Cosgrove Clayton: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — Second Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1644] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 The first thing I want to do is to commend the previous speaker as the local member for bringing forward a local bill. I also commend the Wanganui District Council for its efforts as Mr Borrows himself said to deal as locals with a local and substantial problem. But I think there are some difficulties with the bill and I think Mr Borrows alluded to one of them when he said that Wanganui has probably had its fair share of gang difficulties. But he also said that Wanganui is like many other provincial cities in this country that have to deal with this sort of gang activity. 
I make no excuses for gangs. They are abhorrent; they have caused tragedies as Mr Borrows has alluded to in the youngest members of our population. I do not subscribe to the view—and I know that my colleague Shane Jones does not subscribe to the view—that these gangs endear themselves somehow to Maori culture. The senior kaumatua and kuia whom I have spoken to and the Maori members on this side of the House would be of the view that gangs degrade Maori culture—they degrade any culture—and that they are unacceptable. I look at Ms Turia and others who have somehow become apologists for these gangs and I invite her to go back to her community and ask those many members of her community who have had tragedy visited upon them and who have lost loved ones whether they feel that somehow the Mongrel Mob or Black Power endear themselves to Maori culture. 
I say also that there have indeed been National members who have identified—I think appropriately—that there are difficulties with this bill and of itself I do not believe that it will address the underlying problem which is of dealing to gangs. It deals to an issue of insignia and clothing as it were—and I do not mean that with any disrespect—but it does not deal with the underlying problem with gangs which is that of violence and intimidation. I note that Kate Wilkinson herself in the  
Eastern Bay News 
 on 17 May 2007 said that with banning gangs “the difficulty was defining the bad gang.” 
Well I have some difficulty with that because I think that Mr Borrows quite rightly and everybody could define a bad gang. Does Ms Wilkinson not understand that the Mongrel Mob is a bad gang or that the Headhunters is a bad gang or that Black Power is a bad gang— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Or white power— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —or white power groups are bad gangs? A few of those geniuses said they would invade my electorate. A gang is a gang is a gang and they are all bad gangs. Ms Wilkinson went on to say: “It is also how far central government can go in doing this.”—that is defining a bad gang. Well I pay my respects to Mr Laws the mayor and to Mr Borrows because they have made an attempt—and I think a pretty logical attempt—to identify and list within this bill which groups are considered gangs. 
If we look at clause 4 we see that they do just that. They say “gang means—” under clause 4(1)(a) “Black Power Hells Angels Magogs Mothers Mongrel Mob Nomads or Tribesmen; and (b) any other specified organisation association or group of persons identified in a bylaw …”. On the face of it—and I say this respectfully—this is a decent attempt to try to deal with the problem. However here is the difficulty: if I am in the Mongrel Mob I will change my name. Then quite logically the district council will move under clause 4(1)(b) to specify that name as being within the listed definition of a gang. Then I will change my name again and I will change my patch colours again or I will put a scarf around my wrist perhaps instead of wearing a jacket. I will change my insignia or I might wear a different set of trousers or belt or whatever and again force the Wanganui District Council to try to redefine that within its bylaw. If it cannot do that we will come back to this House with another local bill to try to do that. I say on the record of the House I mean no disrespect. [ 
Interruption 
] Some members laugh. I invite them to just read the law because if they define insignia in that way or list these gangs and then the Mongrel Mob changes its name to the “Senior Dogs” or something like that—invent whatever name you like—it has to be specified in this law. 
There is also an argument that this will actually push gangs to certain parts of Wanganui; it will visit and concentrate those problems on certain parts of Wanganui. Clause 5 of the bill specifies the bylaw’s designated places and clause 5(5) says “A bylaw must not be made under subsection (1)(a) if the effect of the bylaw either by itself or in conjunction with other bylaws made under subsection (1)(a) would be that all the public places in the district are specified places.” The law itself does not allow the district council to designate the whole of the district a specified place and I understand the logic behind this. It allows it to designate and specify only certain areas within Wanganui as I understand it I tell Mr Borrows—and he nods; he knows this bill better than I because he is the good local member. 
Sandra Goudie 
: It’s no different from the liquor ban. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh pipe down; this is a serious issue Ms Goudie and I credit Mr Borrows with treating it seriously. I invite the member to follow Mr Borrows’ example. 
This bill is a bit like what the Christchurch City Council in good faith tried to do with boy racers. Through bylaws it sealed off if you will a particular area. What happened is that it pushed them to another area. I do not actually think that it is right that the Government abrogate its responsibility and say that it is a local government issue when dealing with gangs but I again commend the district council for making an effort. I also commend the 65 percent—I think it was that Mr Borrows said—in the referendum who made a cry for help and said that they support this because they believe that it will assist in resolving the problem. Ms Turia can interject and snipe but I do not think that adds to the respect around this debate. 
Clause 5A talks about signposting. Again I know that there is a big difference between a boy racer and a gang member. These were some of the things tried in Christchurch where areas were designated and signposted. I am told by some that the biggest effect was that the signs disappeared “real quick” and were trophies for some of the boy racers. The point I am trying to make is that simply quarantining an area off through a bylaw and saying that if gang members are found there their insignia will be taken and they will be fined is not going to address the violence inherent in these gangs. I point out to the House that when we debated the “$50 Bill” the Minister of Police Judith Collins said that fines do not work. No one pays fines and with no disrespect I cannot see members of the Mongrel Mob lining up and diligently paying their fines. 
The Labour Party position is that though we support the sentiment of this bill to deal with gangs we do not believe that the Government should wash its hands and say “OK over to you Wanganui you’re out on your own.” Labour believes that we should deal directly and effectively with the violence and intimidation. That it why my leader Phil Goff and Annette King Darren Hughes and I met with Mike Rann the Premier of South Australia. I am again going to see the Premier in a few weeks. We know well that the state’s gang legislation is exceptionally hard hitting and it appears to be effective in its early days of operation but it is yet to be fully tested. That is why we will not support this bill because we believe that it does not deal with the problem. It simply says that if a patch is designated then the patch is changed and we have to do this again. It says that if we have a list of gangs that then change their names we will have to redesignate. It says that we may inadvertently and unintentionally designate one area and push a gang out of that area and into another part of Wanganui. With no disrespect to the authors of the bill that renders the bill inoperable and ineffective. Labour says that we will continue to study the South Australian model and if it works we will back it.