McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill through its first reading to the select committee. The reason for that is for what this bill wants to do; it wants to address the harm caused by criminal activity including that caused by gangs—finally—and it wants to make the community safer. I also note just as ACT did with the previous debate on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill that this legislation is 16 months in the making. Now it appears after that 16 months that this is another rushed piece of legislation. This bill has landed in this House for debate without the regulatory impact statement. Where is the cost-benefit analysis and the other considerations that should be a part of this policy? I mean after 16 months of promises surely it's sitting in someone's hard drive? Surely the Government did not make an announcement about an announcement and then made communities wait 16 months for an incomplete legislative approach? There is reference to this supplementary analysis report instead of the regulatory impact statement. I just found the supplementary analysis report on the Table down there it's just been made available. We can't read it—it's 88 pages so it's pretty hard to read and comment on it for this the first reading but at least we have it. So on that basis while ACT likes what we think the Government is trying to achieve we will support it through to its first reading to select committee where we can—along with the other Act—delve a little further into its details; the missing details the unread details delivered in a rush. I've heard members from Labour across the House say that these two bills that have come before us are part of a smart game so to speak—it's about being responsive rather than reactive. Well I would have thought a smart game would be to make sure that the correct legislative process is put in front of us all so that while we say on this side of the House that we support we can continue to do so because we understand it fully. Now let me talk to the legislative changes that this bill will include. It's changing the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 so that there is a new warrant power to search and seize weapons during a gang conflict—quite like that idea. There's also a new seizure power for cash that is found in suspicious circumstance—over $10000—and allowing that to be forfeited along with powers to hold seized assets including cash for 28 days with two rights of extension upon application to the court and allowing for appeal. What concerns us is that suspicious circumstances are not actually defined and it would appear that it would end up with a person having to prove to police why their assets were not brought in a suspicious manner instead of the police proving that it was a suspicious circumstance. We'd like to just delve a little bit further into that once we get to the select committee stage.The Auditor-General also noted that the $10000 asset seizure was a bit too low and we have had discussions amongst the House where the Minister of Police actually talked about whether or not there should be a threshold at all. The ACT Party says we need to be consistent with these thresholds. We're looking at the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill which we've just heard and it talks about a $30000 threshold—that's there. Once we start playing with those thresholds we have inconsistencies. We know that when police do their raids and they find cash drugs and guns quite often it's over the $10000 value of the cash that has been seized.Another point is the adding to the Crimes Act 1961 by introducing an offence to discharge a firearm with intent to intimidate. And I wonder why on earth do we have this here? It's already in legislation. Section 48 of the Arms Act specifically has an offence for discharging a firearm an airgun a pistol or a restricted weapon in or near a dwelling house or a public place. And if it's discharged without a reasonable excuse as to (a) endanger property; or (b) endanger annoy or frighten any person. The difference here is that the penalties are not matching those prescribed in this amendment bill and I wonder whether or not this is just virtue signalling saying we want to actually create a law; in actual fact the law's already created. It's already there; why aren't you using it? Why have you not amended the penalties to be consistent? Why are you trying to make yourselves look—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Order! Don't bring the Speaker into the debate.NICOLE McKEE: Sorry Madam Speaker. Why is the Government not looking at what we already have in place and actually utilising it and being honest with the community about what laws are there and how you would look to seek to improve those and use those instead of creating more legislation? Another part of this bill is about prohibiting cash payments over specified amounts for certain high-value goods. It requires a change to the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009. We look forward to hearing submissions on that. Another one is the response to the gang convoys allowing for the impounding of vehicles. However I note that this will also apply more generally to other drivers who drive dangerously or recklessly and that is of some concern to us. But once again the Land Transport Act already has rules to impound so why not use it? It's just like the Arms Act where the Government is trying to signal that they have spent 16 months working on a piece of legislation that is recreating the same laws that are already in place amongst other areas of law. These two bills that have just come before the House need to have some consistency with each other if they are indeed to be related to each other as sister bills and at this stage there are some inconsistencies between the two. ACT do look forward to fleshing these out through the select committee process and encourage people to submit their views on what this bill will mean for them especially those that will be affected by the criminal activities and the loss of their proposed income. In that respect ACT do support this bill through its first reading.