Prosser Richard: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 15 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:9968. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): It is a pleasure to rise and take a call on this bill the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. It is an honour I have to say to follow the wise and sober discourse of Mr Mitchell. New Zealand First is proud to be in support of this bill. It is a fine bill. It is a fine member’s bill from a fine and honourable member indeed and we are pleased to be able to offer the member Todd McClay our wholehearted support for his bill as it traverses its way through the House and into law. If we have any quibbles about the bill at all it would perhaps be only toexpress the reservation that the bill does not go far enough. New Zealand First would like to see the banning of gang patches altogether along with gangs themselves. But we accept the member’s bill as it stands on its own merits and we are happy to support it as far as it does go.Perhaps this bill will be the first of many the first of a line the beginning of a process of law by which the scourge of gang culture gang behaviour and gang criminality is erased from New Zealand life and society. We hope this bill will become the inspiration for courageous Governments in New Zealand to take up the challenge of ridding the nation of the menace of gangs altogether following the lead already established by state Governments in South Australia Western Australia Queensland and New South Wales in banning outlaw gangs outright.We do not agree with the positions of the Labour Party and the Green Party with regard to the potential effectiveness or in their estimation the lack of it as far as this bill and its ability to curtail the intimidatory activities of gangs and of gang members is concerned. We believe rather that this bill will serve as a very useful and welcome tool in the range of resources available to the police when it comes to dealing with gang members. We do not accept claims by other parties and by some submitters that sufficient and suitable measures such as trespass notices are already available to the staff of Government agencies as a means by which gang members in their patches can be excluded from such places.Trespass notices can only be imposed after the fact. The terms and conditions covered by them are very specific and their enforcement is limited by the ability of complainants to correctly identify the named individuals in question and the allocation of available police resources based on the perceived degree of risk. Staff at Government agencies should not be placed in the position of having to make such calls and decisions especially when threat or menace may be present. It is after all the menace—the deliberate and intentional menace—accompanying the presence of the patch that this bill seeks to remove.Staff of Government agencies should not and must not be placed in that position and once this bill is passed into law—this fine bill which will become fine law—they will not be forced to be subjected to the stress and discomfort of the threat and the menace that a patch encompasses. Rather it is the gang members themselves who will be living under threat. The tables will be turned by this bill. It is the gang members who will have to spend their days looking over their shoulders wondering at every turn whether the police are watching whether the building they are about to enter is one covered by the ban or whether they may in fact be better off leaving their ridiculous rag patches at home rather than displaying them like a target on their backs.Mr McClay’s bill is the beginning of a process. It is the beginning of a change in New Zealand society a sea change a shift in attitude towards criminal gangs and the place they have held in the nation’s psyche these past four decades or so. Time was that the gang patch was something to fear and it still is and for good reason. The patch signifies someone who has offended against society and against one or more individuals. The patch is won by a gang member who has committed a sufficiently vile crime to have earned the twisted respect of the fellow reprobates and moral perverts with whom he associates.Gang members have imposed a measure of caution on the rest of society through the promotion of their willingness to engage in violent and criminal behaviour. No longer. Through this bill the tide will begin to turn. In time and not much of it society’s attitude to gangs will change from one of caution to one of derision. In the near future the patch will not say: “Look at me. I’m a tough guy. Fear me.” Instead it will say: “Look at me. I’m a criminal an idiot a loser a coward who can’t stand alone on myown two feet who needs 20 or 30 or however many other like-minded criminal losers around me to make me feel like a tough guy. Pity me.”The patch will be reviled and its wearers will be rejected by society and apprehended by the law. Patches will be seized and destroyed shredded and burnt indeed crushed as the gangs themselves will come to be by the weight of public opinion and the power of this the people’s Parliament to pass this bill and enact this law and others that I am certain will follow. We will see gangs banned outright in this country. This bill is the beginning of that journey.We note the concern held by the Labour Opposition that there are some inconsistencies in the bill. Indeed there are. Some of this is unavoidable. Covered footpaths for example can be included in the bill’s ambit but not uncovered footpaths. Bus and train stations may be included if they have a shelter incorporated but not otherwise. The Labour minority view in the select committee’s report comments that swimming pools are included but not playing fields. This is because Mr McClay’s bill specifies premises as being the places from which gang patches will be excluded. A premise is defined in the bill as somewhere that has been built; it includes a structure of some kind.In the light of this and as a measure both to clarify the extent of the bill in order to allay some of the concerns raised by my erstwhile colleagues from the Labour benches and of course to attempt to extend the reach of the bill as much as is possible within the constraints intended by the sponsoring member I have suggested to the honourable member Mr McClay that perhaps the definition of premise could be amended to include an area defined by or included within a suitable structure such as a fence. This would of course bring playing fields quite sensibly within the ambit of the bill.It is my intention to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to this effect at the Committee stage of the bill and I hope and trust that the sponsoring member does not feel that I am treading on his toes by doing so. I would like this to be seen as a gesture of cooperation and I would hope that the member and his caucus would view it in that light. New Zealand First favours consensus politics wherever possible and we like nothing better than to work constructively together with other parties on matters where we share common ground and compatible values. Mr McClay’s bill is certainly one such area of common purpose.In the select committee on which I sit some members and submitters contended that the removal of patches by gang members voluntarily or otherwise would have the effect of making them harder to identify. That may be so but it will also have the effect of making it harder for those gang members to draw on the so-called power of the patch and its ability to intimidate. This can only be a good thing in our estimation. Indeed some gangs notably some of the motorcycle enthusiasts already in fact choose to be effectively de-patched most of the time anyway. But they are also less likely to be on Government premises and availing themselves of governmental services than some of their non - motorcycle enthusiast brethren because unlike those gangs most bikies do in fact actually work for a living along with undertaking their other extracurricular activities. In saying that I am not suggesting that these mischievous biker boys are somehow less bad than other gang members; only that Mr McClay’s bill deals solely with Government premises and there have to be horses for courses.In closing I would reiterate that New Zealand First’s only disappointment if it could be called such with this bill is that it does not go far enough. However we fully accept that it is the member’s bill and this is what he desires of it and we fully support him in that. Again we hope and trust that this bill will be the beginning of a process culminating ultimately in the removal of gangs from the fabric of New Zealand societyin their entirety. New Zealand First is very happy to support this fine piece of legislation and we commend it to the House. Thank you.