Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill

We are opposed to clause 6. We are opposed to the entire bill, actually. This bill, the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill—and that should be “Whanganui” with an “h”—is aimed at outlawing the wearing of gang insignia in specified public places. We do not disagree with the goal of cracking down on gangs, but this bill simply will not work.

Banning gang insignia from public places follows an “out of sight, out of mind” rule. It addresses the issue of what gang members wear, as opposed to what they do, when the very real reality is that it is gang violence and criminal gang activity that require serious attention, not the wardrobes of the gang members.

The bill is built on the premise that “the wearing or displaying of gang insignia, particularly in public places, has contributed to an increasing gang problem in the Wanganui district. It sought views from members of the public on this bill by means of a referendum. We understand that the council does not believe that the enactment of this bill would solve the gang problems in Wanganui, but considers that it could form the beginning of a solution.” So the bill “could form the beginning of a solution” but “the council does not believe that the enactment of this bill would solve the gang problems in Wanganui.” With that in mind, why would we support this bill and, in particular, clause 6?

When I read this bill I think of my 21-year-old cousin who, 2 years ago, was involved in a youth gang. I think about the tattoo on the side of his arm, showing the insignia of his youth gang. When I consider this bill in relation to his involvement with that gang I wonder what he and his peers would think of it. As far I am concerned, I think they would go out and get more T-shirts and caps printed with the name of the youth gang on them. It all comes down to status. All this bill does, effectively, is reinforce the status—albeit a negative status—of gangs.

For many gang members, the naming of their gang in legislation would be perceived as a badge of honour. That is effectively what we are doing as we try to outlaw gang insignia in public places. As I said in my maiden speech, the negative stigma imposed on our youth impacts on their self-perception, but they thrive on it regardless because it is attention none the less. When we say to them that a gang is illegal, we give them attention and some sort of status. Effectively, the bill will do the complete opposite of what it is expected to do.

If the Government thinks that this bill, in all reality, is a good idea, then why is it not imposing it on the rest of New Zealand instead of just Wanganui? Obviously, even the Government does not believe that this bill is a good idea; otherwise, it would spread it across the rest of the country.

As I was saying earlier, the biggest problem with this bill is that it serves as a badge of honour for our gangs by giving them some sort of status. Effectively, the bill will not do anything to stop the gang problem, because it does not address what the gangs are doing wrong in terms of criminal activity; all it does is address the issue of their wardrobes. Thank you very much, Mr Chair.

I am happy to take a call on clause 6, which states: “No person may display gang insignia at any time in a specified place in the district.”, and makes one of the penalties for that a fine of $2,000. I thought I would consider some of the innocent members of the public who could, if this legislation is used incorrectly, be impacted by it. When I wondered what would be a good example to draw on, I thought of the ACT Party. I know that Mr Garrett from ACT has some strong views on this bill, and I wondered whether the ACT Party could be impacted by it.

The bill states that people may not “display gang insignia at any time in a specified place in the district”, so let us think, first of all, about the definition of gang insignia. Clause 4(1) states that gang insignia “(a) means a sign, symbol, or representation commonly displayed to denote membership of, an affiliation with, or support for a gang; and (b) includes any item of clothing to which a sign, symbol, or representation … is attached”. Let us think, for example, about Rodney Hide’s bright yellow jacket. If we take out the word “gang”, we see clearly that Rodney Hide’s bright yellow jacket meets the definition of gang insignia.

Let us consider the definition of a gang. Clause 5(3) states that a gang “has the following characteristics: (a) a common name or common identifying signs, symbols, or representations;”. Well, the ACT Party clearly has those, does it not? It has a common name, identified signs and symbols, and so on.

Under clause 5(3)(b) a gang is a group whose “members, associates, or supporters individually or collectively promote, encourage, or engage in a pattern of criminal activity.” I thought that the ACT Party could not be covered by that definition, but actually it can, because Rodney Hide went on TV not long ago and encouraged members of the public to break the law. Is that not right? I cannot remember the exact provision of the Building Act he was referring to, but he was encouraging people to breach the Building Act. So Rodney Hide suddenly meets all the criteria for the ACT Party to be deemed to be a gang.

💬 Moana Mackey: Let’s vote for it!

Maybe we should vote for it—I do not know. That is a worry—who else could be covered by this bill? Just today, or maybe yesterday, Kate Wilkinson encouraged retailers to breach the law. So suddenly National meets all the requirements to be deemed to be a gang. Let us look at some of the penalties that could be imposed. Those members could be arrested on the spot for wearing their gang patch. If National members wore their National Party rosettes in Wanganui and went to an area where gang patches were prohibited, they could potentially be arrested. We might think that that could not happen, because those members would know they were not allowed to wear their National Party rosettes in the specified places in case they were deemed to be gang members. Clause 5A, “Signposting of specified places”, states that those places must be signposted. But as my colleague Grant Robertson pointed out earlier in the debate, those signposts will end up taking pride of place in gang headquarters around the country, so there will be no signposting.

The other way we could find out about specified places would be to go to the council building to inspect the by-laws, which this bill allows people to do. But as I pointed out the other day, in order to go to the council building to inspect the by-laws, the members would first have to go into the area where they were prohibited from wearing their gang insignia. Suddenly, our ACT and National colleagues who were wearing their insignia—and who met all the requirements in this bill to deem them to be gang members—would be breaking the law by going into a specified area in order to find out what the law was in the first place. This really highlights, does it not, the risks in making these kinds of laws on an ad hoc basis.

Fundamentally, the National Government knows that this is a bad bill, because we are discussing it only as a local bill on members’ day. National does not support this bill enough to make it a Government bill that applies to the whole country. If National members thought that this bill was worthy of pursuit, they would pick it up. This would not be just a local bill; it would apply to the whole country.

Since the Committee stage debate began a week or two back, there has been a very significant development that affects this bill. We have already debated the title clause, but since that time the New Zealand Geographic Board has agreed and proclaimed that “Wanganui” should be spelt “Whanganui”. It is important that this bill, if it goes through—and, of course, I hope that it does not—should at least have the correct name in the title. I seek the leave of the Committee to move an amendment to the title clause to insert an “h” after the “w” in the first word of the title.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Leave is sought to insert an “h” into “Wanganui”. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

Clause 7 Powers of arrest and seizure in relation to persons displaying gang insignia