Cosgrove Clayton: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:2946] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I join with the previous speaker Chester Borrows in showing my respect for the Wanganui District Council. I met with Mayor Michael Laws a couple of weeks ago and he put his case very passionately along with Mr Borrows today and throughout this process in respect of supporting the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill. 
Labour members have been asked by Mr Borrows and others why we are not supporting the bill. The first test I think of any legislation is whether it will work. I do not mean that in any disrespectful way to the people of Wanganui. Mayor Michael Laws said to me and Mr Burrows has said— 
David Garrett 
: Borrows! Get his name right! He’s been here much longer; you should know his name. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
:—there is a chirping from the back row—that they passionately support the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill and asked why Wanganui should not be allowed to trial it. Mayor Michael Laws and I had quite a robust debate over a couple of hours and a couple of sandwiches. I put it to him that in essence although the bill is well intentioned it deals with an issue—not to be trivial—of apparel. Whatever the genius from ACT said concerning Mr Borrows or Burrows ACT is a party that has flip-flopped. ACT said the bill was repugnant and now it is voting for it. I will be interested in Mr Hide’s rationale around that but we will not destroy the debate by getting into the “h” word. I put it to Mr Laws that the problem is that the bill deals with apparel. I note the issue of the link as he and others have put it between intimidation and apparel. I put it to the mayor that we can take their patches off and I am for that but then what are they replaced with? They are replaced with a bandanna or a bracelet or a belt or whatever. The bill does not achieve its goal. 
The other point about this bill as I understand it is that—quite rightly—it does not quarantine the whole of Wanganui. It does not ban this apparel from the whole of the Wanganui District; it quarantines certain parts of the area. It is a bit like the bill that I sponsored some years ago which was the anti - boy racer bill that attempted a nationwide solution. My own council in Christchurch wanted to add to that and it set about quarantining off areas of the metropolitan city. So the boy racers moved from one area to another. I am not comparing boy-racing activity with the grotesque activity of gangs—I just use it as an analogy. They are on two different planes and I accept that. But I think we will find that gangs if they wish will move. They will move to the other side of the street. They will wear their patches over on the other side of Wanganui that is not quarantined off. So the issue for us in Labour is whether this bill works. 
The other issue is why a local authority should be held responsible when nationwide solutions developed by Governments should actually be responsible for dealing with these issues. I ask the Government quite interestingly why for instance it kept postponing the criminal proceeds legislation which of course would get very tough on gangs and deal to gangs. My view—and I would be interested in colleagues’ opinions—from what I have heard from the police and others is that the way to get to gangs is to follow the money. The Police Association made comments to that effect to us in select committee this morning—one must follow the money. 
Chester Borrows 
: They support the bill. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I accept that. One deals to the money. The issue of apparel although visible is secondary. One will not get rid of gangs by taking patches off them but again I pay respect to Wanganui. Its people have looked at a solution for the local community. They have put forward some ideas and they want to have a go at putting them into action. Mayor Michael Laws did say to me that Wanganui may pursue these measures regardless of what this Parliament does through its own by-laws and regulations; that may or may not be possible. But I do have respect for any local authority that looks for local solutions. 
We accept that gangs are intimidatory. They are grotesque. They cause huge angst to people’s lives even to those who are not touched by the violence of gangs. They feel it when they go to the local park and see those folks who behave like thugs. They do not want to have to take their kids out on a picnic and be sitting beside the Mongrel Mob or Black Power. This is not a situation they want. I accept that. But the question from a logical point of view is whether this legislation will work. Will it meet its objectives and actually stop those who wish to intimidate? Will it take their patches off but will they then put on some other sort of intimidatory apparel? And intimidatory apparel is what we are interested in. Perhaps it will be a tattoo with “Mongrel Mob” on the forehead—a bit difficult to get rid of that I would have thought. Will it stop them from actually engaging in the grotesque and intimidatory activity they do engage in? I think not. But as I say I pay respects to the local authority. 
I want for a moment given that Mr Garrett has been so vocal on this to touch on the ACT position because I think that is an interesting position. I think Chester Borrows Michael Laws and others have had the best intentions with this bill. They have acted with a high degree of integrity. I respect them for it. But then I look at a quote from that venerable leader that bastion of honour Rodney Hide who on April 2008 said the following: “I am so pleased that Mr Chester Borrows has relieved me of the obligation of voting for this shocking Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill. I said that the ACT party would vote for the bill to go to a select committee. We could never vote for its third reading but I thought the debate would be useful.” I would just be interested to see the vote tonight by the bastion of honour and integrity that Mr Hide paints himself to be every day. I would invite Mr Hide to tell the House why his position has changed. 
Although we in Labour respect the proposition and we respect the integrity of what Wanganui and the local member is trying to do our position has been consistent right through. The test for us is whether this will actually have the effect that those people in Wanganui want it to have. I look over at the ACT Party—just look at them all there Mr Boscawen Mr Garrett and Mr Hide and there will be a few of the other riff-raff around here somewhere I am sure—and I ask them what has changed. Is it the tantalising what I think Mr Peters called the “baubles of office”. Maybe it is. I am a Catholic; maybe it is “a few pieces of silver” to quote the Biblical phrase. But what has changed? 
David Garrett 
: Maybe we listened to the House? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Mr Garrett said maybe he listened. So I suppose that means that Mr Hide’s position of April 2008 is wrong when he called this bill a shocker and said that he would not vote for it is wrong. They cannot be both right. But I would be interested to know what sort of great moral virtue has moved them from their position of being stunned shocked and despairing that this bill might go through to now lining up in the lobbies like sheep to vote for it. I suspect there is a reason. It has been highlighted by my colleagues and it is to do with commitments or otherwise that they have sought from the Government. But there is a word for that it begins with “h” and I will not use it out of respect for the Assistant Speaker in this House. They will live with that. It appears that the old values in the ACT Party are for sale at whatever cost—at whatever cost. It is a free market is it not? Put the old principle up for sale get the highest bidder and they are in—sold. Well people judge that action for what it is. I am sure that Mayor Michael Laws will disagree with my position and my party’s position on this. But I think that even he would concede that we have been consistent and we have been honourable—and that we have a position on this bill. 
I conclude by again paying tribute to the local member. He is a member with experience in law enforcement. I also pay tribute to the mayor and those people who have put their heads round the table to try to look for a local solution to a pretty awful problem. From my party’s point of view we are looking at what is happening for instance across the ditch in South Australia. What Mike Rann the Labor Premier of South Australia and Michael Atkinson the Attorney-General are doing is pretty robust. I have got to say I think gang legislation there still needs to be tested in terms of its effectiveness and validity. I think they are about to declare their first gang. It will be I suspect 12 months before we see whether the legislation is effective but we are watching closely and learning from what is happening over there. I think that is cutting-edge legislation but as to whether it is effective the jury is out. But I say again to the Government that the criminal proceeds legislation is something that it has sort of dilly-dallied around with. It could actually bang it through and of course that would have huge effect in terms of dealing with gangs. If we follow the money follow the structure and follow the organisation we deal to that. Again that is what the South Australians appear to be doing with their legislation. But if we simply deal with an issue of apparel well-intentioned though it is I do not believe we will come back to this House say in a year’s time or 2 years’ time and say that this is the nut that we cracked to solve the problem. 
But I think we have a consistent position I think we can respect local authorities and it should not deter local authorities in other places from looking for innovative solutions and going to their local members and saying: “Hey we want to put some ideas up.” and then for us to properly examine them in the House. At least they will say about the Labour side of the House and in respect I think of most parties—I see that National’s Sandra Goudie chair of the Law and Order Committee is here—that we have been consistent unlike our small friends from ACT who loiter in the corridors over there. I commend the comments to the House.