Who's a wally?

The following are excerpts from last week's debate on the Gang Insignia Bill. I have been completely subjective and posted only the bits that made sense to me.

Michael Cullen;

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) : I strongly support the underlying intention of this bill—what it is trying to do—but I strongly oppose it because it simply will not achieve its basic purposes and cannot achieve those basic purposes with the mechanisms that are suggested. I think it was Rodney Hide who said in the first reading on this bill that he was opposed to the legislation because what was objectionable about gangs was what they did, not what they wore. Now for some strange reason the ACT Party, which more and more is simply the political arm of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, has decided to do a complete U-turn and support the legislation for reasons that are beyond me given the coherence of the arguments put up by Mr Hide on the first reading of the bill...

...Are we really passing legislation of this sort—and why? This is a classic example of the need to be seen to do something, as opposed to actually doing something that will actually address the issue. This measure is purely cosmetic. This is bravely running up to gang members, putting some lipstick on them, and saying they will look a lot nicer from now on and that because they look a lot nicer they will now behave a lot more nicely.

Shane Jones;

This bill, I genuinely believe, will worsen the gang situation in Wanganui. This bill will provide a platform for a greater level of notoriety amongst a predominantly younger group of members who are attracted to the wilder side of life. They will now know, as a consequence of this bill, that it is cool, a rite of passage, and actually a measure of distinction, not just to the gangs but to the wider community, to poke one’s fingers at a stupid bill that will never be fully implemented. It will enrich legions of lawyers as they move away from the Treaty trough into the gang insignia trough.




Unfortunately, it is not David Garrett who is the wally. Arguably I am a bigger wally because I helped get him voted into parliament.

Update; There is apparently a later speech by David Garrett which is not at the Parliamentary website.

This is the last speech available, and, given ACT voted 5 ayes last week, I assumed it was the speech that preceded the vote. I stand corrected in making a wrong assumption. If Mr Garrett (and other ACT MPs) change their minds about voting 'yes' at the final reading I will be delighted;

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) : Before getting into the speech I have prepared on the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill, I will address some comments made by the previous speaker that were, frankly, just plain incorrect. I do not know what her knowledge of gang culture is—and I use that word “culture” in quotes—but I have visited a few headquarters in my time. When I was at the Magog Motorcycle Club clubhouse in New Plymouth some years ago, it was an all-white gang. The Mothers Motor-cycle Club of Palmerston North, I believe, does not permit Māori members. I do not think we would find a Māori member of the Hell’s Angels, either. They are all white gangs, and they are all targeted by this bill. There is not a focus on Māori gangs, and I dispute the member’s claim that in the public mind the word “gang” is synonymous with Māori gang. That may be some people’s view, but anyone who knows a bit about them knows that claim is simply incorrect.

I will ask for indulgence at the start if my pronunciation is not perfect, but tā moko, as I understand it, has absolutely nothing to do with a clenched fist tattooed on the side of someone’s face, or with a barking dog with a spiked collar and a German helmet. These are the sorts of tattoos we are talking about. They are not the koru on the planes of Air New Zealand, but deliberately intimidating tattoos that are designed to put people off and to frighten them.

I am rising to speak on this bill and to support it. I would like first, if I may, to pay tribute to the sponsor of this bill, Chester Borrows. As more senior members of this House will be aware, ACT voted against this bill at its first reading last year. We did so not because we supported gangs but because of a concern that innocent New Zealanders could be caught up in its provisions. I must say that I think Ms Turei makes a very valid point, unfortunately. I do not mean that sarcastically against her, but the removal of patches per se may well cause confusion, and difficulties with scarves wrapped around hands and with the other kinds of tags that are used by these clowns. If only they were clowns. ACT was originally concerned that legitimate motorcycle enthusiasts, youth groups, and even church members could fall foul of this law, and so voted against it. Following the passage of the bill through the select committee process, Mr Borrows has sought our support for this bill, and has addressed many of our concerns.

One point needs to be made again very clearly, and on this I think I may differ from my colleague sitting in front of me, the Hon Tariana Turia. I guess by definition I am now referring to ethnic gangs. Gangs are not whānau. They are not clubs. They are not family substitutes. They are criminal organisations. They are methamphetamine-dealing, thieving, car-breaking, intimidating groups of people. That is what they are. They are criminals. They should, in fact, be illegal, but it seems to be too difficult for us to make them illegal. This is a good second step. It will target those who wear gang insignia, offensive gang patches, and other things, so I am happy to stand here today and to support the bill on behalf of my colleagues.

At the first reading the Hon Rodney Hide, who is now the Minister of Local Government, said correctly that this bill will not solve the problem of gangs. I think that anyone who thinks it could solve that problem would be incredibly naive. Indeed, the bill acknowledges in its explanatory note that it will not even solve the gang problem in Wanganui. But it will give, as Chester Borrows said, the police and local authorities more power to deal with this problem. It is another tool.

It is pleasing to see that the Law and Order Committee resisted the advice it received and opted to retain a schedule of gangs that will be targeted by the bill. Those are mainly the Mongrel Mob, Black Power, Hell’s Angels, Nomads, Tribesmen, Magogs, and the Mothers Motor-cycle Club. As I noted at the beginning of my speech, at least three of those gangs are, or at least were, exclusively white gangs.

The lowering of the maximum fine is also important. Since this Parliament began last December we have heard time and time again the figure of $700 million - odd in unpaid fines. Lowering the fine may make collection more manageable. Personally I would like to see a return to the days of a fine or, in default, 28 days in jail, but those are very unfashionable provisions these days.

The next amendment recommended by the Law and Order Committee, which I am sure will please the Minister of Local Government, is the inclusion of a new clause 9, which makes the police the sole enforcement agency under this legislation. That is very important. Gang members by their nature are more likely than the average New Zealander to be carrying a weapon and to engage in criminal activity. Council staff are simply not trained to deal in such a way with gang members, who often congregate in large groups. In my view council staff are in the same situation as our country’s fisheries officers—putting their lives on the line to keep the rule of law with little or no training or means to protect themselves. Increasingly, we see fisheries officers targeted and exposed to violence in their job.

Again, I thank Chester Borrows for his willingness to engage with ACT members, to respond to our concerns, and to talk to us about why he thinks this bill is a good idea. It will not solve all the problems. Other measures are required, including the “three strikes and you’re out” bill, which is at present before the Law and Order Committee.

I welcome Chester Borrows’ commitment to me to listen with an open mind to the reasons behind the “three strikes” legislation, and to give it his support along with the support of his fellow members if he can be convinced that it is, in fact, a good idea, and that many of the alarmist claims about that bill are simply without foundation. That legislation, if passed, will ensure that gang members, who are often among the worst recidivist and violent offenders, will be locked up for longer. It will ensure that criminals like Antonie Ronnie Dixon and William Bell will not walk our streets to kill again. We will not have any more William Bells. No one will get the chance to get 102 convictions before graduating to killer status. That bill will ensure that decent New Zealand families are spared the anguish of losing a loved one to a paroled killer.

Legislation passed by this Government on the “three strikes” policy—hopefully—on DNA sampling, and on this ban of gang patches, at least at this local level, will go some way toward keeping New Zealanders safe, which everyone in this House claims to be very keen on, and one would hope that they were. I commend this bill to the House, and I will support it on behalf of the ACT Party.