Ardern Shane: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — Second Reading 
Ardern Shane: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1658] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 It is a great privilege to rise after the former Deputy Prime Minister and former deputy leader of Labour which was in Government for 9 years. The interesting thing about listening to the previous contribution from Michael Cullen articulate though it was is that one would think that gangs had arrived in Wanganui for the first time last week or in New Zealand for the first time last week. That was the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand up until a few months ago talking about the fact that local democracy—that is the local Wanganui District Council—came forward and asked the local elected member Chester Borrows who is a good friend and neighbour of mine to sponsor its bill in this House because it was so frustrated with the lack of action by the previous Government over the last 9 years on the matter of law and order. That is it in a nutshell. That is it. Why would local government bring forward a local bill on something that is clearly a law and order matter if it was possible for it to get some action from central government? That is the main point I would like to make. 
The irony of that comment also goes back to the issue of who passed the 2002 Local Government Act. Who introduced that legislation which gave local government the power to do such a thing? Who was that? Can anybody remember who was in Government during the time that the Local Government Act was passed? It was interesting to listen to the earlier contributions from Clayton Cosgrove and from the new member for Wellington Central Grant Robertson when they said they do not think this bill is a good thing because it is piecemeal and applies just in Wanganui. They asked why if we think this measure is a good idea we do not pass it across the whole of New Zealand. Well that is actually a fair point. I think that is a fair question. I think it is one that we should all in this Parliament take note of and listen to. 
There is a good response from National. The response is that in the last 100 days this National Government has passed more legislation to do with law and order than the previous Labour Government did in 9 years. If this Government had brought a bill like the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill to this Parliament today introduced it and adopted it for New Zealand members on the other side of the House would be screaming “Foul!” because we had not let it go through a thorough select committee process and given it the due diligence it required. They would say it was a breach of goodness knows which Act and had not been properly examined through that process. I say to former Labour Government members opposite front-bench Labour members like Clayton Cosgrove that they should be ashamed to come into this House knowing that while in Government they supported the referral of this bill to the Law and Order Committee when that Government needed the numbers—like the support of the then chair of the committee Ron Mark—and now that they do not need the numbers they say this bill will not work they do not agree with it and they will oppose it. 
I think the previous Deputy Prime Minister made some interesting comments about gang insignia and how that will be identified and suchlike. I think they were quite valid comments. There are concerns about that issue and the localisation of the legislation is a valid concern as well. But how on earth will we find out whether this measure works unless we give this legislation a go and it is tried somewhere? Should we adopt it as a policy across New Zealand? I was very interested in the comments from the Hon Tariana Turia. She comes from the Wanganui area and knows it well. She also knows some of the concerns on both sides of the argument about whether this bill will work but I cannot understand why she would not support her local authority given that 65 percent of people voted to support it under tight criteria imposed by the House. I do not know why she would not support this bill and give it a go. I ask members opposite what the risk is of giving it a go. What are the downsides? If the legislation turns out to be silly it will not survive. Why not give it a go? I cannot understand the reasons given for not supporting it. 
I think that Dr Cullen and I agree that bad cases create bad law. This issue came to a head because of a particularly bad case in Wanganui involving the shooting of an infant. That was probably the straw that broke the camel’s back. But I go back to my original point: that was after about 8 years of Labour Government rhetoric of what it was going to do in law and order and absolutely no action or movement on that issue. I think members opposite need to take a look at that and to decide to give this legislation a go and see whether it will work. People in this Parliament either agree with democracy or they do not—it is as simple as that. I am referring to the Labour members on the other side of the House. 
Councillors in the local elected body in Wanganui have decided they have had enough of the gangs in their town. They are frustrated with central government not providing the area with the protection they think it deserves and they have decided they are going to do something. They have used the powers they have within the local government legislation to bring forward a local bill. They have convinced their locally elected representative to bring it forward to the Parliament to see whether it can get support. He has done so. That is democracy; that is transparency. I cannot see why any person in this Parliament would not support the bill on that basis alone. 
The other major issue that has not been properly canvassed in this debate so far is the process the council had to go through. It required 65 percent support from the local community. In this Parliament we pass laws with 51 percent support. 
Chester Borrows 
: It is the Government’s popularity. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: It is the Government’s popularity and I think it is rising all the time. So if we take the other side of that we are talking about around 35 or 45 percent—that is what the other parties have. So it is not too bad. That probably has nothing to do with the bill. The reality is that if we look at the high threshold that had to be met for this local authority to get this bill to the Parliament it is hypocrisy for us not to support it. It is as simple as that because at the end of the day that is democracy. If the previous Deputy Prime Minister is right and what he suggests happens how long do we think it would be before that local authority the Government itself or the police force or all of the above came back to the Government and said that clearly this legislation would not work or was not working and that some further changes were needed? 
Hopefully under a carefully led National Government a lot of the concerns that were raised and that have led to this bill will start to be addressed in our law and order policies as they roll out. Some members made comments earlier about early intervention and I ask whether they have been watching the news lately. Have they not been listening to what is being said and proposed by the newly elected Government in regard to early intervention with recidivist offenders in our society? Have they not heard any of that do they just not agree with it or do they think what their Government did for 9 years should continue for the next 9 years? I think the previous Deputy Prime Minister said that what was being done did not work. I am sure I am quoting him correctly. He said what was being done did not work so why would the Labour members not want us to try something that potentially has an opportunity to work when it is presented to them and is asked for by the members of the Wanganui community? 
About 2 years ago 12 Mongrel Mob members appeared at a depositions hearing charged with the murder of 2-year-old Jhia Te Tua in Wanganui by shooting her with a .303 rifle. That was a tragic case. People responded to that. [ 
Interruption 
] It is interesting that the member for Wellington Central interjects. A similar high-profile case involved Karl Kuchenbecker. The previous Minister of Justice in the Labour Government said we must do something. But nothing was done. The previous Government did have time to do something. That case particularly that Government had time to act on because it was a long time ago. Nothing was done. I ask members opposite what they would do if they were in Government today. That is what people ask. The answer is nothing. 
This National Government intends to do something. We intend to support this bill. I commend the bill and the member in charge of it.