Mitchell Mark: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMitchell Mark: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11891. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney):I would just like to acknowledge Richard Prosser from New Zealand First and congratulate him on his Supplementary Order Paper 253 going through tonight. I just acknowledge his contribution on the Law and Order Committee and the fact that he is taking a very strong position—and New Zealand First has taken a strong position—in support of this bill the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill as well.It is actually pretty simple. It is like Mr Sabin just said. We have spoken about it a lot in the Committee tonight and we have spoken a lot over the last couple of months on this bill. That is that the gang patch signifies one thing: the fact that wearers of gang patches have committed crimes against us as a community. It is their badge of honour. They do put a lot of significance in it. So I think that as a country it is actually quite a good idea to say to them that we do not want to see them wearing those around us—leave them at home. If you do not leave the patches at home then our police officers have got the right to come and remove them from you. If you do not want to give them up then the police have the right to arrest you convict you and destroy that patch.I think that another important question to ask ourselves is whether the police—the people whom we as a country charge with trying to provide safe and secure communities and protect us against the sorts of people who are in gangs—want to have this additional power. The answer is yes they do want to have it. They like it they know that they can use it and they know that it will be effective. The Police Association which is always a very good backstop and will always look at these things very very carefully and do a lot of analysis on them before taking a position came to the select committee and clearly said that it likes this bill it is going to be effective and it is going to provide serving police officers with another very effective tool to use. So what it boils down to is we as a country saying this: we know what patches mean we do not like them we do not want them around us so leave them at home. If you want to wear them wear them around at home but do not wear them into town do not wear them into our schools and around our kids and do not wear them into Government buildings. If you do then we are going to empower our police to take action against you and remove them. It is as simple as that.Finally I just want to touch very quickly on Part 2. If a gang member decides to get smart and walks into the Work and Income office with his patch on and for whatever reason he is asked to take it off and he refuses to do so hangs around in the Work and Income office intimidating as many people as he can and leaves—jumps in his car and takes off—then no he has not got away with it. Actually under Part 2 the police have got the ability to stop him to search him to get his details and to remove the patch. That is another very significant very important part of Part 2 in terms of accountability and giving the police the ability to actually take action even if the person has left the premises where they are not meant to be. Thank you.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Mark Mitchell to clause 6 be agreed to:in subclause (2) insert “on conviction” after “liable”.