Mackey Moana: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2126] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I thank the member who is sponsoring the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill for taking that call. I hope the Chair recognises that the speech was slightly wider than clause 5A and that we may be able to respond in kind. I thought it was good that the call was taken but I say to Mr Borrows that the speech was much wider than clause 5A and we were specifically asked to keep our speeches to that clause. 
I will respond to his speech because it was never implied that the Wanganui District Council wanted to attack poor communities. The reality is that there are many communities in our society I say to Mr Borrows that will not read that bit of paper. They will not read it. They will see it and will have no interest in it. They will not know that it is relevant to them. They will not necessarily know the impact it might have on their community. I was simply saying—and I hope this is not going to be politicised as my saying that the Wanganui District Council hates poor communities which I never said—that for something as serious as this the council needs to ensure that those communities that are going to be affected really understand what the by-law means. That is simply all I was saying. I appreciate that the Wanganui District Council had its draft by-law proposal but we all know that there are many people in our communities who will not read that piece of paper. They will not know what to do if they read that piece of paper and do not like what they read there. They will not know how to form a lobby group or how to influence district councillors to vote so that their views are represented. I was simply asking that that be considered so that if this bill does pass through this House—and I hope it does not—those communities that are most at risk will be assured that the council will make every effort beyond what is required of it by the bare minimum of the Local Government Act in terms of by-laws to make sure that communities understand that. That is all I was saying. 
Chester Borrows 
: Like a referendum? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: What was that I say to Mr Borrows? 
Chester Borrows 
: Like a referendum? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Mr Borrows fails to understand what I am saying. What was the turn-out for referendums? Can we be sure that the communities that are involved really know what is going on? That is simply what I am saying. If we sit up here in our ivory tower and think that every community takes notice of every word we say in central and local government knows everything that is going on and knows the exact processes they should follow under the Local Government Act to remedy anything they do not like then we are very very bad representatives for the country. All I was simply pointing out is how important it is to make sure that all communities in Wanganui understand especially if they are in a community that will not be part of the by-law— 
Paul Quinn 
: They understand it. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Well Mr Paul Quinn says they understand it. Of course he claimed that every part of the country apart from Wanganui did not want this bill and that is why the Government did not pick it up as a Government bill. Actually I think Mr Quinn is just speaking off the top of his head and has no evidence to back that up. 
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member has in fact misrepresented me. I take objection. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order. The member knows that. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I apologise to Mr Quinn. I did not realise he was so sensitive. I thought he was able to withstand robust debate. Clearly he is not. 
The Labour Party will be supporting the amendment moved by Metiria Turei to delete subclause (2) of clause 5A. We agree that it is rather unfair to tell people that they can be prosecuted for being in an area where there is a sign saying that they cannot be in that area with gang insignia then telling them that there is no defence when there was not actually a sign there. This comes back to the point that my colleague Grant Robertson made which is that gang members will want to steal those signs. In fact a whole lot of people will want to take those signs and hang them up in their bedrooms as they do with traffic cones and all those kinds of things. Anyone who has been into a university flat knows the array of street signs that can often be found there. This will be one that people will really want to have. I do not believe it is fair that someone can be prosecuted under this bill for going into an area while wearing gang insignia as provided for under this bill when there is no signage telling them that they are in that area. 
I hope that the ACT Party will be supporting this amendment. Even if the party does go on to vote for the bill—I do not think it should but clearly it is under some pressure to do that—I hope it at least supports this amendment. I do not think the ACT Party believes that it is fair that someone can be prosecuted for committing a crime when they are not told that it is a crime to do it in that area. I really do not think that the ACT Party believes that that is fair. If ACT supports this amendment it will be agreed to and at least we will be one tiny step closer to fairer legislation when it comes through. 
I want to know what this might do in the communities that do not know how to engage in this process—and I still believe those may well be our poorer communities. What will it do to the value of their houses when they know that in certain parts of the district there will be big signs up saying it is OK to buy a house in that area because it is a gang-free area but the rest of Wanganui is a gang-intense area an area where we have told gang members they can wear their insignia? I wonder what that will do to those communities to any tourism ventures they may want to have in those communities and to house values for people who own homes in those communities. I would appreciate the member in charge of the bill taking a call on that issue. Obviously I think we will have to have some kind of signage if we go through with this. I ask whether the impact has really been thought through. What might be the obviously unintended impact on those communities that will be known and signposted as areas where people can go and see patched gang members and gang insignia and where it is OK to be intimidated by gangs even if it is not OK in other parts of the district? 
Again this comes back to the point that if the Government feels this is something that might work and that needs to be done why is it not being done across the whole country? Why is it not being done in a uniform way so that we do not pick winning suburbs and losing suburbs and winning cities and losing cities? Mr Borrows claims that we are being disingenuous when we say that we appreciate the work that the Wanganui District Council has done. For myself I say to Mr Borrows that I am not being patronising to the Wanganui District Council when I say that. I genuinely mean it. I think that we can thank the council for the hard work that it has done on this legislation and for the manner in which the legislation came to the House—clearly the council cares about its community and wants to do something about the issue—but respectfully disagree that this a pathway by which a solution can be achieved. 
Labour supported this bill’s referral to the Law and Order Committee. I am sure Mr Borrows will concur that our members on the committee worked hard to try to come up with a workable bill. But when it came back after the select committee process we just could not support a bill that would not do anything and that might actually have unintended consequences. If the National Government wants to put this up as legislation that covers all areas so that we do not have to have signposting because everybody would know that it applied everywhere and so that people who travel from outside the city would know that the law applied across the whole country then of course the Government can come back and talk to us and we will make a decision based on the merit of that legislation. 
I would like to hear from the member in the chair on his view on Metiria Turei’s amendment. I think it is a fair one. I understand that Mr Borrows will probably stand up and say that gang members will take the sign down and walk into the area. I do not believe that is as likely to happen as their taking it down just to put it up in their gang headquarters or a student’s taking it down to put it up in a university flat. I think that at some point we have to come down to a fundamental principle. That principle is that if signposting is the way people know those areas are where they cannot wear gang insignia then we cannot say that if the sign is not there someone can still be prosecuted. There is no way people can know about that unless they go down and read a document at the council. Why would they do that if they did not know that it would be an issue? 
The first place I go when I visit Wanganui is not to the council offices to check all the by-laws so that I can make sure that I do not break any of them while I am there. That is what we are actually saying people have to do because if those signs go missing people will be committing a criminal act without even knowing it and will be subject to a $2000 fine. I do not believe that anyone in this House should support that or say that it is OK. Maybe the signs that are outside Wanganui—and we could put this in by amendment—should say: “Please go to the local council and check the by-law because you may be breaking the law without knowing it if the signs have disappeared.” 
I would be interested in the member in the chair taking a call. I hope National members will support the amendment moved by Metiria Turei. I hope the ACT Party will support it. 
Grant Robertson 
: They’ll have five positions on it. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: They probably will have five positions on it. Maybe after Mr Garrett has given us his position Mr Boscawen can give us his position and then we can get a better idea. I think that will be one small step towards making this a much fairer bill. Thank you.