Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm very happy to stand and take a call on the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill in its third reading. I'd just like to acknowledge our advisers to the committee who waited around in Parliament tonight to come in for the committee stage which was truncated and they weren't here for long. But I want to acknowledge and thank them because not only did they support us and help us with advice on this bill but they helped us with the recovery bill also. We support the bills that have been brought to the House because I think everyone in this country recognises the fact that over the last five years we have seen an enormous growth in gang numbers we have seen gang members now that are prepared to carry firearms and the worst thing about it is they're showing that they're willing to use them and unfortunately in this country we are seeing evidence of that on a weekly basis. I guess what may have expedited and sort of prompted the Government to act a bit more quickly around this bill was the fact that last year we saw 22 or 23 drive-by shootings. There's been a report come out recently from the police that clearly indicates that these drive-by shootings that we all assume are inter-gang rivalry and they're targeting other gang homes—the only problem with that is that I'm sure there are often innocent children that are in those homes. I don't know how—it's just through the luck of the Irish that we have not had a member of the public or worse still a child seriously injured or killed in one of these drive-by shootings. But the recent information that came to light is the fact that they are indiscriminate. These drive-by shootings aren't always targeted at gang homes. Innocent members of the public have been caught up in it and have had their homes targeted and I don't think anyone in this House would accept that. It's bad enough that gang homes are being targeted but it becomes a whole new level when innocent members of the public have their homes targeted in drive-by shootings. This bill is important in the sense that it does give the police a wider-ranging power to be able to have a warrant issued so that they can start to target the two gangs that are involved in the conflict. So we fully support that. We think that that is important. The other thing that I'd say in relation to gang conflict is that the Minister referred to this bill targeting the leaders. This bill doesn't talk to or comment—it has nothing to do with targeting the leaders of the gangs. I'm hoping—I'm hoping—that some of the leaders of the gangs are captured by this legislation. It's probably highly unlikely because—as you know through your own wide and varied experience Mr Deputy Speaker—often the leaders will try to insulate themselves from this type of activity. It's not them that go out and actually do the drive-by shootings; it's their foot soldiers that they send out there to do it. The other issue that I did want to raise—and the Minister raised this in her closing comments—is that she keeps coming back and keeps talking about the Hon Chester Borrows in speaking about gang patches. In my view—and that's why I want to clarify it—she seems to think that the banning of gang patches is not going to prevent drive-by shootings. I understand what she's saying but the only thing that I would comment to that is that the 23 drive-by shootings that we saw in South Auckland and West Auckland and on the North Shore last year were sparked through a dispute over a gang patch—that's what actually started it. Just for the Minister's information I took a bill through this House about six or seven years ago. It was actually Todd McClay's bill and it was a member's bill because he was having serious gang conflict in Rotorua at the time between Black Power and the Mongrel Mob. It bans gang patches and gang insignia in hospitals and schools and Government buildings and the police use it. What it means is that parents with their children don't have to see gang patches walking around the school grounds. Gang patches quite simply as you and I both know are there to intimidate. They're there to try and strike fear into the community that these gang members live in and it's been effective. I attended a public meeting down in Taradale a few years ago after a drive-by shooting in the middle of town during the middle of the day in which a toddler's car seat ended up with shotgun pellets in it. It was open warfare by the gangs in the middle of Taradale. I was talking to the police officers down there and they said We use the gang patch bill. We enforce that. It's a good tool for us to use." So I just wanted to alert the Minister to the fact that that piece of legislation actually has been quite useful for police to reinforce and put pressure on the gangs and put a line in the sand and say "You will not wear those patches in our schools. You will not wear them in the hospitals."And by the way hospitals are a big problem in terms of gang presence. We saw recently an example of that in Christchurch where the gangs have taken over the car park they had a big presence in the emergency department. I actually had an experience of this myself just recently in North Shore Hospital where my son was being treated and the gangs had a heavy presence in the ward that he was in. It's intimidating for people. I want to shout out and acknowledge the medical staff the nurses and the doctors who try to work around that and try to make it work and try to avoid conflict and confrontation because they don't want to place more stress on the patients and the people that are actually using the ward or the hospital at the time.So although I support this bill I just wanted to address those comments that the Minister made for whatever reason—I don't know why—and thank you for allowing me to do it Mr Speaker because it's not actually relevant to the bill at all but I did want to at least speak to it.In relation to the seizure of vehicles this is a good one but again because we have got a problem in this country now where gang members in particular feel that they can get out on roads they can take over public spaces they can drive into oncoming members of the public and force them off the road they can intimidate them threaten them and take over intersections—and we shouldn't tolerate that. When you've got law-abiding citizens out there trying to stick to our road rules and they see gangs taking over the roads like that they shouldn't tolerate that. We shouldn't tolerate that. So I support legislation that allows the police to take action.The only problem that I have with it is that the bar has been set very high with "careless dangerous and reckless use"—that is a very high bar that has to be met in terms of triggering the ability for the police to be able to seize those vehicles. I hope that it can be operationalised. My fear is that they're going to have real problems and real issues with it.So I'm very happy to stand and support this bill. Like most of the legislation that we're standing and supporting we would have gone further. We are very sensitive to the fact that at the moment we should be fully focused on what our front-line police officers need in a practical sense to be able to apply the legislation and start putting genuine pressure back on the gangs. I have to say that a lot of the legislation that comes through the House has got some intent there but it goes halfway and it doesn't go the whole way. On saying that I'm happy to stand and I'm happy to support the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill."