Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill

Once again it is a pleasure to rise to take a call on Part 2 of this Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. In doing so can I just acknowledge, as I have not as yet, the member Mark Mitchell, a former police officer. He was, of course, a dog handler and spent a lot of time be dragged around by his Alsatians that he, no doubt—they must have been big, stocky brutes, I am sure. I acknowledge him for the work that he is doing on this bill, and also Minister Todd McClay, who originally brought this bill to Parliament. Part 2 deals largely with the offences and the enforcement.

I just want to pick up on a couple of points around the forfeiting and the ability for the Crown to subsequently destroy the gang patch. This goes back to the point I raised in the debate on the first part around the significance of a gang patch to a gang member. It is not just an item of clothing. In fact, it is the single most important factor in identifying gang members, and it is something that they will fight for, that they will die for, and that they will certainly have to commit offences to have. One of the challenges that the police have faced—and I certainly have—is the ability for a gang member to wear the patch unless it is used in the commission of offence. Only then do the police have the ability to seize it.

In the second part of the bill here it lays out quite clearly the practical tools that police officers on the street will be able to use when they seize those gang patches. They will be able to stop vehicles and search those vehicles, and I bet there will not be a single gang member in New Zealand who—if they bother to tune into Parliamentary TV. I am probably a little optimistic that they do; I am not sure that it is really their cup of tea. One thing I do know is that—

💬 Darien Fenton: You shouldn’t mention “cup of tea”.

As soon as word gets around that this bill—or cup of P, as the case may be—has passed, I bet they will be paying real attention to it, as will the police, who will use every opportunity they can to immediately start removing these patches from gang members who like to go around perpetuating their intimidation on society.

What we will see in the practical sense is some gang members being very, very upset by the fact that not only has their patch been taken but the patch will go into a furnace and it will be destroyed. Along with it will be their mana, their identity, and everything that they stand for, because that patch is almost a part of them. As members have rightfully raised, many of them actually go to the point of having their gang insignia tatooed on their body. I have, of course, seen one or two who have tattooed on their face in front of the mirror, and it does pose some interesting problems when they tattoo themselves back to front. Once it is on, it is on. No amount of Brillo-pad scrubbing is going to get that thing off there. That goes to the point.

Of course, it would be ridiculous to assert: “Oh, well, you can’t remove”—sorry, not you, Mr Chairperson—“The police cannot remove tattoos from their face, so this bill has no meaning or substance.” It is the patch that means something. The tattoo is simply an embodiment of what that patch means. They wear their taiaha, as it were, on their skin by red-tattooing it. The patch on their skin—the tattoo on their skin—is not their patch. Their jacket is their patch. For members who are not aware of that, it does not matter what gang members will tattoo on themselves, it is the patch that matters. So the idea that we should get caught up on the idea that if they have got tattoos on their face or insignia on their face—that is nothing. That is actually just someone who has got a bit of scribble on their face because they think it makes them look staunch. The point is that it is their patch that matters. They would sooner lose the skin off their face than lose the patch off their back. As a police officer, I would just be jumping at the opportunity to see these patches going into the furnace, because that sends a terrific signal to the New Zealand public that this Government does not back the gangs.

I would just like to acknowledge Richard Prosser from New Zealand First and congratulate him on his Supplementary Order Paper 253 going through tonight. I just acknowledge his contribution on the Law and Order Committee and the fact that he is taking a very strong position—and New Zealand First has taken a strong position—in support of this bill, the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill, as well.

It is actually pretty simple. It is like Mr Sabin just said. We have spoken about it a lot in the Committee tonight and we have spoken a lot over the last couple of months on this bill. That is that the gang patch signifies one thing: the fact that wearers of gang patches have committed crimes against us as a community. It is their badge of honour. They do put a lot of significance in it. So I think that as a country it is actually quite a good idea to say to them that we do not want to see them wearing those around us—leave them at home. If you do not leave the patches at home, then our police officers have got the right to come and remove them from you. If you do not want to give them up, then the police have the right to arrest you, convict you, and destroy that patch.

I think that another important question to ask ourselves is whether the police—the people whom we as a country charge with trying to provide safe and secure communities and protect us against the sorts of people who are in gangs—want to have this additional power. The answer is yes, they do want to have it. They like it, they know that they can use it, and they know that it will be effective. The Police Association, which is always a very good backstop and will always look at these things very, very carefully and do a lot of analysis on them before taking a position, came to the select committee and clearly said that it likes this bill, it is going to be effective, and it is going to provide serving police officers with another very effective tool to use. So what it boils down to is we as a country saying this: we know what patches mean, we do not like them, we do not want them around us, so leave them at home. If you want to wear them, wear them around at home, but do not wear them into town, do not wear them into our schools and around our kids, and do not wear them into Government buildings. If you do, then we are going to empower our police to take action against you and remove them. It is as simple as that.

Finally, I just want to touch very quickly on Part 2. If a gang member decides to get smart and walks into the Work and Income office with his patch on, and for whatever reason he is asked to take it off and he refuses to do so, hangs around in the Work and Income office, intimidating as many people as he can, and leaves—jumps in his car and takes off—then, no, he has not got away with it. Actually, under Part 2 the police have got the ability to stop him, to search him, to get his details, and to remove the patch. That is another very significant, very important part of Part 2 in terms of accountability and giving the police the ability to actually take action, even if the person has left the premises where they are not meant to be. Thank you.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Mark Mitchell to clause 6 be agreed to:

in subclause (2), insert “on conviction” after “liable”.