Andersen Ginny; Dean JacquiGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. Look that was really interesting. We've had some fantastic speeches but none of them are really talking about this bill. Let's read the bill because I'm trying to figure out—so I think what is intended by reading this is to increase the power to seize assets if a gang member's got a gun. I think that's what it's trying to do. We've heard a whole lot of different stuff tonight from National members but I think that's actually what they're attempting to achieve tonight not successfully at all. It attempts to amend the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act to expand its definition of significant criminal activity".Now I'd like to remind those members opposite that in the nine years that they were in Government they promised to switch the onus on organised crime. They promised to switch that onus. The legislation that will be passed in this term that this Government will deliver alongside of firearms prohibition orders (FPOs)—they promised to switch that onus to make it easier for police when finding assets; that it's on that person who owns their illegal item to prove that they got it legally. They tried for nine years alongside FPOs to get that over the line and they failed to do it. So this is yet another half-hearted "looking like we're tough but can't deliver" antic that we see from those members opposite. And the reason why Labour doesn't support this bill is because already there is very good work in this space. The bill proposes unnecessary changes because police already use the proceeds of the Crimes Act to seize assets based off the crime of firearm trafficking. Illegal firearm trafficking is an offence already under the Arms Act and is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. So someone hasn't done their homework because there's already grounds in there to make those changes and to seize assets under existing legislation. This is an age-old problem: not knowing the law that's there already and not being able to use it in the way that's needed.Under the Arms Act it's also unlawful to possess illegal firearms and lo and behold guess what? Most gang members don't have a firearms licence! So "without unnecessary authorisation"—this means that police can seize unlawful firearms even if the crimes committed are below the thresholds of the current Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act. So it really renders this entire bill and the idea behind it redundant. The whole purpose is to establish a regime for the forfeiture of property that has been derived directly or indirectly by significant criminal activity and it has been an incredibly successful programme. Hundreds of different activities. Fog cannons. We've had different programmes in terms of outreach and preventing crime whether it be though alcohol and drug or other treatment being funded through a programme—where we are smart on crime and take those proceeds and put them in the bank and put it back to addressing those underlying drivers of criminal activity which we on this side of the House are ready to engage on.The Government is already making changes to make it illegal for high-risk people to own firearms by introducing firearm prohibition orders which failed to be introduced by the previous Government. This will strengthen action already being taken to combat the influence of gangs and organised crime and breaching the conditions of a firearm prohibition order. It will be a criminal offence. I'd like to reiterate that the Government is also already working to amend as I mentioned earlier the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act to introduce a new power enabling seizure of assets of those associated with organised crime where the person's known legitimate income is likely to have been insufficient to acquire that asset. That is what was attempted for nine years under National and that is not what has been achieved in the past. This Government has committed to protecting our communities and over the last four years $500 million in cash and assets has been seized from criminals by police. Gangs quite clearly should not be making money from exploiting our communities. This Government is incredibly clear we will not tolerate organised crime and gangs and we are working hard to disrupt that and the number one reason we are doing it would be the $94 million invested in this Budget in front-line organised crime. That money has never ever in the past under any previous Government been invested. The 1800 cops on the front line? Never before. So you can talk tough and you can walk the walk but you don't talk to—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member will not bring the Speaker into the argument."