Hodgson Pete: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2101] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 Every now and again in this Chamber along comes a mighty fine bill that looks thoroughly good and rational but it cannot work. The question is whether the assembled 122 members of Parliament in this Chamber will rise and say that the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill is a good idea but it will not work so they cannot pass it or whether they will hang their heads shift their eyes a little to one side and say that Chester Borrows is a good guy and Wanganui is a good city so we should pass this bill knowing that it will not work. That is really what is in front of us. We have a choice of either passing legislation that everyone knows will not work or not passing it. 
It seems to me that the appropriate thing and certainly the principled thing is to say to Chester Borrows and to the people of Wanganui: “Yes we understand that you guys have a gang problem. You don’t have it on your own but you have one and it’s a baddie. Yes we understand that members of the public are being intimidated. Yes we understand that the majority of the people of Wanganui want to have some action such as this legislation.” In fact if I was asked to support this legislation without understanding what it meant I would go for it myself. But we are lawmakers and our job is to understand or to try to understand as ordinary folk—I am no lawyer—the effect of the law and to make a judgment on behalf of the people of Wanganui and the people of New Zealand as the case may be as to whether it is good legislation. This is not good legislation. That does not mean that the member for Whanganui Chester Borrows should not have brought it to the House. I might well have done the same thing. I might well have tested the will of Parliament and I might well have taken this bill to the House to raise the issue of intimidation by gangs in Wanganui or elsewhere. I might well have done that. But there is a difference between putting a bill in front of the House and deciding that it will be part of our statute. There is a difference. 
In this case this legislation should not become part of our statute and there are myriad reasons why not. The first reason that comes to my mind is that gang names will become creatures of statute themselves. For goodness’ sake! Should we have the Mongrel Mob or Black Power written into our statute book? I do not think so. The second reason—the one that has been alluded to by earlier speakers and I think matters most of all—is that this legislation if passed will give false hope to the people of Wanganui because it will fail. Let us follow that through. When it does fail—and in a minute we will explore how it might fail—are the people of Wanganui not entitled to say: “What the hell did you pass that legislation for? We have had a look at the debates and at least some members of the House said it would not work. It didn’t work. You passed it. You set us up. We thought this legislation was going to achieve something and it turns out it didn’t.”? 
Let us explore why this legislation might not work. Again plenty of speakers have given lots of speeches on why this legislation might not work. I will make just one point. Let us imagine that this bill moves into law on any particular Tuesday. Come Wednesday a group of people who used to be members of a gang can put on their boy scout scarves and wander up and down the street without their insignia menacing people. If that does happen then no doubt someone will try to test the legislation in court. My best guess is that it will not catch them. We would then have a situation where the gang members who are supposed to be the bad guys have just put it up the authorities. They will have gone to court and won and we think this is a good idea? I do not think it is remotely good; I think it is an outrageous idea. 
I would prefer to take the approach of a National member of Parliament. Let us see what the Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Oh come on! Doesn’t the member realise they’ve got a liquor ban? Talk about liquor bans. What do they do with liquor bans? Exactly the same thing. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I will quote—for the “Orange Roughy”—what the Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power had to say about National’s ideas to curb gang activity. Let us read a few of them out and see whether they might be more effective in Wanganui and elsewhere in dealing to the issue this bill seeks to deal to. Here is the first idea: “National is looking at changing the criminal laws to: Nominate gang membership as a factor in sentencing.” In other words membership of a gang will be taken into account—one assumes adversely—as a factor in sentencing. The second idea from National only 2 years ago was to “Strengthen the ability of the police to remove and storm gang fortifications.” The gang fortifications legislation was strengthened back in Muldoon’s times. The Minister of Justice is saying that it may need to be strengthened further. Does that sound like a good idea for the people of Wanganui? Let us take a look at the next idea: to “Make it easier for police to intercept gang communications.” This is an issue about privacy and there are some issues around that. But let us say it was easier for the police to intercept gang communications. The police could be ahead of the game much more readily than they would be otherwise. They would be able to get to the gangs’ point of congregation before the gangs did. 
Another idea was to make it “an offence to be a member of a criminal organisation.” There is a difference. If a gang is considered to be a criminal organisation then that in itself becomes an offence. That is an interesting idea. It is nothing to do with insignia and nothing to do with what people wear; it is so much more to do with how people behave and whether they cause strife to ordinary folk. “The key”—said National 2 years ago—“is to take the status the money and the power off the gangs.” The idea was to leave them their clothes but take off the status the power and the money. What does this bill do? It leaves the status. In fact it enhances it because it makes gang members creatures of statute. It leaves them with the money. It leaves them with the power including new enhanced powers to dick around the justice system to wear their boy scout scarves or whatever it is they choose to wear to cause confusion to lead to a court case and to win it and have the people of Wanganui say: “What the hell was all that about? Why did Parliament waste its time? Chester Borrows did a good job in taking it down there but the collective went the wrong way on it.” Well I am not going to be part of that collective. Labour will oppose this legislation. 
One other thing needs to be said about this legislation before I resume my seat. The ACT Party has behaved in a most unprincipled manner in this issue. The ACT Party sets itself up to be the party of principle. Well in my eyes it is not the party of principle any more. It used to be a party of principle. It had a principled stand on things that I disagreed with—many things that I disagreed with. Now I do not see that it has any principle at all. Its position earlier on when this legislation was introduced was liberal or libertarian or whatever one might expect from the ACT Party. But no it has itself a new hard line on law and order. David Garrett wants the “three strikes” legislation through and hopes he can get a deal with National—some sort of quid pro quo—so that ACT members can speak against this legislation but vote for it. That is exactly what Mr Garrett did. He spoke against the legislation but said he will vote for it. That is not what I would expect from the ACT Party. I never expect to agree with the ACT Party but I do expect consistency from it. That has been the nature of the ACT Party since its inception. It has been consistently wrong in my view but it has been consistent. Not any more. Now it has a situation where it will have some members voting in one direction and some members voting in another direction at least if the ACT members can arrange it and regulate themselves—these regulation busters—enough to get themselves voting in two different directions just because they think they will have an improved opportunity to get ACT’s “three strikes” legislation through. 
I am opposed to this bill but I congratulate the member on bringing it forward. He is doing what a local member should do and I think he has done it well. This legislation should not pass and the ACT Party needs to discover whether it ever wants to be a party of principle again.