Goff Phil: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 15 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:9962. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): The chair of the Law and Order Committee Jacqui Dean who has just resumed her seat is a master of overstatement. She said that this is a bill that does “just a bit” to help tackle the gang problem in New Zealand. I regret to say that “just a bit” is a gross exaggeration. This Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill does precisely nothing—nothing. That is why Todd McClay the mover of the bill 2 minutes into his speech had to go off and talk about something else and Jacqui Dean could not last the distance—she could not last the distance. They know in their hearts that this is a BS bill—a BS bill—that will do nothing to protect New Zealanders and nothing to damage the gang culture in this country.I asked the officials at the select committee a very simple question. I asked: “Is there anything in this bill that the Government departments and schools can’t already do?”. Do you know what the answer to that was? “No.” There was nothing in this bill according to the officials that Ministers cannot do already. I say to Jacqui Dean that if there is a problem with patched gang members going into schools and Government departments now every Minister in this House has the power has the ability to issue an instruction that no patched member will be allowed on school-grounds or in Government premises. That is the fact right now so once again we will spend an hour of parliamentary time debating a piece of legislation that does precisely nothing—precisely nothing. [Interruption] That was the answer Mark Mitchell that the officials gave to the committee.I put the question this way. I asked: “If a gang member goes into a Government department can you remove that person refuse to serve him get rid of him?”. They said: “Yes.” I said: “What about if the gang member is loitering around the entrance to the school or the Government department what can you do about it?”. They said: “We can’t do anything.” I said: “Is there anything in this legislation that deals with that situation?”. They said: “No.” So here we have got the irony. You have already got the power to do what this bill says they will do within the Government offices. There is no power to deal with the gang member loitering outside and this bill does absolutely nothing to deal with that problem.I want to say and put it absolutely and clearly on record that I have—and I used the word in the minority report—no truck with a gang culture that encourages promotes facilitates or even tolerates its members committing crime. Too many of our gangs in this country are organisations put together for the purpose of committing crime. But what I want in regard to the organised crime that gangs are involved in is not phoney legislation like this—phoney legislation that does nothing. I want real legislation that actually makes an impact on those gangs and their criminal behaviour.Ian McKelvie: You had 9 years to sort that out.Hon PHIL GOFF: I stand in this House Mr McKelvie very proudly to say that I introduced as Minister of Justice a bill called the Proceeds of Crime Bill. Do you know what that legislation does Mr McKelvie? It enables the courts to go in and to strip the assets—every asset—that a gang controls or owns if it cannot prove that those assets are the proceeds of other than criminal activity. That made a real difference. Let me read what the newspaper said about it at the time. Within 2 months of this coming in the police had seized $7.4 million worth of criminal assets from the gangs. A year later even the now National Minister of Justice and then Minister of Police was skiting aboutlegislation that was not her legislation but was my legislation and Annette King’s legislation. She bragged that: “Among the assets seized were cash and bank accounts worth $13.5 million 38 residential and commercial properties worth $15.5 million nine lifestyle blocks and farms worth $8.4 million and vehicles worth $600000.”That is the result of legislation that I introduced after going to the United Kingdom and seeing how effective its proceeds of crime legislation was. That is real legislation. That hurt the gangs where they could least tolerate the pain. They lost the proceeds of their criminal activity. They did not have the resources to promote their criminal organisations. That is real legislation; not phoney legislation like this Mr McClay. You knew when you brought this legislation into the House that this bill does precisely nothing. It does nothing that Ministers and departments and schools are not already empowered to do. That is a disgrace because if we waste our time on phoney solutions we are not spending our time on finding real solutions to real problems like organised criminal activity through gangs.The other thing about gangs that is of concern to me is that gangs by their appearance and by their behaviour—and particularly their behaviour—can be intimidating. There is nobody in this House who has anything other than zero tolerance for intimidatory criminal behaviour. But we already have legislation on the books that deals with intimidatory behaviour. It is called the Summary Offences Act. Mark Mitchell will know this. I think he would be familiar with the sections from when he was with the police. Section 3 makes threatening behaviour imprisonable as it should be. Section 21 makes intimidation imprisonable. What I say to this Government is: “Don’t worry about the superficial. Don’t put in statute laws that already exist but do something to enforce the legislation you already have on the statute book. There should be no tolerance of intimidatory behaviour. The laws are in place. Enforce the laws.”But I heard the National Government bragging before about police numbers. I will let National know that Annette King as Minister of Police added 1000 additional police officers to our police force. That included 240 of the 600 that National is claiming now. But the worst thing was that news on Radio New Zealand yesterday drawn to the attention of the House by Kris Faafoi: we have in the last year seen a drop in front-line police officers of 213. We want to deal with organised crime. You do not deal with it by cutting the number of front-line officers and that is precisely what that National Government complete with its former policemen has actually allowed to happen.Mike Sabin: We’ve put more of them into surveillance. More of it’s undercover and surveillance work.Hon PHIL GOFF: I will let the member Mr Sabin know that we had promises at the Law and Order Committee last year there would be no closure of police stations. What about Blockhouse Bay? What about Point Chevalier? What about downtown Auckland? What about the range of police bases that this National Government has closed? It comes to the House with phoney legislation that does nothing while it cuts the police numbers and it closes the police stations.It is worse than that. There are huge anomalies in this legislation. You know under this legislation I can put on a greasy jacket with a swastika on it and walk into a school-ground and nothing in this legislation touches me—nothing. I can wear a swastika the most offensive and the most intimidating symbol that there is into a school-ground and nothing in this legislation prevents me from doing that. If I put on a Headhunters patch I am covered by the legislation but if I wear the swastika that is OK. If this legislation was really about intimidation and offensive behaviour why would it not cover a symbol like the swastika?Let us have another look at how this legislation is going to be enforced. You know I can wear my patch at a bus stop unless there is a shelter there. If there is a shelter thepolice can come and arrest me but if there is a bus stop without a shelter they cannot. I could walk into a swimming pool with my patch on and I would be arrested but I could walk on to a sports field and they could not touch me. I can walk down the footpath and if it is covered I might be breaking this law and if it is not covered then I am not breaking it.Even Mr McClay had to come in to the select committee to find out what was in and what was not in his bill. This legislation does not meet the basic requirements of good legislation: being clear and being consistent. My last point is that if I have got “Mongrel Mob” tattooed all over my face I am not breaking this legislation but if it is in fine print on my jacket I am. This bill does nothing. It is a nonsense it is rubbish and that is why we are opposing it. Do something real about the gangs. Stop pretending.