Ardern Jacinda: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Jacinda: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2097] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I thank the member from across the floor for the impassioned speech. I have to first start by drawing out the commonality that existed there. Of course members on the Opposition side of the Chamber wish to see an end to gangs in our communities; there is no dispute there. Of course we wish to see an end to the intimidation that comes with gang membership in our community. I find it quite insulting when members on the other side of the Chamber try to create a division between members by claiming that we on this side do not know about the impact that gangs have. I find that insulting. I think there is awareness across all parts of this Chamber of the issues that gangs bring to our community. The sticking point is what will work and that is the bit I want to dwell on. 
But first before I go on to that I say to members that the member who represents ACT rose to his feet earlier and gave quite a harsh speech against the bill. He obviously has quite strong feelings—and I respect that particularly because they are in line with my views on the bill. But still Mr Garrett has clarified for us that ACT will in fact be voting in favour of this bill and he has done so already. I think that probably highlights to the rest of the Committee the sacrifice he is willing to make in exchange for the “three strikes” bill. We already know that the reason he has openly spoken out against this bill but has still chosen to vote for it is that the ACT Party does not wish to see its “three strikes” policy fall to the wayside and voting for this bill is the sacrifice that ACT is willing to make. The evidence for that is the 5-minute speech that Mr Garrett has already given. 
We have already spoken of the symbolic nature of this bill and some further evidence of that is the fact that this bill has not been adopted as a Government bill. If it was as sound as members across the other side of the Chamber claim it is why is it not a Government bill? If in fact we are going to see this measure brought in in a piecemeal way I look forward to seeing the member from Coromandel introduce a bill like this one for her region. I look forward also to seeing the member from Tauranga introduce a similar local bill. In fact I am very happy to speak to the local councils in those areas to see whether they would support those members in such moves. 
There has been a lot of crowing from the other side of the Chamber calling for us to read out the purpose of the bill. I am very happy to do that now—as Ms Goudie has pleaded with us to do. The purpose as stated in the bill is: “This Act is to prohibit the display of gang insignia in specified places in the district.” Looking beyond that we have to ask why Mr Borrows has chosen to put that purpose into the bill. What is he trying to achieve? He is trying to change the impact that gangs have in his community. And what is that impact? It is intimidation. What does that intimidation come via? It is via crime violence and all of the things that stem from them in a community. So there is an underlying reason beyond just the simple purpose of the bill and that is what we are attempting to achieve through that purpose. 
But the patch alone actually bears no relationship to intimidation and crime; those are what a gang member does. A Brownie does not create fear in a community; what she wears does not create fear. If someone is wearing a gang patch it signifies to the people in the community that that person is involved with other things: that the person is involved in violence crime drug rings and other things. This bill does nothing to change the gang activity that creates the intimidation. We know it is the intimidation that Mr Borrows is trying to change; we have to acknowledge that. 
A gang patch is not the only signifier that someone belongs to a gang. We have already heard a discussion around colours. Colours are a major signifier that someone is a member of a gang. If Ms Goudie chose to visit my part of the community—Huntly for instance or Ngaruawahia where the Bloods and the Crips have a presence—she would find it is not a gang patch that people wear to signify their membership of a gang it is a colour. It is blue and it is red. I would like to ask Mr Borrows whether a secondary impact of this bill will be that colours will be banned. I anticipate that he will stand up and say that that is not what he intends. What will stop gangs from simply reverting to colours that also hold representation? Just to make the point again I say that if Ms Goudie was walking down the street in Coromandel I doubt whether she would be intimidated by any one person wearing a shade of blue in the street. Yet that is one of the colours that some gangs choose to wear. 
So what again is it that people would be intimidated by if someone happened to be wearing blue or—make a leap—a gang patch? It is more than the patch that is the problem and that is what members on this side of the Chamber have been talking about. What are we doing to tackle the underlying issues that cause people to fear gangs? This bill does not address that and that is what members on this side of the Chamber are calling for. 
We have also talked a little bit about the impact of tattoos and the fact that there has been some debate about the possible inclusion of tattoos in the bill. I respect the point that was made both by the member from Tauranga and also by Mr Borrows that a person who has tattoos—perhaps through previous membership of a gang—but then chooses not to affiliate with that gang deserves to have the right to move on and therefore tattoos should not be included. That again highlights a fact: a tattoo in itself does not actually represent the lifestyle that comes with gang membership and the member does not wish to punish those who choose to move on from the gang lifestyle. What we should be targeting is the lifestyle that comes with gang membership. 
Sandra Goudie 
: She’s not targeting anything! 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I can see Ms Goudie is very confused by the depth of the argument that I am presenting. She does not quite understand where I am going with this because it is not symbolic and simple. It is not simple because we recognise that tackling gangs tackling crime and tackling the crime that gangs perpetrate are not simple things to deal with. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Hello! Get with the programme! 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I know it is complex. I ask Ms Goudie to stay with me; she might actually learn something. 
We also need to ask whether if we are not to include tattoos in this bill that does in fact encourage tattoos being used as a means of substitution for patches. If I am no longer allowed to wear a patch when I am in certain parts of Wanganui—we are not sure which parts they are; not all parts I imagine but probably just the affluent parts—and I am not allowed to wear a T-shirt or a jacket on my back do I tattoo myself instead? Is that considered to be acceptable within the provisions of the bill? I find it hard to draw that distinction. I think this highlights how difficult the workability of this bill will be. 
Mr Borrows has also pointed out there has been a recent crime tragedy in his own community when an individual was attacked for wearing a colour in and around a gang area. Again we have touched on the issue of reverting to colours. This bill will encourage more incidents like that because soon gangs will not look for patches. They will look for the colours that represent patches which will put members of the community at greater risk and make them more vulnerable if they simply walk around in a colour that could be identified with any number of these gangs. We have to be honest about that. 
In fact I have seen some uncertainty from across the Chamber about this bill. That is not about its intentions. Again I must highlight to Mr Borrows that we support the intention of this bill. We support the fact that Wanganui is trying to tackle the issue but we believe that we have to go to the heart of the issue and that this bill does not do that. In fact some National members have raised that. Richard Worth in 2006 said that efforts to ban gang patches although well intentioned may in fact— 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.