Mackey Moana: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2092] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 Dearie me! Five minutes can seem like a very long time sometimes. 
Paul Quinn 
: Do you people ever have any other sort of introduction? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I say to Sandra Goudie that when Paul Quinn is sitting there looking embarrassed one knows that one is on the wrong track. 
I commend Chester Borrows and the Wanganui District Council for this bill. We believe that local bills should go to select committees and get a fair hearing particularly in relation to issues as important as gang matters. But I am afraid that that is where the Labour Party support for this bill ends and it is for the simple reason that it will not do anything and it may actually cause more problems than it solves. I have great respect for Chester Borrows but I was bit disturbed to hear what I thought was his criticising of a patched gang member for being in hospital visiting his sick child. I hope that is not what the member was saying because he comes from a party that would be very quick to jump to its feet and criticise any patched gang member who abandoned his child in hospital and who did not visit that child in hospital. So I find it offensive that we are now saying that patched gang members should be kept out of hospitals and prevented from visiting their children and meeting their responsibilities as parents because they are doing that—they are. I want to know whether Wanganui Hospital would be part of the area included in this bill because what matters is what gang members do not what they wear. This bill will do nothing. 
Chester Borrows then stomped on his own argument quite nicely when he pointed out a recent case and said that this bill would be good because it would identify gang members and when those members were in a car the police would be able to pick them up. But of course under this bill it would just be a car of people not wearing anything that identified them and police would not see what they may have seen before. Previously people may have rung in to say that they had seen gang members so an unintended consequence of this bill could be that that may now not happen. I think that the member promoting the bill has stomped on his own argument quite nicely in that regard. 
His points about tattoos also highlighted the complete “unworkability” of this legislation. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Oh rubbish! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Sandra Goudie the brains trust over there says that is rubbish. Maybe she should listen for 5 minutes before she opens her mouth. Most people would tell her that the facial tattoos that gang members wear are amongst the most intimidating gang insignia there is. Of course this bill will not cover that. Chester Borrows is putting up an amendment to say that and I understand the reasons why he says it is not workable. But the fact is that we are taking away only some insignia. Some gang members will like the fact that they have now been made even more illegal—they are even listed in an Act of Parliament now as being something that society hates—and there will be others who will simply take off the patches wear the colours wear the bandannas and go about doing exactly what they have always done. This Government has nothing in place to deal with the actions of gangs; it simply wants to deal with what they look like. 
I want to know what the ACT Party thinks. What do Rodney Hide and Heather Roy think? At the time of this bill’s first reading Heather Roy said in the press: “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 benefit to New Zealand society in the long-term struggle to deal with the country’s gang problem”. I agree with her 100 percent. So why is Heather Roy now turning around and voting for this bill? I will tell members. It is because the ACT members have done a deal. They know that this bill will not work. They know that it would cause more problems than it solves. They know that because we do not know what areas these by-laws will cover the rich parts of Wanganui will probably have by-laws banning gangs and the poor parts of Wanganui will not have these by-laws. But those areas will be areas where there are the kids that are most at risk of becoming gang prospects. Chester Borrows can shake his head but does he know that will not happen? I ask Mr Borrows where the by-laws will be. He does not know. It is exactly right that he does not know. We may end up in a situation whereby business owners in the areas that do not have the by-law have to deal with an influx of gang members in their areas. I ask Mr Garrett whether that is fair for business owners in those areas. 
Should we not perhaps be doing things that actually solve the issue of gangs and that deal to gangs like the proceeds of crime legislation that this Government is letting just float around? We do not know what the Government is doing with that. Why is that legislation languishing on the Order Paper when it would actually do something to deal with the financial base of gangs and might actually do something to help us eliminate gangs? Why are we dealing with this flimflam bill that does nothing more than deal with what gang members wear and does nothing about what they do? I hope that Mr Borrows will take another call and answer that question.