Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. I hope to bring the House back to the bill after several contributions from both sides of the House that have diverged quite a fair bit away from it. I would just quite like to ground us all in the criminal justice system from the perspective of someone who worked in it for a decade. How do proceeds of crime legislations work? They came in under the last National Party Government. They seek to take away what purportedly is an incentive for crime which is property. Most New Zealanders though would be horrified to find that whilst in this country we determine guilt of criminal offending through a criminal justice process where there is a burden of proof on the Crown and a standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt—so you have to prove the person did the crime—proceeds of crime legislation don't apply those same standards. This is a balance of probabilities. You don't have to have been proven to be in a gang. You don't have to have been proven to have committed a crime. You certainly don't have to have it proven that the property that the Crown is seizing was the proceeds of a crime. It's all done on balance of probabilities.And who do we see our criminal justice treat as if it's more likely that they are a criminal more likely that they're in a gang and more likely that they shouldn't have property? It's not a fair and just system when it comes to accusations and that's who this bill will impact. It will be Māori. It will be Pacific peoples. It will be poorer communities. If you can't prove the person was in a gang why are you taking away their rights to their property? That doesn't seem like something that a libertarian party should be doing. They should be raising the standard of proof to or beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Let's come back to the criminal justice system. Let's come back to sitting across the table from someone who has been accused of being in a gang—or someone who has been proven to be in a gang. You put their file in front of them. Can they read it? Almost never. We talk about protecting children. Who's in gangs? Almost every person I came across in the justice system who I represented had a mental health report that showed that they'd been removed from their home or that they'd been kicked around homes. Their tattoos—often facial—were put on there at early adolescence so they could look tough so they could fend off their abusers. That's who we're talking about. We have a system that abuses children from a certain background and then kicks them into a criminal justice system and this bill wants to lower the standard of proof for guilt. We want to lower the standard of proof of guilt. We want to shift the burden on to the person to prove their innocence. We want to double down on the prejudice on the racism and on poverty that causes crime whilst we tell victims we're keeping them safe!We're not allowed to accuse each other of dishonesty in this House but if we keep doing criminal justice without evidence—and that's on both sides because more police aren't going to keep anyone safe either by the way. That's just to this Government who just put half a billion dollars into front-line police instead of mental health care and instead of addiction treatment.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! I invite the member to come a little more closely to the bill. Thank you. GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Thank you Madam Speaker.This bill purports to take away property without proof that anyone is guilty of being in a gang has committed a crime or has done anything that's in fact going to address criminal offending. It won't keep anyone safe. It's certainly not commendable and it's actually a shame that we're doing things in this archaic way again and again whilst telling the public we're keeping them safe. On behalf of the Green Party I would never commend this bill to the House.