Meager JamesJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Let's get real for a minute. Let's actually understand what we're talking about here. We are unlike the views of many of the members opposite not talking about wayward community groups who are doing their best but have a couple of bad eggs. We are talking about organisations that are systematically set up to cause misery cause violence and cause harm to our communities. If we want to talk about systemic abuse in this country why don't we start talking about the organisations where rape and violence and thuggery and intimidation are not an unintended consequence of the organisation they are a prerequisite for its membership. Why don't we start talking about that? Why don't we just get real about what we're actually talking about here?Yes we can talk about some of the causes of our gang culture. And yes we can talk about some of the horrific actions of the State in decades past and we can talk about the social investment approach which this Government believes in which will help to go some way towards solving the challenge of gang membership in 20 years' time. But we will not stand by while these organisations are out there in our communities causing absolute chaos and absolute misery and that is what this is about. If members want to consider their position on whether or not they would like to support the continued existence of gangs and gang culture in this country I would invite them to do so.As chair of the Justice Committee I do want to commend the work of the committee on this bill. There have been a number of changes made to the bill. And despite some of the back and forth that will go across the House tonight and I suspect on Thursday as well we actually did a lot of hard work looking into some of the unintended consequences of parts of the bill.One of the parts I wanted to talk about was the changes we are making to the extent to which this bill applies on the grounds of Parliament. Because as someone who is interested in constitutional law and the place of Parliament in our constitution we entered into a very interesting discussion with the Clerk of the House about the bill. And the Clerk made a submission which is there and public for everyone to read. And we ended up recommending to the House that we exempt the grounds of Parliament from the prohibition on gang insignia but to allow the Speaker to continue to make those decisions for the public on the grounds at Parliament.That was a very very important decision I think for us to make because in terms of upholding the sanctity of Parliament as a place for everyone to come and to freely express themselves it is important that we allow that to happen as freely and safely as possible to the extent which Parliament itself allows through the Speaker. But make no mistake we do support the Speaker's right to make those decisions. I suspect as a caucus and as a Government we would support the Speaker in making decisions to continue the prohibition in Parliament's grounds and on Parliament's precincts as well as in public but ultimately we recognise the fact that Parliament is not a ground for complete sanctity. It is not a place for immunity from the law. But ultimately it is a place for the Speaker to make those decisions. So that is why we agreed on that change.The committee did at the end of the day receive about 164 submissions. We heard from 32 oral submitters. And as members have spoken about they did represent a wide range of perspectives actually from law enforcement; legal experts; community organisations; concerned citizens; and yes gang members themselves. And while the gang members who showed up at select committee put on what I would call the positive happy face—the we are no more than a community group doing our best in the community" side of what they do—very few of them actually spoke at length about what it took to enter into the gang lifestyle. What did they have to do to become a member of the gang? What harm and what misery did they have to cause? That is what we are trying to stop. That's what we're trying to cut off at the pass here.So we did have a number of very considered submissions. You'll see throughout the changes to the bill a lot of those submissions were taken into account and changes have been made. I'd like to acknowledge the work of Dr Webb and of Ginny Andersen and Tracey McLellan and the other members of the committee—Tamatha Paul Tākuta Ferris—and of course members on the Government side for their work in trying to solve some pretty tricky issues around dispersal notices and around the extent to which the bans will apply and how it will be implemented in practice. They were very very difficult issues to work through and ultimately we came to a point where I think the committee agreed by unanimity to the changes that we are going to suggest today.I want to acknowledge that it is a contentious bill; however we believe the measures are justified and proportionate as a way to deal with the threat posed by criminal gangs. The measures in this bill send a clear message that our society will not tolerate the intimidation and the criminal activities of gangs. By disrupting their operations and reducing their visible presence in our society we aim to create safer communities for all New Zealanders. I commend the report to the House and I look forward to further robust debate as the bill progresses. Thank you."