Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. What can we say about the rhetoric around crime that's been flaring up in this House and in the media flaring up because of the political rhetoric that we see thrown around here not just by the Opposition—though of course flamed by the Opposition begun by the Opposition—but the heartbreak it is when we see the Government pander to the Opposition—Matt Doocey: You are the Government.GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Should I explain Parliament" versus "Government" to that member? Is he quite new? Anyway I won't explain—I won't explain to that member what it is to be a member of the House of Representatives versus the Government. He'll learn on the job. But what I will explain—because I am the only member of this House who has served for more than a decade at the front lines of our criminal justice system in the courts in the prisons applying the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act against the tyranny that would ensue if we had police decide who goes away whose property we take who is and isn't guilty without a proper application of the onus or the standard of proof—I can say that this bill does in fact reverse those standards.The issue of proceeds of crimes was something that was legislated for under the last National Party Government. So what we saw and what we have seen until now is that if you're charged with a crime—the standard being that the crime has to be proved against you by the prosecution who bear the onus from the beginning of the proceedings to a standard of "beyond reasonable doubt"; that's for the crime you've been charged with—police can bring separate proceedings and take your property before the crime has been proved to a standard of "balance of probabilities" only. So you can go on and have your conviction dropped you can go on and be found not guilty but the property proceedings are separate. This bill lowers that standard still. So we're not talking about a crime; we're talking about an association with people that we generally don't like.We've got the word "tainted" used with no legal standard or precedent. Who do we know is likely to be seen as being tainted by the police force? Well the Government had two separate independent studies—inquires—last term into our criminal justice system both finding overwhelmingly that there were constituencies out there in New Zealand that we're more likely to see charged with crime. So this Act when it talks about association when it talks about tainted property we know based on evidence will be applied to certain groups of people because we're taking away the standard of proof we're taking away the right to a defence in lots of ways we're taking away the onus of the prosecution and that standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" even the balance of probabilities. So who will it apply to? It will be Māori it will be the poor it will be other black and brown communities it will be people with mental illness—the people that we don't see as fit to hold property or to have a whole lot of rights. We're saying the police decides not based on an allegation of crime at all but on some kind of tainting. That is prejudice. It's not good lawmaking. It won't save our communities from harm. It won't keep anyone safe because there's no evidence the person was a threat at all. That is shameful. It's not about keeping communities safe when we get into lawmaking like this; it's about making politicians look tough. That's not what we should be here for. We know already what keeps communities safe. We know already what prevents crime. Violence is wrong and bad and people are scared—yes—but we're talking about property crimes committed through violence. We know that—I was going to say "the average" but it's actually 89 percent—89 percent of under-19-year-olds that come into our criminal justice system are then diagnosed with a serious learning disability. So dropping out of school a lack of inclusive education is actually a criminal justice response that we're failing at that we are not doing and instead we're doing this. That is shameful. Investing in mental health care is a criminal justice response. Investing in stable secure housing is a criminal justice response. Livable incomes—that is a criminal justice response that would show courage and it would show us referring back to the evidence of what keeps communities safe.That's what we are here for. We are here to respond to the evidence of what keeps communities safe of what keeps our communities thriving including our young people and youth justice has the most evidence behind it—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ms Ghahraman—six minutes now. The bill please.GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: The bill takes away the onus and standard of proof when it comes to crimes committed by gangs—this mythical word that we've made up. It creates a new standard without due process without the standards that we normally apply when we decide to remove someone or their property from society in order to keep communities safe. So it will not keep communities safe but it will make a couple of politicians look tough on crime. That is callous lawmaking. I don't commend it to the House. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand does not commend this bill to the House."