Tuiono TeanauTEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on behalf of the Greens on the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill. Just on my reflections on some of the speeches over the night and in particular the speech from Mr Paul Goldsmith I really felt that he'd been watching too many cop movies too many cop shows. It felt very Hill Street Blues NCIS CSI—and I would encourage that member to perhaps pick another TV subscription and maybe tune into some rom coms or something like that to get a bit of balance in one's life.This bill is an omnibus bill and it changes a number of Acts. One of them is the Crimes Act 1961 the Land Transport Act 1998 and the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. We have a number of issues with this bill and those were canvassed during the first reading by my colleague Golriz Ghahraman because we come from this in terms of what we must do for our communities right? We're not actually living in the cop shows that Mr Paul Goldsmith vehemently described. Also if you don't like the bill don't vote for it. But what we really need to make sure is that when we look at this we need to think about—and knowing that crime and gang activity they're related to making sure that we have secure livable incomes secure housing inclusive education mental health care and addiction treatment available to all of our communities. These are the things that must underpin it. So this bill is an attempt to be hard on crime tough on crime but what we need to be is tough on poverty. We need to deal with those underlying issues within our society. If we do that it makes everything else easier. I just want to turn to the bill just briefly and just point to the amendments of the Land Transport Act 1998 where in the case of that sanction it would require impounding a car for 28 days. That could be incredibly incredibly harmful to a low-income household. Cars are not gang-affiliated. We don't know what that car might be doing on one day and what it might be doing on the next day. Maybe it's being used by not just one family but by a number of families. Maybe that car is being used to take children to school. We don't know that. So if you remove that vehicle from that low-income family it becomes an issue and it exacerbates the poverty and the problems that I was just talking about just earlier.Detaining someone and requiring their DNA is normally reserved as a power to be applied to the worst criminals. Again we see this as overreach. The balance hasn't been correctly struck here and the concern for us is that often with the police they are not necessarily able to make the distinction about who's in the gang who's associated who's a relative or who's visiting as well. So the application of these new powers will be and could be unevenly applied. Also taking cash money away for suspicion of a person that is affiliated with a gang or not even a gang member even though we may not know whether they're involved in a crime is a new and very expensive breach of community rights. All of the concerns that we brought up in our first reading speech have not been addressed through the select committee process and have not been addressed in terms of the comments that have been made around the House tonight. What we need is those livable incomes. What we need is warm housing. What we need is to make sure that we look after our families. Dealing with the underlying socio-economic factors that make sure that we look after our families—that is what we do before we do anything else. So we will not be commending this bill to the House.