Hide Rodney: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — Third Reading 
Hide Rodney: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:2958] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I rise to speak on this bill. As I understand it whether this bill succeeds or fails today will swing on my vote. It is certainly something that we have been discussing at length. 
First up I should say to Mr Chester Borrows that he has done an outstanding job as an MP and certainly as a parliamentarian of answering my questions and our party’s questions on this bill. Certainly Wanganui is very very lucky to have the hard-working MP Mr Chester Borrows. There are not many MPs who can shuttle a bill through to its third reading on behalf of their electorate. I should also as Minister of Local Government congratulate Mayor Michael Laws. He has done everything by the book in terms of a local government bill and has gone further and run a referendum to sample the will of the people of Wanganui as to their view on this issue. 
I stand here as a libertarian which means I believe that the fundamental job of Parliament and of a Government is to protect our freedoms and in particular to protect the freedoms of minority groups. It is not enough for a majority to oppose what a minority might think what a minority might wear and how a minority might behave. The actual minority’s interests and rights have to be protected; that is why we have the law. Accordingly I said on the first reading of this bill that I could not support it. I said that I never would. I said that the law should be concerned not with what gangs wear but with their behaviour—their bullying their violence and their intimidation. 
We have engaged in a heck of a debate within our caucus and with the members of our party. I have listened carefully and I have gone through everyone’s contribution on the issue. I listened with particular care to what Mr Keith Locke had to say. Much of what he had to say resonated with me—that we do not want to be in a society that regulates what one can wear. I just wish Mr Locke had followed that principle through and voted against the Electoral Finance Bill which has seen me come under police investigation because of my yellow jacket. 
Hon Member 
: You’re the one who put the complaint forward. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: No I never put a complaint through. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Yes you did. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: No I did not. The police have it under active engagement. A party—in fact two parties—voted for a law to make it a crime for me to wear my yellow jacket. So I find it a bit rich when those members say that gangs have a right to wear whatever jackets they like but Rodney Hide does not. I find that a bit rich. 
But here is where it gets interesting—and this is why it is tough for us for our caucus and for our party. Clearly in a free society people cannot just go up and bash other people in the face. Clearly we cannot do that—that is against the law. Likewise one cannot go up to other people and threaten to bash them. Even though no one has engaged in the physical violence of the threat that cannot be done because that is intimidatory behaviour. The question we have to address here—and it is about a line to be drawn—is whether in fact the wearing of a gang patch is in itself intimidation—akin to threatening to hurt someone and akin to saying “I am going to throw a punch.” That is the question we have to resolve. Clearly we outlaw intimidation. 
That is why we despatched Mr David Garrett to Wanganui to talk to people and in particular to ask some very basic questions. Here is one question: why do we need to criminalise the wearing of gang patches? Clearly we do not want to criminalise the wearing of a yellow jacket as Labour and the Greens did. And the answer came back— 
Hon Annette King 
: Oh it’s all about Rodney. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: It’s all about Rodney! 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I find that a bit rich coming from Labour members. They jumped up and down wanting to hear my views but when I try to give them they try to shout me down. 
The answer came back that the wearing of gang patches in public particularly by people in a group frequently precipitates violence because the gang code makes it virtually obligatory upon other gang members to rumble when they come across patched gang members of a rival gang. So everyone in Wanganui knows that if a gang patch is on display and another gang member comes along there will be a fight. That is the code under which those gangs live. If rivals come across one another when not patched they can abuse one another and shout at one another but they do not automatically resort to physical violence because their gang code does not require it. There have been problems like the example outside the Work and Income office in the middle of the day where the mere action of wearing a gang patch has seen a fight break out. The people of Wanganui know this and that is why they want this particular bill. 
The question was put to the police: “Will you enforce the law?”. That was a legitimate question that we asked and that Labour asked: “Will it be enforced?”. We also asked whether it would make a difference. The area commander said “Yes you have my word it will be enforced.” He said that the police would be looking on closed circuit television and would be after patched gang members if they breached the bylaw that the city council could make. They had very interesting feedback. In the silly code of the gangs a member does not want to lose his patch because that is to lose all his status. Gang members themselves have said that if this law passes into effect they will not wear their patches. Why? Because then they would run the risk of losing them. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Oh so the gangs are telling you want to do. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Oh poor Darren! I tell that member to listen. I gave Labour members the greatest respect in listening to them and to Mr Keith Locke. Gang members themselves have said that they will not wear their patches if this bill becomes law. 
That is about gang members fighting one another which in a way they can do. But what is the effect on other people? Is there intimidation from the patch for people? The answer to that was clear and it was explained in this example. In popular public parks such as the well-known Disneyland-themed children’s playground the mere arrival of one patched gang member will see families leave with their children because they are intimidated. They know that the arrival of one patched gang member could precipitate another gang member into causing a fight because that is the experience of those families. Interestingly the arrival of a gang member without the patch will not cause that intimidation. It is not the look that causes the intimidation; it is the patch. I say that it is a tough line to draw but clearly in this example the wearing of a patch on a jacket is intimidation of law-abiding citizens. 
I am prepared to give the good people of Wanganui the opportunity to make a law so that they can choose how they want to live so that the police can enforce the law and people live free of the intimidation and the fear that they have been suffering. They have my vote.