GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) : My colleagues wish I had more than 2 minutes and 30 seconds to continue speaking about clause 5C, but I am sure that in my limited time I will be able to recap on this particular clause.

I remind members that this is the clause that covers the review of by-laws made under this legislation. It states: “The Council must review a bylaw made by it under section 5 no later than 5 years after the date on which the bylaw was made.” I think we have already traversed in this debate a number of concerns that this side of the Chamber has about this particular bill and why we feel that is quite likely a review will be needed significantly earlier than in 5 years. We have already heard about the problems with the definitions under clause 4 that create a situation where there will be a constant need for review, and, indeed, the potential for litigation.

Let us remind ourselves that clause 5 says the power to make by-laws is given to the council, and the council can designate any public place as a specified place for the purpose of the Act, and it is also the clause under which we identify who we think the gangs might be. This is the most problematic clause in this bill for members of the Labour caucus. We believe that clause 5C, which allows for review after 5 years, is, in fact, inadequate. It will be necessary to review this law significantly earlier than that.

We also know that under clause 5—members will remember this from when we discussed it earlier—the possibility of “identifying an organisation, association, or group of persons as a gang” is likely to be the subject of significant litigation. We have already seen earlier in the bill that a gang has been defined as “any other specified organisation, association, or group of persons identified in a bylaw made under section 5”. So effectively what we are saying is that we are giving carte blanche for the Wanganui District Council to decide what a gang may be. Gangs will then move to change their names and try to find other ways of getting around the definition of “gang”.

Once again, as we have said before, this bill is giving false hope to the people of Wanganui that the problem of gang intimidation can be dealt with by looking at what people wear rather than at what they do. The review clause, clause 5C, is simply saying that clause 5 is not adequate, because it does not allow for a quick enough review of what we believe to be a very difficult and very unfortunate set of rules and definitions in the bill.

The Wanganui District Council has, throughout this debate, called upon members of Parliament a number of times to look at their particular concerns. I reiterate, from the Labour side, that we understand the reasons why the people of Wanganui wanted this bill to come forward, and we do understand that Chester Borrows brought this bill forward because of those concerns. But, quite simply, the provisions in clause 5, which are to be reviewed under clause 5C, will not provide the people of Wanganui with that kind of assurance. It will, in fact, provide them with false hope, and we believe that clause 5C is one among many flawed clauses in this bill.

CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) : I move, That the question be now put.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) : 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.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : 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.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) : 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.

JACINDA ARDERN: 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.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : 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”.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) : 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.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) : 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!

CHRIS HIPKINS: 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.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : 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.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) : In this debate on clause 7 I want to draw attention to some concerns, which have already been expressed in this debate, about the extent of the powers of arrest and seizure in relation to persons displaying gang insignia. As many Labour speakers have already made clear in this debate, we certainly do not support gangs. We think that gangs are a blight on our society. But this bill does little to deal with what gangs do; it simply deals with what gangs wear.

Clause 7—and, indeed, clause 8—is where we get into the question of what the police may do in terms of how they arrest people, and what they may do to seize and remove gang insignia. I think this raises some concerns about the way in which this clause is laid out, but what concerns me is the fact that this bill will be able to pass through the House because of the support of the ACT Party. I thought that the ACT Party members would be leaping to their feet when we came to clause 7, because this is the kind of freedom-type issue—the freedom to wear things, the freedom to move about the place; in this case, Wanganui—that I thought the ACT Party was founded on.

Rodney Hide, in the first reading of this bill, touched on some of the issues that are covered by clause 7, and I quote him: “Freedom is about the individual, and the measure of a free society is how we move to protect the minority from the majority. If the majority thinks that people wearing glasses should be locked up, that is not freedom or democracy;”. I certainly would share those thoughts as a man who wears glasses, but the point Rodney Hide was making was that freedoms and things that were important to the ACT Party were the kinds of reasons why he opposed this bill.

Remarkably, that is no longer the case. The ACT Party is now in favour of this bill, a bill that Rodney Hide called rubbish. We now know why the ACT Party is in favour of this bill and why its members appear to have traded away their beliefs and their principles about freedom. It is because they have done a deal about the “three strikes” bill. They have done a deal with National—or they are hoping to do a deal with National—to move the “three strikes” bill through the House. We have already seen National send it off to a select committee, so that was stage one of the deal. Rodney Hide told people who watched the Back Benchers show on TVNZ 7 that a deal had been done to allow ACT to support this bill. The last time we were here, I think, David Garrett told us the bill was nonsensical but that ACT would still support it. That is a remarkable position.

The principles about freedom and about the ability for people to move around the district where they live have now been completely ignored by the ACT Party. ACT members have simply moved on from that and have said that they will not stand up for their principles. They will not look at a clause like clause 7 and ask about issues of freedom and the movement of people, and they will not ask what the consequences are beyond Wanganui.

The really important point here is that because we are making this law on a district-by-district basis, we are, at the moment, looking at an issue like freedom of movement—an incredibly basic right—just in relation to Wanganui. We are not thinking about the wider consequences of making criminal law in this way. We are not thinking about what these things actually mean. We know that David Garrett does not much believe in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. He says that we have got too hung up on people’s rights. But even he could see that this particular part of the bill was flawed. But, no, ACT has decided that it will flip-flop and simply take a deal whereby it will vote for this bill in the hope that it will get its “three strikes” legislation through the House.

I can quote what Mr Hide told the Back Benchers show. He said: “We voted for it, this bill, because what it’s going to do is get ‘three strikes’ through this Parliament.” Those are Rodney Hide’s exact words. Shame on the ACT Party for turning its back on its principles! Sir Roger Douglas is here. He founded the ACT Party, and even though I disagreed virulently with what the party stood for, it at least I knew what it stood for. It stood for some principles about freedom—freedom of choice and freedom of association—and here we are debating clause 7—

Paul Quinn: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Clause 7 is quite specific about matters to be addressed. We have had a wide-ranging dissertation about ACT’s principles. I ask that you bring the speaker to clause 7.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member makes a valid point. The Committee stage is a clause by clause debate. It is about the nuts and bolts of a bill. Freedoms, important as they are, are things that one might want to bump up against once or twice in a speech, but this debate is about the nuts and bolts. This is not a part by part debate. It is a clause by clause debate, and it should be about the nuts and bolts of the wording of the clause. I invite the member to continue. He has 27 seconds.

GRANT ROBERTSON: I will make every one of them worthwhile, Mr Chair. Clause 7 is indeed about the powers of arrest and seizure in relation to persons displaying gang insignia. Important issues in terms of rights have been raised, and I would have expected the ACT Party members to be on their feet immediately. But, clearly, they have traded their principles away.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : I am happy to stand and take a call on clause 7 of the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill—a short call, hopefully, as we do not want to hold this up any more than it needs to be, but I want to follow on from my colleague Grant Robertson. This clause deals with “Powers of arrest and seizure in relation to persons displaying gang insignia”. This is an issue that the ACT Party should be very concerned about. This is really where the rubber hits the road when it comes to the freedoms that my colleague was talking about. All that I can deduce, as my colleague Chris Hipkins said when he referred to the ACT Party fitting the description of a criminal gang under this legislation, is that, just like a criminal gang, its members have all been pulled into line, they have all been beaten around the chops, and not one of them is allowed to say what he or she really thinks. The irony of that, perhaps, should not be lost on members.

This is a very important clause—

Chris Hipkins: Why doesn’t Roger Douglas tell us what he thinks?

MOANA MACKEY: Well, he has only one speech and he gave it during the general debate, so we should not expect that he is going to stand up and take a call on this.

In relation to powers of arrest and seizure, clause 7(1) states: “A constable may, without warrant,—(a) arrest a person whom the constable has good cause to suspect” may be breaching the Act. This is a very extensive power to give to the police. Let us look at south-east Los Angeles. A lot of people have talked about different gangs, but what people perhaps do not know when they talk about the Crips and the Bloods is that in fact there are East Side Crips and West Side Crips. When we talk about displaying gang insignia and we go back to the definition of gang insignia in clause 4(1), we see that paragraph (a) states that gang insignia “means a sign, symbol, or representation commonly displayed to denote membership of, an affiliation with,” a gang. I tell members that Labour members have had a photo emailed through to us where the Minister for Social Development and Employment is doing the West Side Crips sign. This is a hand gesture that represents a criminal gang, the West Side Crips, and I want to know whether—

Hon Member: A gang insignia!

MOANA MACKEY: —that gang insignia would be captured under the legislation. Obviously, a hand gesture that represented a criminal gang falls under the ambit of this legislation. It would be interesting to see that gang insignia being “destroyed or otherwise disposed of”—and it is gang insignia. It is the Minister for Social Development and Employment in the photo. I notice that the person who has emailed it to us has blurred out other faces to protect the innocent, but the Minister is clearly doing the West Side Crips insignia. This is very interesting and it comes to the heart of why Labour opposes this legislation. We are really getting into bad law when we have to have discussions of this nature, but they are very real discussions. The member in the chair, Chester Borrows, has said—

Paul Quinn: What about the law of common sense?

MOANA MACKEY: What was that, sorry?

Paul Quinn: What about the law of common sense?

MOANA MACKEY: The law of common sense! Mr Paul Quinn wants to lecture us all on the law of common sense. I look forward to his taking the next call so that he can, in his usual erudite way, lecture members on what he believes to be the law of common sense. I think we would all benefit greatly, I say to Mr Quinn, from his expertise displayed every day in this Chamber on that particular issue. We look forward to that greatly, I say to Mr Quinn.

One of the issues that we have raised—and we have raised it consistently—in terms of powers of arrest and seizure is what happens when a person is in an area and has no reasonable way of knowing that he or she is not allowed to wear gang insignia. The signs will go missing. They will be put in gang headquarters and probably student flats as well. They will be stolen. So someone walking into an area where a constable has powers of arrest and seizure for wearing gang insignia might not even know that he or she is breaking the law. Under this Act, those people have no defence. In fact, under section 5A(2), already agreed to by National and ACT, if a sign is not up and someone does not know he or she is breaking the law, it is not a defence for him or her to say “I didn’t realise this was a part of Wanganui I wasn’t allowed to be breaking this by-law in.”

How can the ACT Party support that provision? How can the ACT Party say that, when there are no signs telling people they are breaking the law, because they have been taken down and hung up in gang headquarters? Those signs are the only way, under this bill, that people can know they are breaking the law, unless they go down to the council and check every single by-law on arrival in Wanganui to make sure they are not breaching any of them during their visit. Of course, everyone does that when they go for a holiday in lovely Wanganui! How can the ACT Party support a provision of arrest and seizure for someone who has not even been told he or she is breaking the law?

All I can say—and I will come back to what my colleague Chris Hipkins said—is that the ACT Party is truly behaving like a gang on this bill. ACT members are not allowed to speak freely and they are not allowed to separate themselves out from the rest of their gang. If they do, they are given a bollocking.

CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) : I move, That the question be now put.