Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora Madam Chair. After that very good speech I would perhaps bring the focus a little more narrow because I do want to actually just talk about the definition of gang insignia" because it's probably done a disservice to this legislation to call it "the gang patch ban" because it's actually much more than that because the definition of "gang insignia" in the bill here in clause 4 I think "means (a) a sign symbol or representation commonly displayed to denote membership of or an affiliation with or support for a gang not being a tattoo;"Now I accept the kind of legislative dilemma facing the Minister wanting to cast the net wide and not allow all the small fishes through so to speak but there's a real danger here that we end up banning a whole lot of things that aren't actually part of the purpose because the purpose which we've talked about is to stop intimidation. The things that are intimidating are those signs insignia where people see it in the street and think "Crikey! That's one of those dangerous gang members." whereas a lot of what would be captured here— "a sign symbol or representation commonly displayed to denote membership … or affiliation"—actually to a person in the street wouldn't have that effect. A really good example are bandanas. In some gangs blue and red bandanas denote different street gangs. Now they are commonly used. The very purpose for which they're being worn is to denote affiliation with the Bloods and the Crips or whatever it might be. Don't quote me on the exact affiliations but that red bandana means nothing to a person simply walking down the street. They don't look at a red bandana and think "That's one of those dangerous Crips or Bloods."—maybe it's the Bloods. The other thing is this: there's a habit or a course of conduct in West LA of using sporting paraphernalia. So different baseball caps in particular signify which gang you belong to. Now if it turns out that a Crusaders cap or beanie means you belong to a particular gang then it falls within "gang insignia" even though an ordinary person on a street wouldn't necessarily look at a person and know. Who would know is a member of the gang or a member of a rival gang. That's actually why it's been worn—to show that tribalism. So my Amendment Paper on the Table suggests that—and it might be that it needs a bit of work but we've got time to do this; I'm not sure we'll get through all of this bill by 6 o'clock today but I've suggested adding in the word "and understood". So "gang insignia means (a) a sign symbol or representation commonly displayed and understood". And it might need "widely understood to denote membership" because at the moment a lot of those insignias aren't widely understood. They're still insignias. They still denote and they're intended to denote affiliation with a gang but they aren't widely understood to do so and therefore don't fall foul of the purpose of this bill which is to be intimidating.To put it in the wider context this is a free-speech infringement. The Attorney-General's report makes it clear that the banning of gang insignia in this global way is in her view "an unjustified limitation on the right of free expression in New Zealand." So when we come to say what it is we should narrow it down as much as we can as is consistent with the actual purposes of the Act. So I'd be interested in the Minister's response. And as I say these are not trivial amendments. The bill's come out of committee it's still got work to do on it as his own Amendment Paper shows and this would make it more workable and more consistent in my view with his own purpose. So I'd be interested in his response both to this Amendment Paper. And I don't think he's responded to my earlier one on the definition of "associated persons" so it'd be good to hear that."