Robertson Grant: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2099] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 We are debating clause 3 the purpose clause. I raise two issues in connection with the purpose clause. The first is around the comments made by Chester Borrows about the intent and purpose behind the bill. He said that the bill was about addressing the intimidation that people in Wanganui were experiencing. Although I can certainly understand and sympathise with that point of view the problem is that the intimidation will not go away when the patch goes away. In the end this bill is as stated in the purpose clause about prohibiting the display of gang insignia in specified places in the district. If this bill is simply about prohibiting the display of gang insignia it will not achieve the intent that Mr Borrows mentioned. Intimidation comes from the people who are wearing the patches and the actions they undertake. 
Once again we see that the purpose of this bill is unfortunately cosmetic. It is about the clothes that people wear not the actions they take. I spoke earlier in the debate and quoted from a very interesting and very good speech made by the Hon Rodney Hide in the first reading. He said: “The concern that we have about gangs is not about what they wear; it is about what they do.” That was the view of the ACT Party when this bill was first debated— 
Charles Chauvel 
: When they were liberal. They were the liberal party! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is right—when they were the liberal and principled liberal party. Mr Garrett spoke earlier in the debate and he appeared to say that the bill was bad. He identified a number of areas on which he agreed with speakers from the Labour Party but he confirmed for us later that ACT members will be supporting the bill which is an extraordinary situation and clearly quite different from where they were. They have done a deal on the “three strikes” bill. 
I return to the question of the purpose of the bill and the notion of addressing intimidation. In a sense not only does this bill fail that intent—in terms of not actually addressing intimidation because it does not and cannot address the actual behaviour and attitudes—but it also simply shifts that intimidation around the district. As the purpose clause states this bill is about prohibiting the display of gang insignia in specified places in the district. This bill will enable the Wanganui District Council to specify those places by by-law. We know that the places specified will be central city areas. The council will certainly look at those areas and possibly one or two other areas. The specified places will not be in suburbs like Castlecliff where there is a lot of gang tension. In effect the origins of the intimidation will not be addressed by this bill. 
The purpose clause is not only about specified places but about specified places in the Wanganui District. That is one of the great limitations of this bill. All it does is move the problem around rather than try to address the underlying causes behind it. The overall intent of Mr Borrows in bringing this bill to the House is one we can all understand. We know that he did it on behalf of the Wanganui District Council and that the people of Wanganui were interested. Obviously Labour voted for the bill to go the Law and Order Committee for the very reason that the people of Wanganui deserve to have their concerns heard. But now that the bill has reappeared before us the Labour Party is not able to support it because its intent and purpose will not be met. The bill is flawed and unfortunately offers false hope to the people of Wanganui—false hope that somehow or other this legislation will start to limit some of their problems. 
I do want to say some positive things about Wanganui. It is a great city. It is a thriving community and has a thriving art sector. It is a city that people should visit. It has a beautiful river and a beautiful environment that people can enjoy. It is difficult for me to stand here and talk about Wanganui in a negative light but that is in a sense what this bill is making us do. The people of Wanganui are being given false hope by a bill that is simply cosmetic and does not try to deal to the deep underlying issues of attitude and violence. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: The people of Wanganui actually want this bill. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I tell Dr Mapp that the people of Wanganui want some solutions to the problem of gangs and they are being given false hope by a bill that simply will not do anything to address those underlying issues. It is a cosmetic response to a serious problem. Everybody in this House who has spoken in the second reading and Committee stage debates has said that this is a serious problem that needs a serious response. This bill is not that.