Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Speaker. The Labour Party accepts that there is a gang problem in New Zealand and our work as the prior Government demonstrates that. We have had the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill to look at for an hour and we don't want to be hasty with it. I've read the bill once. I've looked at the Attorney-General's report. The Attorney-General's report points out that there are inconsistencies with the rights and freedoms preserved in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We want to make sure that any actions to suppress the contagion of gangs in New Zealand is proportionate and is reasonable and that it doesn't impact certain communities in an inappropriate and negative way. We also want to make sure that legislation is workable and my initial review of this raises some alarm bells.The linchpin of this piece of legislation is what it means to be a gang member. We know that it's already a criminal offence to be a member of a criminal organisation which is pretty much the same thing and the definition here in the interpretation clause includes an individual who is involved in the affairs of a gang for the likely purpose of participating in a criminal activity". Now that is looking into someone's intention. It's looking into someone's home. It's pretty much impossible to prove why people are hanging out together. So we think those kinds of things need to be very carefully examined.Of course the kind of front piece for this is the ban on gang insignia. We know that some are going to be easy. A Mongrel Mob patch which says "Mongrel Mob" is going to be pretty easy. But that's not what the definition says. It says "a sign symbol or representation commonly displayed"—so not a one-off but common—"to denote membership of or affiliation with … a gang" so that also is very vague. Any pattern—symbols are often adopted. There's the watermelon symbol for a current movement and that is a symbol of affiliation with a movement. Now those kinds of thing are very vague. That kind of vagueness is not really helpful and there's one other thing tucked away in there. You've got to remember that once you are identified as a gang member you are subject to not being able to wear your insignia that affiliates you with it and subject to being dispersed and having non-consorting orders placed upon you. It's a very negative outcome and what's the threshold when these orders come to be made or these dispersal orders are re-examined? Well that's set out a bit later on in the bill and it's balance of probabilities. So these very significant infringements of human rights are to be determined not on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt—"We're sure you're a gang member."—but on the balance of probabilities and I raise concerns there because these are quasi-criminal impediments to someone's freedom. The other point is in terms of dispersal notices in clause 9 of the bill the trigger is not that the person is a gang member which would be one thing but simply that a constable suspects that the person is a gang member—again a very low threshold. Now as I said when I started this speech we've had this bill for a little over an hour now. We agree there's a problem. We don't want to dismiss solutions out of hand. We are a constructive party so we are going to support this bill going to select committee but I do want to make it clear that that is not to say we're going to support this through the House. But we want to work as constructively as we can to see if a good balance can be struck between protecting the public and making sure we address the issue of gangs in an effective and appropriate manner. Kia ora Mr Speaker."