Ardern Jacinda: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11880. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):It is my pleasure to take a call on Part 1 of this bill the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. I think sometimes it is important with these sorts of bills to find where there might be some commonality across the House. There is absolutely no doubt that across this House there is absolutely no one whom I have heard yet who is condoning the activity—and in particular the criminal activity—that often coincides with the existence of gangs. Absolutely not. There is also no one in this House who is applauding in any sense the intimidation that comes with the strong presence of gangs in our communities. Absolutely there is agreement that this is a problem particularly in some of our most deprived communities and as Louisa Wall has pointed out there is a message in that.Where there is disagreement however—which I would like to talk about specifically in relation to Part 1—is whether or not this bill will have an effect on those critical issues. What Labour is saying is that it is our concern that it will not have an effect and if it will not have an effect does it in fact have the chance in some cases to make things worse or make things potentially farcical in some cases? Will it increase the sense of intimidation for some people who will be required to try to enforce this bill? Additionally underneath all of that are we therefore wasting our money and time when there are other alternative routes that we should or could be taking? So that is where our objection squarely lies.I do want to go back to the beginning of Part 1 because Part 1 sets out the purpose of the bill. It says: “The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the display of gang insignia on premises of departments of the Public Service the Police Crown entities local authorities and schools.” I think that is an acknowledgment that the areas in which something like this can be enforced are relatively constrained and they are constrained to areas where any Government of the day can express some enforcement because obviously there are issues with general bans of insignia in this way. That does mean that you are going to have an ad hoc situation where—if as we have said we are concerned about intimidation and with criminal activity—someone who displays their gang insignia can simply wear it in transit between all of these places in which it has otherwise been banned. Does that overall change a situation? We fear of course that it does not.Secondly it is constrained around what it defines gang insignia as and I do not think it recognises that the way in which gangs identify is not solely down to a symbol. Let us just go over the definition of gang insignia. It is set out in the definition of “ganginsignia” in paragraph (a) of clause 4. It says: “gang insignia—(a) means a sign symbol or representation commonly displayed to denote membership of an affiliation with or support for a gang not being a tattoo;”—obviously recognising that it is hard to forcibly remove a tattoo. But as my colleague Rino Tirikatene has pointed—Mike Sabin: It can cause a little discomfort.JACINDA ARDERN: As Mr Sabin points out it could cause discomfort obviously. But as Rino Tirikatene has pointed out some gang members do display their gang symbol in that way permanently on themselves. The definition “(b) includes any item of clothing to which a sign symbol or representation referred to in paragraph (a) is attached”. Of course then it lists gangs that will therefore be covered by that definition of gang insignia.There are two issues in that definition and the way that it is set out. First of all it requires a gang to be listed within the bill. One thing I wanted to clarify was that if a gang is not listed and the Crown decides that it wants that gang to be inserted in the list is that simply changed through regulation? I am assuming that it is except that it is embedded it seems in the primary legislation rather than in regulations. So I would appreciate hearing from the member in the chair Mark Mitchell—and excuse me for not determining this yet—whether it is via Order in Council that an additional gang must be added. That would be a useful clarification.But first of course you must be listed and then you must fall under the criteria of a particular gang insignia. As my colleague Rino Tirikatene has pointed out not every gang uses explicit gang insignia. He has asked for instance why the Bloods and theCrips are not listed here. The response from across the Chamber from the member Mike Sabin was that the Bloods and theCrips do not have an insignia but as the member will know they certainly have a colour.Mike Sabin: They have colours.JACINDA ARDERN: They have colours—yes they do have colours. Actually they also have hand signals and in the United States especially they identify not only with colours but with certain sporting codes and teams. That is how they represent their gang.Walking around some of our streets where you know that these gangs are particularly prevalent—and I have certainly campaigned across areas like that in my time—you know when you see a group of young men who belong to one of these gangs. They are not wearing insignia but you know. Again this points out how this legislation is so flawed. You do not have to wear a gang patch to be a member of a gang—clearly not you Mr Chair. I see that you are in a red tie. I have not interpreted that to be membership of the Bloods but that points out the flaw in this bill which is that not every gang member wears a patch or insignia and indeed not everyone who wears a patch or insignia is a member of a gang—as Rino Tirikatene pointed out with his example where someone was wearing insignia that someone may interpret to be a gang affiliation when clearly it was not. So therein lies the second problem. I have already talked about the first problem which is that this bill will not actually get to the heart of the issue that the Government proclaims that it is about. But secondly in and of itself it is extremely difficult to enforce and it would be flawed in the way that it would be enforced given the way that different gangs identify themselves.I want to come on to the second purpose of the bill and that is what the Government has said around the intimidation of gangs. I have grown up in communities where there is a strong presence of gangs. You know obviously when gang members wear their patch they are identifying very strongly with a brand that denotes a sense of intimidation to some members of the community. There is no doubt about that. But I would question whether empowering those who work in Crown entities—I mean thosewho work in a hospital or those who work in a Work and Income office who are already often working in very fraught and tense situations—and saying to them that they should now feel empowered by the fact that they can have someone’s gang insignia removed every time they deal with them enhances their feeling of safety. I ask whether that lessens that sense of intimidation or actually whether or not it will ever be enforced by those individuals. I would be interested in the member in the chair’s view on whether the Law and Order Committee heard any submissions from those who are working in those fields—particularly hospitals where often the staff will be dealing with critical situations and particularly with schools—to see whether or not they expressed a concern that actually they are unlikely to enforce the provisions of this bill because of that power dynamic and because of that relationship.One final thought I would like to leave members with is that I think it is important that we think about the practical nature of these bills. You know Muldoon was known for his engagement with gangs with Black Power. You know—Richard Prosser: One time.JACINDA ARDERN: Yes one time. It is a lasting legacy. I believe that it might still put the National Party’s hoardings up does it not? That was I think a long time ago an acknowledgment of the presence of those gangs in communities and an attempt by a political leader to engage. People have views on that absolutely but I think that we need to keep in mind that whilst we sit here and pontificate about these issues the reality is that day to day there are front-line workers who are engaging with gang members and their families. A specific case that I have heard of was in a hospital situation where a patched gang member took in their child because they had injured themselves. The immediate thought was that they would be immediately questioned as to whether or not they had been the one who had perpetrated violence against that child. Those are very delicately balanced situations where of course we do not want to stop anyone from coming in and bringing in their child for care based on the way that they might be then treated in that situation—in a hospital context for instance. That is a difficult situation. If a health worker comes in and the first thing they say is: “Remove your insignia.” are we always going to guarantee the safety of that child and the ability for them to be cared for because we have suddenly prioritised what is going on with the adult over the child’s well-being? Those are the kinds of issues I think about.