In the interests of fairness I can now post the last speeches David Garrett made during the committee stages of debating the Gang Insignia Bill. Although he casts ACT's 5 votes in favour at the second reading, he casts doubt on whether ACT will support the third reading. I have posted them in full;
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) : I have been invited by Labour to stand and state our position on this bill. I have to say that it is not easy to do, because there has been considerable debate among our party, among our supporters, and among our caucus, on our position on the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill—and for very good reason. I am afraid that as much as I like and respect my new colleague Mr Bridges, I cannot agree that it is a good bill. It is not a good bill for a number of reasons. It is not a good bill because it does not clearly define what gang insignia is. It is not a good bill because it does not spell out exactly which areas in the Wanganui District Council district can be designated as gang-free zones.
Before continuing, I would like to take up Ms Turei’s point. I find it rather saddening to have to say, for about the fourth or fifth time I have spoken in this House after Ms Turei, that it would be very helpful if she actually read the bill that she was debating. She just stated that there is nothing in the bill that prevents the entire Wanganui District from being designated a specified place. I thought she had trained as a lawyer—I did so. If the member read clause 5(5), she would see that it specifically states: “A bylaw must not be made under subsection (1)(a) 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 there is one point that is completely incorrect, and it would be very, very helpful if those who were going to debate this would actually read the bill.
The second point that Ms Turei made that I am afraid I must take issue with, and quite strongly—and I will explain why in a moment—is this absolute nonsense that the bill is aimed at Māori gangs. The bill specifically refers to a number of gangs, including Hell’s Angels, the Mothers, and the Magogs. During the adjournment week I was contacted by text by one Shagger Gilmour—he was stupid enough to write it—of the Magog Motorcycle Club. He made some fairly carefully veiled threats to me over speeches I had made on this bill earlier. Shagger is a senior member of the Magog Motorcycle Club, which, despite his claims to the contrary, is either entirely, or at least mostly, a white gang. He claimed, although he would not name who the member was, that a Māori had been a founder member for 32 years, and he suggested that I in fact knew nothing about it and had never been there. I named a few of the members and he went a bit quiet. Hell’s Angels is also wholly, or almost wholly, a white gang. So the claim that this bill is aimed at Māori gangs is absolute and utter nonsense. Perhaps Ms Turei, during her next call, may wish to refer to Rooter Johnson, Smasher Harris, or whoever is a Māori and a member of those named gangs.
But I get on to the guts of the bill. As I said, I am afraid I cannot agree entirely with my colleague Mr Bridges, or, I am afraid, with my colleague Mr Borrows. There are a number of things wrong with the bill. It will not make a noticeable difference to the criminal activities of gangs. It will not, sadly, make much difference to their presence in Wanganui. I have to say, in all fairness, that I agree with the point made by Ms Mackey and others—and, again, I feel rather bad about having to say this—in relation to the killing of the young fellow with the wrongly coloured hoodie: the bill is likely to cause, and not to solve, that kind of confusion.
The bill is a measure of the desperation of the Wanganui community. They have had enough. As a society we have been frozen in the headlights, like a possum or a deer, for 30 years, over what to do. Norm Kirk—well before Mr Hughes was born, I suspect—said he was going to take the bikes off the bikies. It did not happen, so we have had the problem since at least 1972.
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) : 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.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
This is much better. And this is what should have been done right from the start.
"We are the party of choice, so we respect the choice of the people of Wanganui."
So ACT is a collectivist party now?
And are there more ACT voters obsessed about the death penalty and "three strikes" than free speech?
Apposite questions Craig.
In the case of ACT philosophy (as I have always understood it) choice denotes the alternative to compulsion or monopoly. It doesn't pertain to choice by virtue of majority.
"In the case of ACT philosophy (as I have always understood it) choice denotes the alternative to compulsion or monopoly. It doesn't pertain to choice by virtue of majority."
Yes.....Freedom and democracy are NOT the same thing...Classic Liberals/Libertarians don't support democracy (mob rule) for the same reasons they oppose all other forms of authoritarianism...that it violates individual rights.
That we have a democracy and that we have to live within it are a given at the moment...but just because democracy appears to be a civilised due to its use of the vote as opposed to the gun the end results can be the same....rights taken away by majority vote instead of naked force.
""We are the party of choice, so we respect the choice of the people of Wanganui."
But which people in Wanganui? And why does one group there get to take away the rights of others? This is Government playing favorites...granting privilages,something the ACT party is supposed to oppose.It is Government abandoning its role as as an objective rights protector and instead becoming a rights violator.
ACT is supposed to stand for the former...not endorse the latter.
David....and the others..tsk!
Believing in choice is a good thing but not in the muddle, confused and contradictory way Garrett does it. Choice is something we have over our own lives, our bodies, our property and nothing more. It is not choice over the lives, bodies and property of others. If ACT were to accept his definition of "choice" then there would be no government intervention, no matter how atrocious, that it could consistently oppose --- after all those measures are just certain political jurisdictions making a choice. Garrett's definition of choice is monstrous. In his view, choice doesn't mean that an individual has control over his own life, body, or property since the collective can strip him of that right. So all rights are merely temporary grants from the majority. However, while none of us have a right to choice over our own self, collectively we do have a choice over the lives of others.
Lindsay, I'm a bit confused as of late.
Could you please explain to me: is ACT a true libertarian party?
"Could you please explain to me: is ACT a true libertarian party?"
Lindsay will answer for herself but I would say no....and thats the problem,its not anchored firmly to a set of solid principles....more loosely teathered and therefore prone to being shifted about by prevailing currents.A firm mooring would never have seen ACT Mp's voting for the gang ban bill.To be fair ACT has been remarkable consistent in its aderance to those principles for quite awhile now and its only lately since gaining office that there has been an issue....and that has been glaringly obvious to its memebers who can see contradictions and are speaking out about them...which is healthy....but should never have arisen if ACT's MP's had stuck to the partys principles.
ACTs strenght is that it has principles that it policys should follow consistently from and that acts as a touch stone to easily determine what is right to do and what is wrong.Compare that to say National which floats along sweaing both left and right and appearing wet and infirm.It basically lays the ground work for Labour to slot back in after awhile and pick up where they last left off as National has surrender to Labours socialist,government knows best dogma long ago....the left won the moral battle and so are always playing on their homwe turf.
ACT as I understand it was first formed as a Libertarian party for the most part...its founding document was written by a Libertarian...Ian Fraser..who left disgusted with ACTs descent into authoritarianism...at least in its early days.Libertarianz was formed from disgruntled Libs who were at ACTs founding (Perigo,Coddington etc)and for a while they grew and took ACT on expousing them as just another group of busy bodie socialists.
See here for some articles from back in the day to get the gist of Libertarian feelings re ACT at the time..these were the days of The Politically Incorrect show and the Seig Heil award...take ya back Lindsay? ;-0
http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/39/39hughes.php
http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/44/sturm.php
http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/twilight/index.php
Since the conservatives (Franks,Newman etc) were purged in the early 2000's and Rodney made leader ACT has been far more Libertarian inclined without being overt about it....it still stays Mum on issues like drugs etc and sticks more to the economic utilitarian arguments with the odd nod to freedom and choice.
ACTS future however is its young supporters...whom are almost all liberally minded...so expect to see far more attention going to social liberal issues as the party ages...
Post a Comment