Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Chair. Now I've talked very carefully about this and—Hon Matt Doocey: Come on no irony!Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well Mr Doocey on this side of the committee we do think carefully unlike the people who came up with this bill who really didn't think it out. Hon Matt Doocey: Come on.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: No because this bill should be called—and the title clause should be Amendment"—have put an Amendment Paper in if the Minister's happy—the "Gang (Intimidation) Amendment Bill".Because what this bill actually does is it's really just Paul Goldsmith saying "You gangs you got to watch out. We're coming for you." Because that's about how effective it is. It's as effective as Paul Goldsmith with his "Make America Great Again" cap on saying "We're coming for you" and the gangs—you know what? The gangs are quivering in their boots. That's about how effective this is because this is Paul Goldsmith trying to intimidate gangs out of their patches.We know for a fact—we heard quite clearly that the police are not going to go around and hunt out gang patches. This is utterly window dressing. It's just an utterly ineffectual attempt by that Government over there to address gangs by trying to scare them out of their gang patches—boom. It's just not going to work.So it's a ridiculous bill and the fact of the matter is that it's effectively posturing but the posturing would be fine if it was effective—James Meager: Oh pot kettle!Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —but it's absolutely ineffectual posturing. Because as we went through this—and I know why James Meager hasn't taken a call: because he's absolutely appalled by his own Government's bill. He sat there in the Justice Committee with his head in his hands as we went through and worked out how hopeless that bill was.Hon Member: We know that's not true!Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Now there you're still—take your head out of your hands stand up and take a call and talk about the so-called merits of this bill. Because this bill as we went through it in committee of the whole House here time and again it was demonstrated how it was unworkable. So it can't be anything other than window dressing and an attempt to intimidate.So really the fact of the matter is that the bill as we went through it—although we were and I do want to say this; I want it on the record: we were precluded from talking about non-consorting orders. That debate was shut down in a way which was most unfortunate. Those are a really good example of orders that will never be made just like non-association orders which already exists under the Sentencing Act and are pretty much never used because they're not useful they're not effective they don't have any actual criminal justice purpose.So what we have here is a bill which is ineffectual window dressing. None of the things—gang patches dispersal notices consorting orders sentencing aggravating factors—are workable. As you look through them none of them actually work so it can't be anything other than either a window dressing bill or an attempt by Paul Goldsmith to stare down the gangs with his tough-on-crime real-consequences approach which is simply unworkable.So there you go. If the Minister's happy to have it called the "Gangs (Intimidation) Legislation Amendment Bill" or perhaps the "Gangs (Paul Goldsmith Intimidating Them) Amendment Bill" that might be a more appropriate title."