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:2106] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to stand up and take a call on this interpretation clause. I agree with a lot of what my colleague Grant Robertson has been saying. I think he has outlined Labour’s concerns about this bill particularly well. I reiterate the concerns that Labour has. 
Simon Bridges 
: Then why is the member talking? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Well if National members think that this is such a great bill why do they not pick it up as a Government bill and make it apply to the whole country? 
Paul Quinn 
: We don’t need to; it’s before us. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: OK I have to explain something to Mr Paul Quinn: this applies only to Wanganui. Does the member realise that? My point is that if National members think that this is such a great bill why do they not pick it up and make it apply to the whole country? 
Paul Quinn 
: Because only Wanganui wants it. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I am looking forward to seeing the survey tabled from Mr Paul Quinn from which he takes the piece of information that only Wanganui wants this legislation. I suspect there is none because one of the concerns we have about this legislation is this passing of criminal law district by district. I do not think that that is an avenue we want to go down at all. 
I come to the definition of a public place. Another concern I have about this bill is that we are being asked to pass legislation when we do not know where it will apply in Wanganui. We do not know what the legislation will look like when the by-laws are passed. I congratulate the Law and Order Committee; I think they have done a good job of trying to come up with the best they can for a very bad bill. We do not know where that provision is going to apply. As it stands the bill basically provides carte blanche to put it anywhere. But I think I know where it will apply. This legislation will not apply in the poorest parts of Wanganui. It will not apply in the parts of Wanganui where people living there are citizens with the least power to oppose this kind of thing. It will apply to some of the wealthier areas—some of the nicer areas if you want to put it that way—in Wanganui. Once again we will end up with our poorest communities—those already struggling to deal with the realities of gang activity—having to put up with even more because this legislation is being driven into their area. I want to know how any member of this House can vote for that and say that that is an OK thing to do. 
We should be doing a lot more to eliminate the activities of gangs but pushing them into the poorest parts of our communities where they can cause even more trouble is not the way to do it: that is going to make it worse. How will local business people in the public areas where gangs are going to be pushed into feel when suddenly some business people in Wanganui are protected from having any gang members but they are not? How will those business people feel when they are not in an area that is covered by a by-law? One of the issues I have with this bill is that we are being asked to pass it without knowing the actual impact that it will have on Wanganui and its citizens. It is very very difficult for this Parliament to do that in an area of criminal law. 
I come to the definition of gang insignia. We have amendments on the Table that both do pretty much the same thing. They seek to take tattoos out of the definition of gang insignia. We appreciate the reasons why that provision has been put up. It is difficult— 
Paul Quinn 
: You people put it in there! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Once again I might have to educate Mr Paul Quinn. On select committees Labour members like to work constructively to write the best law that we can—we do like to do that. We have decided that this is not a law in its entirety that we want to support but that does not mean that we will not be constructive at the select committee and try to come up with the best law that we can. 
I do not see the point of banning gang patches if we are not going to ban tattoos. That creates an incentive for people to go out and get their faces tattooed with their gang insignia because they can no longer wear it on their T-shirts. I want to know how that is a good outcome of this legislation. I think that if we were to talk to people they would probably tell us that they find a facial gang tattoo—an insignia—one of the most intimidating things. I think that that is more intimidating than a red or black T-shirt or a red or black bandanna. If this amendment goes through we are being asked to pass legislation that says to gang members that they are allowed to go into a certain area with no gang patches except for tattoos—they have to take their T-shirts jackets or whatever off but their tattoos are OK. So if people want a permanent gang patch that they cannot be made to take off they can go out and get a tattoo. I do not necessarily think that that is the kind of signal we want to send. 
In the end Labour is voting against this legislation because we do not think it is going to work at all anyway. But if we are looking at the details of these amendments I think that that is probably quite an unintended consequence that we should avoid. If we look at the definition of gang as my colleague has already pointed out we see that it is a badge of honour to be put up—I will not take much longer at all if my call is extended Mr Chairperson— 
Paul Quinn 
: Promise? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: —unless Mr Paul Quinn keeps interjecting on me and then I am going to take another 5 minutes after this. He has so much to say. Maybe Mr Quinn might want to stand on his feet and take a call if he is allowed to—if his whips will let him. 
Paul Quinn 
: I can’t get in; you’re taking up all the time. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: No he cannot get up. He has been told to stay in his seat and not to say anything. His whips are saying “Your mouth is working for the Opposition; please just stay quiet.” 
If we briefly come back to the legislation we see that— 
Paul Quinn 
: Why don’t you sit down and give us a chance? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: —settle down Mr Quinn—it is a badge of honour to be considered in this respect. These gang names are merely names but if we think that the only things that matter to gangs are their names and their patches then we will never come to terms with gang activity in this area. 
I am really surprised the ACT Party is voting for this part of the bill. Surely after everything that Rodney Hide and Heather Roy said at the time of the first reading of this bill this is really where the rubber hits the road for ACT. Do the ACT members who have voted for this legislation all the way through this Committee stage really truly believe that this is going to change anything? ACT is the law and order party—it is tough on law and order so we would think it would be interested in a definition of gangs gang insignia and areas gangs will be banned from. Does the ACT Party really believe that this bill will make a difference? As my colleague Pete Hodgson pointed out earlier there is the bigger issue of whether a libertarian party really believes that people should be told they cannot wear a particular T-shirt. We would think given some of the things ACT members were saying during the Electoral Finance Act debate that that would be something they were against. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Or a yellow jacket. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Or a yellow jacket for example. Do they really think that banning colours or anything that might be construed as a gang thing is something the ACT Party should be supporting? I am very interested to hear what the member Roger Douglas has to say on this issue because it seems to me to go against everything that party has always claimed that it stands for but apparently—clearly—does not. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Only for some. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That is quite correct; as my colleague says only for some. I think we need to be very careful about this legislation. It is full of loopholes—absolutely full of loopholes. If the bill does not have perverse outcomes it will be completely avoided by the people we are deliberately trying to catch with it. We have other legislation on the statute book. The proceeds of crime legislation should do far far more to tackle gangs than this ever will. Why is that not being advanced?