Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. Others have referred to the fact that we've had a couple of pieces of legislation that are very similar tonight the contributors to the debate are very similar. I myself am similar to myself. The problem of course with repeating in this way can be summed up as repetition repetition repetition.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Stop it! Ha ha!CHRIS PENK: It is therefore the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): It's too much!CHRIS PENK: It is too much it is. I know; I feel it too. Well if you're feeling like that now Madam Speaker imagine in 9½ minutes from now! But don't worry it will seem like much much longer. So Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill and this activity that I'm engaging in—you've attempted to intervene already Madam Speaker but actually it's a pretty serious subject that we concern ourselves with and that's for a couple of reasons. One is that community safety is of course hugely important and speakers all across the House have acknowledged that but so too are the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders including those associated with gangs. I don't say that of course to sound or wish to sound at all as though sympathetic to those who commit criminal offences but of course as others have alluded to—and my colleague and friend the Hon Mark Mitchell has made reference to this—we do have you know pretty serious and heavy powers of the State that are engaged and it's right that those are exercised in a way that is not unreasonable and protects as far as possible the civil liberties of all concerned.So with that sort of thematic overview of what we're trying to achieve here others have talked about the discharge of firearms in public places and there's a bit of a theme in the legislation of looking to cover gaps in existing law. Most of these concepts—and almost the offences themselves—aren't new except to say that they're variations of offences that already exist and we're just refining a little bit their coverage. So for example we are looking to ensure that a firearm discharged inside a dwellinghouse which is currently illegal if it's conducted to intimidate isn't matched at the moment in the law with an equivalent attempt to intimidate with the discharge of a firearm in a public place. That does seem like a bit of an anomaly. I wasn't around at the time of course when that original law was put in place. If I was better prepared I suppose I could've looked up the Hansard to see if it was deliberate when that law was being made as to whether it was quite narrow that the law was confined in that way or if it was merely that it was responding to a particular incident and the legislature at the time said Well let's do it in exactly this way." and didn't think that there were other situations that could be covered.Nevertheless sadly it's the case that in New Zealand in recent times—whether that's within West Auckland South Auckland or elsewhere in the country—there have been incidents of this nature. It is necessary now to respond to the fact that there have been discharges of firearms that have caused intimidation of the public and do need to be rendered illegal because of course community safety is important. That's not just physical safety—although of course that is the highest importance in terms of us as lawmakers having a duty to protect the New Zealand public—but also understanding that if there's intimidation whether deliberate or not the effect will be that New Zealanders don't feel safe to move about their community in a way that everyone should be able to quite frankly.So we see for example that the way that the legislation attempts to achieve this kind of balance is with new warranted search powers. Of course any time we're adding additional ability for the State to enter a private home or other domain of an individual we need to move carefully but it's worth placing on record that a warranted search power is superior to a warrantless search power because there is in the process of applying for a warrant and the warrant being granted and then the terms of the warrant a measure protection because it's forcing the long arm of the law the power of the State to prescribe at least to some extent what it is that is being sought. So it is that we see detail that needed to be provided in the warrant of the gangs that it relates to the required time limit—which I've read must be not greater than 14 days—and the known property that's occupied possessed or owned by known members of the specified gangs within a specified region or regions. So while there is a bit of latitude for saying that a search can take place there's a bit of a check-and-balance in the fact that the warrant's needed and then that it's got to be somewhat detailed in terms of what actually is spelt out and then what actually plays out in terms of the search taking place. Now that said it's also possible that a search can take place and something can be found that is in plain view so to speak. This again is an example of a gap that the Government—through justice Minister the Hon Kiritapu Allan and then the Justice Committee likewise—are looking to cover are looking to close that gap.The test appears to be that reasonable grounds are needed to believe that the item could have been seized under a search warrant or another search power. So whereas of course you learn in law school about fishing expeditions and the fact that it's not right for the State to have its officers engage in activity that might—you know they hope or expect but without really reasonable or solid grounds—yield some kind of criminal activity evidence. It's therefore the intention of this Parliament—and we placed it on record I suppose by speaking about it in the debate now for the benefit of avoiding any doubt for the benefit of the court interpreting later and so on—that we do intend for searches to be made on a reasonable basis. Then we refer to that general principle whereby if something is found that was outside the terms of the search—it was incidental to the search being conducted—then the importance in relation to public safety of that find defines the extent to which it should be legitimate to use that in evidence in court for another matter. I was quite interested by the subject of cash—I'm always interested in the subject of cash of course; aren't we all? But actually in terms of the bill it's actually quite specific in terms of talking about what cash is. So physical currency which is you know what the Americans call "greenbacks" or—don't they call them "Benjamin Franklins" or various presidents that are on the different ones?Angie Warren-Clark: Or "fiddy fiddy fiddy". CHRIS PENK: Or "fiddy fiddy fiddy"—that's right. My gangster-learned colleague across the House has helped me out there. Thank you. Anyway so cash in the way that you'd know and expect it but also there are negotiable instruments and gold bars or gold ingots. Thankfully there's no reference at all to cryptocurrency and I would hate to think that a select committee could invite "crypto bros" to submit on a piece of legislation and express their undying devotion and fandom of those things because I mean I get tired of hearing about it even on twitter.com and that's quite enough for me. Anyway cash per se is significant in the legislation. Of course the reason for that is because transactions in cash avoid evidence of a transfer which can be useful of course for proving that something is legitimate or not.Arena Williams: Tell us what you like on twitter.com—what do you like on twitter.com?CHRIS PENK: What do I like? Oh no no—we're not talking about twitter.com Arena Williams.Simeon Brown: What are you talking about: Twitter?CHRIS PENK: Yeah no I'm not talking about Twitter—and now I'm talking about not talking about Twitter which is stupid because it's now gotten quite circular. Anyway—[Interruption]ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Has the member seen this? CHRIS PENK It's a copy of the bill—it's very much like the other one that I spoke on for 10 minutes. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I just invite him to—CHRIS PENK: I know. I feel it too.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): —in his remaining dying seconds.CHRIS PENK: In my remaining time that's right. One minute left of the speech. So dollars are important because they can be used to fund further criminal activity and also because of that general principle that we have whereby we don't want people to be able to profit from crime. So there's an element of deterrence but there's also a very practical element of not wishing to fund further criminal activity and of course perpetuate or sustain a lifestyle which those of us who believe in community safety would not approve of.There are some safeguards again further in terms of cash being seized and these are set out in the bill. Roughly speaking—without going into the detail—basically if cash is seized in the circumstances described in the law then that transaction if we were to call it that can be undone. So after a certain period of time if there haven't been proper proceedings initiated by police for a restraining or forfeiture order or if one has been withdrawn or dismissed and of course in the circumstance where someone can actually state and prove in effect that they had it legitimately in the first place then that's fine too. So lots to consider in terms of the detail but the overarching principle we've said we support—likewise the bill itself—which is that we must allow the police to do their job on our behalf but with due regard to the safeguards needed.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member's time has expired—Marja Lubeck."