Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Where do I start on that contribution? So let's start with: it's good to see that the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill first reading's in the House. We agree to support it to select committee. Obviously we are going to interrogate it fairly tough—we're going to be tough with it in select committee. I'll tell you why: because like all the other legislation this party is bringing to this House in a knee-jerk reaction trying to respond to the worst levels of crime that we've ever seen in our country. By the way we've never seen carjackings in New Zealand before. We've had five of them yet. Yeah never. The Labour member at the back row there says Never." well go and have a look at the history and see whether or not in this country we've had carjackings—that is people ripped out of their cars held up by knifepoint and having their car stolen or robbed maybe even kidnapped and taken to an ATM and subjected to intimidation violence or assault. We haven't witnessed that level of violence or that level of crime in this country before.It hasn't happened overnight; it's percolated away for the last four or five years under a soft-on-crime Labour Government. We signalled to this Government four years ago when we came out with our law and order policy paper and we said to them "You have to get serious about the rising gang numbers how organised they are the new global networks that have been introduced with the advent of 501s the new level of violence that they're bringing to their daily activities the fact that they're willing to carry firearms and that needs a really tough response."—we said—"You're going to have to stand up a dedicated gang task force." They resisted that. They mocked it. They laughed at it. They ignored it. So fast forward five years where are we today? We've got a Labour Government that's scrambling to try and respond to a huge growth in gang numbers like the Hon Paul Goldsmith said "They're recruiting quicker than our police are able to recruit train and deploy new staff."Every piece of legislation that they bring to this House mark my word is messing round on the fringes. It's not meaningful. Their firearms prohibition order: no new search powers. Both ourselves and the Police Association were very clear about the fact unless you put an additional search power in this bill it's meaningless. There is nothing new about it. It's messing round on the fringes. Let me come back to this House in six months because I'm going to be watching.Simeon Brown: It's just window dressing.Hon MARK MITCHELL: I'm going to be—it's window dressing—watching and I am going to be tracking this just to see how effective this legislation this Government is passing is. The previous speaker: I acknowledge her experience and her past in the police service as well and the contribution that she made. She does speak with some experience and authority on that and I acknowledge that. But she knows as well as I do that the legislation that they're bringing to this House that they're passing is meaningless. She talks about our detective inspectors I'm glad she did. Can I acknowledge our own detective inspector in my area John Sutton one of the most experienced detective inspectors that we have in the country. He's got a fairly good feel in terms of what's happening in his patch—and by the way first time ever we had an offender get out in to the public in Rothesay Bay and Mairangi Bay with a knife and start randomly stabbing people in the middle of the day; something that that community has never experienced before.I've got the Hell's Angels that have bought commercial property in Silverdale. The first time ever—Dr Duncan Webb: Proceeds of crime? Anything about proceeds of crime today Mr Mitchell?Hon MARK MITCHELL: What's that?Dr Duncan Webb: Are you going to talk about proceeds of crime today Mr Mitchell?Hon MARK MITCHELL: That's for the Speaker to decide on—that's for the Speaker to decide on; not for you.Dr Duncan Webb: Just curious.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well I know that you'd like me to move on. I know that it's a bit inconvenient for you to hear the truth and you'd like me to move on. But actually that's for the Speaker to decide on.So we are talking about the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill and I'm just coming to that point right now. We had the Hell's Angels come into my own electorate and buy commercial property in Silverdale. And as hard as the local police have worked with real estate agents with other agencies inside my own patch with regular quarterly meetings to try and block gangs from coming in they still managed to get in. We had the Comancheros that tried to buy property in Omaha and Warkworth. We've had the Mongols that have got a presence down Silverdale as well. But the reality is this if they'd actually had a proper bill a proper bill with teeth around criminal proceeds and recovery then actually maybe they might've been able to block or maybe they might've been able to seize that commercial property that the Hell's Angels have now set up in my patch. Maybe they could've done that. In fact the feedback that I had from my own police area commander Mark Fergus is that had they had legislation like that then they probably could've prevented them or they could have seized the asset. Well you know he laughs and he sort of sniggers just like they were laughing today; just like the whole Labour caucus were laughing today when we're talking about serious issues around people's safety.Simeon Brown: They don't care.Hon MARK MITCHELL: They don't care. They think it's funny. They think it's a joke. Stand and take a call. If you think what I'm saying is not right stand and take your call. Challenge it. I'm up for that. That's what we're here for is to debate the issues.Simeon Brown: They're just here to give money to the Mongrel Mob.Hon MARK MITCHELL: I'd like to know talking about that—yeah well absolutely. I mean the fact of the matter is we put up four very good policies that had they actually just decided to take a bipartisan approach and actually just take public safety seriously they might've actually looked at those policies they might've looked overseas and seen that the Western Australians are using them and they're effective. They're using them right now. The firearms prohibition order that doesn't even come into effect until November. It's not even out there to be used. It's ridiculous. These guys are a joke. They're an absolute joke knee-jerk reaction. They're trying to respond now. They've allowed this situation to grow over five years. That's baked in and it's entrenched. It's going to be hard to turn around.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Mitchell it's been six minutes. Can we just spend three minutes on the bill please?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well I'm happy to do that.DEPUTY SPEAKER: You've had a pretty good run. It's three minutes on the bill please.Hon MARK MITCHELL: I'm happy to do that Mr Speaker. But the only point that I'd make is this: I'm responding to issues that the other speaker also raised during her contribution that didn't relate to the bill.Actually the Hon Paul Goldsmith raised a very good point: this bill has been brought to the House in such a rush that the officials haven't even had the chance to go out and do proper consultation with stakeholders. Ginny Andersen: In 2014.Hon MARK MITCHELL: They haven't been up—are you disputing the regulatory impact statement that says the officials haven't had time to go out and consult with stakeholders? So this isn't a piece of work that's been in train since last year.Ginny Andersen: Why didn't you pass it then?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Pardon?Ginny Andersen: Why didn't you pass it in 2014?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Oh why didn't we pass it in 2014?Ginny Andersen: Yeah.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well it's a bit hard for me to answer that. I wasn't in Cabinet in 2014. But I will tell you this New Zealand was a much safer place in 2014. New Zealand wasn't facing ram raids. New Zealand wasn't facing carjackings. New Zealand wasn't facing daylight aggravated robberies with multiple offenders with weapons. So the climate today in New Zealand is far more dangerous than it was in 2014. I'm sure the member would love to rewind the clock. I'm sure she enjoyed living in New Zealand back in 2014. It was a much safer country. It's a dangerous country now and it's sad.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Two minutes on the bill please Mr Mitchell.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you. Thank you very much Mr Speaker. So I've got a really important question on this bill. Who's going to be deemed an associate? Who's going to be deemed an associate? So I'd like a member of the Government to stand and explain to us who's going to be deemed an associate because if they had any understanding in terms of how gangs work they do intimidate people. They probably do transfer some assets over to them. Often those people are victims themselves. The Minister struggled to explain the difference between an associate and an acquaintance. What is an acquaintance? What is an associate? So I think this is fundamentally a very important—Hon Judith Collins: What about their accountant?Hon MARK MITCHELL: What about their?Hon Judith Collins: Accountant. What about their lawyer? Are they associates?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah. Their lawyer or their accountant that's a very good question from the Hon Judith Collins. Is their accountant or their lawyer or any legal expert or any person giving advice are they deemed an associate and are they captured by this bill or are they an acquaintance? We don't know. So I would ask that whoever takes a call from the Government side would take some of their 10 minutes and explain to us how that's going to work.The final point is this: why did the police Minister not get the $10000 threshold across the line? That's what the police asked for and he couldn't deliver it. And do you know why he couldn't deliver it? Because he was overridden by the justice Minister. So they're trying to be tough on crime. The chair of the committee got up and said "Hey this is our response. We're being tough on crime. This is what we're doing." The police made a very strong recommendation to the police Minister. He couldn't even get that across the line. The justice Minister overrode it and she got up in the House and said the Prime Minister supported that as well. So I don't think you can stand in this House and give us a tough-on-crime speech. Thank you very much."