The last-minute introduction of an amendment to ban gang patches in the homes of repeat offenders is egregious.
Enforcing the law banning gang patches in public, dispersal notices and anti-consorting laws from November raises all sorts of questions. Outnumbered police, especially in small towns, will have difficulties deciding what to do and how to go about it when groups of gang members flout the law. Rallies and tangi already pose challenges.
New Zealand follows parts of Australia in cracking down on gangs, although not going as far as insisting tattoos be covered up as in Western Australia. The success of Australia’s experience depends on the observer's point of view.
Some argue the laws have been effective and the allure of gangs has been reduced. The glamour of proudly riding together disappears and police harassment disrupts gangs. Others believe more activities just go underground, and harsher policing leads to more alienation in poor communities.
Overall, gang visibility is at least reduced.
Neutral observers in New Zealand will be hoping for success. The gangs are a scourge, and their intimidation and blatant public law-breaking need to be curtailed. They are not just convenient scapegoats. To greater or lesser degrees, they are criminal organisations.
Because coalition parties campaigned on law and order, they have the right to follow through, even if several policies might have negative long-term effects.
The likes of changes to the Sentencing Act, which includes gang membership as an aggravating factor, respond to public fear and desire for punishment. They are unlikely to reduce crime in the medium and long term, however.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith earlier this year rejected a call from police to ban gang patches at home for repeat offenders. Objections were widespread and persuasive.
But the Gangs Bill was changed last week at the last minute with Mr Goldsmith’s support.
The gang insignia prohibition order would apply to an offender’s third conviction within five years of wearing a gang patch in public.
They could then face up to a year’s jail for any gang insignia, including any in a house where they live. That would include patches on visitors or in a flatmate’s drawer.
No wonder several government agencies, the Law Society and the Privacy Commissioner lined up against the measure. Rights of association, freedom of expression, presumption of innocence, and protections against unreasonable search and seizure could easily be violated as civil liberties are trashed for those in the home, including visitors.
The privacy implications for others caught up in the search are obvious.
Te Puni Kōkiri was concerned about potential "traumatic" impacts on households and whānau members of gangs including children. Mistakes highlighted by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in State Care could be repeated.
Such are the implications that the home insignia provision should at a minimum have been considered via a select committee. That process allows for scrutiny and the airing of different points of view.
Many an unintended consequence can be unearthed. Mistakes through rushed and minimally considered legislation can be avoided.
The change is dangerous and cuts across several Bill of Rights provisions. The rights of everyone are precious and any alteration demands proper scrutiny.
Mr Goldsmith and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon "make no apologies" for being tough on and harassing gangs. Mr Goldsmith, meanwhile, said those wanting to avoid home searches simply had to not offend with patches three times.
Even though the insignia search provision will have public support for now and the coalition has the right to pass anti-gang laws, Mr Goldsmith and Mr Luxon should be apologising for the appalling process and the lack of proper consideration. Of course, they will not.
