Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4881. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 15 August. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 When I took the call before we ended debating a couple of weeks ago I stood up and said that gangs were cancerous corrosive and had absolutely no place in New Zealand society. I absolutely stand by that point of view. I congratulate Todd McClay on bringing this bill the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill to the House and I congratulate those members who are prepared to support it. I am very disappointed that there are some parties in this House that have seen fit to become almost apologists for gangs that have seen fit to reject this piece of legislation and that have seen fit to stand by gangs and say that it is OK for them to wear gang insignia in public places and Government buildings and to intimidate members of the public which is exactly what this piece of legislation is aiming to stop. 
I congratulate those parties that are supporting it. I congratulate New Zealand First on its stand in this House on saying that it is not good enough for gangs to be wearing their gang patches in Government buildings and it is not good enough for gangs to be intimidating members of the public. Gangs stand for crime. Gangs stand for all things that are bad about the underworld in this country. I think any moves that this Parliament can make to try to stop gangs from having a prevalent place in New Zealand society should be welcomed should be accepted and should be supported in this Parliament. 
Finally before I finish my 4 minutes I just want to say that I absolutely reject some of the comments that have been made in the media recently by a member of this House Hone Harawira. Mr Harawira has seen fit to attack Todd McClay on the basis of the colour of his hair and the colour of his eyes. That is absolutely outrageous. To say that attacking gangs that bringing a piece of legislation to this House that aims to stop gang intimidation is wrong and to say it is a racist piece of legislation is absolutely wrong despicable and should not be accepted by anyone in this country. 
Todd McClay is doing New Zealanders a favour. Todd McClay is standing in this House bringing in a piece of legislation to try to make New Zealand safer to try to make Government buildings and local government buildings safer and to say to New Zealanders that gangs have no place in this country. It is uncool it is wrong and we should not have a situation where gangs can wear their insignia can wear their gang patches in public buildings. The gang patch itself is what the gangs love to show. It is the gang patch itself that shows solidarity amongst the gang members. We do not want criminals to be showing solidarity out there in the community. We do not want criminals to be coming into public buildings public libraries public swimming pools or anything like that to show off their colours to show off their supposed manliness because they think it is cool to be gang members and to be wearing their patches and their colours. 
This is a very good piece of legislation. I absolutely congratulate the parties in this House that are prepared to stand up and say that gangs have no place in this society and we do not want them in our public buildings and we do not want them in our local government buildings. This House should be supporting moves to restrict gangs and the wearing of their patches. I say this bill is absolutely overdue is necessary and should be supported by the whole House. 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to make my contribution on the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. There is one point that the last speaker Jami-Lee Ross made that I agree with and that is about what gangs typically engage in which is criminal activity. They try to conceal their criminal activity through their gang activities. It is for that reason that this bill should be voted down because it is totally hopeless it will contribute nothing to the problem of dealing with criminal activity in gangs and it is an attempt at gesture-politics that will do nothing. It is cynical it is poorly motivated it is a dumb bill and a dumb piece of legislation. The people on whose behalf I feel embarrassed actually are members like my good friend from Rodney whose name escapes me for the moment—I know his first name but— 
Hon Member 
: He’s a good friend but you don’t know his name. 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: You do not need to know a friend’s name to get on well with him. 
Louise Upston 
: Mark Mitchell. 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: Mark Mitchell a former serving officer and another member Chester Borrows another former member of the police force will know what it means to deal with gangs will know what they do will know what it takes to police them and will know the insidious business they are involved in. 
The one I feel most embarrassed on behalf of is Mike Sabin because Mike Sabin in his life prior to coming to this House made a very honourable contribution to his community to New Zealand when he left his role as a high-quality high-performing member of the police force to embark on a personal campaign to try to rid this country of the scourge of methamphetamine and methamphetamine dealing and to educate people families and communities about it. He knew like most former serving police officers do that the gangs are running that insidious nasty evil drug as a business. They do it as a business. So any step that can be taken to address that to do it down to get rid of it should be adopted embraced and wholeheartedly supported. 
This bill is not that step. This bill is hopeless because it does not address that sort of issue at all. It is window dressing of the worst order. Addressing the event that a gang member turns up in a public library to return his or her books with their patch on their back will not address the criminal activity of gangs. Michael Laws found this out in Whanganui and with Chester Borrow’s support—oddly enough—passed the by-law until it was overturned by the court of course to rid the main street of Whanganui of gang patches. Of course after all the hubbub all the debate and all the noise they created about it the people they ended up persuading to stay away from the main street of Whanganui were not the gangs; they were the good citizens and the good burghers of Whanganui who saw all the messages heard all the debates and thought: “Gee it is a pretty intimidating place to be on Victoria Street Whanganui. I am not going down there. I am not going down to the public parks of Whanganui.” 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The shops are closed. 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: The shops are closed. It did in good businesses that were dependent on good foot traffic and they were destroyed by that silly gesture. What has happened to gang activity in Whanganui? Nothing. Nothing has changed. They are still there. They are still there doing their nasty evil trade their nasty evil business. They still wear their gang patches in most of Whanganui. It did nothing—it did nothing. So that is the problem with this bill. It gives members who feel inadequate the ability to stand up in this House puff their chest out sound tough and look like they are doing something but actually they are doing nothing. That is the disappointing thing about this bill. 
What is very sad is that we have come all this way and after all these years this Government has been able to do nothing to address the very serious problems of gang-driven gang-inspired crime. This bill is a joke. It will achieve nothing it does even less and it is for that reason that it should be voted down. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
: 
 It is my great pleasure to stand in support of this bill the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. I just want to come back to what my colleague Mr Little said. Let us have a look at what a gang patch actually means. What does a gang patch mean? What does it signify? How does a prospective gang member actually earn the right to wear a gang patch? Is it because he helps an elderly woman across the street? Is it because he has learnt how to tie a bowline knot or demonstrated an ability to build a campfire? No it is not. 
Normally a prospect will start with what gangs consider the small stuff: breaking into people’s homes stealing anything they can find of value and often damaging people’s homes. And you know what? They may even leave a calling card like urinating or defecating on furniture or bedding. Then there will be the progression into armed robberies serious assaults and drug offences. But to really prove that they are serious about becoming a good patched gang member they will find a victim to rape or to really make a name for themselves they might even kill someone. Every time you look at a gang patch or insignia ask yourself this question: what crime against our society has that person committed and how many victims have been left in the wake of their efforts to earn that patch? 
Although I stand here now proud to be a member of this Parliament there was a time when in a previous role I was required to deal with gang members constantly. I can assure this House that an important goal for any gang or gang member is to develop a reputation for being as dangerous menacing and intimidatory as possible whether this is through reputation or appearance. The wearing of a gang patch is designed to do two things and two things only. One is to identify the gang that they are a member of and the other thing is to try to intimidate all those around them. 
I just want to congratulate Minister Tolley and Minister Collins because—you are right Mr Little—they are turning up the heat on gangs and have been turning up the heat on gangs since 2008. And we have to keep doing that. We have to keep doing that. I congratulate my colleague—I congratulate my colleague— 
Todd McClay 
: Todd McClay. 
MARK MITCHELL 
: —Todd McClay. I just want to raise something and speak about something that was brought up through the media by Mr Harawira. I cannot use the exact words that he said but basically he indicated that you know what Mr McClay does not really know anything about gangs so what the hell is he talking about? Well I can assure you after having worked in Rotorua and Mr McClay is the representative for Rotorua that although it is a wonderful place—it has got the lakes it has got geothermal activity and it has got lots of cultural events there—there is one thing it does suffer from and that is a gang problem. It has a bad gang problem. So Mr McClay witnesses the effects of that and witnesses the destruction of his community. In actual fact there are probably not many MPs around the country who have to deal with and confront gang problems as much as Mr McClay does. I congratulate him on bringing this bill to the House. He could have made it a local bill and it is not. It is a bill that is going to have an impact nationally on the negative effects that our communities suffer in relation to gangs. 
I would just like to say that when my mum or my daughters walk into a Government office I do not want them to have to see gang members walking around with patches on because those patches signify one thing and that is that they have committed crimes against our society. It is as simple as that. Thank you. 
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. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 Since the start of the first reading of this bill the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill 2 weeks ago there has been significant interest in it around the country. I have received letters emails and phone calls of support and it is true to also say that there are those who have issue with this piece of legislation. Indeed I welcome all those who have made contact with me and I thank them for it. This has been an interesting debate both 2 weeks ago and again today. Notably it suggests to me that New Zealanders not only deserve to have a say on this issue but want to have a say on this issue. Therefore I ask the House to send it to a select committee. 
Can I say to the last speaker Julie Anne Genter that I welcome her comments and the way she put them to the House. This bill will not address all issues around gangs. Indeed I have never stood here in this Parliament and said that it will. But what I think is important is that we have the opportunity to talk about not only the significant harm that gangs do in all parts of our community where they are and where they operate but some of the reasons why so many young people are attracted to them. When this bill is sent to the Law and Order Committee I would encourage members of the Green Party—and indeed all parties of this Parliament—to come with an open mind to talk about this issue and the harm that it does not only in respect of the measures in the bill but to in some way start to address this. 
The Labour Party has said that it will vote against this bill. I would say that this is disappointing. It is disappointing from the point of view that I think it is party politics that suggests this rather than the recognition of the challenges we face around gangs and gang membership. Mr Chauvel in his speech to the House said that the law can already deal with this issue that the law can deal with it by way of trespass. One of the things that I think is most important is that we encourage New Zealanders mums and dads to care more about their children. I encourage gang members who care about their children to go to their schools to support them and to help them. I am not sure it happens anywhere near as much as it should. If it did happen more—indeed as Ms Genter has said—perhaps some of the effects of gangs upon families and the way young people are attracted to these gangs would lessen. 
What this piece of legislation says to a gang member is that if that person wants to go to a school or a kindergarten to support a child that person has a right to do so. In so doing we say they must leave their gang patch or insignia behind because this is a place of learning. It does not say to that person who wears a gang patch that they cannot go to that school. Indeed what it says is just that they cannot wear that gang insignia. A trespass notice would mean that that parent was a trespasser at that school for an ongoing period of time. This legislation will not stop New Zealanders from going to seek support from their Government or from their council or from going to a hospital or a school. It will merely say that we society put conditions around that. One of them is that patches that stand for harm in our communities will not be acceptable and therefore if you choose to wear that you will break the law. Equally these members of gangs may choose not to do it. 
I ask the Labour Party to please think deeply about this when the bill does go to the committee and come with some rational discussion around it about how we deal with the influence of gangs in this country. There are others who have said that the Labour Party Opposition is weak on crime and that this is something that it will not support. I do not want to get into discussion or debate around this today. I ask the members opposite to have an open mind to come forward to the committee to be responsible and to think about the harm that gangs do. 
Hone Harawira raised some issues outside of this House around race. I do not want to dignify his comments with a response except to say that this issue deals in the same way with all New Zealanders who put on a patch and who choose to harm others. It is not an issue of race. What I would say is that Mr Harawira is right: young Maori are harmed by gangs more than any other group in this society. Gangs attract them they pull them in they ask them to commit crimes on their behalf and then they send them to jail on their behalf. I believe we in this House have an obligation to think more seriously about this. 
I want to thank the Public Service Association for agreeing to meet with me. We have had a discussion about some of its concerns. I have agreed to work closely with it to make sure that its workers and others in the Public Service are not intimidated by gang members and that this is a piece of legislation that could work for them. 
I want to thank members of New Zealand First for their support and their courageous stand on this bill and also the ACT Party and United Future for their support. This bill will be sent to the Law and Order Committee. I would ask the committee to look at the list of gangs that are mentioned to see whether it is appropriate for them to be there to question that and to look for other organisations that should also be there. 
In conclusion before we vote gangs cause harm in our society. They ruin people’s lives they destroy families they cause misery and they cause intimidation. This bill sends a clear message to them: this House puts the rights of responsible members of our community before those of criminals. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill be now read a first time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Honourable members just before I declare the vote can I just advise members of the House that there is to be no comment at all during the taking of a vote. It can be seen as intimidation and could eventually lead to a breach of privilege. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Maori Party 3; Mana 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Law and Order Committee.