SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I feel like I'm going to get in the way of a debate between two colleagues so let me start positively and end with a couple of quick thoughts and critiques. First and foremost as has been noted this has been unanimously agreed by the House but I think it would also be wrong—sorry apologies; it has been unanimously agreed by the members of the Justice Committee that it should proceed here to second reading and we'll see tonight where the vote goes. But unanimity on the select committee doesn't mean that we all agree with it 100 percent and look I don't want to presume for other members in the House but certainly on this side there's a feeling that we could have done better. But it's also really important to put on the record that we're not going to get in the way of what this is doing. I think this will do some good. This will go some way to addressing the problems we are facing particularly but not exclusively around gangs and their activities. If you're in the likes of my electorate you see these gang members parading down the streets unabashed unashamed often riding exceptionally loud motorcycles—that look very nice I might add. But they're exceptionally loud and there's basically no way in God's good creation that they could afford this—they or their associates—and that is a presumption on my part; it's a stereotype on my part and I'm happy to admit that. But the great thing about this bill and what's positive is that where there are gang connections gang associations or any criminal association actually the police are able through court processes to not just take a presumption like someone like myself has but to actually prove that these are effectively ill-gotten gains. Yes it does change the presumption of proof. That's quite a significant move for this House; our legal tradition is relatively clear that the Crown has to make a solid case. You're sort of innocent till proven guilty and this does begin to change that a bit. I'll defer to lawyers. I'm not one myself as I keep telling the House—Sam Uffindell: That's good!SIMON O'CONNOR: —but it is changing. It is a good thing not—well actually that could put me into further trouble—thank you Mr Uffindell—than I'm probably already in. The presumption of innocence is fairly important but on the balance of probabilities—and it's what Arena Williams and others have touched on. The committee worked exceptionally hard on this and some of the public may not believe it but actually it was a lot of discussion and a lot of debate trying to get into the technicalities to make sure there are enough checks and balances. But I think most Kiwis regardless of their political colours do know that we have a major problem with crime an ongoing problem with crime and one that you could argue is getting worse. Gangs in particular—again not exclusively—are flaunting their wealth and we do need mechanisms to address this. I want to take up one point that Jan Logie I think kindly brought to the discussion here and that's the nature of those in gangs. I think many of them are—to use a very trite phrase—victims but I would just make the appeal in this House that there's always a difference between reasons and excuses. There are reasons people join gangs and there are reasons why people commit terrible behaviours. But to me personally that's not an excuse for those behaviours and it would be a longer discussion—you know we also have to address their needs. But this tonight says that if you are effectively getting ill-gotten gains you're going to have to try and prove that and as I say to most Kiwis I think that makes sense. If someone is living in an exceptionally beautiful house with multiple motorcycles and cars and all this and it doesn't fit the rest of their profile we should be able to look into that. But for my last two points one is to echo what Nicole McKee said about the place of firearms. If they are to be found—and I'm simplifying—it should automatically trigger this. The other point is to pick up on Mark Mitchell's point around the thresholds. Personally I do think it should be lower and it's my hope that as we progress as a Parliament we might see fit to amend this amendment bill in the future to make sure no one can slip through the gaps. That's one of my small concerns: that ways around this will be found with a $30000 threshold. But with that I commend this bill to the House.