Brian Rudman: Gang law obstacle to real policing

With the law and order fanatics in the ascendancy, it's surprising Parliament showed such restraint in voting only to allow Whanganui's rabble-rousing mayor Michael Laws to strip local gang members of their patched jackets. Why didn't they enter into the full madness of it all and force the gangsters to wear pink, hand-knitted jumpers with "Mummy's Boy" across the back as well?

Of course if they'd been really serious in wanting to stop crime, they'd have demanded a crackdown on the tens of thousands of unlicensed gun owners instead.

It was a gun that killed innocent baby Jhia Te Tua and unarmed policeman Len Snee, not leather jackets. But instead of checking under beds for illicit firearms, police will now be expected to waste time as Mr Laws' wardrobe inspectors.

But why tackle the difficult problems when gestures come cheap? This patch-snatching legislation is one of those symbolic nonsenses that the punitive Right so love. Yet all it will do is stir up the hornets' nest without doing an iota towards removing the pests from the community.

The new law adds another challenge to these alienated rebels. They can mock Mr Laws - and his police outriders - by wearing their insignia inside their jackets. Or they can, at moments of their choosing, make monkeys of the police by defying the new law in mass demonstrations that will stretch the law officers' abilities to respond.

They will also be able to embarrass the Government's liberal wing by challenging the human rights implications of this draconian legislation through the courts.

If the gangs are as wealthy from drug money as we're told, then they can well afford to drag this up through the courts until they find a sympathetic ear. Horror of horrors, they might even stop fighting each other and join together against the common foe.

This is what the bikie gangs of Queensland were threatening last November after state Police Minister Judy Spence threatened to strip them of their prized colours and insignias.

The Sunday Mail reported that as a result the local Hells Angels had presided at a meeting of 10 of the 14 resident bike gangs. A spokesman asked "how dangerous do you think that will be for the police" if they're unable to identify us? He added the "no colours [law] will break down barriers between us and we will work together." Allowing for a large lashing of bluster, he did have a point.

While the new law is easy to mock, the reasoning behind Act Party leader Rodney Hide's sudden conversion to the cause is more worrying.

Earlier in the debate Mr Hide said the proposed gang-patch ban was "rubbish" that he could never support because it would breach people's fundamental rights to wear what they wanted on a T-shirt.

"Freedom is about the individual, and the measure of a free society is how we move to protect the minority from the majority," he told parliament last year. "If the majority thinks that people wearing glasses should be locked up, that is not freedom or democracy."

But then he turned his back on this fundamental right because, as he told the Back Benches television show, "we vote for it [the patch ban] because what it's going to do is get three strikes through this parliament."

Mr Hide subsequently denied there was any deal that if he joined National in voting for the anti-gang patch legislation, then the Government would back Act's "three strikes" bill. But if that is so, then why Mr Hide's humiliating about-face on the gang patch ban?

The patch ban is little more than legalising acts of ritual humiliation, but the "three strikes and you're out" proposal, under which those convicted of a third violent offence would be sentenced to life in prison with a 25 years non-parole period, is a return to the punishments of the 19th century.

The ever-pragmatic John Key-led National Party has backed the introduction of the three strikes bill to buy Act's over-all support for the Key government. Mr Hide is acting as though he's had the nod and wink from the prime minister that his support could be forthcoming for the three strikes bill in return.

One hopes Mr Hide has got the signals wrong. Or is grand-standing. Attorney-General Chris Finlayson has reported back on the "apparent inconsistency" between the three strikes legislation and the Bill of Rights protection against cruel, degrading or "disproportionately severe" punishment.

He referred to the inconsistency of imposing a 25-year sentence on someone convicted of a crime subject to a penalty of as little as five years.

Foreign Affairs officials have also warned that the proposed law could breach international obligations on torture and civil rights and would affect our ability to influence other countries. It would also "pose reputational risks to New Zealand by resulting in international criticism."

The deal with Act was that National would support the introduction stages of the three strikes bill only.

After the passing of the gang patch act, it would be reassuring to hear the Government declare its law and order posturings go only so far, and that as far as the three strikes bill is concerned, Act is now on its own.