Garrett David: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Garrett David: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2118] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I came to Parliament believing in the parliamentary process that the executive did not in fact—as the cynics say—dictate everything and that the debate in this Chamber was actually meaningful. Since I have been here people both inside the Chamber and outside have laughed at that naivety and told me not to be silly that I was right in the first place and it was all irrelevant and that what happened here was all hot air and did not much matter. Well who would have thought it? I have discovered that the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill has proved that the parliamentary process—and by the parliamentary process I mean this House—is relevant. I have been listening not just to this debate but to the earlier debates and I have spoken in all of them and sensible things are coming from almost all sides of the Chamber. 
There are lots of arguments both for and against this legislation that have merit. On one hand the people of Wanganui have clearly indicated their desire for this bill—more than 65 percent of them—and that is worthy of respect. I believe that while I was absent from the Chamber someone told Mr Boscawen my colleague that we were the libertarian party. Well we are not. We have a libertarian wing but we are the party of choice so we respect the choice of the people of Wanganui. We promote freedom of speech. Many in our party are almost obsessed I will say with freedom of speech but freedom of speech has limits. People cannot yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. People cannot walk down the street with certain things on their T-shirts or they will be arrested. It has nothing to do with gangs. These groups—gangs or whatever—are criminal organisations whose purpose is intimidation. Much of the recent debate has completely neglected the part of the bill that requires gangs to be identified as being criminal. 
But there are problems of interpretation. I am a lawyer. There are problems in defining “insignia” and problems in defining “display”. All of those things are there. We could spend all night on the pros and cons and the yin and yang. Members opposite have—with fairness and justification—asked where we stand because we have created a little confusion. In fact I will take responsibility and say that I have created some. I said at the outset that we were going to listen to the debate. I am afraid I have to say that what Mr Borrows whom I respect greatly thought was the coup de grâce—the story of the young man killed because he wore a red hoodie—in fact deeply disturbs me and I am afraid that in all conscience I have to say that what the Labour members have said about that issue rings true. 
So where does the ACT Party stand on this bill? Well we stand right here. We are listening. It has been a very vigorous debate—probably not quite as vigorous as here— in our caucus and in our party. I am going to be honest and perhaps again prove my naivety and my newness and say that much of what I have heard tonight from members opposite makes sense. Much of what I have heard from the National side has always made sense. So I wish to keep listening. I think our caucus wishes to keep listening and to discuss and debate what is being said because the parliamentary process has proved itself in this debate not to be irrelevant not to be hot air and not to be controlled by an executive or someone else. Mr Chair and fellow members our position is this: we will vote in favour of the bill at this Committee stage but that does not presuppose that we will support the bill at its third reading. The only way we can continue to listen to the contributions from all sides is to vote in favour at this stage and that is what we will do.