Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill

I might just seek a clarification quickly, as part of this call. We are dealing with clause 5, and then clause 5A separately? Is that right?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Can I respond to that. There will be several questions, under clauses 5A, 5B, 5C, etc. They are separate clauses, and there will be separate debates.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to reiterate our concern that the council has a great deal of power under the bylaw-making powers in clause 5. The council does have some guidelines, I guess, over how it might identify or define a gang for the purpose of the legislation. There have to be some kinds of general characteristics, such as a common name or identifying signs, symbols, or representations, and the gang’s members, associates, or supporters must collectively promote, encourage, or engage in a pattern of criminal activity. I think there are some real legal issues there relating to how that is going to be defined.

I know that the bill itself identifies some gangs already, including the Hell’s Angels. It is worth noting to the Committee that in the US, the Hell’s Angels took a case against a very similar legal provision that tried to ban them as a criminal gang. My understanding of the outcome was that the Hell’s Angels argued that they were a motorcycle club, could prove they were a motorcycle club, and could not, as a club, be held responsible for the criminal activity of individuals within that club. And in the US—which is not exactly an easy place to deal with these issues—the Hell’s Angels won their case. They were not able to be persecuted—as they might put it—by that legislation.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Well, they need to be.

Judith Collins can chatter away on the side. She is not making a reasonable contribution to this debate on legislation that will cause some very serious restrictions to the movement of citizens, particularly through the Wanganui District. I know she can chatter away all she likes, but it would be quite useful to allow the debate to proceed on some kind of sensible line, as opposed to the nattering that is going on.

There are some real issues about whether the legal provisions within this bill are sufficiently enforceable, and whether we can be certain that the council can make decisions about identifying gangs not already listed—I know that the Hell’s Angels are already listed—and not suffer from considerable costs from taking action against organisations that it may want to identify as criminal gangs, but in respect of which it may find itself in court fighting very lengthy and very expensive battles.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Good!

I am sure that Judith Collins would not mind paying for those expensive battles, but I do not think that the people of the Wanganui District would be particularly happy about paying vast sums of money to battle these kinds of provisions in the courts.

This is where the bill, I think, fails. It fails because it does not make any difference to what gangs actually do but only to how they look. Again, I say it is very poorly thought out legislation in that respect, because it does not provide any certainty to the council—much less certainty than most other laws that are passed—and it does some give some room for well-resourced organisations to fight this legislation in the courts, forcing the council to spend vast quantities of ratepayers’ money on defending these provisions. If the provisions were better thought-out, if they were narrower, and if the intention of the council was to deal with behaviour, which is more certain and could be more readily dealt with under the existing criminal law, then perhaps there would not be this kind of risk for the Wanganui District ratepayers. But as it is, this legislation provides a significant risk to them.

I again reiterate that the bylaw-making powers provide a loophole for the council, so much so that despite the provision of clause 5(5), it is possible for the council to effectively rule the entire district as coming under this legislation, thereby causing very severe restrictions on movement for people who live in that area—people who are not at all part of any kind of criminal organisation and have no involvement in such an organisation.

It is indeed a pleasure to stand here to support and acknowledge the outstanding work that my colleague and friend Chester Borrows has done to get this very worthwhile bill before this Committee of the whole House, through his very hard work with his community in Wanganui. I also want to reflect—and we are talking about clause 5—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: No, wrong clause.

—clause 5—that I am bewildered because speaker after speaker from the Opposition has spent most of his or her time addressing us on the basis that this is bad law. My response to that is that, firstly, those members would know, because they have had 9 years of drafting bad law. At the top of that list was, of course, the Electoral Finance Act, and most of them gave us a “mea maxima culpa”. But also there is the mere fact of their contradictions. Earlier we heard about contradictions from Moana Mackey. When I look at the members of the Law and Order Committee who were responsible for reporting this clause 5 back to the House, I see that three of them were Labour members and that one was a New Zealand First member. I would have thought that that made a majority on the committee.

Clause 5 has come back to the House with the full support of the select committee, including the changes made to the definition and interpretation of “insignia”, “gangs”, and all of that, yet members opposite spend all night saying they are against it. They should make up their minds. Moana Mackey should not give us a lecture on a contradiction in terms. I am bewildered about this. A mythical character called Martin Gallagher was one of the members on the Law and Order Committee. I have never actually met him but apparently he was an outstanding servant of this House. But there are other members who are still here. Darren Hughes sits amongst us. He gave his stamp of approval to this very worthwhile bill that is now in its Committee stage. He gave it full support, yet what do Labour members say now? They say they are against it. Talk about making up one’s mind! Labour members have no idea where they are.

Clause 5 gives effect to the purpose of this bill. I point out clause 5(5) to Tariana Turia and the Green Party. It seems to me that this is another case of someone who has not read the bill, given her previous—I would not call them speeches—comments that this is carte blanche licence to block out gangs from the whole of Wanganui. If members read the provision very carefully, and I will read it to them so that they understand it fully, it states that the effect of the by-law—[Interruption] I know that Chris Hipkins is having trouble with the English language and that he struggles with it from time to time—

💬 Grant Robertson: Take lessons from that member!

I thank Grant Robertson for helping his colleague out. I know that it is all a bit beyond him and that he is still bewildered about being in this Chamber.

💬 Aaron Gilmore: That’s why we need literacy and numeracy in schools.

Yes, but let me read this provision. The member probably cannot lip-read so I will have to speak up so members can hear. Clause 5(5) states: “A bylaw must not be made … 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.” So the law states that one cannot carte blanche wipe out the whole town. I am happy to give the Green Party members a lesson in how to read and write the law, but it may take a little longer than we have time for.

Much of what we have heard tonight has been a lot of hogwash—

💬 Aaron Gilmore: Rhetoric!

—rhetoric—opposing for the sake for opposing.The simple fact is that we hear, time and time again, from the Opposition about consultation. I just want to take the members to another subclause of clause 5, subclause (2A), in terms of having to go through a consultation process. The members on the opposite side of the Chamber should be falling over themselves at the lengths that Chester Borrows has gone through to make sure that proper process is followed when these sorts of measures are being considered, and full consultation—

💬 Chris Hipkins: Ha, ha!

Would the member like a copy of the Local Government Act? No? So it is a very democratic process. This is exactly the sort of measure you call for, all the time: “Democracy! We want to see democracy!”. The people of Wanganui have called for this, and you now want to deny them because you know better. I say to you that you should come down from the ivory tower and get down to where the people are—

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sure the member opposite, as he is educating us, needs to be educated that you are being brought into the debate, and I am sure that you do know better. He implies that you do not.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): It was hardly necessary to emphasise that. The member just needs to mind his pronouns. I know he is enthusiastic.

I am sorry to have brought you into the debate, Mr Chairperson. As I was saying, time and time again we have had the need for consultation. The people of Wanganui want this to happen, and we are following their wishes. At the same time, it will not be carte blanche. It will not bring everyone into the debate and cause everyone to be wiped off the street, because a process is set out in here and it has to be gone through in terms of the legislation. We have absolute faith in terms of the discretionary powers that allow the Wanganui District Council to do the job that its people want it to do. But if those members are happy to deny them that, then let it be on their heads—be it on their heads.

I now move on to talk about gangs, as they are referred to in clause 5(1)(b) “for the purposes of this Act”. We have heard a lot about gangs, and race, and that this is a racist bill. Again I point out to my friends and colleagues in the Opposition the definition of gangs—some of which are European, but it is not an exclusive list. If the members read paragraph (b) of clause 5(1), they will see that it states, any “organisation, association, or group of persons”. So members can rest assured that it is about people and it is about making sure the proper process is followed, because in the end we want to reduce crime. I know that the members on the opposite side of the Chamber do not want to reduce crime. But this bill is just one measure in the suite of processes that we are offering the people and the police to be able to deal with the gang problem. The irony of it all is that we sit here repeatedly being lectured about gangs by the list member from up north somewhere, Mr Jones, who lambastes us all and does nothing about it, just like the rest of his party in the last 9 years. They did nothing about the problem. National is bringing in a suite of instruments, a suite of measures, and addressing the problem right from the start. Clause 5 is just one of these measures. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Kia ora tātou. Greetings, Mr Chair. I accept the wisdom that lies behind your ruling that I should wait for a turn and that we should suffer the foolishness of Mr Quinn. I now know that that man, Mr Quinn, is related to Keith Quinn, because when he stood and gave his delivery he reminded me of some of the lesser-known speakers in the Māori world. The tauparapara goes on and on. It disappears into the valleys covered with mist, into the blackberry, into the trees where the tūrehu are, before it finally gets to the point. There was no point—no point whatsoever—in Mr Quinn’s speech. Fortunately, he ran out of things to say before the bell was rung. Mr Quinn came into this House with so much promise, until a small level of due diligence revealed he has single-handedly destroyed Māori rugby. That is why we have so many people being driven to the gangs—because that option has been taken from them.

💬 Paul Quinn: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I fail to see what Māori rugby and sports activities have to do with clause 5.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): There is no need for this point of order. Let us address the bill, thank you.

On page 5, if that member had taken the time to look for just a short period of what is generally just a wasted day on his part, he would see that the Labour members believe that the opportunity should be taken to consider the related legislation in South Australia, and that the bill should not proceed until such an evaluation has taken place.

We know—and this is with particular reference to clause 5—that Simon Power has been to South Australia. He sought an audience with and was invited to meet three or four middling bureaucrats. He eventually got—during a coffee break, I am told, with stale wine—a very short meeting with those who count in that particular state. He would have been told that there are many practical challenges in implementing the statute that South Australia has on its statute book, yet we see a similar provision in clause 5.

I acknowledge that the council is doing the best it can, and I acknowledge that I have quite a bit of time for Chester Borrows. He has brought this bill forward, but he needs to make sure that his old colleagues, members of the police force from Wanganui, when implementing this legislation, do not lose paperwork or hand paperwork containing the names and addresses of enforcement officers to the very same gang that they are trying to chase out of town. Those officers will be cursed with the task of trying to breathe life into the diseased limb, otherwise known as clause 5, of the ailing body, otherwise known as this foolish legislation.

Clause 5(1) states: “The Council may, from time to time, make bylaws … identifying an organisation … as a gang.” But, of course, the definition of a gang is riddled with difficulties—there are signs, symbols, and representations. Gang members may turn up with red hoodies or handkerchiefs, as I have said to my whanaunga Tau Henare. People from Moerewa may be having a holiday in Ngāwhā, or they may be digging kūmara in Kaipara. They need only take a red handkerchief, red toothpaste, or be wearing yellow. If there ever was a dreadful term and a debasement of the Māori language, it lies with the notion of gangs being tribesmen. They are not tribesmen. They are corrupt. They are weak. They prey on our children. They abuse their women. But, unfortunately, this bill will not protect anyone.

According to clause 5, this bill may designate “any public place as a specified place for the purposes of this Act:” I can see great debates already emerging in the courts as the Treaty lawyers move from one trough to another, trying to breathe life into this, and wondering whether a marae or a bit of land under section 439 of the Māori Affairs Act, a trust, or some other sort of reserved land that Māori might have influence over is a public place. Paul Quinn understands that.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: No.

No—he does. He understands that space and place are related—and both are absent from his mind, as is evident every time he stands and talks.

But let us bring some seriousness back to this debate. Let us move away from Paul Quinn, who has demonstrated that the more he talks, the sooner and the quicker the people in his party will realise that they have to pay a great deal more attention to their party list compilation next time around. It is a bit like Mr Garrett. He is entitled to bring his views to this House, but the more he speaks about this bill, the sooner we will see their disappearance, which will be a great thing for this House and a great thing for this country.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: And a yellow jacket.

Yes, well there is a point: was Rodney Hide a gangster by dint of his clothing, and by the fact that he has decided to buff up? Was it an act of gangsterism to drop that woman on her head during the dancing competition, and did he derive much pleasure from that? Well, that is for another discussion.

The reality of the matter is that during the course of implementing this failing, defective, foul piece of legislation there will be an opportunity to review the by-laws. But members should think about the costs and about the people who will be unfortunately and unwittingly caught up in this short-sighted, but nevertheless well-intentioned, attempt to stamp out gangs. Costs will go up.

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

It is well intentioned. It is short-sighted. It is unlikely to work. OK, I accept that people will be required to go around and put up notices saying that people cannot have a gang there, and the council will need to hire security officers. That will be a new stream of jobs in Wanganui. The difficulty, however, with that is that just as dogs visit lamp posts, so the gangs will visit a similar level of attention on those posts. They will need to be replaced, and it will soon become evident that this is not a bill that, once enacted, can actually be turned into effective law.

The reason that the bill cannot be turned into effective law—quite apart from its flaws—is that it has been born out of a dangerous compromise. In order for the National-led Government to continue to enjoy the attention and support of the ACT Party, it will have to vote according to the ACT Party for the successful passage of the “three strikes and you’re out” legislation.

💬 Hon Member: No, no.

No, Rodney Hide stood and said that he knew he had abandoned his principles—although he had very few of them to start off with—and he knew that he had said very strong things, but he is now cuddling up under the National Party korowai with his friends from the Māori Party. The funny thing about the ACT Party members, which is why they like this bill, is that they are busily trying to criminalise Māori youth. The Māori Party, for reasons best known only to its leaders, is trying to privatise the misery of Māori youth through having Māori run private prisons. Neither will work. National is in the middle, manipulating both of them.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Oh, you don’t want Māori to run things?

Tau Henare had his chance in 1996. He is my whanaunga. He is up to tahi, rua, toru, whā—whā parties. Of course, we know what the Māori word “whā” means—far too many, e Tau. He has had his chance, e hoa.

Let us come back to other reasons why this bill will not work. Will the signposts be bilingual? If they say “Wanganui”, will it have an “h” in it? It is highly unlikely. I can see Michael Laws trading on this bill as evidence that he is fit to be the mayor of the potential mega-city of Auckland. But he is using this bill for short-term triumphalism. The gangs will simply change their attire, get their whanaunga who are reasonable lawyers, and—as Tariana has already said—pay not a blind bit of notice to this bill and the eventual Act. Of course, the other foolish thing members opposite think this bill will do is to actually change behaviour. All the gangs have to do tonight is to look at Paul Quinn; they do not need to change their behaviour. In fact, it is like a cracked mirror: part of the refraction actually shows a bit of them. No, it will never, ever work.

Why do we not agree with this bill? It is not that we are against the Wanganui District Council and it is not that we are against Michael Laws, although a number of us might think that his pollution on the airways is at an insufferable level. It is because the bill is poorly conceived and is written in a flawed way, and at the end of the day it will not work—it will not. Of course, what will happen for New Plymouth and Palmerston North is the gangs that are really troublemakers will simply move out of Wanganui and take their foul deeds and their vicious ways to other nearby cities. That is why this legislation will never work.

I came to Parliament believing in the parliamentary process, that the executive did not, in fact—as the cynics say—dictate everything, and that the debate in this Chamber was actually meaningful. Since I have been here people both inside the Chamber and outside have laughed at that naivety and told me not to be silly, that I was right in the first place and it was all irrelevant, and that what happened here was all hot air and did not much matter. Well, who would have thought it? I have discovered that the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill has proved that the parliamentary process—and by the parliamentary process I mean this House—is relevant. I have been listening not just to this debate but to the earlier debates, and I have spoken in all of them, and sensible things are coming from almost all sides of the Chamber.

There are lots of arguments both for and against this legislation that have merit. On one hand, the people of Wanganui have clearly indicated their desire for this bill—more than 65 percent of them—and that is worthy of respect. I believe that while I was absent from the Chamber someone told Mr Boscawen, my colleague, that we were the libertarian party. Well, we are not. We have a libertarian wing, but we are the party of choice, so we respect the choice of the people of Wanganui. We promote freedom of speech. Many in our party are almost obsessed, I will say, with freedom of speech, but freedom of speech has limits. People cannot yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. People cannot walk down the street with certain things on their T-shirts or they will be arrested. It has nothing to do with gangs. These groups—gangs, or whatever—are criminal organisations whose purpose is intimidation. Much of the recent debate has completely neglected the part of the bill that requires gangs to be identified as being criminal.

But there are problems of interpretation. I am a lawyer. There are problems in defining “insignia” and problems in defining “display”. All of those things are there. We could spend all night on the pros and cons, and the yin and yang. Members opposite have—with fairness and justification—asked where we stand, because we have created a little confusion. In fact, I will take responsibility and say that I have created some. I said at the outset that we were going to listen to the debate. I am afraid I have to say that what Mr Borrows, whom I respect greatly, thought was the coup de grâce—the story of the young man killed because he wore a red hoodie—in fact deeply disturbs me, and I am afraid that in all conscience I have to say that what the Labour members have said about that issue rings true.

So where does the ACT Party stand on this bill? Well, we stand right here. We are listening. It has been a very vigorous debate—probably not quite as vigorous as here— in our caucus and in our party. I am going to be honest and perhaps again prove my naivety and my newness, and say that much of what I have heard tonight from members opposite makes sense. Much of what I have heard from the National side has always made sense. So I wish to keep listening. I think our caucus wishes to keep listening and to discuss and debate what is being said, because the parliamentary process has proved itself in this debate not to be irrelevant, not to be hot air, and not to be controlled by an executive or someone else. Mr Chair and fellow members, our position is this: we will vote in favour of the bill at this Committee stage, but that does not presuppose that we will support the bill at its third reading. The only way we can continue to listen to the contributions from all sides is to vote in favour at this stage, and that is what we will do.

I am happy to take a call on clause 5, because it is a very important part of the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill. The first question I have for the member in the Chair is: how vocal publicly have district councillors been about this bill? This is a serious question. We know that this is a big issue in Wanganui. The mayor has spoken out publicly very strongly about what he wants to do in terms of this legislation, and I assume that district councillors also have spoken publicly about this.

The issue I have relates to clause 5(2), which states: “In making a bylaw under subsection (1), the Council must use the special consultative procedure set out in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.” Part of that special consultative procedure requires that people show no predetermination of any decision, and that they excuse themselves from any vote on any issue they have spoken out publicly on. I think this might be an issue. It is often the case when councillors do not necessarily know at the beginning that they are going to follow this procedure that they are very vocal about an issue. They then find themselves at serious risk of judicial review when they make a decision. People who do not like that decision may say that it is not fair, that the councillors did not go into it with an open mind, that they did not go into it prepared to consider both sides of the debate, and that they went in with a predetermined point of view.

In fact, judicial reviews can overturn decisions made by councils on that basis alone. I do not say this lightly: currently a case is before the court awaiting the outcome of a judicial review on exactly this matter. It was taken by the Whakatāne District Council against the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. The judge took specific interest in the fact that a number of public statements and, actually, private statements—she was prepared to listen to private statements that were made and conversations between individuals—suggested predetermination by some councillors, and therefore she needed to consider whether those councillors should have to excuse themselves from the vote.

Labour is opposing this legislation. When I read this part of the bill and saw that this particular procedure—which I agree is probably the right one—had been picked out, I thought that there might be difficulties. The council needs to be aware that any appearance of predetermination, real or otherwise, may cause a problem for this legislation and may cause real cost for the Wanganui District Council further down the track.

One of the issues that we have raised is the difficulty under this clause—where by-laws are able to be made to designate certain areas “specified places” where the display of gang insignia is prohibited—of our voting to pass this legislation without really knowing what the shape of this clause will be in Wanganui. It is very difficult because it is very much my concern that the poor communities in Wanganui will not get this by-law. It will be OK for gangs to be in these communities—not the wealthier communities, which know how to go through the council procedures. It is not about being biased against the poor communities. The fact is that the wealthier communities are more likely to, one, know that there is a process going on, two, know how to engage in it, and, three, know how to form a lobby group to make sure their part of the city is included in the by-law. Communities where people do not read the newspaper and may not listen to the local radio, so they do not know there is a process going on, and where, even if they knew there was a process going on, they would not know how to engage, how to interact with the council, or what they are meant to do—and may be too scared to do anything anyway—may feel that their point of view does not really count and that the council will not listen to them. That means it is likely that overwhelmingly the poorer communities will not get these by-laws and gang bans in their area, while areas that are used to engaging with councils and that are used to having lobby groups will be able to have gangs banned in their area. That means that this bill is intrinsically unfair from the start, and I do not think any member of this Committee would say that that is OK. I do not think anyone thinks that is fair; I think this bill should have tried more readily to address that.

If this bill passes—and we are not sure now what will happen at the third reading; who knows—I really hope that the Wanganui District Council makes every single effort available in respect of these council procedures, which are very foreign to a large proportion of many of our communities. These communities will be most affected, and these communities are most at risk from having gangs come in to pick up prospects. The businesses in these areas will be affected. The by-law will undoubtedly make the central city a gang-free area, but these people will be trying to run a business in an area that is not considered to be gang-free.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to respond to some remarks made 10 minutes ago by the member of the ACT Party Mr Garrett, and offer him an apology. I think I was one of those members who said that the ACT Party was libertarian. That was careless language. The member was kind enough to remind us that the ACT Party has a libertarian wing, or a libertarian philosophy. We can probably agree that the ACT Party stands for personal liberty—as we all do—but more strongly than other parties in the House. Probably somewhere around that piece of language we can agree on what the ACT Party stands for.

Mr Garrett also reminded us that the ACT Party does not know what to do. He said that in a very open and straightforward way and I wish to acknowledge that. But the fact remains that the ACT Party does not know what to do; it sets out to listen to the debate in the Chamber and then make up its mind, which is a thoroughly legitimate thing to do, and happens from time to time in the House. But in this debate the ACT Party has found itself on more sides than one. It is small enough that it is difficult to get a split or division within the ACT Party. I am not suggesting that is just within the caucus; I think probably it is wider than that. The member was generous—or frank—enough to acknowledge that within the ACT Party caucus there had been rigorous debate, and I suspect that what he is not telling the Committee, but what I am going to opine, or propose, is that within the membership of the ACT Party there are also some splits and divisions around the merits of this case. And so there should be.

I want to repeat some remarks I made earlier on an earlier clause—clause 3—where I pointed out that the ACT Party had, in my understanding of its management of itself over the years ever since it came to this House, always been consistent. I suppose it is a bit like the Business Roundtable. It is always consistent. One always knows what the Business Roundtable position on this or that will be. In my instance I rarely agree with it, and indeed I rarely agree with the ACT Party position on this or that. But there is consistency in the ACT Party position, and in the earlier days the ACT Party was almost famous for it. It was famous for being a party of principle. [Interruption] It was famous for taking a principled stand on this or that position. I respond to the person who purports to be the member in the chair that I am speaking broadly in response to the broad remarks from Mr Garrett. I just say to Mr Garrett that his party has always, in my view, taken a position that has been predictable and that has been based on principle. I have to say that it has been, in my view, almost always wrong. I have almost always found myself on the opposite side of some debate; but that is politics.

The thing that troubles me about the ACT Party—and in a sense I am lining up the member over this—is that its principled position and coherence appear to be at risk now. I think the ACT Party needs to be very careful about its position on this legislation. It needs to be very careful in particular about whether it thinks a trade is worthwhile, because a trade on this legislation, with all the shortcomings—

💬 David Garrett: There has been no trade. I have said that 10 times, Mr Hodgson.

The member might have said it 10 times; regrettably, his leader said on television precisely that there was a trade. So, you see, the divisions within the ACT Party that I am gently trying to lay out can now be laid out a little more assertively in response to the member’s interjection. He is right, but his leader takes an opposite position. Sir Roger Douglas takes a different position again, and Mr John Boscawen, who recently resumed his seat, took—in my view—a fourth position that is not the same as the member’s position. So we have the ACT Party quietly unravelling over this matter.

It is important for the ACT Party to realise—if it wants to be a party of principle, and it is sufficiently small to be so—that unless it operates on principle it will not make any progress at all. It is important for the ACT Party to decide whether the position it takes on this legislation is one of principle or one of convenience. Of course we can all agree that Chester Borrows has done the right thing in bringing this local bill to this House. He has done the right thing in bringing it into this collective—this House of Representatives—for getting it judged. We are the judges, and sooner or later we must make up our minds. Best we do that on the basis of principle.

I move, That the question be now put.

Before I call clause 5A, I remind members that this is the Committee stage; this is not a second or third reading. The Committee is, unusually, discussing a bill clause by clause, so members should focus on the clause in particular and give that their attention. Wide-ranging, sweeping statements starting with philosophy, the nature of life, and global geopolitical issues are outside the scope of this debate.

I seek the leave of the Committee for clauses 5A through to 5F to be taken as one debate, but voted on clause by clause.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Leave is sought for there to be a single debate but voting clause by clause. Is there any objection to that? Objection is taken, so we will deal with this clause by clause.

Clause 5A Signposting of specified places