway by addressing this one small area where we believe it can be improved.In closing I would like to reiterate that New Zealand First hopes this bill will be the beginning of a process by which the gangs themselves are removed from New Zealand society. We congratulate the member the Hon Todd McClay on bringing it to the House. We welcome the stewardship that Mr Mitchell will now give it. We ask the Government members and the members of the Opposition to support Supplementary Order Paper 253 in my name and to support the bill. This will be a fine piece of legislation. We commend it to the House.