Pillay Lynne: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — Third Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:2960] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 Before I start my speech I acknowledge the Deaf community and also the interpreters who are doing a great job in this House today. It is great to see them here. I will open my speech by acknowledging Chester Borrows because I know that Chester who is the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee I sit on has the best of intentions in bringing this bill forward before this House—as indeed does the Wanganui District Council. I have no doubt that although we may not always agree with what the mayor from Wanganui says certainly on this occasion I do not think that anyone in this House has any doubt that the council’s intentions are very honourable in bringing this bill before the House. However in practice Labour members are being very straight-up in saying that we cannot support the bill for the very clear and simple reason that it just will not work. This bill is at odds with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that in itself is a very very sound reason certainly to have serious misgivings about it if not to fail to support it. I acknowledge and congratulate the new members in ACT because they seem to be very powerful members. They have managed to persuade— 
Hon Annette King 
: Rolled your leader! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: They have managed to roll the leader says my colleague. I can see them smiling very happily— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: They love it. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —they are loving this. The member Rodney Hide is not looking— 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I’m as happy as a sandboy. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: He is as happy as a sandboy too. 
Hon Member 
: He’s a Minister now. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: He is a Minister; he has the baubles of office and all he had to do was support this bit of legislation. I am actually going to read what Mr Hide did say in April 2008 which is a year ago. We all know that a week is a long time in politics but in a year—the change in the member’s mind during that time has been extraordinary. Back in April 2008 he said “I am so pleased”—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 could be useful.” 
Hon Member 
: He can’t really have said that. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: He did say that—he did. That is what he said. From there we can look at the history— 
Hon Annette King 
: What’s the payback? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Well I think it is the baubles of office— 
Hon Member 
: Three strikes. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is right—three strikes. We will see that bill go through and it will be very interesting— 
Hon Member 
: That’s going to a committee. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It is going to a committee. We know the history of the bill. It was introduced in 22 November 2007 the first reading was on 16 April and Labour supported it. We believed that the public had a right to have a say on the bill and that it should go to the scrutiny of a select committee. So it was supported by Labour National New Zealand First Mr Copeland and Mr Field. It was opposed by the Greens the Maori Party ACT and Progressive. Following the select committee and the second reading National United Future—and who else came to the table to make it happen? It was the ACT Party. I have to say it was the blokes in the ACT Party. I would really like to see Heather Roy take a call on this because she said some really— 
David Garrett 
: She’s in Australia. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: They are gadabouts—the ACT Party—are they not? 
Simon Bridges 
: Lynne Pillay hasn’t been on any taxpayer-funded trips has she? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Ethiopia—keep quiet! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It beats dancing. I am going to quote Heather Roy because I know that if she were here—and what a trick to send Heather Roy the only one with any logic in the ACT Party off on a trip— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: You cannot refer to someone who is not here. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: They did. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: And it has gone on for a while sorry. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I would be very very pleased if Heather Roy took a call but in the absence of her doing that I will quote from her speech: “The move to outlaw gangs their patches and tattoos is nothing more than a ploy to give the appearance of action—a ploy that will yield no results or benefits to New Zealand society in the long-term struggle to deal with the country’s gang problem.” I think that is a very sound statement and I commend Heather Roy. I would dearly love her to take a call on the bill. If we look at what could happen under this legislation the best-case scenario would be—and it will happen—that gangs will not wear their insignia. But does that change their behaviour and where they go? Rodney Hide said that that in itself was intimidating. I ask this House whether that changes the behaviour of gangs. Does that stop the intimidation? Does that stop the violence? No it does not. The next-case scenario is to ask how hard it will be for the police resources to enforce this action. How much police resource will there be? 
I want to pay tribute to the police and to the work they do in terms of dealing with violence in our society. We are going to see good police resources go into running around saying to gangs “No no no out of here. Move on. Not in our backyard not in Wanganui not in this part of the town.” and moving the gangs on. That is just not going to do anything. The criminal proceeds legislation in this House which was introduced under the Labour Government addresses gang actions and does something tangible to stop the work that they do. But this bill does nothing about that; it addresses the problem of gang dress code—not violence and not criminal gang activity. We all know that the more we push something underground the more glamorous and sexy it becomes. Believe me everybody in this House would empathise with any parent whose child—generally a son—gets involved in a gang because it is very glamorous and the insignia attracts them. This bill is not going to do anything. Naming gangs giving them that status is if anything going to create glamour around the occupation. This bill does not bring about real change; it is simply window dressing. 
Hon Annette King 
: As Heather Roy said. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: As Heather Roy said. I talked about families who are affected and I want to use the last part of my speech to acknowledge that. I do not think this legislation is frivolous. It was brought in with the best of intentions because people were hurting. I empathise with every family who has a member of their family who has been involved in gangs and who has been sucked into the gang world. I know that that would be one of the worst things that can happen. I empathise with every family who has in any way been part of or suffered violence from gangs—whether it be intimidation or whether it be violence that has affected a family member. Our empathy is with all of those families. But we say: “Let us bring in legislation that tackles crime— 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Where is it? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: “Where is it?” asks Rodney Hide. The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill which we saw—at last—on the Order Paper under this Government and which went through this House is legislation that has teeth and tackles crime. But all this bill will do is move the problem. At best if it succeeds in what it is intended to do it will move the problem from one backyard into another and that does nothing towards the safety and security of New Zealanders.