Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this

I move, That the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill be now read a second time. Now that this bill has returned to the House for its second reading I wish again to reiterate that I do not believe that it alone can solve the gang problem that exists in Wanganui, let alone in New Zealand, or vice versa. Anyone who argues that gang culture in New Zealand is not as rife as it is serious is kidding himself or herself.

Over recent years we have seen an increased level of gang-related activity and confrontation, both nationwide and within Wanganui, and in most other provincial cities around New Zealand. Probably the most widely known story in respect of Wanganui is the story of little Jhia Te Tua, who was fatally shot as she slept on a couch in her parents’ house. Why? The bullet was meant for her Black Power member father, and she was in the wrong place at the wrong time, even though she was sleeping on a couch in her home, where, but for the gang membership of her parents, one would have expected her to be safe.

I take this opportunity to commend those police officers who were involved in Operation 55, which recently concluded with a total of 12 men being put in jail for the part they played in this tragic incident, which resulted in the loss of life of a small and innocent child. It is interesting to note that the scorn heaped upon the police and their investigation by members of this House and the media at the time of the investigation has not, since those convictions, been replaced by the grateful thanks of members of this House and the media and an acknowledgment that a job was very well done in the investigation of that inquiry.

This bill was proposed and drafted by the Wanganui District Council and put to the people of Wanganui. Over half of the community turned out to vote, and of that group more than 65 percent supported these proposals. They are the people who endure the sight of patched gang members in close proximity to their homes and families. No doubt they think of innocent victims like Jhia Te Tua as these gang members walk past their children on the street. It is interesting to note that the Wanganui District Council conducted a survey on safety amongst young people. The most significant and prime fear that those young people have, as it was reported to the Law and Order Committee, was intimidation from gangs, and pressure to become involved in gangs.

The New Zealand Police Association has supported the bill’s proposals from the outset. Our police officers, who patrol our streets and compromise their own safety to keep us safe, are telling us that in their view this legislation is one of the ubiquitous tools in the tool box that make it easier for them to do their jobs. They are the ones who have to enforce the legislation. The President of the New Zealand Police Association, Greg O’Connor, rightly stated that there is not one initiative on its own that will disempower gangs, but a series of small things can be done that will serve to diminish the standing of gangs in the eyes of those who have intimidated or who seek to intimidate people.

The bill has now been through the Law and Order Committee, which recommended that the bill be passed with amendments. We have always been happy to open the debate, to hear the evidence, and to accept that the bill did not commence without its flaws. This is all part of the democratic process, and we do live in a democracy.

Under the Local Government Act 2002 the power is conferred upon councils to make bylaws for the purposes of protecting the public from nuisance; protecting, promoting, and maintaining public health and safety; and minimising the potential for offensive behaviour in public places. The powers available under the Act clearly anticipate that communities would—and should, I might add—seek to find local solutions to local problems, and this is what we seek to do. The bill seeks to decrease intimidation and the likelihood of violence by creating what is known colloquially as neutral turf. We have already enabled this in hotels, courts, and hospitals, and it is far from uncommon to see signs displayed in the windows of bars and pubs banning the wearing of gang insignia within the establishment. So why do we not extend that ban further?

It is also common, and it has become the rule of thumb, that there is acceptance of those rules—that gang members voluntarily remove their patches as they go into those premises. That is what they do when they want to obtain access to those venues, whether they be rock concert venues, hotels, or the buildings they need to visit.

We are now living in a time when the wearing of colours such as red and blue is such an issue that kids cannot wear them to schools because the colours are perceived to be gang colours. Around New Zealand we have schools—right down to those at primary school level—that ban the wearing of certain colours because they are identified as showing an allegiance to gangs. That allegiance is usually wrong, but in any event that is what is happening in our schools and cities around this country, and certainly not just in Wanganui. This is how out of control the gang problem has become.

I faced some strong opposition to this bill during its first reading. The Hon Tariana Turia made the point that the only thing this bill would do would be to exclude, suppress, prohibit, and ban, and would not address the real issues behind gang culture. To some extent, the first part of that statement is accurate. We do seek to exclude, suppress, prohibit, and ban, but we do so not because we seek to jeopardise the rights of those who wish to affiliate themselves with a group, to dress in the way they wish, or to in any way introduce legislation that is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—although there may be some contravention—but because we believe that it is a small but vital step in working towards countering the escalating street violence and intimidation that is a result of gang versus gang conflict, which affects those who have to witness it because of the communities they find themselves living in, usually without the opportunity or option of moving somewhere else.

In 2004 in Wanganui there were 11 such incidents in public places; by 2006 that number had risen to 48. One can only speculate about what that figure could be if we do not take this action now, bearing in mind that with the death of Jhia Te Tua a lot of gang activity ceased almost instantaneously, probably because of the death of a gang member—an event all those gang members could relate to because they want to maintain the safety of those they care about—but also because a dozen of the Mongrel Mob went to jail, and others of Black Power were on remand on similar charges to those for which the Mongrel Mob members found themselves in jail.

During the course of the debate in the select committee, consideration was given to definitions of gang insignia and to whether those definitions would include tattoos. Various parties across the House voted in differing ways, and no doubt that will form the subject of debate within the Committee of the whole House stage.

Amendments were made to allow, for instance, for the stopping of vehicles in public places in which gang insignia are seen, and to extend the definition of public place to include vehicles within a public place. There is the need, under the bill, to denote by signposting the areas the provisions of the bill will relate to, and which public places—whether they be streets or parks and reserves. Obviously, the definitions that relate to “gang”, and the way it will be defined and added to the schedule to which this legislation will relate, were also part of the discussions. The penalties for non-compliance are a $2,000 fine and confiscation of the gang patch. Along with that are the power to seize and the power to dispose of seized gang insignia.

The suggestion was raised by members of the then Government—now the Opposition—that we should wait and see, after an investigation and scrutiny, how legislation introduced in South Australia will impact on the gang situation there. The point the Wanganui District Council wishes to outline in support of its local bill is that introducing, accepting, and passing this bill does not in any way inhibit what action may be taken later on down the track after such scrutiny has taken place, in regard to what is relatively new legislation introduced to South Australia and to how well it may affect, or be used as yet another tool in the tool box in, New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this

The first thing I want to do is to commend the previous speaker, as the local member, for bringing forward a local bill. I also commend the Wanganui District Council for its efforts, as Mr Borrows himself said, to deal as locals with a local and substantial problem. But I think there are some difficulties with the bill, and I think Mr Borrows alluded to one of them when he said that Wanganui has probably had its fair share of gang difficulties. But he also said that Wanganui is like many other provincial cities in this country that have to deal with this sort of gang activity.

I make no excuses for gangs. They are abhorrent; they have caused tragedies, as Mr Borrows has alluded to, in the youngest members of our population. I do not subscribe to the view—and I know that my colleague Shane Jones does not subscribe to the view—that these gangs endear themselves somehow to Māori culture. The senior kaumātua and kuia whom I have spoken to, and the Māori members on this side of the House, would be of the view that gangs degrade Māori culture—they degrade any culture—and that they are unacceptable. I look at Ms Turia and others who have somehow become apologists for these gangs, and I invite her to go back to her community and ask those many members of her community who have had tragedy visited upon them and who have lost loved ones, whether they feel that somehow the Mongrel Mob or Black Power endear themselves to Māori culture.

I say also that there have indeed been National members who have identified—I think appropriately—that there are difficulties with this bill, and of itself I do not believe that it will address the underlying problem, which is of dealing to gangs. It deals to an issue of insignia and clothing, as it were—and I do not mean that with any disrespect—but it does not deal with the underlying problem with gangs, which is that of violence and intimidation. I note that Kate Wilkinson herself, in the Eastern Bay News on 17 May 2007, said that with banning gangs, “the difficulty was defining the bad gang.”

Well, I have some difficulty with that, because I think that Mr Borrows, quite rightly, and everybody, could define a bad gang. Does Ms Wilkinson not understand that the Mongrel Mob is a bad gang, or that the Headhunters is a bad gang, or that Black Power is a bad gang—

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) Link to this

I am delighted to rise and follow my most excellent colleague Chester Borrows, who makes a huge contribution to this Parliament and supports the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill, which is a local bill. I recently had the pleasure of my brother and his wife visiting and staying with us for a few weeks from New York, where they currently live. They were telling me how former Mayor Giuliani of New York put a peg in the ground, and took a stand of a zero tolerance approach. Now my brother is able to walk the streets of New York at night, without being afraid for his life. People can now comfortably walk the streets of New York because of the zero tolerance approach taken by Mayor Giuliani. I applaud Mayor Michael Laws, who has also finally put a peg in the ground and taken a zero tolerance approach. He is promoting this local bill, and I say good on him. He is supported by the majority of his constituents and his council. They are saying that enough is enough, and they are putting a peg in the ground; hence this bill, and rightly so.

You know, there may be some problems with the bill, but we do not get anywhere by just sitting on the fence and not taking a stand. This is sending a signal; it is taking a stand. Liquor bans have worked up and down the country. A lot of councils are adopting liquor bans because they work, and likewise will the prohibition of gang insignia. The problem with this is that there is not a schedule whereby other councils could add their names to this bill, so that they can also become part of the process. Then they could adopt the provisions of this legislation and say that they likewise are going to be a council that will ban gang insignia in specified areas in their community. I am sure that there will be a number of other councils watching the progress and implementation of this bill to see how it works, and they may then call for the ability to include themselves in the provisions of this bill.

Let us face it: communities are calling out for this. They want this, and they do not want to be caught in gang crossfire. Members of communities want to be able to go to places where they will not feel intimidated or threatened by people who are wearing insignia and whose behaviour is unacceptable. The very wearing of insignia can be quite intimidating, and I do not think anyone would disagree with that. I would like to see somebody stand up and try to disagree with that. Wanganui’s Mayor, Michael Laws, was absolutely incensed at the murder of Jhia Te Tua by three patched Mongrel Mob members. It was the death of a child caught in the crossfire that had such a huge impact on him and his community. There are gangs throughout New Zealand, but they congregate in some places more than others and Wanganui is one of those places.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this

It is a pleasure to follow Mrs Goudie. I thought her speech was heading towards her saying that the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill was to become a Government bill. If she is so enthusiastic about it and thinks that it is such a fantastic idea, why has it not been picked up as a Government bill? When Labour was in Government, we did that with the graffiti legislation and the boy racer legislation. I suspect that one of the reasons it has not been picked up as a Government bill is that not everyone on the Government side of the House really supports it. My colleague Clayton Cosgrove has already mentioned Kate Wilkinson’s views about it. At the National Party northern region annual general meeting in 2006, Richard Worth said “Efforts to ban gang patches, while well intentioned may in fact aid some gang’s deliberate efforts to lower their profile.” I think there is some dissension on the other side of the House. We certainly know that during the first reading of the bill, the ACT Party members were totally opposed to it. They were going to support it through to the Law and Order Committee, in order to have a debate, but Rodney Hide said that he was totally opposed to it. As the debate goes on tonight, I will be very interested to see what kind of support the ACT Party gives it.

We have a serious problem with crime committed by gangs. We have a serious problem with violence in our towns and cities, and that needs a serious response to those issues; a serious response, not a cosmetic response. With great respect for the people of Wanganui, I am sad to say that this bill represents a cosmetic response to those problems. I understand and I care about the concerns of the people of Wanganui regarding violence, but I do not believe that this bill is going to meet those concerns.

I congratulate Chester Borrows, as the local member, on bringing this bill through. It is a local bill, built of local concerns. As a local member, he has done the right thing in bringing it through to the House. But I believe it is flawed. It is flawed because the patches that gang members wear do not commit the crime. The patches do not perpetrate the violence; it is the people. We have to work as a community, right across New Zealand, on the causes of crime. In the Wanganui police district in 2007 there were 1,000 domestic violence incidents. If we are really serious about addressing the causes of violence and crime around the country, we need to go to those root causes. We do not need to make cosmetic responses, because they will not work and they actually lead the public astray in terms of what is possible and what is achievable.

Taking a piecemeal and ad hoc approach to these sorts of laws is the wrong way to go. Any criminal lawyer worth his or her salt will say that we should not make criminal law on a region-by-region basis. All that does is shift problems around. It simply shifts the problem from one region to another, creating confusion for the justice system. It is not the way to address these sorts of issues. The Government should be taking an overall approach to this issue. My colleague Clayton Cosgrove has already talked about some of the work that we have done, and we are looking into what is happening in South Australia. We need to ensure that we look at those examples, test them, see what works, and come up with a comprehensive plan for New Zealand as a whole. The Wanganui district has a problem with some of the violence and crime perpetrated by gangs, but it will not be solved by a piecemeal and ad hoc approach that simply pushes crime around the region.

I note that the issue of definitions in this bill presents some problems. The bill talks about public areas and public spaces, and the council will define those. But the council will not ensure that there are no gang patches in Castlecliff, Gonville, Tawhero, or anywhere like that. The council will not be looking at those places; it will be looking at the centre of town. In the end, all that is doing is papering over the problem, wishing it away by saying “We will take a cosmetic solution”. The Wanganui District Council has defined the problem, but this response is not the answer. As we know, patches are only one part of gang insignia. My colleague across the House Chester Borrows has already mentioned the issue of the colours red and blue, which are familiar to those of us in the House. But if we are going to move down the path of saying what an insignia is—a colour, a scarf, another form of clothing, or some sort of jewellery—then in the end we get ourselves into the problem of definition, and that will not do anything to reduce crime and violence in Wanganui.

We know from the bill and from the select committee debate that the definitions around gangs, gang insignia, and public places are complicated and difficult issues. While the committee no doubt laboured hard to come up with definitions that would provide some certainty, I believe it has not been able to do that in this bill. As a result, the Labour Party is opposing the bill. We are opposing it because we do not believe that it is a solution to the problem of gang violence and gang intimidation. We need to start right at the beginning and stop people from joining gangs, and we need to do that by ensuring that we work on building strong families and whānau right across New Zealand. We need to ensure that they get the services they need, they live in warm, dry homes, they get their children to school, they are supported to keep involved in our communities, and they feel like they have a place in our communities. I will never stand up in this House and defend gangs of the type that are talked about in this bill, but I will stand up in this House and say that the people who join those gangs should not be there in the first place. We as a community should be taking some responsibility for ensuring that we create the kind of society that those people are included in and want to be a part of.

Once again I say to Chester Borrows that he has brought this bill before the House as a good local member, but, unfortunately, it will not solve the problems of gang violence and gang crime in the Wanganui district. It will merely paper over the cracks, and, unfortunately, the Labour Party cannot support it. Thank you.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this

The Green Party will oppose the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill. We opposed it at the first reading and we will continue to do so. During the first reading debate a number of comments were made by those who support the bill. Members said they would continue to support it even though they admitted that it would do nothing to deal with gang violence—particularly in Wanganui, but anywhere else—that it would not address the real concerns around the behaviour of gang members in public areas, and that it would not constrain gangs in any of their activities. None the less, they wanted to find a cosmetic way—as it has been described—of making some show to the public that they were taking the gang issue seriously. That raises the very real question of the waste of taxpayers’ resources on dealing with legislation—at the select committee, as we debate it now, and then with its implementation—when those who support this legislation know that it will not work.

Chester Borrows raised the case of the child who was killed in Wanganui. He knows that this bill would not have saved that child. It would not have saved that child, nor will it save any child or person who is the subject of violence or gang violence. This bill will not protect a single member of any of our communities, let alone those communities in Wanganui that are suffering and are the subject of this overblown approach to the real issues of gang violence in those areas. This bill is not just ineffective and a waste of taxpayers’ money; it also provides for a significant breach of the rights of citizens. We are not necessarily talking here about the rights of gang members, which is always what the proponents of this bill are talking about, but about the fact that under this bill ordinary citizens will suffer a serious breach of their rights as citizens of this country.

The bill has failed a human rights vetting for a range of reasons. The human rights vetting talked about the bill having a tenuous connection to the goal of reducing the intimidation of members of the public by gangs—a tenuous connection to the goal—but, despite the Law and Order Committee having tried to find ways to soften that breach, the bill none the less continues to breach the human rights of citizens of this country. There are serious issues just with the definition of “gang”. The bill does not necessarily define gangs, although it provides a list of gangs. One of the issues in the public mind is that gangs are traditionally characterised as Māori gangs. Much of the public discourse about gangs and gang violence is not related to the motorcycle gangs, the punk gangs—

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) Link to this

Before getting into the speech I have prepared on the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill, I will address some comments made by the previous speaker that were, frankly, just plain incorrect. I do not know what her knowledge of gang culture is—and I use that word “culture” in quotes—but I have visited a few headquarters in my time. When I was at the Magog Motorcycle Club clubhouse in New Plymouth some years ago, it was an all-white gang. The Mothers Motor-cycle Club of Palmerston North, I believe, does not permit Māori members. I do not think we would find a Māori member of the Hell’s Angels, either. They are all white gangs, and they are all targeted by this bill. There is not a focus on Māori gangs, and I dispute the member’s claim that in the public mind the word “gang” is synonymous with Māori gang. That may be some people’s view, but anyone who knows a bit about them knows that claim is simply incorrect.

I will ask for indulgence at the start if my pronunciation is not perfect, but tā moko, as I understand it, has absolutely nothing to do with a clenched fist tattooed on the side of someone’s face, or with a barking dog with a spiked collar and a German helmet. These are the sorts of tattoos we are talking about. They are not the koru on the planes of Air New Zealand, but deliberately intimidating tattoos that are designed to put people off and to frighten them.

I am rising to speak on this bill and to support it. I would like first, if I may, to pay tribute to the sponsor of this bill, Chester Borrows. As more senior members of this House will be aware, ACT voted against this bill at its first reading last year. We did so not because we supported gangs but because of a concern that innocent New Zealanders could be caught up in its provisions. I must say that I think Ms Turei makes a very valid point, unfortunately. I do not mean that sarcastically against her, but the removal of patches per se may well cause confusion, and difficulties with scarves wrapped around hands and with the other kinds of tags that are used by these clowns. If only they were clowns. ACT was originally concerned that legitimate motorcycle enthusiasts, youth groups, and even church members could fall foul of this law, and so voted against it. Following the passage of the bill through the select committee process, Mr Borrows has sought our support for this bill, and has addressed many of our concerns.

One point needs to be made again very clearly, and on this I think I may differ from my colleague sitting in front of me, the Hon Tariana Turia. I guess by definition I am now referring to ethnic gangs. Gangs are not whānau. They are not clubs. They are not family substitutes. They are criminal organisations. They are methamphetamine-dealing, thieving, car-breaking, intimidating groups of people. That is what they are. They are criminals. They should, in fact, be illegal, but it seems to be too difficult for us to make them illegal. This is a good second step. It will target those who wear gang insignia, offensive gang patches, and other things, so I am happy to stand here today and to support the bill on behalf of my colleagues.

At the first reading the Hon Rodney Hide, who is now the Minister of Local Government, said correctly that this bill will not solve the problem of gangs. I think that anyone who thinks it could solve that problem would be incredibly naive. Indeed, the bill acknowledges in its explanatory note that it will not even solve the gang problem in Wanganui. But it will give, as Chester Borrows said, the police and local authorities more power to deal with this problem. It is another tool.

It is pleasing to see that the Law and Order Committee resisted the advice it received and opted to retain a schedule of gangs that will be targeted by the bill. Those are mainly the Mongrel Mob, Black Power, Hell’s Angels, Nomads, Tribesmen, Magogs, and the Mothers Motor-cycle Club. As I noted at the beginning of my speech, at least three of those gangs are, or at least were, exclusively white gangs.

The lowering of the maximum fine is also important. Since this Parliament began last December we have heard time and time again the figure of $700 million - odd in unpaid fines. Lowering the fine may make collection more manageable. Personally I would like to see a return to the days of a fine or, in default, 28 days in jail, but those are very unfashionable provisions these days.

The next amendment recommended by the Law and Order Committee, which I am sure will please the Minister of Local Government, is the inclusion of a new clause 9, which makes the police the sole enforcement agency under this legislation. That is very important. Gang members by their nature are more likely than the average New Zealander to be carrying a weapon and to engage in criminal activity. Council staff are simply not trained to deal in such a way with gang members, who often congregate in large groups. In my view council staff are in the same situation as our country’s fisheries officers—putting their lives on the line to keep the rule of law with little or no training or means to protect themselves. Increasingly, we see fisheries officers targeted and exposed to violence in their job.

Again, I thank Chester Borrows for his willingness to engage with ACT members, to respond to our concerns, and to talk to us about why he thinks this bill is a good idea. It will not solve all the problems. Other measures are required, including the “three strikes and you’re out” bill, which is at present before the Law and Order Committee.

I welcome Chester Borrows’ commitment to me to listen with an open mind to the reasons behind the “three strikes” legislation, and to give it his support along with the support of his fellow members if he can be convinced that it is, in fact, a good idea, and that many of the alarmist claims about that bill are simply without foundation. That legislation, if passed, will ensure that gang members, who are often among the worst recidivist and violent offenders, will be locked up for longer. It will ensure that criminals like Antonie Ronnie Dixon and William Bell will not walk our streets to kill again. We will not have any more William Bells. No one will get the chance to get 102 convictions before graduating to killer status. That bill will ensure that decent New Zealand families are spared the anguish of losing a loved one to a paroled killer.

Legislation passed by this Government on the “three strikes” policy—hopefully—on DNA sampling, and on this ban of gang patches, at least at this local level, will go some way toward keeping New Zealanders safe, which everyone in this House claims to be very keen on, and one would hope that they were. I commend this bill to the House, and I will support it on behalf of the ACT Party.

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

Sometimes in this House I think we hear everything, yet hear nothing of real substance, and I think that is a worry when we consider the cost to the taxpayer of running this House. I say first of all that the Māori Party has very, very serious concerns about the level of violence and criminal activity in all of our communities. We take that very seriously, and we are really concerned about it. If we thought for one moment that targeting seven gangs, three of which do not belong to Wanganui—interestingly, those are the three white gangs—and that the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill would make a real difference to the Wanganui community, we would support it today.

But there are 88 gangs in this country, and if members of this House genuinely believed that targeting gang insignia was one of the most important things we should do as legislators, then we would have thought that this legislation should be rolled out right around New Zealand. We would say that if members believe that this measure will work in Wanganui, how come we do not think it is important that we take it to every town in this country? Wanganui is not a gang city. I resent anybody in this House who makes the implication that it is a gang city.

I want to address the comments of my colleague who sits behind me that these people are not w’ānau—they are many other things. I want to say today, with considerable sadness in my heart, that the gang members in Wanganui are related to all of us who are of Wanganui descent. They are our w’ānau and we are deeply saddened that they have to find their comfort and their care outside of the w’anau environment. The big question for those of us who have our young people actively involved in these groups is why. What has happened to us in this country that we now have a phenomenon that does not come from our culture, and that does not come from this country? Why? And why do we have so much poverty in our communities that these people are able to offer our kids something that the rest of us clearly do not provide them with?

Although I accept that there may be elements within the gang culture that I do not support, I know that there are many things that we, as politicians—and others—profess to practise but do not. We do not open our doors. We do not care about the young and the dispossessed. We think that the only places where they can be cared for are the institutions of this country. If we were to listen to that member from ACT, we would hear that we would be better off if we locked up most of these people without taking into account the reasons that may have led them down the pathway to where they are today. We have a lot of work to do, as parliamentarians, to look at these issues and to find out why these things are happening. That is why I want to mihi to Simon Power, who is prepared to start to look at the reasons for criminal offending. There are reasons. There may not be excuses, but there are reasons why people go down this track. I am more concerned—and so is the Māori Party—to find out what those things are and what we should be doing to intervene, so that we can help people to become included as an important part of our communities.

I know that many groups that are called gangs have participated in our communities, supported our communities, and done some really great work. Back in the 1980s when we had the contract work scheme, Parekura Horomia, somebody who worked a long, long time with gangs in this country, made a huge contribution as a public servant. He was trying to find ways to ameliorate the situation that was affecting not only the gangs but also the communities. The contract work scheme was working and it cut down on the criminal offending at that time, but, sad to say, it was disbanded. I just say it is easy to sit here and throw stones at a group who are easy to throw stones at because they are really visible.

If I thought for one moment that this legislation would make our streets safer and make a huge difference to the Wanganui community, I would support it. But Metiria Turei is right—there are in fact many things that symbolise belonging to these particular groups, and, as we have seen, some people have, unfortunately, died through the wearing of colours, not the wearing of patches. I think that as a society we owe it to one another to begin to address the behaviour and not the clothes that people wear.

We have to move from the tactics of suppression to strategies that create solutions. I mihi today to people like Kim Workman, the director of the Rethinking Crime and Punishment project, who has shown that different strategies can be employed—not only amongst gangs but certainly amongst criminal offending—and that they inevitably produce different results. He, too, has travelled internationally, trying to find these solutions. I think we need to think carefully and in a considered manner about the best approach towards encouraging self-discipline while at the same time restoring that sense of community spirit. We must resist the temptation to just throw up in the air a whole batch of punitive measures, such as hefty fines, banning the clothes that people wear, introducing bylaws, and asking the police, who are already overworked, to arrest without a warrant those people whose activities they are suspicious about.

So I guess that for the Māori Party all the research tells us that prohibitions generally do not work. What we need most is to urgently stimulate community debate and strategic action to address the upfront issues of public safety, and the underlying issues such as family and community violence. The Māori Party is not a party that supports the tactics of suppression and exclusion. We support a restorative justice system and we advocate for helping agencies, including the Government, to work together with communities to develop and implement their own solutions. I am not saying that what confronts us is not a really difficult issue, and I mihi to Chester for bringing this issue to the House. But, again, I say that if members genuinely believe that this is a significant issue for this country, then this particular matter should be dealt with in every single community in the land. Kia ora.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) Link to this

It is good to rise and speak to the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill. I say at the outset that I thought the Hon Tariana Turia’s speech was very thoughtful and was, clearly, heartfelt. I agree with her that this issue is difficult and that responses to it can legitimately differ, and I hope she can appreciate the respect I have for her views though our parties may, on occasion, hold quite different views on matters.

It seems to me that this bill represents democracy in action, and if we take the view that all politics is local, this is local democracy in action. Here a community, its mayor, its council, and its local member are responding to a specific concern or set of concerns in their community: gangs wearing patches are acting in the central business district as though they own the town; the mere act of wearing their patches in the central business district intimidates others; and by wearing their patches, they are acting in a confrontational and provocative way to other gangs and to other people. So I say again that it strikes me that this bill is democracy in action and is a community and its members responding to a legitimate and specific concern.

I pay tribute to a few people. Mayor Michael Laws, it seems, is not just a good talkback host and a good commentator—although Grant Robertson says he is not even that. I liked his column in—I think—the Sunday Star-Times where he said that I was handsome and telegenic; it is hard to disagree with him on that front. He was being charitable, but it is hard to disagree with him. As I say, he is a good mayor. I liked what the Hon Darren Hughes said—I see he is no longer in the House. He said that Michael Laws is effectively the Rudi Giuliani of New Zealand politics. I am not sure if that makes Wanganui the Big Apple of New Zealand, but he is a good mayor and I commend him for his work on this bill.

I commend the Wanganui District Council and the local MP, Chester Borrows, whom I have known for some time now. I have always respected him greatly. I remember his excellent billboard—one of the best ever, in fact—in Whanganui. I think it said: “Outstanding in his field.”, and he was standing in his field. He is a man with a lifetime of law and order experience, and we saw that in the debate earlier this afternoon. I commend the community of Wanganui, which, I see in a poll, was 65 percent in support of this bill. I also understand that, in the process required under these local bills, submissions were called for from the community and after a period of weeks no one had put in submissions against this bill. That has to be significant, and shows that this is local democracy in action.

Regarding the actual bill, I say that the purpose clause is very good: “to prohibit the display of gang insignia in specified places in the district.” It is a good purpose and it really goes to the issue of big men behaving badly—like overgrown children and worse—in the central business district of this area. The bill is directed to that. I do not think anyone in this House will suggest that this bill is some sort of silver bullet in relation to gangs and the issues that they present. It will not be a silver bullet; it will not stop all of the gang evil, frankly, that we have seen in this nation. That is a utopian dream. But it will, I hope—and there is every reason for optimism—do something about the intimidating and confrontational effect of gangs and patches in the central business district of this specific locality.

From the purpose of the bill we move to its implementation. Let us acknowledge from the outset that following through on the purpose of this bill is not easy. I agree with Grant Robertson that there are specification issues in this bill. They are acute, they are not easy, and they are entirely problematic. Let us go through those. Firstly, the bill needs a mechanism to specify the gangs that it covers. In the bill there is a list of gangs, and it is important that there is flexibility through council by-laws for new gangs to be added. In terms of implementing its purpose I say so far so good. The bill also needs to define the insignia used by the gangs. I say to the House that that is a particularly difficult task for the bill. If we make the definition too narrow, then we create problems: we miss out some insignia and we allow the flouting of the law. But if we go too wide, then, of course, we criminalise too many, and we do not want to do that either. As far as the definition goes—I will not read it to the House—I take the view that there is a pretty good attempt at a definition of “insignia” in this bill.

The penalty for breaching the law is a $2,000 fine or—in clause 7, I believe, of the bill—the seizure of the gang insignia. I say to this House that the forfeiture of the patches will hurt the gangs the most. I suspect that that will be the thing that really drives gang members crazy, and it is good to see that in the bill. I do not think the issue of tattoos specifically makes it into the bill. It is more than ironic that Labour members, who supported the bill at the Law and Order Committee, were supportive of the inclusion of tattoos—that is made clear in the commentary on the bill. I am not sure about their inclusion; at the Committee stage we could look at whether to include tattoos. I note that National, when it was in Opposition, was not in favour of the inclusion of tattoos, gang words, and the like in the bill. Frankly, if people have a tattoo from a long time ago, it seems a hard ask to keep them out of the central business district of their city.

The Hon Clayton Cosgrove made some interesting points in his contribution to this debate. He made the point that gangs might change their names. They might go from being the Mongrel Mob to being the “Mongol Mob”, or the like. With respect to the member, I say that I doubt that will happen. Gangs like the Mongrel Mob and Black Power have had these names for some time. They are proud of their names and I doubt they would change them. As I say, I support this bill. I think it is local democracy in action.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) Link to this

I strongly support the underlying intention of this bill—what it is trying to do—but I strongly oppose it because it simply will not achieve its basic purposes and cannot achieve those basic purposes with the mechanisms that are suggested. I think it was Rodney Hide who said in the first reading on this bill that he was opposed to the legislation because what was objectionable about gangs was what they did, not what they wore. Now for some strange reason the ACT Party, which more and more is simply the political arm of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, has decided to do a complete U-turn and support the legislation for reasons that are beyond me given the coherence of the arguments put up by Mr Hide on the first reading of the bill.

Gangs are not acceptable organisations—a means for younger, middle-aged, and, increasingly, elderly people to organise themselves. They are a threat to ordinary citizens going about their lawful business. Gangs engage in criminal activity, they are heavily involved in the drug trade, they create disturbances in public places, and they are a blight upon our society. All of that is true, but what has this bill to do with solving those problems?

The first problem with this bill is a simple one, and it is directly contrary to what Mr Bridges argued. This is not a good bill precisely because it is a local bill. If the issue of gangs is an issue for New Zealand it needs to be resolved by a much broader range of policies across the entire country. We need to monitor what South Australia is doing in this regard and see whether that works, and if it works, it should be done across the country. All this bill will do at the very, very best—and not that—is shift the gangs in Wanganui to somewhere next door. They will become next door’s problem.

This measure is a kind of “nimby-ism” in criminal policy, which is completely counter-productive and still able to come back inside. We therefore need a much more coherent suite of policies that look at the underlying causes of the existence of gangs. We need to look at how we can transform people so that instead of being drawn into gangs at increasingly young ages, they are making a positive contribution to society. If the Government really wants to lift productivity, then it should note that transforming one person from a gang member to an active, involved person working in society is an enormous addition to our national productivity.

What does this bill do, intrinsically? It gives the power to the Wanganui District Council to make certain judgments. Those judgments will be a lawyer’s delight. The poor district council will take upon itself, at its own request, the power to determine whether people or groups of people are known to be engaged in criminal activity. Who are they to make that kind of decision and then issue prescriptions? Indeed, if that power were given to central government we would start using terminology like “police State” about those kinds of powers—prescribing to people on the basis of one’s belief, rather than on the proven facts taken before a court of law.

There used to be a notion in New Zealand that our legal system rests upon the right to a fair trial and upon some demonstration of proof, not upon some local councillors’ suspicions. The very people the Government totally distrusts to engage in resource management planning exercises and come up with the right solutions are those whom the Government trusts to make decisions about criminality and responsibility for criminal behaviour. It is a total contradiction, and it will lead to legal activity occurring, because the gangs are often quite wealthy organisations now. And with an oversupply of lawyers in this country there are no doubt plenty available to act on behalf of gangs, should they choose to do so. Many of Mr Bridges’ colleagues did not work for the Crown but, indeed, worked for the other side of the forces at work in this society in that particular respect.

We are going to have a law that says we cannot ban the whole of Wanganui from having gangs; only bits of it. Which bits will be banned? Well, the central business district will be, and that is fine, but I wonder which suburbs are most likely to have gang bans put upon them. Already, gangs are affecting people at the lower end of society—poor and working-class people—much more than others. We do not see many gangs wandering round Remuera or the Napier Hill suburbs. We see them in Maraenui and Mārewa in Napier. This bill will simply end up with the ghettoisation of gangs. It will constrain gangs within those very areas where they do the most damage already, and to the very people they do the most damage to already. No doubt many National Party supporters will say the bill has worked because the one gang member they saw the previous year, they have not seen again as a consequence of this bill.

What is even sillier in this bill is that the district council will have to put up signs saying: “Dear gang member, please don’t display your insignia.” Of course, some gang members will wonder what an insignia is, for a start. They may think it is their genitals; I have no idea—and they probably think that is illegal anyway. Is it just possible, given our knowledge of gang behaviour, that those signs will not last very long when they are put up and that the poor old ratepayers of Wanganui will find themselves paying over and over again for replacement of those signs? I am sure gang members will find those signs terribly frightening, given the history of gang behaviour and gang attitudes on these sorts of matters!

This bill is silly stuff. It is silly stuff that this House should not be supporting, and shame on those who continue to support these kinds of cosmetic measures that do nothing about the underlying issues. It is not a matter of wearing insignia; it is a matter only of displaying it. So what gang members have to do—to borrow an analogy from another aspect of peculiar behaviour in society—is put a plastic mack over the top of their insignia when within a forbidden area, wait until they get to the edge of it, and whip off the plastic mack. Then, lo and behold, there they are, proudly displaying their Mongrel Mob, Black Power, or Mothers Motor-cycle Club signs—and I hope they know which mothers they are talking about in Wanganui—and they are all hunky-dory and can carry on their behaviour.

Are we really passing legislation of this sort—and why? This is a classic example of the need to be seen to do something, as opposed to actually doing something that will actually address the issue. This measure is purely cosmetic. This is bravely running up to gang members, putting some lipstick on them, and saying they will look a lot nicer from now on and that because they look a lot nicer they will now behave a lot more nicely.

The reality is that in the suburbs of my city where there are large numbers of gang members, most of them do not need to be wearing their insignia for everybody to know they are Mongrel Bob and Black Power members. Most of those people are actually well known within the community already. Mr Borrows knows that that is true. He did not need to see insignia on various people to know who they were when he was a senior police officer within the area. He knew who they were. Even in very dim light at 100 paces he had a pretty good idea who he was talking about.

At the end of the day, Wanganui will end up being an experiment that will prove to be a failure. This bill will not solve Wanganui’s problems. We all want to solve the problems with gangs in Wanganui and in every one of our cities up and down this country. There is not a member in this House who does not want to resolve these problems, but some of us want to have a serious discussion about the broad range of policies that might actually do something.

I fully endorse what Tariana Turia said about the importance of restorative justice and alternative approaches in some of these areas. We are launched down the path of ever more punitive measures—some of them silly; some of them serious—yet we are not drawing the lesson that none of them is actually working at the end of the day.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) Link to this

It is a great privilege to rise after the former Deputy Prime Minister and former deputy leader of Labour, which was in Government for 9 years. The interesting thing about listening to the previous contribution from Michael Cullen, articulate though it was, is that one would think that gangs had arrived in Wanganui for the first time last week, or in New Zealand for the first time last week. That was the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand up until a few months ago talking about the fact that local democracy—that is, the local Wanganui District Council—came forward and asked the local elected member, Chester Borrows, who is a good friend and neighbour of mine, to sponsor its bill in this House because it was so frustrated with the lack of action by the previous Government over the last 9 years on the matter of law and order. That is it in a nutshell. That is it. Why would local government bring forward a local bill on something that is clearly a law and order matter if it was possible for it to get some action from central government? That is the main point I would like to make.

The irony of that comment also goes back to the issue of who passed the 2002 Local Government Act. Who introduced that legislation, which gave local government the power to do such a thing? Who was that? Can anybody remember who was in Government during the time that the Local Government Act was passed? It was interesting to listen to the earlier contributions from Clayton Cosgrove and from the new member for Wellington Central, Grant Robertson, when they said they do not think this bill is a good thing, because it is piecemeal and applies just in Wanganui. They asked why, if we think this measure is a good idea, we do not pass it across the whole of New Zealand. Well, that is actually a fair point. I think that is a fair question. I think it is one that we should all in this Parliament take note of and listen to.

There is a good response from National. The response is that in the last 100 days this National Government has passed more legislation to do with law and order than the previous Labour Government did in 9 years. If this Government had brought a bill like the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill to this Parliament today, introduced it, and adopted it for New Zealand, members on the other side of the House would be screaming “Foul!” because we had not let it go through a thorough select committee process and given it the due diligence it required. They would say it was a breach of goodness knows which Act and had not been properly examined through that process. I say to former Labour Government members opposite, front-bench Labour members like Clayton Cosgrove, that they should be ashamed to come into this House, knowing that while in Government they supported the referral of this bill to the Law and Order Committee when that Government needed the numbers—like the support of the then chair of the committee, Ron Mark—and now that they do not need the numbers, they say this bill will not work, they do not agree with it, and they will oppose it.

I think the previous Deputy Prime Minister made some interesting comments about gang insignia, and how that will be identified and suchlike. I think they were quite valid comments. There are concerns about that issue, and the localisation of the legislation is a valid concern as well. But how on earth will we find out whether this measure works, unless we give this legislation a go and it is tried somewhere? Should we adopt it as a policy across New Zealand? I was very interested in the comments from the Hon Tariana Turia. She comes from the Wanganui area and knows it well. She also knows some of the concerns on both sides of the argument about whether this bill will work, but I cannot understand why she would not support her local authority, given that 65 percent of people voted to support it, under tight criteria imposed by the House. I do not know why she would not support this bill and give it a go. I ask members opposite what the risk is of giving it a go. What are the downsides? If the legislation turns out to be silly, it will not survive. Why not give it a go? I cannot understand the reasons given for not supporting it.

I think that Dr Cullen and I agree that bad cases create bad law. This issue came to a head because of a particularly bad case in Wanganui involving the shooting of an infant. That was probably the straw that broke the camel’s back. But I go back to my original point: that was after about 8 years of Labour Government rhetoric of what it was going to do in law and order, and absolutely no action or movement on that issue. I think members opposite need to take a look at that, and to decide to give this legislation a go and see whether it will work. People in this Parliament either agree with democracy or they do not—it is as simple as that. I am referring to the Labour members on the other side of the House.

Councillors in the local elected body in Wanganui have decided they have had enough of the gangs in their town. They are frustrated with central government not providing the area with the protection they think it deserves, and they have decided they are going to do something. They have used the powers they have within the local government legislation to bring forward a local bill. They have convinced their locally elected representative to bring it forward to the Parliament to see whether it can get support. He has done so. That is democracy; that is transparency. I cannot see why any person in this Parliament would not support the bill on that basis alone.

The other major issue that has not been properly canvassed in this debate so far is the process the council had to go through. It required 65 percent support from the local community. In this Parliament we pass laws with 51 percent support.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) Link to this

Kia ora nō tātou. Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Firstly, I rise and acknowledge the member for Whanganui for bringing forward this local bill, the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill. I acknowledge his effort and the angst of the citizens of Wanganui over the scourge known as gangs. Unfortunately, it blights my part of the world, as well, and, although it causes me some consternation, I acknowledge the effort expended—forlornly, I fear and hope—by Michael Laws in bringing the bill to the House.

This bill, I genuinely believe, will worsen the gang situation in Wanganui. This bill will provide a platform for a greater level of notoriety amongst a predominantly younger group of members who are attracted to the wilder side of life. They will now know, as a consequence of this bill, that it is cool, a rite of passage, and actually a measure of distinction, not just to the gangs but to the wider community, to poke one’s fingers at a stupid bill that will never be fully implemented. It will enrich legions of lawyers as they move away from the Treaty trough into the gang insignia trough.

That is why I do not support this bill, but I acknowledge that there was no doubt a bit of soul-searching in the mind of Mr Borrows. As a former policeman he knows a heck of a lot about gangs, but in his heart of hearts he must know that passing an Act giving the ability to the council of Wanganui to regulate what the Māoris—predominantly the Māoris—of Wanganui can wear and where they can wear it is not a good recipe for productive race relations in Wanganui.

Secondly, gangs are fed by criminality. One does not get into a gang unless one is prepared to do serious harm. The reality, however, is that this bill will not bring an end to those offences. This bill will not bring an end to the harm those people do to their own children, to their wives, and to what is left of their parents. This bill is a gesture designed to mollify the anger of the people of Wanganui, but it will not deal with the scourge of gangs.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) Link to this

Down at the end of my street in New Plymouth there is a sign that bans alcohol from being taken on to the beach. When the New Plymouth District Council put up that sign, I do not think it thought that the sign would solve the drinking problems in all of New Zealand. But it did think that the sign would preserve a public place for the peaceful enjoyment of individuals and families from the abuse that can come from excessive drinking.

The Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill will not resolve the issues of violent crime or criminal behaviour by gangs in New Zealand. I do not think that that is the intention of the bill. I think the intention is to enable the people of Wanganui to recover their city centre and parks for their peaceful enjoyment, just as the New Plymouth District Council wants to preserve the beach. The issues are intimidation and violence. Perhaps we could call this bill restorative justice—the people want their city centre and parks restored to them for the purpose of their enjoyment. They probably feel that this measure is just.

Why ban alcohol from a beach area? It is because it is a catalyst, a precursor, to disruptive behaviour. One thing that has been identified in Wanganui is that insignia—the identification of opposing gangs—can be a significant precursor to violent and disruptive behaviour. The bill states that we want to preserve the Wanganui city centre and parks from the particular behaviour that puts the Wanganui people at risk and removes from them the ability to peacefully enjoy some of the beautiful parts of their city. This legislation will not push the gangs up to Hāwera or New Plymouth. This bill will not stop a gang member from entering the city centre or a park as long as he or she is not wearing the insignia that can so easily inflame reaction and conflict.

Anybody can enjoy the benefit of swimming and sunbathing on Fitzroy Beach, as I did a couple of Sundays ago. On that same day, somebody spotted a great white in the surf—it was not me, as my son told me. But if one comes to that beach with alcohol, then it is a different story.

When it comes to human rights in the story I am telling about New Plymouth, I ask whether we should uphold the rights of the people who are drunk or the rights of the people who want to enjoy the beach. What about the rights of the 65 percent of people in Wanganui who have said they want the right to peaceful enjoyment of their city? Do we deny that to them because of the huge issue of gang violence in our nation? We have a huge issue. I acknowledge the mayor and councillors of Wanganui, the member for Whanganui, and the Wanganui District Council for having the courage to address this issue.

This morning the Commissioner of Police, Howard Broad, said to the Law and Order Committee, when indicating the vexing issues facing the police, that violent offending continues to be a pressure point for the police. In other words, this is the greatest issue stretching the resources and capabilities of our police force. We all acknowledge this. We have heard in this debate tonight that New Zealand has some 88 gangs in existence. This issue needs a comprehensive and cohesive solution. It requires serious discussion, because it is a significant problem that seems to be escalating.

We are living in a time of an unprecedented increase in crime—violent crime, in particular—in this country. Physical violence has increased by 47 percent over the last decade. New Zealanders know that. Currently, we have 17,000 more violent offences per year—a violent crime every 9½ minutes, a sexual attack every 3½ hours, and a robbery every 3½ hours. The rate of kidnapping or abduction has increased, and that of grievous assaults has nearly doubled. The number of robberies is up by 57 percent, serious assaults are up by 54 percent, intimidation and threats are up by 67 percent, and sex crimes have risen by 12.5 percent, and we have a district council in Wanganui that wants to do something about it.

I think that all of us in this House support the overall intent of this bill, which is to make our community safer, and I think we ought not to be naive and think that this bill is the panacea for all our woes. We should acknowledge it for what it is. It is the response of a community that is saying it wants its city centre and parks to be places where its citizens can go for peaceful enjoyment. I think that that is a reasonable request.

If we do not think that it is a reasonable request, then why do we not tell councils to remove the signs that ban alcohol from public places? Alcohol leads to drunkenness, which leads to disruptive and often violent behaviour; we are all in agreement that we do not want to see that happening in our communities. Although there is nothing wrong with having alcohol in our homes, and just as everybody has the right to wear what they want to wear, the issue is where we do these things and what they incite in our communities. When Wanganui gangs wear insignia that incites violence because it is antagonistic towards other gangs, then we should give the Wanganui District Council the ability to keep its public places safe.

This bill is interesting legislation, because it brings two very important aspirations in our country into possible conflict with each other. We have the aspiration of being free from violence and intimidation, which we would all agree is a pillar of a truly free and healthy society. On the other hand, we believe that a truly free and healthy society must protect another such pillar, which is freedom of expression, whether it is spoken, written, or expressed through artistic or symbolic form, as a gang patch may be described. This is where the serious discussion really needs to go. There are times when balance and equity are lost between those two pillars, and one becomes more dominant than the other. Some will say that the right to wear a patch, which is a form of freedom of expression, is a defensible right, a right that should not be taken away, because once freedom of expression is lost many other losses of freedom soon follow. But when freedom of expression becomes more important than freedom from intimidation and violence, then we have an issue that warrants scrutiny and discussion.

This bill brings into scrutiny the balance between the freedom of expression of gang members to wear insignia and the freedom of citizens from intimidation and violence, where the presence of a gang’s insignia contributes significantly to intimidation and violence in the community.