Simpson Scott: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSimpson Scott: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 07 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12471. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel):It is a pleasure to stand and rise in support of this Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill sponsored by my good friend and colleague Mark Mitchell the MP for Rodney. It is always interesting to follow the Hon Phil Goff a man who has been in this House for a long time—a long time he has been in this House—and yet he has not yet learnt that volume is no substitute for substance. Volume is no substitute for substance because buried deep in the socialist psyche—buried deep in the socialist psyche—is a softness on crime and a softness on criminals. Phil Goff in that speech was nothing more than an apologist for gangs and an apologist for criminal behaviour.This is a bill that proposes to prohibit—Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think any member of this House including yourself would take offence at being told that they were soft on criminals and that they have sympathy for criminals when that clearly is patently untrue of I think every member in this House.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I do not need any assistance. Look I think from time to time this House expresses some quite strong views about other members. I do not see this—Hon Phil Goff: You can’t tell untruths.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well it is a debating point and it is an interpretation of the member’s speech. [Interruption ] Order! I am on my feet. Look I just think we will make more progress if we just leave those kinds of personal assertions behind and get on and debate.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a very simple point of order. Could you advise me as to whether the words “being an apologist forcriminals” are offensive? Because that is what was said. It was not—[Interruption ] Can I finish my point of order? It was not even as lenient as Mr Goff put it. They were the words that were said and I think they are offensive.Hon Simon Bridges: This is a House of Representatives with free speech and if those petals on the other side want to get precious—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] Excuse me. [Interruption ] Order! The member spoilt it when he made an imputation on the other side when he was making his point of order. That is the problem we get when we personalise it. I have expressed that that is unhelpful. In my view I have heard much worse and members have not taken offence. I do not want to get into ruling words out and a whole lot of situations that make life difficult to police. I have just said to the House to show some decorum. We will leave the personal stuff behind and debate the bill.Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The issue is this: your ruling is tantamount to saying that a member speaking in this debate should not say that another member is soft on crime. It is an absolutely fair comment and the member should be entitled to say that 15 times in his speech if he wants to.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member has interpreted my comments as that he has probably energetically interpreted them because the allegations made were a bit stronger than that. I will just—[Interruption ] Look it is time to just move on.SCOTT SIMPSON: Labour is soft on crime. Labour is an apologist for crimes and criminal activity. The Labour Party deep in its psyche has buried the socialist psyche; deep in its psyche is a softness on crime.Once this bill is passed the bill will mean that our police force will have new powers to arrest offenders and seize their gang—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You made a very fair ruling and you told us all to taihoa. That member who jumped up and down twice repeated the words that I used in a flagrant disregard for your ruling. I ask you again to rule on it.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have said we should just move on. If the member noticed I actually diverted my attention over a matter. I do not want to get into ruling things out. Members on the Government side could have taken offence at a number of things the Hon Phil Goff said. That is kind of the nature of this place. I have just said that we get into a position of not making progress when we have all these points of order. Members need to be just a bit conscious of their decorum in the House.Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate your ruling. Could I perhaps just point out that the interjections are flowing both ways. It is not just one way.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have not asserted that any one side is more at error than the other. In fact I took pains to comment on both speeches.Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Hon Clayton Cosgrove has called me a liar and I take offence at that.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I heard him use the word. I am not sure in what context it was actually said. But that is just an illustration of a member who gets up and makes a point of order about how something is inappropriate and then interjects with something that could be considered to be considerably worse. [Interruption ] I am actually ruling on it. What I am saying is let us just leave all this stuff alone and have a debate on the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. Thank you.Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Speaking to the point of order.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well I have ruled on it and I have said that members across the House are behaving in a way that incites disorder.Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Mr Speaker—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order or—Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Well it is just the point that that particular term is known to incite disorder and the convention has been that members are asked to withdraw and apologise. Mr Cosgrove has admitted that he has used it. Mr Bridges has taken offence. I heard him call—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK offence has been taken. The member will withdraw.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I withdraw. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like—Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: And apologise.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I was asked to withdraw. You were not the Speaker last time I checked. [Interruption ]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Points of order will be heard in silence.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I am not going to waylay this matter but I invite you to go and reflect on the tape at the dinner break. I accept it and I am not challenging your ruling but what is good for the goose is good for the gander.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes that is certainly right.SCOTT SIMPSON: Once passed this bill will mean that our police force will have new powers to arrest offenders and seize their gang insignia. Police will have these powers within a few days of the bill being given the Royal assent.Remember that the catalyst of this bill was made by the original sponsor of the bill the Hon Todd McClay. He put the bill into the ballot and he did so in a response to the community marches against gangs in Murupara which took place after the brutal murder of a youth who was murdered for no reason other than the school uniform he wore was the colour of a rival gang from the region. I am told that the Murupara Area School has welcomed the changes this bill will bring. The school itself has already adopted its own zero-tolerance policy to ban the wearing of gang colours. The chair of the school’s board of trustees is reported as saying that the policy has proved very effective. He has acknowledged that this bill will give the school’s principal yet another tool to reduce the influence of gangs on young people in that community. Labour is opposed to giving school principals more tools to cope with the dangerous and socially unacceptable criminal activities of gangs. Labour is opposed to giving school principals the tools that they need to protect our young people from gangs and gang influences. This bill will give school principals the legislative tool they need to call the police and to have their school policy enforced and enforced effectively. It will give policy some teeth and it will be enforced by our police force when and as required.When he rose to speak in the introduction of the bill the Hon Todd McClay said that it was not a silver bullet but that it will reduce the influence of gangs in our communities. I think that he was absolutely right on that point. This bill is drafted in an extremely careful way. It is drafted in a way that will send a message that as a society we do not accept gangs and their thuggish illegal gang behaviour. Gang intimidation will be reduced as a result of the passing of this very good piece of legislation. Law-abiding citizens in our country of New Zealand will be offered greater protection from thug gang members. Victims will be offered greater protection and I am proud to be part of a Government that makes absolutely no apology for putting victims first in our criminal justice system. The focus of this bill is all about further reducing the harm and the very significant misery that gangs cause throughout communities in all parts of New Zealand.I did not sit on the Law and Order Committee which considered the bill but I do note that the Police Association supported the bill saying that it would become part of a suite of changes needed to further undermine the influence of gangs. There was anothersubmission from a community law centre based in Porirua which spoke of the stranglehold that the Mongrel Mob has on that area of this city near Wellington. Two of the law centre’s clients had been murdered by Mongrel Mob members and staff at the centre had worked with a 12-year-old girl who had been pack-raped by gang members. The centre’s submission said that gang patches provided a conduit to fuelling fear in its local community and Labour to its eternal shame opposes this bill.For gang members their patch is absolutely their being. It is the physical manifestation of their lifelong commitment to the gang that they are associated with. All the social ills that gang members attach to it are attached to the physical patch itself. For gang members their patch is not just an item of clothing; it is far more than that. They will fight for it they will die for it and they will most certainly have committed criminal activities to have earned it. The potential impact of this bill its powers of confiscation and the disposal that will then take place will be powerful tools for our police to use in their fight against lawless gangs and their activities. None of us should underestimate at all the powerful influence and impact that the physical disposal of the patch itself will have. The confiscation and disposal are critical to undermining the influence of gangs. Taking away the gang patch takes away the gang member’s mana it takes away their standing within the criminal fraternity and it takes away their influence and their power to intimidate innocent victims and innocent citizens in our society.So I want to thank and congratulate Mark Mitchell and Todd McClay on bringing this very good bill to the House. It is a bill that I support. I know that members on this side will support it. It is a bill that should be passed with a big majority and the huge support of this House. I commend it to the House.