Sabin Mike: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSabin Mike: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11889. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):I just want to pick up on a few points that Mr Little has actually raised there. He made comments to the effect that basically what we should be doing is removing the attractiveness of gangs. I could not agree more with the member in that regard. And actually it is interesting to note that the police in their submission to the Law and Order Committee on the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill also agreed with MrLittle’s sentiments. They said: “The bill is welcome in that it provides recognition in principle of the seriousness of New Zealand’s gang problem. The provisions will be of some assistance in reducing the attractions of gang membership and the intimidation felt by members of the public and government employees.” So actually the point that Andrew Little raises is a very good one. It is just that for some reason Labour members cannot find it in themselves philosophically to actually vote for the bill; they are struggling to find the arguments to vote against it.I want to pick up on some comments that Darien Fenton mentioned about gangs wanting to get on this list in the bill—that that would be some sort of badge of honour. That actually goes to the heart of what a gang patch is all about. What do people have to do to earn a patch? Well they can start at the lower end with an aggravated robbery or some grievous bodily harm. They can move their way up the scale with a pack rape or something of that nature. If they want to get an instant patch it is with a homicide—it is with a murder. And they will do their lag. They will plead guilty they will do their lag and they will earn their patch because of course prisons in New Zealand have often been seen as almost some sort of learning institution for the gang fraternity. Inside those walls that is actually what they do: they practise their gang skills and their networking and so forth. It is good to see some great leadership from Minister Tolley in terms of making it a lot less comfortable for gang members to perpetuate their functions from inside the walls of prison.The point I want to make here is that in terms of earning a gang patch that means the world to them. And as a police officer removing a gang patch from a gang member taking that away—generally of course that can be done only if it was used in the commission of an offence in some way and it becomes evidence. But this bill will give the police the ability to take it away just for the fact that it has been worn in Government premises or in local authority premises.The significance of a patch should not be understated. Gang members would rather die than give up their patch. Indeed there are gangs that will kill rather than let someone de-patch which gives some indication of how important it is to have that. The point that Darien Fenton was raising actually works against her own argument because what it says is that gang patches are very important therefore it is very important to make surethat the New Zealand Government and the New Zealand public deny gang members every opportunity to wear that patch and intimidate.Darien Fenton went on to say: “Oh they can’t wear it inside the building but they can wear it on the footpath outside the building.” If Darien Fenton took a little bit of time to have a wander through the Crimes Act 1961 she would actually find that there are all manner of offences that rely on proximity as an ingredient of the offence. They have to be on public property but if they step inside the house immediately they are not committing an offence because they are one step removed from that public place. This bill is no different so I am baffled as to why she is trying to raise the idea that inside the building it is an offence but outside the building it is not. There are plenty of other tools that the police can use if they want to remove a gang patch in terms of criminal offending because in my experience when you see one or two gang members hanging around generally they are committing offences and it is just a case of finding out which one it is and locking them up for it.It seems to me that what we have got here is a Labour Party struggling to find reasons to vote against this. Labour members have also talked about the idea that we should be doing other things—we should be building houses we should be growing the economy. Why do those members vote against every effort we make to do that and then come in here and disingenuously say: “Oh if they were serious about it they would do something about jobs and houses.”? Stop voting against our efforts then. New Zealanders have so woken up to that approach. The only people who will be supporting this Labour Party will be gangs. How ironic.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 253 in the name of Richard Prosser to clause 4 be agreed to.