Hernandez FranciscoFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you Madam Chair for allowing me to take my first call on the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill. I'm just going to start off by talking a little bit about the context and where I'm coming from because I think that's really important and then I'm going to ask questions about the purpose of the bill and think through some potentially worst-case scenarios. I think that that's part of our job as democratic legislators—to think through the potentially worst things that could happen in the exercise of State power. A little bit about the background is that my grandfather who I was actually named after was a police officer in the Philippines and I'm sure we can all agree that the policing environment in countries that are developing are perhaps a little bit more challenging than the contexts that we face in developed countries. My mother named me after my grandfather but he was actually killed before I was even born so I was named as a kind of tribute to him. He was killed by a gang. He was standing up; he was a straight man in a bent force as my family used to describe him. So he was a non-corrupt officer in an institution that was rife with corruption. I think that's important to contextualise because quite often in these debates which do get heated—and I acknowledge your leadership Minister and that you haven't engaged in this rhetoric so far—the Greens tend to be painted with people saying that we're pro-crime or pro-gang or whatever. But we do agree with—I think all the political parties here have the same kind of desire that people shouldn't be intimidated and that people shouldn't be held to fear and in an ideal world people wouldn't be joining gangs. But I think we do differ on our method of how to get there and I think that's important to consider in the context of the purpose of this because we can exercise a lot of State power to try and enforce anti-gang legislation. We can create things and structures but there are always trade-offs. There are trade-offs in terms of resources to enforce and there are trade-offs in terms of what it might do to the kind of democratic deficit and that's been acknowledged to some extent by the report of the Attorney-General where she stated that I have considered the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill … for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act … I conclude the proposed prohibition on the display of gang insignia in public places is inconsistent with the rights to freedom of expression association and peaceful assembly in the Bill of Rights Act. Further I conclude that the proposed power to issue dispersal notices is inconsistent with the right to peaceful assembly in the Bill of Rights Act." I think that's something that's really important to consider because if we go to the purpose section at clause 3(a) and (b) clause 3(a) is "prohibiting the display of gang insignia in public places:" and clause 3(b) is "providing for the issue of dispersal notices to stop gang members from gathering in public places:" and if we turn to the definition section clause 4 states that " 'gang member' includes the following: (a) an individual who is a prospective member or nominee: (b) an individual who demonstrates affiliation to a gang by displaying the gang's insignia: (c) an individual who is involved in the affairs of a gang for the likely purpose of participating in a criminal activity". I do think that there are some potentially problematic things that could come out of this because "public places" could include for example a polling booth and "gang members" could include people who are wanting to exercise their democratic right. So again it is our duty as legislators to think what the worst-case scenarios might be and to consider what are the sorts of powers that we're giving Governments to make in disperse laws. I have full confidence and faith that none of the current members of this current House are in any way tyrannical or autocratic and I don't suggest that anyone here would move to use it but it does create a precedent whereby some future administration which might have ill intent could use clause 3(b) to misclassify people as gang members and to prohibit them from exercising their democratic rights. So I do think we need to be really careful about the safeguards we build into this kind of legislation. As I said earlier it's really important that we consider that even though we're all wanting to achieve a place where—oh I've run out of time. Thank you."