Edmonds Barbara; Rurawhe AdrianBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Mr Speaker. I think it was really difficult for me to sit in the House and to listen to the first speaker the member who's sponsoring this bill because as Dr Duncan Webb referred to he keeps saying they"—the reference that he had in his first speech to "they". Well I have news for that member: the "they" are members of my family. Am I an associate because they are a member of my family? Am I an associate because some of my very close neighbours are gang members where I actually live? This bill is so fundamentally flawed fundamentally flawed it doesn't even provide a definition of what an associate is. There is no way I can stand here and support this bill that takes food from the mouths of children of gang members. There is no way I can stand here in this House and support a bill that takes away education from children of gang families. There is no way I can stand here and support a bill that takes away vaccinations from both gang members from family members from children.Hon Michael Woodhouse: You're not.BARBARA EDMONDS: And one of the members on the other side of the House says it doesn't. But actually have you read the bill that you have tabled because it said "indirectly and directly funding programmes that have association". Whānau Ora providers may have associations. Schools may have associations. So again taking the example of myself who may be considered an associate because I have very close family members who are in gangs—again not all of us are brought up in privilege or silver spoons or with money in our parents' bank accounts. But I stood on a board of a school. So me an associate of an organisation that receives direct funding from the Crown which is through Budgets Vote Education—Simeon Brown: School's not a gang.BARBARA EDMONDS: It is in your bill. Read the bill. An associate of a gang who runs a programme—I'm a board member of the board of trustees. That is a school. So therefore a Whānau Ora provider one of our food providers—and again if the member actually read the bill and got some research into his actual bill he'll realise he's actually amending the wrong Act.So the whole reference to the example you used was around the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act. Now the member if he had done some research would have seen that the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act—it was Cabinet in 2009 who decided they would allocate funding outside of the normal Budget process. Therefore the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act is actually the Act that you need to change if you want to stop criminal proceeds of crime funding which the member used in his speech in relation to a programme in the Hawke's Bay. If that is the one that he wants—beg your pardon. If the member wants to use that programme as the example for the driving of this bill then the member should have paid some time to have a look at what funded that programme: the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act which the Cabinet decided in 2009 to allocate funding outside of the normal Budget process. So I will say again I'm not going to stand here and support a flawed bill. I'm not going to stand here and support a bill that will actually take money away from children who need to be fed money away from education providers who need to educate children and families of gangs. These children and some of these families have no choice. Not all of us are brought up with a silver spoon. The "they" as referenced in the first member's speech—many people within this House we will be considered associates by neighbourhoods by families and by other measures. I commend this bill to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members this debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Pō mārie.The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m."