Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill

I move, That the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Law and Order Committee to consider this bill.

Gangs cause harm and misery in this country. In January of 2009, 16-year-old Jordan Herewini was mown down in what was described at the time as an armed gang hit in Murupara. He died from head injuries after being hit by a stolen ute. Kawerau gang member Quentin Duane Pukeroa, a man twice the age of his victim, was convicted of his murder. Earlier that day Pukeroa had hassled Jordan, telling him to remove his yellow school polo shirt, because the colour yellow represented a rival gang. On 3 October in 2009, 17-year-old Kaingaroa resident Kaine Lewis died, following a gang fight in Murupara. His scalp was split, his skull was fractured, following two punches, causing his brain to swell. He died in Rotorua Hospital a short time later. Nineteen-year-old Norton Tāoho was found guilty of his murder, and Joshua Leslie-Whitu, aged 18, and Hēmi Winitana, aged 19, were found guilty of manslaughter. During the trial the Crown solicitor told the jury a gang fight had broken out in the town between Mongrel Mob and Tribesmen associates, following previous tit-for-tat incidents.

In May of 2010 a 4-year-old Whakatāne boy was abused by a Black Power affiliate for wearing a red shirt. The boy was screamed at, was prodded, and had his shirt ripped off him as he was playing in a city reserve—a truly traumatic experience for a 4-year-old boy and his family. A foreign exchange student was allegedly punched for wearing a red shirt in a blue town, in Kopeopeō, in December of 2011. The 17-year-old visitor to New Zealand was knocked unconscious, in a seemingly unprovoked attack. The assailant had demanded he take off his sweater he was wearing, and punched him in the head and left him unconscious. There had been other reports of people being targeted for wearing red, which is a colour adopted by the Mongrel Mob, by people wearing blue, which is a colour worn by Black Power supporters. In July of 2012 gunshots were fired into a children’s bedroom in Masterton in a suspected gang-related shooting. Following the attack, the police stopped all gang members on the street. The Wairarapa area commander said: “A gang patch is only worn for one reason and that’s to make people fearful.”

In July of 2012 a 25-year-old Hāwera woman, Yahanna Karaitiana, was jailed for 7 months for attacking a woman who was also wearing red. Karaitiana planned an attack on the woman after meeting her at a bar. With some friends, she staked out the woman’s home and when she returned they beat her up in front of her children—in front of her children. In August 2012 the founder of the Killer Beez street gang was sentenced to more than 10 years in prison for selling large amounts of P and passing it on to associates. He was found to have $20,000 in his home. He was on a sickness benefit—receiving $175 a week. The list goes on and on and on. This is a list of the consequences of gang membership and gang harm.

You see, gangs serve no useful or legitimate purpose in New Zealand society. Their members prey on the weak and the vulnerable. They profit from the harm that they do to everyday, law-abiding citizens of our country. They are responsible for the drug trade. They are responsible for poisoning our communities through the distribution of P—methamphetamine. They are the driving force behind organised crime, and they are responsible for misery in every part of this country that they are present. They attract young people to them and ruin their lives. Jordan Herewini and Kaine Lewis are dead. The people guilty of their deaths are in prison—all under the age of 20, all young men whose futures have been ruined because of gang bravado and intimidation.

Of the 54 councils that responded to a recent Local Government New Zealand survey, a large majority—83 percent—reported the presence of gangs in their districts. The Police Association estimates there are around 3,500 full-time adult gang members in New Zealand, and it also suggests there are many thousands more who are associated with, or attracted to, gangs at a very young age. Indeed, in 2006 the police identified that three-quarters of offenders associated with clandestine drug laboratories were linked to recognised gangs, and I fear—for members opposite—the statistic has not changed. Indeed, the Department of Corrections estimates that 30 percent of prisoners have gang affiliations. It has said that gang membership in prisons has doubled in the last 5 years.

You see, people feel intimidated by the presence of gang members. They feel intimidated by what they stand for, and they feel intimidated every time they see them in a Work and Income office, in council swimming pools, in schools, and in hospitals around this country. Law-abiding citizens deserve to go about their business free from gang-instigated intimidation. This bill is modelled on the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Act, sponsored through this House by Chester Borrows and championed by Michael Laws. The police estimate that between March 2009 and March 2010 gang membership in Whanganui decreased by 15 percent as a result of this law. They also said that overt gang presence was less notable by the general public, and there was a reduction in the levels of intimidation in the community and a reduction in confrontations between gangs.

This bill aims to reduce this intimidation. It introduces restrictions around gang insignia being displayed on the premises of departments of the Public Service and Crown entities, as well as local government in New Zealand. Gangs are commonly identified by their insignia, which associates the wearer with an organisation that has criminal intent. The insignia is often worn as a badge of pride, demonstrating a high probability that the wearer has committed crimes as a means to earn the right to wear gang colours or insignia. They are not badges of pride; they are badges of misery and of crime. This bill names specific gangs to be covered by the law. It will be futureproofed to allow the Minister of Police to add gangs to the prohibition list through regulation-setting powers. It will cover all signs, symbols, and representations commonly displayed to denote members and those with an affiliation to, or who support, a gang.

It includes all offices, buildings, and facilities both permanently and temporarily under the authority of the departments of the Public Service and Crown entities, and all offices, buildings, and facilities under the authority of local authorities as defined in schedule 2 of the Local Government Act; it includes the grounds of public schools and early childhood education facilities; it includes the grounds of public hospitals and health facilities under the authority of district health boards; it includes all the grounds of public swimming pools and aquatic centres under the authority of local government authorities; and it excludes residential dwellings of the Housing New Zealand Corporation—all places where everyday New Zealanders go to seek support, and all places they deserve to be free of intimidation.

Contravention of the law will result in an arrest and a fine of up to $2,000 and the destruction of gang insignia.

I want to thank a number of councils around New Zealand that have expressed support for this bill. I particularly want to offer my thanks to Mayor Malcolm Campbell in Kawerau, Mayor Tony Bonne of Whakatāne, and Mayor John Forbes of Ōpōtiki for their strong support. These are three men who are willing to stand up and be counted and who are doing the right thing for the communities, and I commend them.

If you live in provincial New Zealand, then you are likely to have known, or know, of some form of gang-related intimidation. This bill sends a clear message to gang members: “Your intimidation will no longer be tolerated.” It says: “This Parliament puts the rights of law-abiding citizens and your victims before those of criminals.” To gang members I say this: if you go to government premises with a patch, your government will not serve you. Instead, a policeman will. He will want to talk to you about all the nasty things you and your criminal mates have been involved in.

I want to thank Peter Dunne of United Future, John Banks of ACT, and Winston Peters and the members of the New Zealand First Party for their support. This bill gives important tools to our police. This bill gives important powers back to our communities. It targets more than 3,500 people who seek to harm law-abiding citizens in this country. I commend this bill to the House.

If a person does anything on central government property to make people feel intimidated, the law provides a remedy. The responsible Minister or the chief executive of the department or the entity can make rules, issue trespass notices, or take a range of other meaningful actions under the existing laws of New Zealand that stop the intimidation. If a person does anything on local government property to make another person feel intimidated, the law provides a remedy. The council can make and enforce bylaws. The chief executive can make rules or issue trespass notices or take a range of meaningful actions under the existing laws of New Zealand to stop the intimidation from happening.

This Parliament costs thousands of dollars a minute to run. This bill, the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill, merely duplicates existing law and is a waste of—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member, but interjections across the floor are unacceptable. I want to hear what the member is saying. If you want to interject, you interject against the speaker, and do not have this free flow across the cross benches.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

As I was saying, this Parliament costs thousands of dollars an hour to run. This bill just duplicates the existing laws of New Zealand and is a waste of time. The Opposition will not cooperate in wasting this Parliament’s time. We will vote against this piece of window dressing masquerading as legislation.

For several years I was a Crown prosecutor in the Bay of Plenty, prosecuting jury trials in small provincial towns and provincial cities. Can I say that in the course of doing that, I met and had really quite a lot of interaction with patched gang members—probably in the hundreds. I met them in court, I have examined them, I have cross-examined them, I have met them outside of court, I have talked with them, I have briefed them, and I have actually been in their homes in small towns around the Bay of Plenty. I have been in gang pads. I have seen how they live. I understand, I think, probably as well, can I say, as anyone in this House who was not an officer—and I know we are going to hear from some officers in this debate—about gang members.

Let me tell this House that they can be personable, one on one. They can be articulate. They can be smart. They can be cunning, but together, and when they put their patch on, it is a very different story. Let me say to this House that there is nothing good about gangs—not a single thing that is good about gangs. They are thugs, they are drug dealers, they are rapists, and they are murderers. They do those things all around this country, every week of the year. This country does not deserve to suffer the consequences of that. There is nothing good about gangs in this country.

There is a different, somewhat trendy view from the Rajen Prasads of this world, from the do-gooders of this world who say: “Actually, you know, gangs are OK. They’re friendly, cuddly motorcycle clubs. As they get older they reform themselves. They have whānau barbeques, and everything is OK.” Well, I say that is rubbish. I have contempt for that view, because there is nothing good about gangs and this bill, the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill, is doing something about it. When gang members put the patch on, they become a different person. They put it on for one reason: to create fear and to intimidate others. There is no good reason, as I say, for gangs and there is no good reason for gang patches.

I say that the Labour Party’s view and position on this bill is contemptible. Andrew Little says: “Oh, you’re just doing this to get tough.” That is what he says. Well, yes, we are tough on gangs and crime in this country. If that party opposite wants to know why it is doing so poorly in the polls and why the provinces wholeheartedly reject it, maybe it wants to look at its soft approach to crime. Maybe those members want to look at themselves and understand why they are doing so poorly, because actually we are tough on crime and we are tough on gangs, and we make no apology for everything we do that makes it harder for gangs to operate in this society. We have contempt for them. We have contempt for what they do. They are thugs, they are rapists, they are drug dealers, and they are murderers. I wholeheartedly support anything that makes it difficult for them, against a trendy sort of liberal view that we have from the other side that somehow we should be apologists for them. Well, we will not be on this side of the House.

Todd McClay, in his opening speech, started with a roll call of offences that gang members had committed. I challenge him and Simon Bridges to think that there is any member on this side of the House who is not angry or outraged at that offending. For Mr Bridges to sit there and call us contemptible and do-gooders, and have this faux outrage that we will not be supporting this bill, the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill, I say is contemptible when they put this bill before this House to try to get tough on gangs.

John Key in 2007 said: “My Government will search out all legal and practicable means available for making it much, much tougher to be a member of a criminal gang in this country.” What that says is: “We’re going to get tough on you—don’t wear your jacket. Don’t wear your jacket.” That is how this Government is getting tough on gangs. It is saying: “Don’t wear your jacket in public places.”

I agree with Mr McClay that gangs serve no good purpose in this country. I agree they are out there committing crime, which all of us hate. But if we are going to get serious about tackling gangs, then take some serious action in some legislation. Do not bring this piece of legislation before this House. You sit across on the other side of the House with your faux outrage and call us contemptible, when you put this bill in front of this Parliament.

This is not enough. This bill is not enough to get tough on crime. It is not just a provincial problem—I have got a gang problem in my electorate as well. But if we are really going to get serious about gangs, then let us take some serious action against them and not bring a piece of legislation that honestly—in all honest opinion—is not going to make a serious iota of difference.

There is a difference between appearing to be safer and actually being safer. So let us take some serious action against gangs. Yes, we are outraged. We are upset that they are out there and we share the concern of the Government about what is going on with gangs in this country. But take it seriously. Todd McClay should go back and resubmit a bill that is really going to take some action against gangs.

Gang members love the brotherhood. Gang members love the brotherhood of being in a gang, and Mr Bridges brought that up too. But they also have too much spare time on their hands. So this Government could take some real action in making sure we do not have young people going into gangs by making sure there are opportunities for them in our country.

As Charles Chauvel said, we will not be supporting this bill. I am upset that that side of the House can call us contemptible and are outraged because they say we are not getting tough on gangs, when they bring this legislation in here.

The Green Party will be voting against the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill tonight—surprise, surprise—though I must admit I have a certain sympathy for what I imagine is the intent of this bill, if not for the idea itself.

I have worked in the community, and I have seen young people recruited into gangs, and I have seen what it does to their lives. I understand that patches and colours hold a power and a symbolism that attract as much as they induce fear. Every time I saw a young person being prospected I felt like a failure. But the very sight of them wearing their colours alerted me to the need to step up our support. Without those visible colours we would not have known their need. We need to address the root causes that drive people to gangs, and to support vulnerable people within gangs to engage in positive societal contributions.

This bill effectively bans gang-associated bandanas in Government buildings. So I would be banned from Parliament for what I am wearing on my wrist if it had the normal squiggles on it, or I might have it ripped off me—forcibly—because that is what this bill allows. Some of you might scoff at that as if it is ridiculous and, actually, you are right to scoff at it, because it is ridiculous. It would not be ripped off me, because I am not young and the fact is I am white. There is nothing about me that indicates I might be a gang member, which tells you that this bill is not actually about the insignia. This bill is about the underlying assumptions we have about people and our insider and our outsider status.

The Green Party will be opposing this bill because we do not believe it will do anything to protect our young people, and we do not believe it will do anything to reduce the drivers of membership in gangs.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of this bill, the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. It is a bold and commendable initiative from our fellow conservatives on the opposite side of the House, whose resolve, I might say, with regard to some matters of social policy we have had cause to be concerned about in recent times—in very recent times, at any rate. Mr McClay has done much to allay certain of our fears where this direction—or perhaps, I should say, lack of it—is concerned, with the introduction of this admirable and very necessary bill. I am gladdened—fortified, indeed—by the knowledge that Mr McClay brings this bill to the House with the blessing and, who knows, perhaps even at the direction of his party’s leadership.

It is a comfort to those of us on this side of the House who count ourselves as traditionalists that the National Party has chosen to send such a powerful message, affirming that its old-time stance on social issues is indeed intact, and alive and kicking. We look forward to that stance being reiterated, particularly by the National Party’s leaders, in respect of other issues of social order and morality as and when they come before the House. We are encouraged by the knowledge that National does indeed possess the fortitude to be true to the same values of old, which we ourselves continue to espouse. It is good to know that we are not alone, as we may have been given cause to suspect.

In the explanatory note of the bill, the bill’s author states: “Gangs serve no legitimate purpose in New Zealand society and the public has a right to be protected from their intimidation and the significant harm that they do.” That is indeed so. I have no qualms whatsoever in saying that New Zealand First agrees with that sentiment unequivocally.

There is a paradigm shift required in New Zealand society and in our thinking where gangs are concerned. For too long we have not simply tolerated gangs but, through our inaction with regards to their various deviant and criminal activities, allowed them to become glorified, to a degree. Young people, impressionable people, the lost, and the wayward are drawn to gangs because of the stability and the acceptance that they perversely offer to those whose lives lack any other kind of structure. They are drawn into the web of crime and deviancy that gangs epitomise and promote. They become trapped in the devolving lifestyle that such organisations inevitably gravitate towards, and in so doing they become part of the problem. They become pawns in the perpetuation of the antisocial and criminal underclass and underworld that is gang culture, and the people who live it and live by it.

Well, it is not good enough. I say to this House that it is not good enough in New Zealand. We have to stop this rot. It falls to us, to the good people of New Zealand, to put a stop to the evil that is the gangs and the gang culture. The buck has to stop with the members of this House, whom the people send here to be their representatives. We have to set the standard. We have to set the message. We have to send the message that gangs are no longer acceptable, that their time has passed, that we will not and do not tolerate them any more.

The so-called badge of pride that gang members wear needs to come to be seen as a badge of shame. The gangs and their various acolytes need to come to realise that we do not fear them. They need to come to realise that we have become angry, that we will not put up with their intimidation any longer, and that we will not tolerate them any further. This bill will remove the identity of the gangs from the public eye. It will remove the identifying marks of these packs of weak-minded ferals from public display, and from display in Government departments and other places where they gather to prey as parasites on decent society, from what they erroneously perceive to be some kind of position of respect.

Respect—what is that? Do they seriously believe that we respect them? Do they seriously believe that we fear them—these weak, sick, fat, unfit, drug-addled retards? Do they seriously believe we cannot do anything about them—that we cannot remove them from society? Well, we can. We are the Parliament and we are powerful. We represent the people and we create the law. We have the strength of numbers, the resources of the nation, and the capabilities of the police, and the military if we so choose, to call upon. We can pass this bill. We can pass this bill into law, and it will become another stepping stone, a flagstone in the path towards the complete elimination of gangs from our society and from our culture, and I say we should. I say we should do that. New Zealand First says we should do that. We are proud to support this bill. We urge all parties and members of this House to do the same. Thank you.

Gangs in this country are a cancerous, corrosive stain on this society. For members of this House to stand up and defend the rights of gangs to show their colours and to show their pride, when we know that gangs have no rightful place in New Zealand society, and when we know that they stand for crime, they stand for harassment, and they stand for intimidating good New Zealanders—for members to say that gangs should be supported and that this legislation is a waste of time—is contemptuous. It is an insult to everyday New Zealanders, who just want to live their lives free from harassment.

Members opposite tell us that this bill, the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill, is a waste of time, but members opposite spent month after month after month wasting this House’s time with a bill about the Royal Society, filibustering their own legislation. They now tell us that a piece of legislation like this, which will help to keep New Zealanders free from intimidation, is a waste of time. It is poor, it is wrong, and I do not support what they are saying.

I see, Mr Speaker, that you are about to call the adjournment—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the chair.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.