Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this

I well recall a conversation that started very heatedly with a senior member of the Mongrel Mob at a national conference. When we were discussing the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill, it was pointed out by me that it sought to decrease intimidation and the likelihood of violence by creating what is known as neutral turf, as we have done in hotels, courts, police stations, hospitals, and other Government buildings. That gang member quickly agreed that the bill would be a deterrent to violence and would be of benefit to senior gang members who have stated publicly their desire to lessen gang violence. I spoke to him a few minutes ago, and he refused to comment further and refused to confirm what the stance of the organisation is now. I note that he could not speak on behalf of the Mongrel Mob until the national hui, and he refuses now to say exactly what that position is.

The sight of fully patched gang members in full regalia, yet protesting a desire to turn kids away from criminal offending, has no integrity, to my mind. We have heard the most unusual comments this week from the Māori Party. Those comments suggest that gangs are the solution to youth gang crime and that members of the public should not be intimidated by patched gang members.

Although I esteem Dr Pita Sharples highly, I believe that his view in this matter is skewed. I guess it is the kaupapa of the grandfather of the nation to be generous and forgiving to his mokopuna, but that view defies logic. Gang members have raped, murdered, beaten, and stolen in gang regalia with no hesitation, and they have shown no remorse. When gang members express regret for offending, it is always because they were apprehended or because of the effect the offending has had on their own families. There is never regret about the impact on the victims. They regret time in jail and wasted opportunities, but never the damage they have done to others. In fact, the opposite is true. It is their behaviour—giving the television camera the fingers, sneering, swearing, and barking—and their offending that has instilled reasonable fear in the minds of average Kiwis, and to deny that these fears are reasonable shows a lack of acknowledgment of the legitimacy of those fears. Time and time again we seek to encourage communities to take responsibility for offending by their community members.

The Wanganui District Council has led a response to a situation that exists in many provincial cities around the country. This bill came about part-way through an 18-month campaign of gang violence involving stabbings, beatings, drive-by shootings, and attacks in the streets and suburbs and the CBD of Wanganui. People were intimidated by the sight of gang members who were patched and in close proximity. To minimise this quite reasonable response to 18 months of violence, which culminated in the death of an innocent 2-year-old, and to try to segregate responsibility or sectionalise the right to intervene, is not a helpful stance in dealing with what is a generic gang problem. Gangs and gang offending is not a Māori problem. It is not a Pacific Island problem. It is not an Asian or Pākehā problem. It is a problem for all New Zealanders, and in Wanganui we do not resile from our responsibilities.

There are some problems with this bill. There is a wide interpretation of the term “gang insignia”, which could include tattoos, for instance, and this should be sorted out at the Law and Order Committee. But this bill should not be prevented from proceeding to that end. I commend the bill to the House, and I look forward to full support from responsible members of Parliament in moving this bill through to the select committee.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) Link to this

I rise to support the referral of this bill to the Law and Order Committee. I am very proud, obviously, to be part of a Government that has a plan for the future and is absolutely committed to protecting Kiwis, their families, and their communities. Very obviously, we are committed to a safe environment for families, young people, old people, and other members of our communities.

Indeed, I acknowledge—and Chester Borrows would say the same thing, I think—that banning gangs or patches is not in itself a solution to the gang violence problem. But I do acknowledge that the bill raises some very important issues, and I think that the submission process at the select committee will be very, very useful, as we engage together in terms of addressing this particular issue.

Looking at the bill itself, I want to—dare I say it—give praise to Chester Borrows. I found it interesting to read the background in terms of what other countries are doing. I think the select committee members will find it quite interesting to see what is being done in other jurisdictions to address the issue of gangs and gang insignia, gang patches, and that kind of thing. We have certainly been given examples relating to the United States, England, Wales, and Europe. I myself, along with others, was in the state of Utah last year. I talked to the Utah authorities about the significant gang problem they have in Salt Lake City, in particular with some of the ethnic gangs and some of the second and third generation sons and daughters of migrants, and, particularly—interestingly enough—from some of our Pacific Island nations. We heard about some of the work that has been done, and about the issue of gang insignia, uniforms, and that kind of thing, which was also important. I note also the reference to England, Germany, and Wales, etc. The bill’s general policy statement gives those of us who are not residents of Wanganui or do not have a connection with Wanganui some context and background, but I suspect that the select committee will be looking at this issue in terms of the rest of the country.

I certainly do not want to get into a slanging match with other members of Parliament tonight, but I believe—and I do not think it is rocket science—that people should be able to live in a community and feel comfortable. They should be able to live in a community and not have a sense or a hint of intimidation or be intimidated. Where certain forms of insignia are used in a way that will intimidate people, then that goes beyond the fundamental rights in this country of freedom of speech and freedom of movement. I think anyone suggesting that we do not have a serious gang issue in this country is denying reality. We are not alone in this. We are not the only country that has issues with gangs.

I note a comment that says: “Some members of the Mongrel Mob say gangs can live in New Zealand peacefully, and banning patches is not the way to stop the violence.” In itself, that might be correct. This bill may be part of a broad suite of measures.

Gang members told a Prison Fellowship conference at the weekend that they are teaching young people in the gang about a life without crime. I am very sceptical of that, because from what I have seen, in terms of the evidence, the actual rhetoric does not match the record and the behaviour. So I am very sorry but I am a sceptic regarding that statement. They said they have “encouraged many young people to get into employment schemes and to get involved in their community”, and they said “The bill being taken to Parliament to ban gang patches and insignia in parts of Wanganui will not resolve tension.” They continued: “The Mongrel Mob members say that the recent gang-related fatal shooting of a 2-year-old girl in Wanganui undermines the good work they are doing.” Forgive me, but I say respectfully that I am a big sceptic of that statement. I have seen no evidence of that yet. Frankly, the gangs that have names such as the Mongrel Mob and Black Power are not walking the walk, talking the talk, and there is very clear evidence of that. If members talk to the New Zealand Police, and to the serious crime unit in my neck of the woods in Hamilton, they will hear that there is a very clear involvement of gangs and gang culture in serious crime in this country. So I certainly do not take those statements at face value.

I also recognise that in itself Chester Borrows’ bill is not the complete answer, but at least in terms of this Parliament it starts a very serious discussion. I think that we will be richer, and the select committee will be richer, if we seriously consider this bill. I also acknowledge the Wanganui District Council and the support of the New Zealand Police Association, which says that the bill is a reflection of what frontline police think about gangs and gang activity. Indeed, I quote from a New Zealand Press Association report of a letter to the Wanganui District Council from the president of the New Zealand Police Association, Greg O’Connor: “The Association applauds the efforts of the Council to assist in your attempt to show the citizens of Wanganui that overt gang behaviour will not be tolerated. We believe a successful law in your city could become the model for the country.” Indeed, we note that.

RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this

I rise to signal to the House that New Zealand First will, of course, support Chester Borrows’ bill, the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill. [ Interruption] The Māori Party leader, our respected Tariana Turia, says that of course we will, and she is correct—of course we would support such a bill. Before I commence my speech I say “well done” to Chester. He has done well in the sense that he has brought to the House legislation that the majority of Wanganui wants passed. I think the first thing we need to reflect on before we discuss the pros and cons of the bill is a simple principle and a simple fact: we live in a democracy.

I digress briefly, I have just attended the order of service for the launch of the 2008 Poppy Day appeal and Poppies on Parliament hosted by the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs, the Hon Rick Barker and supported by the Returned and Services Association. In fact, most of them are still standing on the forecourt right now. The men and women who made those sacrifices, not just in World War I and World War II but going back as far as the Boer War, did so in order to give us a nation that is free, a democracy, and to give us the rights—

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. You know, sometimes I have to remind myself that it is election year this year and that we can expect that gangs, graffiti, and anything else that upsets the wider public will be paramount in this House and that members will vote for it on that basis. But segregation on the basis of insignia has a tragic history dating to before World War II, in which particular groups targeted for extermination by the Nazi regime were categorised according to specific signs and symbols. Each prisoner was treated according to the coloured triangle that represented his or her status in the social hierarchy of the concentration camps. A green triangle marked the prisoner as a criminal; political prisoners wore a red triangle; two yellow triangles designated a Jewish prisoner; and the pink triangle was for homosexuals. A yellow Star of David under a pink triangle marked the lowest of the low: a gay Jew. Today many of those symbols have been reclaimed by these groups as a marker of pride, of solidarity, of unity, and of the ultimate resistance against an oppressive regime that forced them out.

I have been thinking of this history as I consider the move to authorise the Wanganui District Council to outlaw people whose crime, in the context of this bill, is to wear gang insignia—the signs and symbols that demonstrate their membership of a particular group. In this bill, particular groups are targeted for segregation, yet it is interesting to note that many gang organisations are in fact exempted from this legislation. When a bill starts to list specific groups for targeting there is always the danger in that in listing some it misses out others. The sponsor of the bill should either list all of the 88 gangs that may come into this territory as part of its target group or, at the very least, provide a justification for why certain groups are named and others are not.

The key issue is that all this bill does is exclude, suppress, prohibit, and ban. All it does is close our eyes and put up walls to force our problems out of sight and out of mind. Banning people by virtue of the bulldog on their back will not address the real issues that this bill is supposedly about. If the problem is violence, then let us work together on strategies amongst our communities to achieve mauri ora for all the whānau. If the problem is criminal offending, then there are laws to address that, too, so let us look into the causes of crimes in the first instance, be they poverty, racism, alienation, unemployment, or drug and alcohol abuse.

The problem, according to the title of this bill, appears to be more about the dress code of gangs than it is about the behaviour of its members. Let us be quite clear. We cannot simply push people out of town and hope that the extent of violence and offending amongst some of our communities will disappear. We must face up to the problems without focusing on the clothes gang members wear. We have heard people talk here today about the behaviour of gang members, of the rape and all the dreadful crimes they commit. I am certainly not here to defend any of that behaviour, but it would be interesting to talk with Women’s Refuge to find out who in fact commits the majority of rapes in this country. We might be surprised to find that it is not necessarily the gang members.

I am aware that even on the council that is promoting this bill there has been heated opposition to it from councillors Barbara Bullock, Sue Westwood, and Ray Stevens. I mihi to their leadership in speaking out against this bill while at the same time making a commitment to address any issues that are associated with gang activities in Wanganui. I support that.

The Māori Party will not support a bill that targets gang regalia or young people as the problem without looking at a comprehensive strategy to restore peace to our communities. I have lived in Wanganui all my life, and, you know, it is actually quite rare to see the gangs uptown in Wanganui. It is not something that happens every day. In fact, members of the business community came out and said it was not the most significant issue for them. So maybe we should talk to the people who are most affected by this behaviour, rather than deciding that prohibiting people from wearing particular clothes will make one iota of difference. It will not.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this

I will take just a short call on the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill to advise the House that the Green Party will be opposing it, as we made very clear when the issue was first raised. We have heard a lot of speeches from people supporting the bill saying it is not actually a solution to the problem. This begs the question of why the House is wasting its time and good public money—taxpayers’ money—in promoting and dealing with a bill that will not be effective at what it is trying to achieve.

The fact is that this is a feel-good mechanism by National—very similar to the sorts of things that Labour does, actually—that looks good but does nothing. It will not solve the problems with gangs because those problems are significantly more complex than one’s fashion sense. Frankly, the bill does not deal with the issue of what a gang is. It identifies a particular subset of gangs—those that wear patches—as being the problem. What about all those other gangs that cause problems? What about the members of white power gangs, for example, who do not wear patches but have their own funny little uniform of no hair, big boots, and tight pants? What will this House do about them? Will it ban boots and tight pants? Will it ban the shaving of people’s heads? No, the House cannot do that because it will not be effective. It could not possibly do that. So why should we pick on just the gangs that we can identify through their patches? The answer to that is that it is easy and it sounds good to the public. What about all those gangs of young guys that roam around rolling people? Those gang members do not wear a uniform. They do not wear anything that identifies them. They operate as a little group; they commit crimes as a group, working together to roll somebody or to steal something. What will this House do about that? What will National do about that? Frankly, it will do nothing.

Ron Mark described the opposition to this bill as being somehow anti-democratic. Apparently we are not allowed even to have an opinion about issues like this. The parties that are opposing this bill are suggesting that there have to be other solutions that will work and that it is not good law to be promoting legislation that will fail. This bill will not do anything about gangs. It will not do anything at all. It will not deal with gangs because it focuses only on the very small selection of gangs that can be identified by patches. It is a completely useless waste of time and the public of this country and the ordinary communities deserve more from this House. The public deserves more from the people it elects to make laws. It deserves to see us put our efforts into laws that will actually be effective. The members of all of those parties that vote for this bill should be ashamed of themselves—ashamed of the waste of time, ashamed of the waste of money, ashamed of the discrimination that this bill implies, and ashamed about their frankly useless approach to trying to deal with the serious issues of crime in our community.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) Link to this

I am so pleased that Mr Chester Borrows has relieved me of the obligation of voting for this shocking Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill. I said that the ACT party would vote for the bill to go to a select committee. We could never vote for its third reading, but I thought the debate would be useful. But now Labour, in a fit of “election-itis”, is voting for the bill. So I have been to see Mr Borrows, who has kindly said I can vote against it, which I feel so much better about.

This bill is right up there with the “Let’s Get Rid of Spray Cans in Manukau Bill” for all the same reasons. It does not address anything like the problem we confront with gangs. It will not work. The promoter of the bill knows that it will not work. Members of Labour and New Zealand First, who are voting for the bill, know that it will not work. If they had any courage of their convictions that this bill will work, they would make it nationwide so that patches could not be worn from Kaitāia to Bluff. We have the absurdity that, supposedly, gang members can wear their patches everywhere in New Zealand, bar Wanganui, and that somehow that is good lawmaking. I think the bill should be renamed the “Let’s Elect Chester to Be the MP for Wanganui Bill”, because that is its purpose. It is about a member standing up for his local constituents, but actually Parliament should be bigger than that.

Let us cut to the principles, and I want the National Party to think about principles. National members stood up and huffed and puffed about free speech for MPs, and spoke about that being a fundamental right. Yet suddenly one cannot wear something on one’s T-shirt.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this

I rise to support Chester Borrows in his efforts with the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill. In his first term in Parliament, Mr Borrows has acted on the wishes of his local district council and introduced this bill to try to do something about a problem that the council believes is of major concern to that community.

In a time when we have seen violent crime rise by 43 percent since Labour took office; in a time when we have seen an organised crime strategy as the proposal to deal with some of these issues, a strategy that has only recently been formalised, finalised, and released; at a time when we have seen no legislative amendments at all from this Government to deal with gang problems, Mr Borrows is doing something about the problem. By promoting this bill Mr Borrows is acting on the wishes of his local community so that it can go to a select committee for submissions and further discussion.

I listened carefully to the comments made by Mr Hide and the Hon Tariana Turia, and it is correct that the bill is not without fish-hooks.

LESLEY SOPER (Labour) Link to this

I rise to take a short call on the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill and commence by informing Mr Hide that I am very proud to wear the patch of the New Zealand Labour Party because Labour has a plan for the future, which is to address the causes of antisocial behaviour. Labour is committed to protecting Kiwis, their families, and their communities. We have already shown that through such things as Te Rito, the family anti-violence strategy. We are committed to a safe environment for families. I commend Mr Burrows for bringing his bill to the House; I will support it to go to the select committee for consideration.

It is some years now since my city of Invercargill had a very serious and well-publicised gang problem, which the Invercargill City Council struggled to deal with. That time involved a lot of intimidation and fear in the local community, the building of some very high walls around rival gang headquarters, and some fairly violent confrontations between well-identified rival gangs in the city. That violence and fear spilled out into neighbourhoods, into the communities surrounding those gang headquarters, and into the streets the gangs roared down in their rival cars.

This bill empowers a council, the Wanganui District Council in this case, to approve by-laws that designate specified places where gang insignia may not be worn or displayed. Parliament actually has a duty to examine proposals that come from local councils, and local members have a duty to bring those forward. Local bills should be debated. Banning gangs or patches is not in itself a solution to the gang violence problem, but we have a duty as a Parliament to allow local bills to come forward, to go to a select committee, and to be fairly and appropriately looked at, at that level. On that basis, I join my colleagues in supporting this bill to go to the select committee for consideration. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

KATE WILKINSON (National) Link to this

I too rise today to speak in support of the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill at its first reading. It has been mentioned that although it is a locally drafted bill reflecting local conditions in Wanganui and championed by my colleague the member for Whanganui, Chester Borrows, it is an issue that, I believe, will be closely monitored by other regions and councils around the country that, like Wanganui, are also affected by the presence of gangs and gang activity on a regular basis. I know that this is not an uncontentious bill. Not everyone agrees with it, but it at least deserves scrutiny.

The purpose of the bill, as has been stated, is to prohibit the wearing of gang insignia in specified places in the district of the Wanganui District Council. Gang members are already prevented from wearing their gang patches in public places, including court houses, petrol stations, and police stations. That is not so different from what the Wanganui District Council wants to achieve with the bill: banning patches in the city centre and local parks.

Yes, there is a fear of what comes next—the banning of anything that might be vaguely intimidating, such as burkas and hoodies. That is certainly worth considering. But this bill is a start. It is at least starting the debate. The prohibition of gang insignia is a field we should be looking at. It is debatable and National believes we should debate it.

Wanganui residents have expressed fear of patched gang members, including those from the Mongrel Mob, Black Power, and Hell’s Angels gangs, all three of which are prominent in some neighbourhoods, shopping centres, parks, and central business districts. This fear was expressed clearly in the results of a local referendum in early 2007 whereby 64 percent of voters in Wanganui approved of the intentions of this bill.

Who could forget the fatal shooting of 2-year-old Jhia Te Tua as she slept on a couch in the lounge of her parents’ house in May last year? This poor child got caught up in Wanganui’s gang wars between two of the gangs, and none of it was of her own making. She paid for it with her life. We must make it clear, however, that this bill was initiated before that tragedy and is not a knee-jerk reaction to it.

I also praise the efforts of the New Zealand Police, whose increased presence in Wanganui, policing gang activity in the wake of that incident, substantially reduced crime. Their presence has also made it clear that antisocial criminal activity shown by members who are involved in or with the gangs will not be tolerated. The question that we must ask is what will happen when the spotlight is removed from Wanganui once the trial has been conducted and completed. Will the police be able to police the gangs with the same intensity as has been displayed so far?

There is no doubt that if we want to get tough on crime we need to crack down on gangs. The police are in total agreement. They view this legislation as another tool in the tool box, making it easier for them to do their job. Yes, there are those who portray gangs as a mix of those from the school of hard knocks searching for an identity or for a family substitute, and for where they can find the sense of belonging and connection they are lacking. But it is also arguable that some gangs exist to plan and commit crime. The links of many gang members to crime are plain for us all to see.

I want to make it perfectly clear that the wearing of gang insignia is not the only factor that makes gang members intimidating, nor will the banning of gang insignia in the city centre and parks within Wanganui completely rid the city of gang activity. What it will do, hopefully, is allow the residents of Wanganui to reclaim their streets in order to go about their business without fear or trepidation. This bill is a small step. It may give the police the extra tools they need in order to take direct enforcement action and stop any perceived or real intimidation to public safety.

The bill raises some issues that need to be dealt with during the select committee process. Issues such as enforcement, the tattooing of gang insignia on faces, and freedom of speech have been mentioned, just to name a few. There is a concern that by banning gang patches we are simply glorifying the patch and what is symbolises. But I hope that the Law and Order Committee will be able to take a serious look at the bill, seriously debate it, seriously examine it, and seriously consider the issues. On that basis, National supports the bill going to select committee scrutiny.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this

I am very pleased to stand at the end of this debate on the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill, which I know will draw insurmountable support. Yet I am sorry that the bill has not received the support of all parties, and I wish to address some of the matters raised in the debate on it. I heard the speech by the Hon Tariana Turia and the comments she made, without malice, that the groups persecuted in World War II also wore insignia and were persecuted for the insignia they wore. But we have to point out that what separates the Mongrel Mob, Black Power, and Hell’s Angels from the groups persecuted in World War II is that the gangs apply their own insignia, whereas those groups in World War II had the insignia applied by the Germans who went on to persecute them. The suggestion that the Mongrel Mob, Black Power, and Hell’s Angels fit into the same class as persecuted Jews does not wash.

There are very few laws created by this House that fully address the problems to which they are targeted. Does the legislation that criminalises murder and rape prevent killing and sexual abuse? No, it does not, and it is ridiculous to suggest that it does. So is it then stupid to suggest that legislation targeted towards a particular issue in a community is wrong? This legislation is a tool desired by the police and Wanganui people to be applied to the population, or the community, residing in Wanganui, just as the legislation that bans other criminal behaviour is a tool used to combat that behaviour.

Mr Rodney Hide said that the successful passage of this bill would see gang members not being allowed to wear patches in Wanganui, but they could wear them anywhere else. It probably comes as no surprise to him that a lot of gang members stop to take off their patches before they enter another town and put them back on when they leave it, because, what do you know, they are outnumbered and intimidated by the members of other gangs and the patches they wear. Gang members take off their patches when they enter other towns and put them back on when they leave.

I have had a lot to do with gangs over the years. I have had a few scraps. I have had my police car pelted with bottles and clubs as gang members have run across the road towards me, and I was scared stiff. I have been surrounded in gang headquarters and fought my retreat relatively honourably, with a bloody nose and the odd bruise to show for it. At other times I have sat down, had a cup of coffee, and nutted out protocols for engagement with gangs. I am under no illusions about gangs.

I am pleased the Labour Party has seen good sense in supporting this bill. I am under no illusions about that either, necessarily, and I would have liked to think that Labour would support this legislation earlier in the election cycle.

This bill was initiated and drafted by the Wanganui District Council, which did all it could to obtain—and it did obtain—local support for the measure even before the mandatory public process started. It cannot be legislated that all voters in a community will turn out on voting day and vote in a referendum, but in this case over half of them did, and over 65 percent of those who turned out supported the proposal that this bill be forwarded to Parliament for enactment. Only after that did the council put the bill through the public process, where the public were again given the opportunity to comment on the bill’s process—which they did. Yes, there are people who are concerned about the progress of this bill through the House. A lot of them are business people, who are concerned about the effect on their businesses. However, it is often the case that when a community accepts and owns that it has a problem, and take steps in a public manner to take responsibility for that problem, then it draws the attention of others who, without seeing the logs in their own eyes, manage to discern the specks in others’. That is the situation that Wanganui finds itself in.

I am pleased to be the sponsor of this bill from the Wanganui District Council.