Quinn Paul: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — Second Reading 
Quinn Paul: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1575] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to stand and join the love feast that has been going on this afternoon. Aside from the Greens who for reasons known only to themselves are voting against this very important bill on crime and law and order it is great to see that we are joined as one on these very important issues. I note the previous speaker’s comments about sharing some of the glory. I would be happy to do that but I think in so doing we need to remind ourselves that the previous administration promised in its 2005 manifesto that it would pass into law a civil fortitude regime to allow gangs to be stripped of the proceeds of crime having introduced legislation earlier in that year. It is interesting to note that in July 2006 that bill was dumped without being debated and nothing more was heard of it until March 2007 nearly 18 months after the election when Labour introduced the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill this bill. 
It is important to note that although acknowledging the words of the Opposition it is actions that count. It gives me great pleasure to be able to stand here and say that this is a Government of action—when it says it is going to do something it actually does it. We are committed to repealing the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 and replacing it with this legislation which provides not only for the confiscation of property where the owner has been convicted of a criminal offence but also for the confiscation of the property of those people who have tried to distance themselves once removed and send their lackeys on the job. I shall share some important cases with members a little later. 
In pursuing this bill this Government realises that we must hit gangs in the pocket where it will count. The difficulty is that serious criminals who are intent on making large sums of money operate in an environment of extreme violence. They protect their wealth and perceive that they have worked hard to acquire their assets. Therefore sending them to jail for 1 year or 10 years is a badge of honour. It is a flea in their ear. They take a joy trip into jail in the knowledge that when they come out there will be a small fortune waiting for them to sit back and enjoy. The thing that really gets to them is when we start attacking their assets. If we put those assets at risk these criminals become extremely resistant and confrontational. 
One of the aspects of the bill I shall cover a little later which is a major change from the initial bill when it was tabled is the recovery agent. The previous administration had intended that the recovery be done by the Serious Fraud Office. Some members who were members at that time might remember this. I find it interesting of course that they had done a deal with an honourable Minister of the time to do away with the Serious Fraud Office—at the time we were anticipating giving $3 million to fight this. But $3 million against gangs such as the Mongrel Mob NZ Red Necks and Black Power just does not do it for the country. In terms of one of the principal changes which I will talk about a little later on we now have it in the right place and properly resourced for the police. 
The other thing I want to reflect on is that the reason the Government has given this bill high priority is simply that law and order is one of the critical issues that we went to the country on. It gives me great pride to be able to stand and say that we have been able to achieve all of the commitments that we made at the election and that the people voted us in on. Let me go through them for members on the Opposition benches. 
Hon Kate Wilkinson 
: We’d like to hear it. 
PAUL QUINN 
: Members would like to hear it? We introduced legislation to remove the right of the worst repeat violent offenders to be released on parole clamped down on criminal gangs and their drug trade toughened the bail laws to make it harder for criminals awaiting trial to get bail tackled increasing violent youth crime by bolstering the Youth Court with a range of new interventions and sentences required DNA testing for every person arrested—the list is exhaustive—gave police the power to issue on-the-spot protection orders and introduced legislation to compensate victims. The list goes on. It would take too much time to cover all of them. All I can say is that this administration has taken in its stride the responsibilities of governing in contrast to the previous administration. It is like a velvet glove. It has just fitted in. 
I want to focus on the policy objectives. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Repeat that. 
PAUL QUINN 
: The member wants me to repeat that? She would like to hear it again. No after all it is a love feast. We are being kind to each other today. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Bill read a second time.