Goff Phil: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 12 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:11104. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):Can I first congratulate the member Mark Mitchell on assuming the chair for the first time.Hon Steven Joyce: It’s like non-stop Skycity tonight isn’t it?Hon PHIL GOFF: The difference with Skycity Mr Joyce is that when John Key went to eat with Skycity representatives he gave them a golden handshake and a licence to print money by giving them hundreds of new gaming machines. When we went there we told them we would be repealing that legislation and they would get no special treatment and I stand by that.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order!Hon PHIL GOFF: I know it is not in the bill Mr Chairman but the gang of one over there the “Minister of Everything” is one of the guys this legislation the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill should be directed against. As I was saying it is a real honour for a new member and one so young to assume the chair. Because it is his first time we promised we would be gentle with him.Hon Ruth Dyson: Oh we did not.Hon PHIL GOFF: We did—we did Ruth Dyson. I have a little advice for Mark Mitchell. You might not have seen many people in the chair but there is a really important rule that in the Committee stage the Minister—or member—in the chair is to answer questions. So after each speaker you should get up and address each individual point that they make so that we can be sure that you are on top of the bill and you understand it. There is one other piece of advice that I would give him. This is not Mark Mitchell’s bill so he is not responsible for it. The member in the chair should not feel obliged to defend the stupidity of the provisions in this bill and that is at just about every stage of the legislation.So with that piece of friendly advice to Mark Mitchell I want to talk about the bill. You know for Jami-Lee Ross to suggest that anyone in this House is in favour of gangs is patently dishonest because no member of this House supports gangs which exist for the purpose of promoting criminal activity. But I say to Jami-Lee Ross that what this country needs if we are to be the fine country that Mark Mitchell talked about is notphoney legislation that does absolutely nothing. We want some real legislation and some real resources for the police.Jami-Lee Ross was one of the gang of four on the Law and Order Committee today who wanted to cover up the fact that this Government has cut police numbers in the last year by 446. There are 446 fewer police sworn and non-sworn members than this time last year. I say to Jami-Lee Ross and the gang of four National members who tried to protect their Minister—a real protection racket intimidation at its worst—that if you want to do something about gangs do not gut the police force. There are 446 fewer police personnel than this time last year. Not only are there 446 fewer police personnel—this is relevant Mr Chair this is very relevant because what I am saying is that this legislation is unnecessary and phoney and it does nothing and I am enjoining the Government to do something real about dealing with gangs. So the first thing you do not do is cut police numbers by 446. The second thing you do not do is cut their funding.We got information today that for each of the next 4 years the police budget is going to be cut. It is $20 million down in real terms this year—$20 million down in real terms. If you want to do something about gangs why would you cut specific crime prevention services by $6.6 million? That is what the Budget does. It cuts specific crime prevention services by $6.6 million. And if you want to deal with the gangs you do not cut the funding to specific crime prevention services. Then there is police primary response management. That is cut this year by $3.5 million. If you want the police to be able to deal with the gangs you do not diminish their primary response management. Then there are general crime prevention services. That is cut by $1.4 million.The point I am making is this. We are spending time and millions of the taxpayers’ dollars in putting through legislation that adds not one single power to stop people wearing gang patches on public premises—not one single power. I asked the officials at the meeting and Mr McClay and Mr Ross were there: “What extra power does this give to stop gangs wearing their patches in schools or public buildings?”. The answer to that was nothing—nothing!Members opposite come to this House dishonestly to try to demonstrate they are tough on gangs but this legislation adds no extra powers to the Government—no extra powers. Look we have powers against intimidation. Gangs are intimidating by nature. We have powers under the Summary Offences Act. Section 3 says that it is imprisonable to use threatening behaviour. Section 4 says that offensive behaviour is a criminal activity. Section 21 says that intimidation is imprisonable. I tell the Government to stop pussyfooting around with legislation that does nothing and actually enforce the laws that are there at the moment. I do not want to see gang intimidation in this country and I do not want to see this gang in Government cutting police resources so they can do less about the way that gangs are behaving.Then it comes to how workable this legislation is. You know Mr Chairperson you could be wearing a greasy jacket with a swastika on it—you could yes—and you could go in to Work and Income and you would not be breaking the law. You could go in you could salute you could have a small Hitler moustache and wear your swastika and it is not against the law. But if you wear a gang patch you can be arrested. I ask where the consistency is. If you are worried about intimidation if you are worried about offensive behaviour—John Hayes: It’s “Mr Integrity”!Hon PHIL GOFF: Mr Hayes is just back from his liquid dinner so he is going to be very very loud in the Chamber I can tell that. He has got that silly grin on his face. But I say to Mr Hayes that he should take a call and explain to this House why it is that he could wear a swastika into a Work and Income office and not be breaking the law.Apparently the member for Wairarapa Mr Hayes could go in to a Work and Income office wearing a swastika but if he is wearing a gang patch he is treated differently. I want Mr Hayes to explain this: why is it that if I am a gang member wearing a patch and I am standing under the bus shelter it can be an offence but if I take two steps to the left and I am just on the side of the road it is not an offence? So how is a constable going to know when to arrest that person if the person is standing with one foot under the bus shelter and one foot on the pavement? That is how stupid this legislation is.It is an offence to wear a gang patch if you are in a swimming pool that is owned by the Government or the municipality but it is not an offence if you go along and stand on the side of the league ground and watch a game of rugby league wearing your gang patch. This is a nonsense piece of legislation. I say to this Government that it should do the sort of stuff that I did which was real—the Proceeds of Crime Act ripped out $7.4 million in the first 2 months from the gangs.Hon Steven Joyce: Oh listen to you. It’s all about you Phil. Give it up Phil.Hon PHIL GOFF: Mr Joyce you claim credit for that legislation; I introduced it. You only put it into effect after you came into office. It had all been done. Do things that are real. Do not come into this House with phoney legislation pretending to be the tough guys knowing full well that you are deceiving the public and doing absolutely nothing.This bill is an empty piece of legislation that will make no difference. This is an empty dishonest piece of legislation from a Government that is cutting the funding to the police and cutting the number of police officers. Mr Joyce you are a Minister in the Chamber. Why has this Government cut the number of police officers by 446 in the last 12 months? No answer. He will not even look. He will not even address the question because he knows that his Government has done that. It is cutting the police.Government members broke their word to the select committee last year and they are closing police stations—10 local police stations: eight in Auckland and two in Christchurch. They are cutting the police stations and they are reducing the number of police officers on the beat—the front-line people. They are cutting the money to the police year after year after year—we saw those figures—and then they come into this Chamber and say they are going to be tough on the gangs. They are going to be tough on the gangs by introducing a piece of legislation that does precisely nothing.So I have to say congratulations to Mr Mitchell on being in the chair. It is a tough bill to support because it has no substance. We know he is just there doing his job so we are not blaming him. I have honoured my promise—we have been kind to the member in the chair. But I have to say to the Hon Todd McClay that this bill is something that a member with nothing better to do with their time brings into the House to try to pretend they are about substance when there is no substance.