Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill

I move, That the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill be now read a third time. Kia ora, kia orana. Firstly, I would like to thank and acknowledge the Hon Todd McClay as the author of this bill, and the communities of Murupara and Kawerau, who contacted him for help to take a stand against gangs, and whose efforts bring us here today for the third and final reading of this bill. I also acknowledge the Law and Order Committee and its chair, Jacqui Dean, for strengthening the intent of the bill through the select committee process. I also acknowledge our support partners, New Zealand First, ACT, and United Future.

The purpose of this bill is to prohibit the display of gang insignia on premises of departments of the Public Service, the police, Crown entities, local authorities, and schools. This legislation covers 34 known gangs in New Zealand. These are criminal organisations that are known to harm the fabric of our society. Every day Kiwis are exposed to their intimidation. Today in this Parliament every member who votes in favour of this legislation is standing shoulder to shoulder with these brave Kiwis in saying that enough is enough. The spirit of this bill is sending a clear message to all gang members that what they stand for is not wanted or accepted in New Zealand.

To any gang members, prospects, or associates who may read or watch this speech, I would like to send out both a challenge and an invitation. My challenge is for all gang members and prospects to think about the contribution they want to make to New Zealand. At the moment their choice is to rob, steal, beat, and sometimes kill Kiwis who cannot defend themselves. They manufacture and sell drugs, and use extortion and stand-over tactics. They rape and they trample over people’s lives like they mean nothing.

There are gang members who will be laughing at this speech. Well, take a look in the mirror. Behind the tattoos, aggression, and patches is someone who is either a scared coward who needs to hide in a sea of patches to feel strong or someone who has the courage and strength of character to take the patch off, walk away, and rejoin a community that needs people to stand up against violent bullies rather than be one of them.

To the gang members who have been born and raised in the gang culture, break the cycle and want more for the next generation. Every week there are children huddled in the corner of a bedroom late at night, on a dirty mattress with a dirty sheet, listening to gang members getting drunk, the sound of smashing glass, and loud, abusive voices, terrified that their bedroom door will open and one or maybe two drunk or drugged-up gang members will subject them to the pain and fear that no child should be exposed to. Have the intestinal fortitude to protect your children and remove them from the risk of sexual assault and violence, which are part of gang culture. Fight to give your children a better start in life.

It is not necessary to be a millionaire to keep a home clean and tidy, to keep your kids safe, or to buy a loaf of bread rather than a joint or a six-pack. Every year millions of New Zealand taxpayer dollars are spent trying to repair the damage and chaos that is caused and inflicted by gangs. This money should be spent on our children and schools, or health services for the elderly.

I said at the start of my speech that I would make a challenge and an invitation. My invitation is to help any gang member wishing to make a break from a gang. If they have looked in the mirror and what they saw was someone who has the courage and vision to want to get out and be part of building stronger communities, rather than weakening and inflicting harm on them, then my door is always open to assist in identifying a safe pathway out. If the reflection shows a violent coward who enjoys hiding behind a patch and hurting people, then the best place for you is prison.

I would just like to also mention quickly, in relation to this bill, the fact that there are no other current laws, Acts, or legislation that cover what this bill covers. Other legislation requires a formal complaint from a member of the public to generate a response from the police. This bill does not require a complaint from a member of the public. When a member of the public is forced into the position where they have to make a formal complaint against a gang member, that is intimidating, and it can place them in harm’s way. This bill removes that requirement.

This bill also removes the requirement—and you will not find this anywhere else in current legislation—that an offence has to be committed, whether it be a threat of assault, an assault, or disorderly behaviour, before the police can act. The offence under this legislation is created the minute the gang member puts on a gang patch and walks into a Government building or a school. So this bill removes all of the tension, potential conflict, and intimidation between gang members and members of the public. It allows the police to act on their own.

I would like to finish by sending out a message to our gangs that in New Zealand we do not accept what your gang patches signify. We do not accept the reign of terror, intimidation, crime, and organised criminal activity that you bring to this country. Although this may be a small step, it is an important step in us as a country saying: “Leave your patches at home. We don’t want to see them. We don’t accept what they stand for.” This bill is one of many measures that we will continue to take in our fight against gangs and organised criminal groups. Thank you.

Kia orana. Can I acknowledge Mark Mitchell, who has taken over this bill, the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill, from Todd McClay, but respectfully differ from him on the critical comment that he made. That comment was that there is no legislation covering the wearing of gang patches. Mark Mitchell was in the Law and Order Committee when I asked the officials whether right now Ministers or chief executive officers had the power to ban the wearing of gang patches on Government or school premises. The answer to that was yes. So my next question to Mark Mitchell and the National Government is if wearing a gang patch is threatening and offensive in Government premises, how many Ministers in the last 5 years have issued the instruction that no gang patches be worn in Government premises? Do you know the answer to that? The answer is zero. Not one Minister—not Minister Coleman or Minister Bridges or any other Minister—has ever issued that instruction. That shows, regrettably, that this legislation is empty legislation. It adds no new power. The Government has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of House and select committee time pushing through a piece of legislation that makes absolutely no difference to the current law.

Criminal gangs are organisations that set out to condone, facilitate, or encourage crime, and I have zero tolerance for them—I have zero tolerance for them. But there are two responses. One is the response of passing legislation that has a real impact on the presence and the activities of gangs. I am really proud of the fact that, as Minister of Justice in 2005, I introduced into this Chamber the Proceeds of Crime Act. The Proceeds of Crime Act did this: it said that where there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the cash or assets held by a gang were the proceeds of crime, they could be seized by the police. They could be seized by the police on a court order. That legislation also said that the court would make a judgment about confiscation of those assets, not on beyond reasonable doubt grounds but on the balance of probabilities, which is the civil standard.

The effect of that legislation in the first 2 months after introduction was to take $7.2 million out of the pockets of the gangs and put it under State control. That is real legislation. It made a difference. It hurt gangs where gangs needed to be hurt. Fundamentally, they are about making money through criminal activity. The best way of dealing with gangs in that sense is to make sure that the money they make by criminal activity can be and is confiscated from them. That piece of legislation had a real impact. Every minute that the House spent in passing that legislation was money well spent.

Another thing the member or his predecessor might have considered doing in this bill is deal with the problem of the association of gang members where those gang members have criminal convictions. If you want to break up a gang, then non-association orders would be a very effective way of doing that—not simply on the basis of being gang members but on the basis of being gang members who have committed crime after crime after crime and who should not be able to associate. That would make a difference.

What we have in the House today is legislation that actually makes no difference at all. The officials said that. The power exists right now, if the Ministers or the chief executives chose to exercise it, to ban the wearing of gang patches on Government premises. If the originator of this bill had wanted to make any difference, he might have asked about a gang member wearing the patch outside the Government premises and loitering round the entrance of, maybe, the Ministry of Social Development or whatever. There is no power to remove that gang member—no power under law at all, no power to deal with that gang member. But did they do that in this bill? No. They did nothing. That would have at least made a difference. This bill makes no difference at all. It is phoney legislation. It brings no change.

I want to raise another point, and I hope the National Party speaker who takes the next call will answer it. What we found out at the select committee was that this legislation is inconsistent and it is confusing. Do you know what this law will do? It will say that if you are wearing a gang patch in a swimming pool—not in the pool but in the surrounds of the pool—you are committing an offence under this legislation. But if you are wearing the gang patch up in the Hutt Valley watching the rugby league, there is no offence at all—no offence at all. So if you are in the confines of the grounds of a swimming pool, it is illegal, but if you are watching a game of rugby or rugby league wearing your gang patch, it is no problem at all. If you are a gang member wearing a patch and you are standing under a bus shelter, you are committing an offence against this bill, if it becomes law. But if you step two paces to your left and you are at the bus stop but not under the shelter, it is no offence at all. If you are walking down the footpath, no offence is committed. But if that footpath is covered by a verandah, then, arguably, you might be committing an offence.

I say to the member who introduced the bill that good law is law that is clear, consistent, and enforceable, and makes a difference. This law meets none of those criteria—none of those criteria. We even had the situation where the bill as brought to the select committee would have said it is illegal to wear a gang patch on a school property, unless it is a charter school. A charter school is 100 percent funded by the taxpayer, when it comes about. Well, we got them to change that, and, while they were at it, they changed the law on private schools, as well.

But to give you another example of an inconsistency, if you wear your Black Power gang patch into a Government premise, you are committing an offence. But if you wear a greasy jacket with a swastika on it, that is no offence at all, unless it is a gang emblem. If we are talking about wearing a symbol that is offensive and threatening, what is more offensive and threatening in this country than the wearing of a swastika and everything that that represents? So if you have got a Black Power patch on your jacket, it is illegal; if you have got a Nazi symbol, it is OK and no offence. Well, of course, it is not OK. In any Government premise right now you can ban the Black Power jacket and you can ban the swastika. This legislation is phoney. It creates a perception; it does nothing. There is a real problem that something should be done about.

If you are talking about behaviour, the Summary Offences Act covers this already. Behaviour that is threatening is covered by section 3. It is an imprisonable offence. Behaviour that actually is intimidating is covered by section 21. That is an imprisonable offence, as well. I say to the National Government that if it wants to do something about gang members and intimidating behaviour, it should make sure the existing law under the Summary Offences Act is actually enforced. But it will not be doing that. One of the reasons, as we found in the select committee, is that police numbers are down by 446 over the last year. There was no Government announcement about that. Mark Mitchell was on the committee and he has got the written answer, which I have got in my hand. There are 446 fewer police officers than this time last year—cuts, disguised cuts, never-announced cuts, but cuts nevertheless.

Do you know what else this shows? It shows that the Government is intending to cut the police budget in real terms every year for the next 4 years. The Government is worried about gangs and enforcing the laws against gangs. You do not start by cutting the police budget and cutting their numbers. But I want to say more than that. To deal with gangs, you have got to deal with causes. Black Power said recently that John Key was its best friend. Why? Because there are 152,000 people unemployed, up 5,000 today. If you want to create the environment where you can recruit young people into gangs, do not give them a chance in life. Do not give them a job. Do not give them a trade skill. The Government, if it is worried about this, needs to deal with the causes. It needs to be real about its legislation, not introducing phoney, pretend legislation like this that will make no difference at all, and that is why we are opposing it.

It is a pleasure to stand and rise in support of this Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill, sponsored by my good friend and colleague Mark Mitchell, the MP for Rodney. It is always interesting to follow the Hon Phil Goff, a man who has been in this House for a long time—a long time he has been in this House—and yet he has not yet learnt that volume is no substitute for substance. Volume is no substitute for substance, because buried deep in the socialist psyche—buried deep in the socialist psyche—is a softness on crime and a softness on criminals. Phil Goff in that speech was nothing more than an apologist for gangs and an apologist for criminal behaviour.

This is a bill that proposes to prohibit—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think any member of this House, including yourself, would take offence at being told that they were soft on criminals and that they have sympathy for criminals when that clearly is patently untrue of, I think, every member in this House.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I do not need any assistance. Look, I think from time to time this House expresses some quite strong views about other members. I do not see this—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: You can’t tell untruths.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, it is a debating point and it is an interpretation of the member’s speech. [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. Look, I just think we will make more progress if we just leave those kinds of personal assertions behind and get on and debate.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a very simple point of order. Could you advise me as to whether the words “being an apologist for criminals” are offensive? Because that is what was said. It was not—[Interruption] Can I finish my point of order? It was not even as lenient as Mr Goff put it. They were the words that were said and I think they are offensive.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: This is a House of Representatives with free speech, and if those petals on the other side want to get precious—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Excuse me. [Interruption] Order! The member spoilt it when he made an imputation on the other side when he was making his point of order. That is the problem we get when we personalise it. I have expressed that that is unhelpful. In my view, I have heard much worse and members have not taken offence. I do not want to get into ruling words out and a whole lot of situations that make life difficult to police. I have just said to the House to show some decorum. We will leave the personal stuff behind and debate the bill.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The issue is this: your ruling is tantamount to saying that a member speaking in this debate should not say that another member is soft on crime. It is an absolutely fair comment, and the member should be entitled to say that 15 times in his speech if he wants to.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member has interpreted my comments as that, he has probably energetically interpreted them, because the allegations made were a bit stronger than that. I will just—[Interruption] Look, it is time to just move on.

Labour is soft on crime. Labour is an apologist for crimes and criminal activity. The Labour Party, deep in its psyche, has buried the socialist psyche; deep in its psyche is a softness on crime.

Once this bill is passed, the bill will mean that our police force will have new powers to arrest offenders and seize their gang—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You made a very fair ruling and you told us all to taihoa. That member who jumped up and down twice repeated the words that I used in a flagrant disregard for your ruling. I ask you again to rule on it.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have said we should just move on. If the member noticed, I actually diverted my attention over a matter. I do not want to get into ruling things out. Members on the Government side could have taken offence at a number of things the Hon Phil Goff said. That is kind of the nature of this place. I have just said that we get into a position of not making progress when we have all these points of order. Members need to be just a bit conscious of their decorum in the House.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your ruling. Could I perhaps just point out that the interjections are flowing both ways. It is not just one way.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have not asserted that any one side is more at error than the other. In fact, I took pains to comment on both speeches.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Hon Clayton Cosgrove has called me a liar, and I take offence at that.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I heard him use the word. I am not sure in what context it was actually said. But that is just an illustration of a member who gets up and makes a point of order about how something is inappropriate, and then interjects with something that could be considered to be considerably worse. [Interruption] I am actually ruling on it. What I am saying is let us just leave all this stuff alone and have a debate on the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. Thank you.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Speaking to the point of order.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I have ruled on it, and I have said that members across the House are behaving in a way that incites disorder.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Mr Speaker—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order, or—

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Well, it is just the point that that particular term is known to incite disorder, and the convention has been that members are asked to withdraw and apologise. Mr Cosgrove has admitted that he has used it. Mr Bridges has taken offence. I heard him call—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, offence has been taken. The member will withdraw.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I withdraw. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like—

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: And apologise.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I was asked to withdraw. You were not the Speaker last time I checked. [Interruption]

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Points of order will be heard in silence.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I am not going to waylay this matter, but I invite you to go and reflect on the tape at the dinner break. I accept it, and I am not challenging your ruling, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, that is certainly right.

Once passed, this bill will mean that our police force will have new powers to arrest offenders and seize their gang insignia. Police will have these powers within a few days of the bill being given the Royal assent.

Remember that the catalyst of this bill was made by the original sponsor of the bill, the Hon Todd McClay. He put the bill into the ballot, and he did so in a response to the community marches against gangs in Murupara, which took place after the brutal murder of a youth who was murdered for no reason other than the school uniform he wore was the colour of a rival gang from the region. I am told that the Murupara Area School has welcomed the changes this bill will bring. The school itself has already adopted its own zero-tolerance policy to ban the wearing of gang colours. The chair of the school’s board of trustees is reported as saying that the policy has proved very effective. He has acknowledged that this bill will give the school’s principal yet another tool to reduce the influence of gangs on young people in that community. Labour is opposed to giving school principals more tools to cope with the dangerous and socially unacceptable criminal activities of gangs. Labour is opposed to giving school principals the tools that they need to protect our young people from gangs and gang influences. This bill will give school principals the legislative tool they need to call the police and to have their school policy enforced, and enforced effectively. It will give policy some teeth and it will be enforced by our police force when and as required.

When he rose to speak in the introduction of the bill, the Hon Todd McClay said that it was not a silver bullet, but that it will reduce the influence of gangs in our communities. I think that he was absolutely right on that point. This bill is drafted in an extremely careful way. It is drafted in a way that will send a message that as a society we do not accept gangs and their thuggish, illegal gang behaviour. Gang intimidation will be reduced as a result of the passing of this very good piece of legislation. Law-abiding citizens in our country of New Zealand will be offered greater protection from thug gang members. Victims will be offered greater protection, and I am proud to be part of a Government that makes absolutely no apology for putting victims first in our criminal justice system. The focus of this bill is all about further reducing the harm and the very significant misery that gangs cause throughout communities in all parts of New Zealand.

I did not sit on the Law and Order Committee, which considered the bill, but I do note that the Police Association supported the bill, saying that it would become part of a suite of changes needed to further undermine the influence of gangs. There was another submission from a community law centre based in Porirua, which spoke of the stranglehold that the Mongrel Mob has on that area of this city near Wellington. Two of the law centre’s clients had been murdered by Mongrel Mob members, and staff at the centre had worked with a 12-year-old girl who had been pack-raped by gang members. The centre’s submission said that gang patches provided a conduit to fuelling fear in its local community, and Labour, to its eternal shame, opposes this bill.

For gang members, their patch is absolutely their being. It is the physical manifestation of their lifelong commitment to the gang that they are associated with. All the social ills that gang members attach to it are attached to the physical patch itself. For gang members, their patch is not just an item of clothing; it is far more than that. They will fight for it, they will die for it, and they will most certainly have committed criminal activities to have earned it. The potential impact of this bill, its powers of confiscation, and the disposal that will then take place will be powerful tools for our police to use in their fight against lawless gangs and their activities. None of us should underestimate at all the powerful influence and impact that the physical disposal of the patch itself will have. The confiscation and disposal are critical to undermining the influence of gangs. Taking away the gang patch takes away the gang member’s mana, it takes away their standing within the criminal fraternity, and it takes away their influence and their power to intimidate innocent victims and innocent citizens in our society.

So I want to thank and congratulate Mark Mitchell and Todd McClay on bringing this very good bill to the House. It is a bill that I support. I know that members on this side will support it. It is a bill that should be passed with a big majority and the huge support of this House. I commend it to the House.

It is a shame that we had to endure that speech from Scott Simpson after what I thought were two very good speeches to the House around this Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. We on this side of the House take great offence to that member saying that we are soft on crime. We are not soft on crime. If the other side of the House looked at this piece of legislation, it is something that wants to give the appearance of being tough on crime but that does not do that.

Having said that, I do want to acknowledge Mark Mitchell, the member in charge of the bill. I think he gave a very heartfelt speech. I must admit that I agreed with a lot of it. He did say that the spirit of this bill wants to crack down on a lot of the concerns that I think a lot of the members in this House have around the offending that gangs do in our communities. We do not like any of it. We certainly know, as Mr Goff said, that gangs are responsible for a lot of the drug dealing that happens in our communities. We know that alcohol-fuelled violence from gangs can be horrific, and a number of instances have been mentioned already in this House.

But I want to acknowledge that although Mark Mitchell talked about the spirit of the bill, on this side of the House we do not believe that the substance of the bill actually attacks the real issue that is at hand, which is really cracking down on gangs. Mr Mitchell said that there are 34 known gangs that are targeted within this bill, and the bill does have the ability to broaden that out via an Order in Council.

I think I am stealing the words of Phil Goff in the minority report from the Labour Party within this bill, when I say that Labour has no truck with gangs. For that side of the House to use petty politics to try to accuse this side of the House of being soft on crimes and soft on gangs is offensive.

💬 Hon Member: You started it.

“You started it.”—that is a rather grown-up retort! “You started it.”—that is what we get from the other side of the House.

I do agree with Mark Mitchell that a lot of the harm has been caused by gangs in our community, but we are not going to do anything substantive about that by changing the dress code of gangs. We are not going to do anything substantive about gangs in our communities by doing that. I think there is a valid concern in our communities about saying to gangs that we are going to change their dress code. It has already been said during this debate—by Mr Goff, I believe—that there are already statutes that provide the ability for the likes of the police, other Government departments, and schools to take action if they do not want gang members arriving on their premises with gang patches.

I am not sure whether this reading will be completed by the dinner break, but I make an offer to anyone on the other side of the House to get in my car during the dinner break and come with me to the Porirua Police Station, where it says, when you walk in, “No gang patches allowed.” So already there are measures in place. I am quite happy to take Mark Mitchell and anyone else. Scott Simpson might want to come along, but he probably will not take up that offer. I invite those members across the other side of the House. If they would like to come with me during the dinner break to the Porirua Police Station, I will show them that measures are already available to the police via laws that are already in place to prevent gang patches being taken into Government departments like police stations or schools.

I do empathise with the likes of people from the schools in Murupara, who came and gave submissions to the Law and Order Committee that gangs in their communities certainly are a problem. They certainly are in my community. I was out watching some league the other day and I got some grief from them. I do not care for gangs—I do not care for gangs, at all—but if we are going to take some real, substantive action against gangs in our communities, we cannot just give our communities this piece of legislation, which I think does not do anything substantive towards making sure we crack down on the actions of gangs.

One other thing we need to be aware of is that we need to reduce the number of people, and especially our young ones, who enter our gangs. One of the big factors in recruitment in gangs is youth unemployment. Certainly, a concern for me is the high rate of Pacific unemployment. We have seen today that the level of Pacific unemployment has gone up from 15.2 percent to 16.3 percent. If this Government was serious about cracking down on gangs and stopping young people, like young Pacific Islanders, entering gangs, it would do something to give those young people an opportunity for employment—an opportunity for employment—so that those young people did not have to turn to gangs as an alternative to not having a job.

I just want to repeat that statistic: Pacific unemployment at the moment is at 16.3 percent—that is, nearly one in five Pacific Islanders around this country does not have a job. So if this Government was serious, and there is an increasing problem with young Pacific Island people, especially, getting into gangs in Auckland and in South Auckland—and Mr Mitchell said that this bill was not a silver bullet—it would take much more substantive action than changing the dress code of gangs. It would mean looking at what is driving the membership of gangs and, certainly, unemployment is one of those drivers.

I also want to turn to the ability of the police to police this new law. Mr Goff has already mentioned that the front-line staff numbers have been reduced by somewhere in the area north of 400. We are already seeing front-line police resourcing under extreme pressure, and having this heaped on them is another pressure that we are putting on them. The police budget in real terms is going to be cut by somewhere around $110 million over the next 4 years. So we are putting extra pressure on our police, and do not forget that this is a police force that Mr John Key, at the time of the 2011 election, said had plenty of time on its hands. That was because it was going and investigating Winston Peters’ phone records. This is a police force that, allegedly, has got plenty of time on its hands, so it is getting fewer cops on the front line and is having its budget cut—budget cut. That is not—ha, I am not going to repeat that. So our police are under extreme pressure and this is just something else that they are going to have to do that will be of very little substance to the communities, which want some substantive action on gangs.

The anomalies that Phil Goff has pointed out are strange. There is the fact that you can be under a council-owned bus stop wearing a patch and that is an offence, but if you were to be 2 or 3 metres to the left or the right of that bus stop and not under that bus shelter, you would not be committing an offence. So the anomalies in this bill have not been addressed since its introduction. They are still within the bill. That is another reason the farcical nature of this Government’s attempt to try to look tough on crime certainly has not been addressed with this bill.

To finish off, can I just go back to the contribution from Mark Mitchell. He is someone who has been a police officer, and I very much respect that. He is someone in this House whom I very much respect, and he has told us of his concerns about the offending that gang members do in our community. We on this side of the House share those concerns, Mr Mitchell, and I congratulate you on the way in which, since you have taken over this bill, you have tried to bridge the gap, I would say, between our differences on this bill. But since then—and certainly since the beginning, since Todd McClay introduced this bill—the gulf between what is in this bill and what we would want to see in terms of some serious, substantive action against gangs has not been able to be bridged.

I just want to reiterate that we on this side of the House have no truck with gangs. We know that they are in our communities, selling drugs to people who are certainly disadvantaged and who are the last people who should be targeted to sell drugs to. We know that gangs are committing crimes. But if we are going to be real and take some substantive action against gangs in our community, we would want to see something a lot more substantive than this. We do not want to see a piece of legislation that, in my opinion, serves only a very shallow public, political purpose—to try to make it look like this Government is tough on gangs. We should be doing something against gangs, not looking like we are doing something against gangs.

Debate interrupted.