Garrett David: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — Third Reading 
Garrett David: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:2954] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 This is the third time I have spoken on the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill and I openly confess without any embarrassment or shame that I have found it very difficult to make a decision on it. Earlier Mr Cosgrove referred to that as flip-flopping. I wish I could remember exactly the quote from John Kenneth Galbraith who said something like: “I call a man who changes his mind as a result of new evidence very sensible. What kind do you call him?”. I listened very carefully to all of the speeches. I say at the outset that I was impressed by Mr Jones’ speech. He referred to me as a piece of “rock snot” when I first entered the House but even he made a sensible and thoughtful contribution to the debate as have many members on all sides of the House and there have been few—if any—exceptions to that. 
It is an open secret that there has been a considerable amount of passionate discussion within the ACT Party on this bill both in the electorate and in our caucus. It is also fair to say that as a result all members of our caucus have carefully studied all of the speeches from all of the members who have contributed to the debate on this bill. I am very happy to acknowledge that a great deal has been said on all sides of the House and that all contributions perhaps with one or two minor exceptions have made a great deal of sense. That has contributed to my difficulty in forming a firm and implacable view. I sit next to members of the Maori Party and unless I am much mistaken my neighbours both as individuals and as a party have a very good and respectful relationship with each other. I have listened carefully to the points made by the Maori Party and I will listen again to the points made by my colleague Rahui Katene. I say kia ora to Ms Katene but I think I will continue to respectfully disagree with her. 
In that state of confusion I found myself asking both when at caucus meetings and when by myself what to do. The answer was to go up to Wanganui. I went up to Wanganui on Monday. I went there for one reason but to do several things: to gather evidence talk to people listen to people and look at some of the benighted areas that Mr Borrows was kind enough to take me around. I do not know how many people have seen the house where little Jhia Te Tua was shot but I tell members that it was sobering. It was sobering as were the smashed out graffitied glassless shopping areas where decent businessmen—small-business owners—had been driven out by these kinds of people. 
From the time I landed in Wanganui on Monday morning—rather too early for my liking—I listened to what people said. I asked local people what they thought. I can tell those who are interested that excluding Mayor Laws and the police the score was one taxi driver in favour of the bill one taxi driver against two hotel receptionists—when they got over their giggling—in favour and one waiter in favour. 
I then went to meet with the area commander of the Wanganui Police District Inspector Duncan MacLeod and five of his heads of department. The reason for that meeting was quite simple: on behalf of my party both in the electorate and in caucus I wanted to put to him the questions that members of our party had raised—very vehemently in some cases—and that the members of this House had raised. I will not touch on them in detail; I will mention only one the very good question that Mr Jones Mr Cosgrove and Mr Locke touched on which is the question of whether wearing or displaying gang insignia per se should be a crime. A significant faction of our party in the electorate says that it should not be that it is an interference in free speech and that we should wait until gang members actually do some crime. That is a pretty sound theoretical answer especially if one is sitting in a university. 
I put that question to Inspector MacLeod and his men. Inspector MacLeod told me that under the ludicrous code of honour—for want of a better phrase—that governs gang behaviour simply displaying a patch whether out of a window on the back or waving it above the head like the clowns do virtually guarantees violence in itself. This is because rival gang members under their stupid childish macho code feel duty bound to try to “skin” the other member. Skinning is taking the patch. This occurs when only one member is wearing a patch the policemen said. 
Before I forget one thing struck me in that meeting in Wanganui—the 2-hour meeting I had with those policemen. There was one guy there who was pretty much the stereotypical hardened cop. He was about 45 and strongly built. He said to me pretty much as Mr Borrows said a moment ago that individually without their patches he could speak to a number of gang members he knew and on one level he could find a connection. That policeman looked me straight in the eye. I cannot repeat the word he used in respect of gang members who are patched up because I am in Parliament but it was to the effect that he is very frightened. I thought that was a very brave thing for that policeman to say and I was very surprised. 
Mr Borrows gave an example that I was going to touch on which is about the Work and Income New Zealand incident but it is one of several that was discussed at that meeting. This incident was classic. The patched member turned up at Work and Income New Zealand another member was there but not patched up and one idiot was obliged to try to skin the other. A horrible scene of violence ensued at 11 o’clock in the morning with ordinary people watching. Why should people see this? 
One of the greatest concerns of our party and of Mr Cosgrove and many others in this House is whether this bill will work. I think that was my first question to Inspector MacLeod. I said “Quite frankly Commander we are going to look damn silly if we support this bill and it doesn’t work or worse still if you don’t enforce it. And in a year’s time we will be laughed at by the other side.” He said “I commit to you that we will enforce this bill. We will enforce it. Sometimes we may get them on closed-circuit television when the cops are not actually there at the time so they will have to go round and get them later if they can identify them.” He committed to enforcing the bill. 
Mr Borrows has touched on something else that was said about whether the bill would work. The policeman I mentioned a moment ago who was intimidated when gang members were patched up said he had had casual off-the-record conversations with gang members. In their stupid code they do not want to lose the patch and they have said “No bro; we won’t be wearing it—not in that place because we don’t want to lose it.” So who really knows? The bill is a social experiment is it not? We will find out whether the bill works but speaking for myself and for my colleague John Boscawen we will be voting in favour of it. Thank you.