Genter Julie Anne: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Genter Julie Anne: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4884. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Speaker. I would like to take a very short call to add my voice to that of Jan Logie in spelling out the Green Party’s opposition to this bill the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. The goal of creating public spaces free from intimidation is a worthy one and we have heard a lot from both sides of the House about how gangs can be the sources of that intimidation. Fundamentally this debate is not about being soft or tough on crime. It is about finding practical solutions that actually achieve the outcomes and the sort of society that we want. I think this bill is a pretty good example in that banning gang insignia is really outlawing or trying to address the symptoms but not the cause of the problem. If we do not address the cause of the problem then we are never going to resolve it. 
I think we can all agree that we want a safer society. Certainly I am sure the member who brought this bill to the House Todd McClay is earnest in his desire to do so. So we should undertake a reasonable discussion as to how to create a safer society and where this bill fits into that context. Unfortunately banning people from wearing gang patches is at best a very ineffective way. I have to agree with Andrew Little who spoke earlier. It sounds like a good idea and it sounds like we are being tough on those bad gang members but on closer inspection the flaws become quite obvious. Numerous studies have noted that poverty unemployment the absence of meaningful jobs social disorganisation and really just exclusion from mainstream society are what contribute to the presence of and membership in gangs. Economic and social inequality which as we have seen is at an all-time high only exacerbates these factors. So dealing effectively with the issue of gangs requires us to look hard at the causes of poverty and inequality. We need to robustly address those. Without those efforts this bill serves only to make it worse. It disproportionately isolates and confronts people at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum who are already excluded from mainstream society. Why would they be motivated to be constructive members of society if they are consistently discriminated against and excluded from the benefits of the wealth that is being gained by a small percentage of the population? 
The provisions in clauses 7(1) and 8 set the scene for increased confrontation with gang members who may not be involved in intimidating behaviour at the time when police confront them. I think Charles Chauvel made the point well that there is already a provision in the Crimes Act to deal with individuals or groups who behave aggressively anywhere not just on Government premises. So why is this legislation necessary if not just to further exclude a group of marginalised people whom we should be trying to encourage to become constructive members of society? Creating opportunities to confront with force individuals who are deemed intimidating purely by their association with a certain group rather than by their actual behaviour by definition increases the scope for violent confrontation on Government premises. How is that conducive to the goal that is stated in the bill? How is that conducive to the very worthwhile goal of creating a safer environment? 
We all want to work to make our society free of crime and intimidation. To do that we need to address the root causes that drive people to criminal activity in gangs and to support the vulnerable people within gangs to engage in positive societal contributions. Some already do so but obviously there is a lot more scope to create those opportunities through a rational approach to reduce gang membership in the future. I do not think banning people from wearing gang insignia is going to discourage them from being members of gangs. So stigmatising groups and individuals in a blanket unsophisticated manner will not achieve the outcomes that I am sure the member would like to achieve and nobody should be celebrating a bill that fails to address the core issues. Thank you.