Young Jonathan: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — Second Reading 
Young Jonathan: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1662] 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 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 Hawera 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 17000 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. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Speak from the heart. 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: I am thank you. We all agree that freedoms can justifiably be reduced in the cause of preserving public safety but the question is where the line is to be drawn. I think the people of Wanganui have drawn that line. I think they have done it intelligently knowing that this bill is not a comprehensive answer to the broader issues. But they are saying that they want their city centre and their parks to be places of peaceful enjoyment for all and I say that we should give that to them. Thank you.