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:2564] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 In this debate on clause 7 I want to draw attention to some concerns which have already been expressed in this debate about the extent of the powers of arrest and seizure in relation to persons displaying gang insignia. As many Labour speakers have already made clear in this debate we certainly do not support gangs. We think that gangs are a blight on our society. But this bill does little to deal with what gangs do; it simply deals with what gangs wear. 
Clause 7—and indeed clause 8—is where we get into the question of what the police may do in terms of how they arrest people and what they may do to seize and remove gang insignia. I think this raises some concerns about the way in which this clause is laid out but what concerns me is the fact that this bill will be able to pass through the House because of the support of the ACT Party. I thought that the ACT Party members would be leaping to their feet when we came to clause 7 because this is the kind of freedom-type issue—the freedom to wear things the freedom to move about the place; in this case Wanganui—that I thought the ACT Party was founded on. 
Rodney Hide in the first reading of this bill touched on some of the issues that are covered by clause 7 and I quote him: “Freedom is about the individual and the measure of a free society is how we move to protect the minority from the majority. If the majority thinks that people wearing glasses should be locked up that is not freedom or democracy;”. I certainly would share those thoughts as a man who wears glasses but the point Rodney Hide was making was that freedoms and things that were important to the ACT Party were the kinds of reasons why he opposed this bill. 
Remarkably that is no longer the case. The ACT Party is now in favour of this bill a bill that Rodney Hide called rubbish. We now know why the ACT Party is in favour of this bill and why its members appear to have traded away their beliefs and their principles about freedom. It is because they have done a deal about the “three strikes” bill. They have done a deal with National—or they are hoping to do a deal with National—to move the “three strikes” bill through the House. We have already seen National send it off to a select committee so that was stage one of the deal. Rodney Hide told people who watched the  
Back Benchers 
 show on TVNZ 7 that a deal had been done to allow ACT to support this bill. The last time we were here I think David Garrett told us the bill was nonsensical but that ACT would still support it. That is a remarkable position. 
The principles about freedom and about the ability for people to move around the district where they live have now been completely ignored by the ACT Party. ACT members have simply moved on from that and have said that they will not stand up for their principles. They will not look at a clause like clause 7 and ask about issues of freedom and the movement of people and they will not ask what the consequences are beyond Wanganui. 
The really important point here is that because we are making this law on a district-by-district basis we are at the moment looking at an issue like freedom of movement—an incredibly basic right—just in relation to Wanganui. We are not thinking about the wider consequences of making criminal law in this way. We are not thinking about what these things actually mean. We know that David Garrett does not much believe in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. He says that we have got too hung up on people’s rights. But even he could see that this particular part of the bill was flawed. But no ACT has decided that it will flip-flop and simply take a deal whereby it will vote for this bill in the hope that it will get its “three strikes” legislation through the House. 
I can quote what Mr Hide told the  
Back Benchers  
show. He said: “We voted for it this bill because what it’s going to do is get ‘three strikes’ through this Parliament.” Those are Rodney Hide’s exact words. Shame on the ACT Party for turning its back on its principles! Sir Roger Douglas is here. He founded the ACT Party and even though I disagreed virulently with what the party stood for it at least I knew what it stood for. It stood for some principles about freedom—freedom of choice and freedom of association—and here we are debating clause 7— 
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Clause 7 is quite specific about matters to be addressed. We have had a wide-ranging dissertation about ACT’s principles. I ask that you bring the speaker to clause 7. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member makes a valid point. The Committee stage is a clause by clause debate. It is about the nuts and bolts of a bill. Freedoms important as they are are things that one might want to bump up against once or twice in a speech but this debate is about the nuts and bolts. This is not a part by part debate. It is a clause by clause debate and it should be about the nuts and bolts of the wording of the clause. I invite the member to continue. He has 27 seconds. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I will make every one of them worthwhile Mr Chair. Clause 7 is indeed about the powers of arrest and seizure in relation to persons displaying gang insignia. Important issues in terms of rights have been raised and I would have expected the ACT Party members to be on their feet immediately. But clearly they have traded their principles away.