Robertson Grant: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2104] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Clause 4 is the interpretation clause of the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill. There are a number of points that I want to raise as we work through the different interpretations in the bill. In this clause we will find the nub of some of the concerns that have been expressed on this side of the House. It is when we start to delve into the meaning of terms such as “gang” “gang insignia” and “public and specified place” that we actually find the difficulty for Labour in this bill. The difficulty is not the intention of the bill. As we have already discussed the intention is one that we can all sympathise with but in terms of the interpretation it is a difficult area for us. 
Let us start to work through the clause. The first area I will talk about is the meaning of “Council” and “district”. Here “Council” means “the Wanganui District Council” and “district” means “the district of the Wanganui District Council”. As we have already said this presents us with a difficulty. By using those interpretations of the meaning of “Council” and “district” the bill sets up a situation where we are making criminal law for a specific region. Making criminal law for a specific region is a very very difficult and dangerous area because all we do at that point is move a problem from district to district. As we have noted a number of times in this debate the Wanganui district does have a gang issue as do a number of other districts. 
If we are defining and interpreting “Council” and “district” to mean “the Wanganui District Council” what will the good people of Palmerston North be thinking tonight when they are listening to and watching this debate? 
Simon Bridges 
: A victory for democracy! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: They will be wondering whether by this bill and by this interpretation Parliament is simply shifting the problem from Wanganui to Palmerston North. The gangs might even find their way to Tauranga to see Mr Bridges but a number of problems are created when we create laws like this. It pushes us as a Parliament towards the notion that we can make criminal law on a district by district basis. We have seen internationally that that creates difficulty: it moves crime around; it creates definitional problems about where boundaries are and where they are not. That shows that in the interpretation clause we are in fact creating a problem for ourselves. 
The next interpretation in the clause is around the meaning of “gang”. We have already heard tonight a number of contributions on this issue. In the bill at the moment we have a number of gangs named. As has already been said by my colleagues that is effectively a badge of honour for those gangs. We have already heard stories of people saying: “I want my gang to be in there. I want my gang to be named in the Act. That’s the badge of honour for me.” As my colleague Mr Hodgson who has recently resumed his seat said it is a very very bad thing to have a part of legislation that names a gang and puts a gang on our statute book. I do not want to see gangs on our statute book. I do not want to see gangs in our communities. This bill is effectively giving them that badge of honour by putting their names into the bill. 
Then we move to paragraph (b) which opens up the question of how the Wanganui District Council will define other organisations. In this paragraph “gang” also means “any other specified organisation association or group of persons identified in a bylaw made under section 5”. Well here we go. The Wanganui District Council is about to start deciding what is and what is not a gang. We will come to that when we get to clause 5 later in this debate. I think that is also an extremely dangerous path for the Wanganui District Council to be going down in trying to define what is a gang. We are already naming some of those gangs but we are also opening up a separate can of worms when we have to define which organisations are gangs. I think the Wanganui District Council is being placed in an incredibly difficult position by this bill. 
Sandra Goudie 
: It’s their bill! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: It might well be the council’s bill I say to Mrs Goudie but that does not mean that we as a Parliament should accept every single idea that comes from a district council into this Parliament. Our job is to make law to stay here and to show some leadership. We welcomed this bill coming from the Wanganui District Council and referred it to the Law and Order Committee but now— 
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. I am not quite sure how a lecture on what our job is supposed to be has anything to do with clause 4 and the interpretations. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I do not need any assistance. I will overrule that point of order. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: The issue that we have here is that we could simply rubber-stamp every bill that came through from a district council or we could look at it and say that we understand the concerns that the people of Wanganui have and that we want to try to limit and prevent the intimidation they are feeling but that this is not the bill to do it. The definition of “gang” in this clause is not a part of the bill that will actually help people. “Gang” is defined here in a way that I think is problematic both because of the organisations named and also because of the people whom the district council is now able to name. I think that is very problematic. 
Then we move on to the interpretation of “gang insignia” and this really is the nub of the problem in this clause. 
Simon Bridges 
: A great definition. Brilliant. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I will read what it says: “gang insignia (a) means a sign symbol or representation commonly displayed to denote membership of an affiliation with or support for a gang; and (b) includes any item of clothing to which a sign symbol or representation referred to in paragraph (a) is attached”. I can understand why Simon Bridges is so supportive of this particular clause because it is a lawyer’s paradise to have this definition of “gang insignia”. What do we mean when we say “a sign symbol or representation commonly displayed to denote membership …”? What does that mean? Is that a scarf? Is that a T-shirt? Is it a particular coloured T-shirt? A red or a blue T-shirt? What is it? 
Moana Mackey 
: A bandanna. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Is it a bandanna? These are the things that will then be debated and questioned in the courts giving yet more promotion to the gangs that are associated with some of those things. Fundamentally this clause gives a false hope that knowing and being able to say what is “gang insignia” will fix behaviour. In the end people will find ways around it. Once the courts define it as perhaps a bandanna or a scarf we will move on to another item of clothing another kind of badge or another colour. It will not help solve any of the problems to simply keep redefining “gang insignia”. Paragraph (b) of this definition of “gang insignia” refers to “any item of clothing to which a sign symbol or representation referred to in paragraph (a) is attached”. Well what will that be? 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: “I love Mum”. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: An “I love Mum” badge or a piece of embroidery. Whatever it is we will have an endless round of legal debate on what “gang insignia” actually means. It is not a suitable interpretation. 
Then we move on to the definition and interpretation of “public place”. What is a public place? According to the bill a public place “(a) means a place—(i) that is under the control of the Council; and (ii) that is open to or being used by the public whether or not there is a charge for admission;” a “road” or “any part of a public place.” That is very good. We know and we have defined what we are talking about. We are talking about areas in public but a public place is a specified place. That is the thing. It is a specified place that the district council decides on. That means that the district council will begin looking around. We know that they want to take people out of the central city. They do not want the image of gang patches in the central city. What does that mean? Once again we move the problem around. We shift the problem rather than actually trying to solve the problem. We know that the problem will be shifted to those suburbs where there are already gang issues. It will not be shifted to the rich areas of Wanganui; it will not be shifted to the central city. We can guarantee that a specified place under the Wanganui District Council will not include those areas such as Castlecliff where we know there are already gang problems. 
Right through this interpretation section we can see difficulties legal wrangles and problems that have been shifted from place to place. It is quite simply an unacceptable clause for us to be passing as a Parliament no matter the good intent of the member who has brought it before us.