Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you Madam Speaker. I've been enjoying this debate this evening and I thought I might bring a little bit of reality to it. Look if we could just change the law then all this bad crime would stop no? Does anyone actually believe that? We know it's not going to don't we? What we do want to do is to actually make it easier for law-abiding citizens or people in New Zealand to be able to live their lives without having their property smashed their jewellery stolen and to be intimidated. We want to give the Police the lawful support from Parliament—or most of us do anyway—to go about their job.I've been listening to the Labour contributions with extreme interest because I was actually the Minister who brought the original Search and Surveillance Act—or Bill as it was then—through to Parliament and through the third reading. Despite some very nice comments—recorded in Hansard—by the former Labour MP Charles Chauvel about the way that I tried to work with the Labour Party to come to a compromise no they would not support the Search and Surveillance Bill. No they would not nor would the Greens—no one expects that the Greens are going to and that's perfectly fine because no one expects it—nor did by the way the New Zealand First Party. Just have a look in Hansard. I'm happy to help anyone with that should they need to find themselves. But actually it was National ACT which then had one member and United Future with their one member who brought through the search and surveillance legislation which the Government is now seeking to amend to give new powers—a new warrant power to search for and seize weapons during a gang conflict. I'm not quite sure how that can't be done right now in the heat of battle and everything else. I would have thought it was already able to be done but I guess under this Government Police seem to have lost the mojo by so much they basically can't come out and make a decision to go off and just go after it because they know or they fear they will not be supported by the Government. I guess one of the things I find interesting is this new seizure power for cash found in suspicious circumstances and believed to be over $10000. I think they've probably got enough power now but if the Government says that this is the answer to all the things and it's going to sort it that would be great too. We also have the inclusion of a new charge of discharging a firearm with intent to intimidate. I think discharging a firearm without lawful purpose would probably be already illegal in the Crimes Act. I would have thought so. The Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009—oh yep another one of mine—by prohibiting cash payments over a specified value for certain high-value goods. It's good to know that the gangs will no longer be able to buy their Harleys; they'll have to steal them. I really do think the Government needs to think this stuff through. Yes I understand what they're trying to do. Yes we agree with the intent. Do we necessarily think this is going to make a scrap of difference? Not really—not really. And then we have the Land Transport Act to extend the circumstances in which vehicles can be impounded to respond to conduct that occurs during gang convoys. Oh I think we all know about that one. That was during the COVID lockdown when the rest of us were complying with the law and gangs had taken over certain motorways because they had tangi or some other sort of event that they were at and they were beyond the law. Well if we over here or even they over there on that side of the House had all gone out on motorbikes or in cars and we decided to drive down in convoy I can't imagine how fast it would be for us to be stopped asked for our licences asked to have our cars impounded because obviously we're under the influence of something to have done that. And yet here we have: This new legislation's going to be all tough on crime." It won't make a scrap of difference but we're happy to see it go to select committee. We're happy the Government has now woken up to the fact that the public do not like to see gang leaders going in to have meetings with Cabinet Ministers in the Beehive. I think the only thing that stopped Harry Tam from coming in for his little meetings with Willie Jackson was the COVID lockdowns and that seems to have been about it. And yet nothing in here about not paying gangs not continuing to pay them to fund them and to apparently address the harm that they've already caused. Nothing in here about victims. It's nice to know that there is now after five long years of failure an understanding that maybe things are not what they'd like them to be. It's nice to hear from some of the members opposite who've talked about their electorates and how gangs have been prospecting for young people. It's the same in my electorate and the same in other people's electorates. That's what they do because the criminal gangs are inherently bad—otherwise they wouldn't be criminal gangs. I think we see the intimidation that occurs for members of the public when we see them taking over the roads with their motorcycles whether they paid cash for them at the friendly shop or else they stole them. I think we see that. It's already there. This is not going to stop that. What is going to stop it is the Government backing the Police. And that's not going to happen until there's a change of Government next year. It's just not going to. They need a Police Minister who will stand up for them not make excuses and say "We're going to get a report." How about just stand up for them for a change? Why is it that the Police have to do what they have to do to just try and find people who are on the run—well they weren't even on the run; they were just lawfully going around in Northland having been sent there by one Government department and allowed there. All the kerfuffle from the Government: "We're going to get a report." Well the report should be about why they gave these innocent women a pass to go through and then expect the Police to go and pick it up while Northland was held in lockdown—for how many days someone remind me? Hon Mark Mitchell: It was 11 days wasn't it?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: 11 days—11 days. And who does this Government blame? They listen to a mainstream-media person who says "Bad police did this." and they jump on that and say "Well we're going to get a report." Well how about getting a backbone? How about get a spine? How about thinking about the fact that these men and women in New Zealand Police have to go out every day and night and 3 o'clock in the morning and pick up the pieces of drunken and drugged violent offenders in their homes? They have to go in there and do that and the last thing they need is a wussy Government that goes around having those discussions with the gangs.I heard the Police Minister talking about Police operational matters last week claiming and crowing about some work the Police had done. I don't see him out there claiming and crowing about the everyday work that police officers do in their jobs. They don't get the big $10000 cash payments that we're talking about here and nor should they. They don't get that because New Zealand Police are renowned for being the Police who take corruption extremely seriously. But one of the ways of continuing down that path of not having corruption in our police force is to back them to build their morale and to build their professionalism. So instead of the constant harping and backstabbing of the Police how about supporting them? So this bill goes some way to saying the Government is putting its hands up and realises it made a mistake. And of course we in Opposition in National are not going to play the stupid games that Labour played in Opposition where this sort of legislation—these are serious infringements on people's normal human rights to go about their business. So there's got to be a very good cause for it and there's got to be some very strong measures in there to make sure that it is the right thing to do and that it is balanced on the side of doing the right thing. We're not going to play games with it unlike Labour did in the search and surveillance debate where they talked about what they wanted they got most of what they wanted and they said "Oh sorry it's not quite what we want so we're not going to support you." When it comes to these matters of serious changes to people's legal rights then there should be widespread support across the parties and Parliament. Otherwise it can be easily changed very quickly without anybody giving a thought to it.But it's nice that there's been a come-to-Jesus moment for the Labour Party on the search and surveillance legislation. I'm pleased to welcome them into the fold of actually just occasionally hearing about law and order."