Jones Shane: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Jones Shane: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2128] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena tatou. Mr Chairperson I crave a small modicum of forbearance on your part so that I may stray very briefly from time to time during my short and hopefully sporting contribution to the import of clause 5A of the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill. 
I respond to one of three things that were said by the member who is shepherding this local bill forward Chester Borrows. I made a reference to the police. I appreciate the difficult role the police have especially in relation to gang management and gang engagement. I am very aware of the role that our Maori police have in maintaining cordial relations with certain gang members so they can maintain contact and uncover information. In actual fact I support that. Indeed one of my whanaunga Paddy Whiu from Ngapuhi was here this evening and he played a key role in that. I would not like the member for Whanganui to form the view that those of us on this side of the Chamber who are not going to agree with this bill have an impoverished view of the police. 
The reality is if the police are going to police and execute this bill to the black-letter meaning of the law then they must improve their performance and conduct in terms of what we saw with the Pomare residents being tossed out on the road—in particular the mokopuna the children and the women. I am talking about the suburb out in the Hutt and the drama visited upon them—especially the children—by Housing New Zealand Corporation. I want to assure the member Chester Borrows that I am supportive of the role the police have. But just like MPs the police are not above the law. If their conduct—as our conduct is constantly challenged—is not beyond cavil and is not compliant with the law then they should expect to be called to account for it. 
I fear that when the police are asked to determine whether a council has been reasonable or practicable in terms of identifying a place where the information will be made available about whether a place is suitable for banning gang insignia they will be embroiled in a very difficult situation. Part of dealing with gangs is maintaining contact and engagement with them. I probably share a lot of the views of the Pakeha and Maori of Wanganui who have had a gutsful of being seen to indulge or acquiesce to this ongoing gang violence. The reality is that in dealing with bodies like that information is power. If gangs can be suborned to unwittingly provide information to the law enforcement agencies then they will have multiple arrows to the quiver. I have no doubt in my mind that prosecutions in this regard will be challenged and inevitably found to be wanting. It is just not tolerable for people to suffer for doing something wrong when there is just no way within a defined space that they could have reasonably known that they were treading into territory where they were not wanted. 
Of course we do not want their bad ways in public spaces. I recently read about the affairs of the gangs in Sydney and elsewhere in Australia and no one wants to see those imported into our airports etc. But this bill is about the machinery of local government being used to eradicate a problem that has spread throughout rural and urban New Zealand. It is not solely about the broad threats that gangs represent; it is about whether the mechanisms that we are placing in law this evening through the passage of this bill are going to work. 
The bell is about to ring so I make a short reference to the ACT Party’s law and order spokesperson David Garrett who is a person full of zeal—not passion but zeal. Occasionally he reminds me of the inquisitorial board of the early stages of the Catholic Church in Europe. That zeal has been found to be built on shifting sands. It depends on whether ACT believes that the major party—the National Party—is going to support its foul legislation known as the “three strikes” bill as to whether it will vote with us. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 5A be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (2).