Bridges Simon: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — Second Reading 
Bridges Simon: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1655] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to rise and speak to the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill. I say at the outset that I thought the Hon Tariana Turia’s speech was very thoughtful and was clearly heartfelt. I agree with her that this issue is difficult and that responses to it can legitimately differ and I hope she can appreciate the respect I have for her views though our parties may on occasion hold quite different views on matters. 
It seems to me that this bill represents democracy in action and if we take the view that all politics is local this is local democracy in action. Here a community its mayor its council and its local member are responding to a specific concern or set of concerns in their community: gangs wearing patches are acting in the central business district as though they own the town; the mere act of wearing their patches in the central business district intimidates others; and by wearing their patches they are acting in a confrontational and provocative way to other gangs and to other people. So I say again that it strikes me that this bill is democracy in action and is a community and its members responding to a legitimate and specific concern. 
I pay tribute to a few people. Mayor Michael Laws it seems is not just a good talkback host and a good commentator—although Grant Robertson says he is not even that. I liked his column in—I think—the  
Sunday Star-Times  
where he said that I was handsome and telegenic; it is hard to disagree with him on that front. He was being charitable but it is hard to disagree with him. As I say he is a good mayor. I liked what the Hon Darren Hughes said—I see he is no longer in the House. He said that Michael Laws is effectively the Rudi Giuliani of New Zealand politics. I am not sure if that makes Wanganui the Big Apple of New Zealand but he is a good mayor and I commend him for his work on this bill. 
I commend the Wanganui District Council and the local MP Chester Borrows whom I have known for some time now. I have always respected him greatly. I remember his excellent billboard—one of the best ever in fact—in Whanganui. I think it said: “Outstanding in his field.” and he was standing in his field. He is a man with a lifetime of law and order experience and we saw that in the debate earlier this afternoon. I commend the community of Wanganui which I see in a poll was 65 percent in support of this bill. I also understand that in the process required under these local bills submissions were called for from the community and after a period of weeks no one had put in submissions against this bill. That has to be significant and shows that this is local democracy in action. 
Regarding the actual bill I say that the purpose clause is very good: “to prohibit the display of gang insignia in specified places in the district.” It is a good purpose and it really goes to the issue of big men behaving badly—like overgrown children and worse—in the central business district of this area. The bill is directed to that. I do not think anyone in this House will suggest that this bill is some sort of silver bullet in relation to gangs and the issues that they present. It will not be a silver bullet; it will not stop all of the gang evil frankly that we have seen in this nation. That is a utopian dream. But it will I hope—and there is every reason for optimism—do something about the intimidating and confrontational effect of gangs and patches in the central business district of this specific locality. 
From the purpose of the bill we move to its implementation. Let us acknowledge from the outset that following through on the purpose of this bill is not easy. I agree with Grant Robertson that there are specification issues in this bill. They are acute they are not easy and they are entirely problematic. Let us go through those. Firstly the bill needs a mechanism to specify the gangs that it covers. In the bill there is a list of gangs and it is important that there is flexibility through council by-laws for new gangs to be added. In terms of implementing its purpose I say so far so good. The bill also needs to define the insignia used by the gangs. I say to the House that that is a particularly difficult task for the bill. If we make the definition too narrow then we create problems: we miss out some insignia and we allow the flouting of the law. But if we go too wide then of course we criminalise too many and we do not want to do that either. As far as the definition goes—I will not read it to the House—I take the view that there is a pretty good attempt at a definition of “insignia” in this bill. 
The penalty for breaching the law is a $2000 fine or—in clause 7 I believe of the bill—the seizure of the gang insignia. I say to this House that the forfeiture of the patches will hurt the gangs the most. I suspect that that will be the thing that really drives gang members crazy and it is good to see that in the bill. I do not think the issue of tattoos specifically makes it into the bill. It is more than ironic that Labour members who supported the bill at the Law and Order Committee were supportive of the inclusion of tattoos—that is made clear in the commentary on the bill. I am not sure about their inclusion; at the Committee stage we could look at whether to include tattoos. I note that National when it was in Opposition was not in favour of the inclusion of tattoos gang words and the like in the bill. Frankly if people have a tattoo from a long time ago it seems a hard ask to keep them out of the central business district of their city. 
The Hon Clayton Cosgrove made some interesting points in his contribution to this debate. He made the point that gangs might change their names. They might go from being the Mongrel Mob to being the “Mongol Mob” or the like. With respect to the member I say that I doubt that will happen. Gangs like the Mongrel Mob and Black Power have had these names for some time. They are proud of their names and I doubt they would change them. As I say I support this bill. I think it is local democracy in action.