Paul TamathaTAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Thank you Madam Chair—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): On title and commencement—let's go back to the title and commencement. Thank you.TAMATHA PAUL: Yes back to the title—100 percent. My question is whether the Minister considered the title Suppression and Surveillance of Indigenous People Act". I know that we just listened to 10 minutes relating to the impact of this bill on Māori but I have some different points to make and they're more related to the consorting orders within the bill which is one of the three key tenets of this bill. The first is the gang patch ban the second is the non-consorting order and the third is the dispersal notices. We actually didn't really have an opportunity at all to touch on the consorting orders during the committee of the whole House phase but I think if we look at the way that they've been applied you can see why this would relate to the suppression and surveillance of Māori or the suppression and surveillance of indigenous people which is what I wanted to talk about in this call.When I did a bit of background research when the Government announced their plan around gang patches I think it was Minister Mitchell who said that he would be basing some of these laws on Australian laws and similar legislation that's been in place in Australia and so I reached out to one of my Green colleagues in New South Wales David Shoebridge to ask him the success of these laws and how they had been applied. He said that—and I looked this up and there is heaps of evidence of this—those consorting orders have been used disproportionately against young Aboriginal people in Australia which is why I think that the title of this bill needs to reflect the discriminatory impact and use that is used disproportionately against indigenous people. I've got the report here; it's from the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission. It's called Discussion Paper: Review of the operation of the amendments to the consorting law under Part 3A Division 7 of the Crimes Act 1900 and it's from last year. In that it talks about the use of these laws.For context in Australia indigenous and Aboriginal people make up about 2 percent of the general population. But these consorting laws—which I again repeat we have not had the chance to talk about in this committee of the whole phase despite the fact that it is a major piece of this legislation. During the review period 1797 of the 4257 people who were on the receiving end of a consorting order—so 42 percent—were Aboriginal people and then you look at a breakdown of how it's been used in different jurisdictions within New South Wales. You can see that of the use of these consorting laws 48 percent were used against indigenous people 39 percent used against indigenous people 51 percent 48 percent. For 75 percent of the times that these consorting orders were made they impacted Aboriginal and indigenous people and we know that it's going to be no different in Aotearoa because we already know that we have a system that surveils and suppresses Māori and that picks us up and takes tens of thousands of pictures of young Māori and stores them illegally even after the Privacy Commissioner has said to the police "You need to delete those photos."When we had submitters on this bill coming to the Justice Committee I think it was the Police Association that said that this was about giving extra tools to police—it's extra tools in the tool belt. But those are extra tools in the tool belt to surveil and suppress Māori and we know that. The reason we draw that connection to Māori is because when you look at the list of gangs identified within this piece of legislation you don't see white supremacist gangs in there. You don't see a whole range of other gangs in there. Not even Destiny Church is in there. It's a whole bunch of Māori gangs and we know that that is a statistical fact because 80 to 90 percent of gang members are Māori. So these are just tools to contribute to the surveillance and suppression of Māori which is why I suggest that that should be the title. Thank you.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Ginny Andersen and it will be title commencement or questions for the Minister and not wide-ranging views. I did allow that speech because there was a cut-off the other day when the member didn't have the opportunity to do that."