Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill

I will take a call on this particular clause because I want to speak in favour of Metiria Turei’s amendment that substitutes the words “5 years” for “10 years”. We have just voted through clause 5C, which provides for a review of the by-laws under this legislation after 5 years. Clause 5D states that from that point on there should be a review no later than 10 years after the last review. For the very same reasons I have already talked about, I believe that Metiria Turei’s amendment is correct. The problems we have identified with this bill will not go away after the first 5-year period. They need to be looked at again and again.

I believe that making criminal law for the specific district of Wanganui will create significant problems for the people of Wanganui and for the courts in the Wanganui region. That is the main reason why I believe we should be reviewing these by-laws not 10 years after the first 5-year period, but, indeed, 5 years after each 5-year period. I think that is only fair for the people of Wanganui. If this bill passes, we need to give the people of Wanganui an assurance that we will continue to keep our eye on this process. I believe we are giving people in Wanganui false hope that the problems caused by gangs in their region will, somehow or other, be eliminated by this particular law. For that reason, we need to continue to review these by-laws.

A 10-year period seems to be an excessively long period for those ongoing reviews to take place. Things can change a lot within a 5-year period; we certainly know that the behaviour of gangs can and does alter over time—their tactics change, what they wear changes, and the ways they identify themselves will no doubt change in that 5 to 10-year period. We need to ensure that the by-laws made under this bill are reviewed on a regular basis. Section 5D, as it currently reads, sets the date for the secondary reviews at 10 years after a by-law was last reviewed. Metiria Turei’s amendment substitutes 5 years for 10 years, and I support that.

The Green Party will, of course, be voting for Metiria Turei’s amendment to reduce the review period in the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill to 5 years.

As the previous speaker, Grant Robertson, said, the bill applies to only one area, Whanganui—with an “h”. But we have to look seriously at the terms of review, particularly because, looking around this Chamber and thinking of insignia and identification systems for people, we can see that the males seem to be a form of gang, wearing the same sort of identification or insignia. Looking around, I see that every male is wearing one of these jackets and one of these ties. I think they are a gang against the other sex represented in this House, which tends not to be a member of a gang. It may be something that we have to review, particularly in relation to one gender, and a short review period might be appropriate for that. I also see red insignia on this side of the Chamber, and blue insignia on the opposite side—blue boxes. That may mean there are two gangs. There could be confusion.

A serious review is appropriate. I think it would be hypocritical to look at this bill as applying only to Whanganui. It has implicitly, perhaps, more general application, which is why we should review it at frequent intervals, and, hopefully, scrub the whole law off the statute book. It is offensive, it will not solve anything, and it will lead to mayhem. Thank you.

I am pleased to rise and contribute further to the discussion around section 5D of the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill.

As my colleague Grant Robertson has raised, there are still questions over why 10 years is the appropriate time period for further review. I want to highlight that section 5C sets out an initial review period of 5 years. I even think that 5 years may, in fact, be quite a prolonged period for an initial review of a by-law. But, after that point, to set in place another 10-year phase of review is quite a lengthy one, particularly given that the other mechanisms for residents of Wanganui to have their say—on whether they perceive that, for instance, the by-law is in the appropriate place, or whether they feel that the appropriate gangs have been captured by the by-law—may be limited. In order to investigate that fully I think it might be useful to go back and look at the preceding period that impacts on the by-law being set.

In the process of setting a by-law, the Wanganui District Council—the provisions are set out in clause 5—may make a by-law designating the public place that the by-law will apply to, and it also at that point identifies the organisation. In doing so, it is required, as set out in the Local Government Act, to go through special consultative procedures to set that by-law, and rightly so.

Having said that, I think it is important that this House consider who in our communities is the most likely to submit on such a process. When a local council goes out and seeks the view of its community in a full consultation period, who is the most likely to have their say during that consultative period? I think that those from the lower socio-economic sections of our community or from socially deprived areas are probably less inclined to have their say in that process. I imagine that there will be very strong advocates in favour of a by-law applying to their particular leafy suburb; that is less likely from people from other particular areas.

Having identified a particular issue, a council goes ahead and sets its by-law. The people who are affected by that by-law will have to wait a good 5 years before they can go back before the council to assess whether the by-law has been working. If that slides through, it will be another 10 years before it comes up again. I think that period is probably too long. I think it is right that Metiria Turei has pointed out that it might be too long, and, in that case, I think it is important that we consider a reduction—a halving—of that period in clause 5D. As all the members of this House know, 10 years is a very long time when it comes to by-laws like this and when it comes to setting down what might be relevant in our communities.

Let us reflect back on where we were politically 10 years ago. In 1999 New Zealand was a very different place: it did not have KiwiSaver, it did not have Working for Families, and it did not have interest-free student loans. It did not have a lot of the genius things that the previous Labour Government brought in. A lot can change in a decade, as we have seen.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: A lot of improvements.

A lot of improvements, as my colleague rightly points out. I would like to hear from Mr Borrows why 10 years is the secondary review period set out in clause 5D. I would like to hear the rationale behind that. Also, are there any other mechanisms for review in that 10-year period that the local council could apply, or would the community simply have to wait for that review period before it could adjust the two issues that the council has the ability to set?

One of those issues is the area that is covered, and the other is the gangs themselves that would be covered. I want to reflect on how prominent some of the gangs that we see now were back in 1999. I would question whether the Bloods and the Crips had quite the same presence in our communities 10 years ago as they do now. We have even seen recently in our papers that a gang associated with the Hell’s Angels has shown up in Nelson.

I rise because the previous speaker, Jacinda Ardern, raised a couple of questions that she wanted some sort of clarification on. It is my pleasure to be able to do that.

Jacinda Ardern talked about where we were 10 years ago, and she asked why there was a 10-year period for further reviews of by-laws. She reflected on the ability of the Wanganui District Council to have another look at a by-law, and asked whether it had to wait 10 years. Well, a number of Labour Party representatives were involved in the select committee process. The most eminent, of course, was Martin Gallagher. We have reflected upon Martin’s contribution on a number of occasions. There was also the Hon David Benson-Pope, the Hon Darren Hughes, and the then Government support member Ron Mark. Clause 5C, which we have just completed debate on, states that the first review will be no later than 5 years after the by-law was made. Clause 5D states that subsequent reviews are to be no later than 10 years after it was made. The ongoing review period of 10 years was not the subject of considerable debate by members on either side of the select committee. The point is made that the review can be done at any time. The Wanganui District Council can review what gangs are covered, and which areas may be designated as prohibited areas.

I note, too, that there seems to be a little note of cynicism whenever members talk about the various places where gang patches may be prohibited or banned. People always talk about leafy suburbs. There has been some concern that only the upper crust areas of Wanganui would be areas where patches are prohibited. If anybody from the other side of this debate bothered to look at the papers put out by the Wanganui District Council, then he or she would see that places right across Wanganui, including the areas of Aramoho, Castlecliff, Wanganui East, and Gonville, have a resident gang population, and they are areas where gang patches will be prohibited, as well, to prevent intimidation.

I think it is also important to note that under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002, consultation is required as part of a review. Even if the Wanganui District Council decides to make no change, it still has to go through the whole process under section 83. This involves making the proposal available in written form, for a full month, right across the electorate. People are able to uplift it, at no expense, through the courts, libraries, and district council offices and service centres. Wide-ranging consultation takes place with people who want to take part in the debate.

I will make another point. Members have talked about the ability of this legislation to work, and they have made quite scathing comments about whether it will work. It is interesting to note that the Leader of the Opposition said in his initial speech that the only reason Labour would not support the bill at this time is that it wanted to see how the legislation in South Australia was working. He made no suggestion that this legislation would not work for Wanganui. I think that is an important point to note.

My final point is a comment on the point raised by the previous speaker, Jacinda Ardern, about the presence of the Bloods and the Crips 10 years ago. Well, the Bloods and the Crips do not have a significant presence in Wanganui, which is where this legislation will apply. The bill names the gangs that do have a presence there. The whole point of the legislation is that if a gang develops a presence in Wanganui in 2 years’ time, or in 18 months, 6 months, or 3 years, the Wanganui District Council can quite quickly move to place it on a parallel schedule under the by-law provision, after going through the process under section 83 of the Local Government Act. It can have a review and make a change at any time it likes, as long as there is a 1-month public review period.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 5D be agreed to:

to omit “10 years” and substitute “5 years”.