Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Well thank you Mr Chair. I just want to speak briefly to the Amendment Paper marked u" and it's about clause 8A.Now I object to the clause full-stop but in terms of what is the triggering prohibition I understand possession of gang insignia—which: you've fallen foul three times already possessing gang insignia is one "controlling gang insignia". That's having it in your room perhaps or in the house that you have exclusive possession of. But the one I have trouble with is clause 8A(2)(c): "gang insignia being present at the person's usual place of residence."Now the fact of the matter is that many people live in relatively communal living circumstances. If we take for example a small boarding house or a flatmate situation the gang insignia the person subject to the order might know—he might actually be happy to be living in a house with other gang members; that goes on right? Now if they're living there someone down the hall in their own room with exclusive control over that room might have their own gang patch hanging up in the cupboard. Yet because this person subject to the order knows about it it would appear that they are intentionally breaching that because they're in a house—in their usual place of residence—there is a gang patch. It's not their gang patch—they don't have control over the gang patch—but they're there they know it's there they're intentionally in that house. So they would fall foul of that.My point is this: despicable as this whole clause is you simply don't need (c) because the person if it's in that boarding house situation or in a gang house situation well they can't have possession of the gang insignia and they can't have control of the gang insignia. But you can't insist that they control other people who are in the same residence. It's extending the scope. So I'd be interested in whether you you'd look at getting rid of that "present [in] the person's usual place of residence." because it does no work and it expands the scope of it quite unreasonably. What it in effect does is it imposes the order on third parties.Now Minister you're not exactly leaping to your feet in response to my question. So I might if I may go on to a further Amendment Paper on that same clause—the clause that you've slipped in by stealth thinking that perhaps we're going to debate it but this is the only chance we'll get—and that is I want to talk about the clause 8A(1) which starts off "A court must make a gang insignia prohibition order".I guess my question is this: why do you need a "must" in there? Why can't you leave it up to the court to see whether it's appropriate in all the circumstances? The prior offences may have been trivial or it may be clear that it's simply not necessary—because this is once again a constraint on freedom of expression and not only is it about public expression; it goes to private expression. This is almost kind of creating a thought crime in the sense that you're not allowed to have in your own bedroom a symbol on the wall which represents a gang affiliation.So that's it right? This is like 1984 stuff: in people's private spaces they can't have an expression of gang affiliation. That is alarming. Now you're telling a court that they "must" make that order and I don't understand why you need that compulsion. If there is some reason for it then let's give the court that discretion. But to say on this—it's essentially three strikes: you've mixed up three strikes firearm prohibition orders and gang patch bands—you've got a three-strike gang patch prohibition order.So I'd be interested in knowing whether the Minister has kind of determined that a District Court judge "must" make that order or whether he's just going to trust a District Court judge to make an order where appropriate."