Bridges Simon: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Bridges Simon: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2093] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is excellent to be speaking on this very good bill the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill put forward and guided skilfully through the House by the excellent member of Parliament for Whanganui Chester Borrows. As I understand it he is the only member in this House who has been a police officer and has dealt with these issues on the ground. It is very very good to have his expert words and practical experience on this bill as well as his ability to guide it through the House. 
I want to do something novel at this stage and actually talk a bit about the purpose of this bill—seeing we are debating the purpose clause. I noted what Grant Robertson the member on the other side of the Chamber said. He said that this bill had some problems in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. On this side of the Chamber we take the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act seriously. We take it very seriously. We did not act like the previous Attorney-General who did not even issue a report on the Electoral Finance Act. We did not railroad that Act through. We take rights seriously. It is good to see that in the purpose clause we are no longer talking about the prohibition of the wearing of gang insignia. We have taken note of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and some of the criticisms in that regard. The bill no longer prohibits the wearing of gang insignia; it merely prohibits the displaying of the insignia. So people will not be in breach of the law if a gang patch is worn underneath their clothes—that makes the bill more “bill of rights friendly” and I think that is a good thing. 
I want to talk about tattoos as well. There are some extreme ironies on the issue of tattoos because before the election—and I am sure I am right—Labour wanted tattoos included in the bill. Labour was in favour of criminalising the issue of gang insignia tattoos. I said at the first reading of this bill and I say again that it is something that we needed to consider and that we have considered. We will be putting forward amendments. The reason why we got rid of tattoos in this bill is very clear. It is common sense. Tattoos are permanent; they are not transitory. One cannot at least not with any ease take them off. My father-in-law lives in England not in New Zealand. He as a 21-year-old man after a few too many drinks had some Welsh leeks tattooed on his forearm. He cannot get rid of those at least not with any ease. So it is right that we do not include tattoos in this bill. 
This reminds me of a case I was involved in—on the peripheries with a witness in the case. I think he intended to have “mongrel” tattooed across the top of his forehead but he missed out the “r” and it was “mongel”—there you have it. He will not be criminalised by this bill because we do unlike Labour take the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act seriously. We have an Attorney-General who is very much concerned about these issues and who is doing an excellent job. 
This bill and its purpose represent democracy in action. It is an example of the people of Wanganui bringing forward an issue that they are feeling strongly about. Chester Borrows is listening to the people of Wanganui its mayor has been listening to the people and we now have a bill that as I understand it the public of Wanganui were 65 percent in favour of in a referendum. We are respecting the views of ordinary people in Wanganui and it is not difficult to see why when we hear Chester Borrows talk about some of the very real and very serious gang issues in this city. As Mr Borrows said just recently the  
Wanganui Chronicle 
 reported that the court heard that a man was killed with an axe over a red hoodie. There are serious gang issues of intimidation and the like and much worse in this case—a murder. What this bill does what its purpose is and what it achieves is the banning of insignia in a specified locality of a city. I come back to some of the things that Grant Robertson was saying.