Gang Patch Ban: 6052 charges laid, 132 patches seized, 426 gang warrants executed in six months
– Undertaken 426 searches of gang targets (Warrant: 175; Warrantless: 251)
– Seized 89 firearms from gang members.
- Seized 637 insignia items (including 132 patches).
Police Minister Mark Mitchell praised the work, saying the legislation was working.
'Police around the country have done an outstanding job at enforcing the new gang laws,' Mitchell told the Herald.
Police Minister Mark Mitchell during his walkabout with a police beat section in Wellington.
'It's proved to be an exceptional tool for police to roll over the top of gangs, and take back control of our streets.
'No longer do we see gang patches in public causing fear and intimidating law-abiding Kiwis, compliance remains high, and gang members have been sent a very clear message that police control the streets, not the gangs.'
Basham, who heads police investigations agreed with his minister.
'To be fair to the gangs, we asked them to use good judgment if not, there would be consequences,' Basham said.
Police conducted more than 500 meetings with gang leaders and communities prior to the legislation coming into force in late November.
Police Assistant Commissioner Paul Basham.
'And for the most part they have complied with the legislation.
'There are some gang members that have been convicted and a few of those charges are being defended.
'But the convictions and prosecutions are just one measure. The success is what we are observing in communities, that that fear and intimidation from gangs has significantly reduced over the past six months.
'To me, that's the most obvious key to the success.'
Black Power life member Denis O'Reilly. Photo / Paul Taylor
Black Power life member Denis O'Reilly said gangs had been compliant.
'I was half expecting a big blow up but gang leadership has been intelligent enough and the police have done a great job by rallying those gang leaders to comply,' O'Reilly said.
'I was in Auckland for a Black Power league match and there was no visible gang insignia – not even T-shirts.
'Yet when they went back to their clubrooms, they were able to put on their patches.'
O'Reilly said while gang friction was always in the wind, because rivals are not running into each other in town, there is less confrontation.
'Because the gangs are not annoying the public, they are not annoying each other as much,' he said.
Basham said gang leaders had also been very clear to their members that losing their patches comes 'with consequences of threats of violence to fines'.
The Herald has been told loss of a gang patch can cost the gang member up to $5000.
Basham said of the 132 gang patches seized, police would ask the court to order the destruction of them if the owners are convicted.
What gang tangi looked like before the November 21, 2024 legislation came into force.
He said the extra resource given to the police meant they could react and also activate tough and clear responses to gang activity, utilising good gang intelligence.
'There are a number of other tools, like the Firearm Prohibition law, and powers that come that will make it difficult for gangs to operate,' Basham said.
'We know many of the gangs here are involved in organised gang activity.
'One hundred of the 500 extra police were earmarked for the gang units. Seventy-seven have, or will go into the district gang disruption units and 20 in the national gang unit in Wellington.
'You will see more police engagement working with gangs at gang tangi and as we observe high level of compliance, we can refocus our effort on where gangs are involved in violence, firearms and drugs.
The real enemy are the cartels. Yes the gangs are involved in the distribution but where's it coming from? Lifetime Black Power member Denis O'Reilly
'Gangs are involved in a large scale in the methamphetamine distribution.'
But O'Reilly says it's not solely the gangs that police should be concerned about over the drug trade.
'The real enemy are the cartels. Yes the gangs are involved in the distribution but where's it coming from? Offshore and the border controls are only now starting to see just how much unprecedented meth is coming here via the cartel.
'The real drug enemy is not within but from the outside. It's the foreign players who promise the young guys the earth, but don't explain you can only see it from 6 foot under.
'All police see is this gang mist.'
Basham said the police objective was to prevent crime and if needed acts of strength, like they did in Ōpōtiki, would be utilised to support communities.
Last October, officers executed 30 search warrants 'targeting identified people believed to be involved in a North Island-wide drug distribution network'.
Twenty-eight people were arrested, and illegal drugs and firearms were also seized.
Police were criticised by some MPs and also whānau caught up in the raids in the Bay of Plenty town for allegedly being too aggressive.
Basham said police made no apologies for wanting to rid communities of violence and drugs.
'Preventing crime and harm is a major part of our focus,' he said.
'Like what has happened in Ōpōtiki, where police have come in and supported communities,' he said.
'We will continue to do that with the enforcement to help communities build resilience to drugs and crime.
'We are a modern policing service and proud how we police in 2025. We are evidence and intelligence led and this last six months and our ability to work in communities, reflects who we are and what's possible.
'We are positive about this legislation and committed.'
'If you look at the purpose of the Act and its intention on having an impact on how gangs operate and fear and intimidation, it's been successful and we have had a lot of feedback from the community and police.
'As an organisation, we want people to not only feel safe but be safe and leading up to the new legislation, we had observed behaviours around gang tangi which caused concerns across New Zealand.
'I think we have seen a significant reduction in that behaviour around those types of gatherings.
'Senior police have said to me they have not seen anything like it to what we were seeing before the legislation to what we are seeing now.'
Basham said the anti-gang legislation was 'a tool among a suite of tools' police could use to make an impact on criminal behaviour.
He said police also had received some intelligence that the patch ban had 'de-escalated some gang confrontations'.
That included police hearing anecdotally that even gang members felt safer.
'I think some gang members themselves feel safer when they go into town to do their groceries, or drop their kids to school,' he said.
'We had a lot of engagement with gangs before this legislation was rolled out and we were clear of what was coming and wanted to be transparent.
'To their credit, many gangs have taken those conversations we had on board.
'It was clear what would happen if they breached the law.'
Joseph Los'e is an award-winning journalist and joined NZME in 2022 as Kaupapa Māori Editor. Los'e was a chief reporter, news director at the Sunday News, covering crime, justice and sport. He was also editor of the NZ Truth and prior to joining NZME worked for urban Māori organisation Whānau Waipareira.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Woolworths' Milkrun adverts show false prices for butter, Coca-Cola and cucumbers
Woolworths has apologised and blamed 'human error' for advertising incorrect prices on its Milkrun delivery app, including butter marketed for $5.50 when it was actually $9.55. It comes as the supermarket giant is already facing criminal charges for misleading consumers over pricing. The Herald was supplied screenshots of
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Inside Economics: Should you take New Zealand Superannuation if you don't need it ... plus, is the Reserve Bank's focus too narrow?
This hit home for me since it's a bit of a bone of contention in our family. I'm a Gen X-er and my Baby Boomer parents both get the pension despite owning assets worth millions. It's not a case of the family home skyrocketing in value – they both own very large, very expensive properties (separately; they're divorced), nice vehicles and live very comfortable lives. I'm really happy they're healthy and enjoying life, but I – and my siblings – think it's a bit gross that they draw the pension when they very obviously don't need it. My Dad's a bit embarrassed about it, but says he's asset-rich but cash-poor. My Mum gets defensive and says she's worked all her life and deserves it. Both my parents are smart and socially aware, so I'm surprised by their stance. My question is: how many retirees actually choose not to take NZ Super? Is there a mechanism to opt out? – Name withheld A: Fascinating question, thanks. I was curious about the numbers too and asked at the Ministry of Social Development (which administers New Zealand's pension scheme). There is no specific mechanism to opt out. But the way the scheme works is that you have to sign up (or opt in) when you turn 65. So, essentially, if you don't need the money, you can just do nothing, and you won't get it. I'm also told you that when you do apply, the registration process does point you to various charities you can donate it to if you think you don't need the money. is one such charity organisation purpose-built for the task. The Ministry of Social Development didn't have any numbers to hand as to how many Kiwis over 65 haven't signed up even though they are eligible. So I've put in an Official Information Act request and hopefully someone in the system will dig that out (watch this space). Benefit or right? The bigger question is the one you implicitly raise with your parents: should people take the super payment if they don't really need it? Framed in even more basic terms: is the super payment a benefit or a right? Everyone who is eligible does have the right to claim it. But the money is also part of the consolidated pool of Government revenue. It isn't held in a special fund, like the New Zealand Superannuation Fund (the Crown investment fund with the annoyingly similar name). That fund will be used eventually to help fund the cost of NZ Super as it balloons, based on the ageing population. NZ Super is also very different to KiwiSaver, which is actually your money that you have worked for over the years. Ultimately, the existence of the state pension (and how generous or universal it is) remains at the mercy of Parliament. It is a benefit, but for many Kiwis, especially those of a certain generation, it feels like a right. It has been promised to us by politicians over the years. That's one of the reasons even changing the age limit or means-testing it has been seen as a political no-go zone. But that seems to be changing as the sheer weight of the cost to the economy becomes apparent. According to Budget 2025 data, NZ Super costs $4352 per person per year, making it the third-largest area of government spending after welfare ($6181 per person) and health ($5804 per person). From the Treasury's long-term fiscal projections, spending on NZ Super is projected to grow from 4.3% of GDP in 2010 to 7.9% in 2060, an increase of 3.6 percentage points. National under Sir Bill English first proposed lifting the age to 67 in the election campaign of 2017. And National campaigned on a similar platform in 2023 with a commitment to keep the age at 65 until 2044, when it will be gradually lifted to 67. This change wouldn't affect anyone born before 1979. Finance Minister Nicola Willis has suggested National will campaign on a similar policy again in 2026. In my view, it will inevitably have to rise. I also understand why people are inclined to accept it as a right. It is free money, right? It will eventually pass through the generations. Perhaps those who want to enjoy the extra cash but feel some guilt could look to spend it with local businesses or support local artists. Does the Reserve Bank need a wider focus? Q: Kia ora Liam, I was reading your column on the future of the Reserve Bank under a new governor. I wonder how the bank can set its policy direction without a clear national economic strategy to work within. New Zealand doesn't seem to have one that I could clearly identify, the closest being the Reserve Bank's inflation target and that's about it. Is this because the nation is happy to muddle along on the global currents of laissez-faire economics instead? After watching a documentary recently on Xi Jinping and his 'China Dream' policy that has seen China become a global economic force, I found myself asking: where is the (suitably less authoritarian) New Zealand equivalent that I think we actually need? A more orderly economy could be highly beneficial in underpinning the woeful state of our physical and social infrastructure, but only if the politicians involved were actually competent enough to plan and execute successfully over multiple decades. Which begs another question: we had decades of stable government in the 20th century that built all the infrastructure, which we have failed to keep updating. If it could be done then, why can't it be done now? Regards, Steve-Tipene Callagher A: Some really interesting thoughts there, Steve. I agree that a more structured and orderly economic approach would benefit New Zealand. But I'll start with your point about the Reserve Bank (RBNZ) and try to explain why it has such a limited scope. The main reason that the central bank primarily targets inflation is that it is the one thing that monetary policy has some real control over. US economist Milton Friedman once said: 'Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.' What he meant was that at some point, we can always trace inflation back to the supply of money in an economy. If we create too much money (unbacked by an increase in real physical wealth), then we always get inflation. By moving the cost of borrowing (and saving) up and down, central banks can control the money supply. When interest rates are low, there is less incentive to save and more incentive to borrow and spend, so the money supply expands. When interest rates are high, there is more incentive to save and it is harder to borrow, so the supply contracts. This has proved to be very effective at controlling inflation over the years. But even the world's top central bankers will admit that monetary policy isn't particularly effective at controlling more nuanced aspects of the economy. It is often described as a 'blunt tool'. Unemployment is sometimes included in central bank mandates because there is seen to be a correlation between unemployment and inflation. But even that is debatable and we've seen the new Government reverse Labour's policy, which had added unemployment to the mandate. The argument is that keeping inflation stable is such an important platform for an economy that central banks should do that one thing and do it well. The rest of the economic equation is left to the Government and/or markets to sort out. I don't want to completely dismiss any criticism of the monetarist approach to central banking. There are alternative ideas out there, like Modern Monetary Theory. I'm not going to do it justice here, but it effectively argues that Governments should focus on real resource constraints rather than financial constraints. It says Governments aren't the same as businesses or households and they can print money and ignore deficits and get away with it. Perhaps it might work in a world where it was universally adopted and well-regulated by efficient Governments around the world. It requires more trust in efficient Government than I have. Regardless, the current system is so deeply embedded in the global economy that even US Presidents are wary of messing with it. So we're kind of stuck with it. I wouldn't like New Zealand's chances of going it alone with a new system. More structure Ultimately, when it comes to the lack of coherent strategy in New Zealand's economic approach, I think a lot of it has to do with the inability of the two major parties to find a bipartisan agreement on big areas like infrastructure. So I agree that it is frustrating, given that we built so much amazing infrastructure in the 20th century, that we seem so bad at it now. Quite why is hard to say. Perhaps it is MMP? There is a lot more trading-off of policy than there used to be under First Past the Post. It also seems to take much longer to get construction started on things, which means we often see Governments change before plans come to fruition. Perhaps we need longer political terms. Or perhaps we just need to streamline the process to get construction under way sooner. I know I'm not alone in wishing we could get some sort of bipartisan accord done on a long-term infrastructure pipeline. Liam Dann is business editor-at-large for the New Zealand Herald. He is a senior writer and columnist, and also presents and produces videos and podcasts. He joined the Herald in 2003. To sign up to my weekly newsletter, click on your user profile at and select 'My newsletters'. For a step-by-step guide, click here. If you have a burning question about the quirks or intricacies of economics send it to or leave a message in the comments section.
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Act leader David Seymour suggested ‘bots' drove ‘fake submissions' against his Regulatory Standards Bill
David Seymour claims 99.5% of submissions were created using bots. Photo / Mark Mitchell RNZ Act leader David Seymour has claimed 99.5% of the submissions received on the Regulatory Standards Bill were created using 'bots'. The Ministry for Regulation received approximately 23,000 submissions regarding a discussion document about the bill in January. In summarising the feedback,
