Quinn Paul: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Quinn Paul: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2234] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill. I note that the Labour Opposition has been somewhat disappointing. Those members have been complaining about this Government dragging this out yet the same members become vitriolic when we do not debate bills. When we give them the opportunity to debate bills they sit there and look dumbfounded about what they are supposed to be doing. The reason I make that comment is that this is a very important bill. 
Hon Members 
: Our bill! 
PAUL QUINN 
: Those members are claiming victory and saying that it is their bill. This bill was introduced on 13 March 2007. We are now over 2 years down the track—2 years. What have you been doing for the last 2 years? That is what I say to you. You claim this is your bill and for 2 years you have done nothing. It is only because this National Government has come along that this bill is being progressed. National has acted to make our streets safe. This bill is part of a suite of actions we have taken to bring safety to our streets and to address the issues around crime while those members on the Opposition benches have done nothing. The bill went to the Law and Order Committee where through the wise counsel of the National members on that select committee it was enhanced. 
Having said that I do not want to focus on the negative of the Labour members’ inaction; I want to focus on the positives contained in this bill. Firstly in addressing the title component of this bill we should focus on what the objectives are. They are to confiscate property from persons who have engaged in or who have profited from significant criminal activity to reduce the rewards from crime for individuals and to reduce the attraction of crime to potential offenders. The bill is all about hitting criminals where it hurts and getting into their piggy banks so that when they come out of jail after they have served their time there will be no nest egg left. The current legislation the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 is not working so it is necessary to repeal it. This Government is acting to achieve that. Instead of sitting on this legislation we are bringing it into place. 
 I want to contrast the activity and leadership shown by the Minister of Justice in pursuing this suite of activities with the previous Government’s inactivity. For instance during the 2005 election the previous Government promised to “hit gangs where it hurts” by removing the proceeds of crime. 
Hon Member 
: What happened? 
PAUL QUINN 
: It took the previous Government 2 years to introduce a bill and still it did not get that bill through. 
Shane Ardern 
: It sat on the Order Paper for 18 months. 
PAUL QUINN 
: There we are; there was total inactivity. We have come along and placed this bill before the House because we attach much importance to it. 
It is the gangs that we are hitting in this process. They are the modern-day mafia. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I understood that we were talking about the commencement aspect of this bill. It is a very small area of debate and it is not wide ranging. In fact the Government has been filibustering and it has taken 14 speeches. I think it would be really great if when speaking on our bill that the Government supports Government members could stick to just the commencement aspect of this bill. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Of course the Opposition whip will know that when discussing clauses 1 and 2 in the Committee stage the debate is wide ranging and offers members the opportunity to sum up their arguments as they put them in other parts. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I draw members’ attention to the review of the Standing Orders in December 2003. This is an unusual thing to do. I refer members to page 63 where the Standing Orders Committee which the House endorsed said: “However we consider that when debating the preliminary clauses at the end members should have some latitude to summarise and make concluding remarks about the issues they have raised during the committee’s consideration of the bill.” So the member has some latitude to raise wider issues. 
I just advise the member that from time to time he tends to use the word “you”. He talks about “you” doing this and “you” doing that. I do not do any of those things nor do I want to. It is a difficult convention to debate in the third person. I invite the member to continue and to take on board the comments that he is entitled to summarise but I advise that he should still speak on the bill. 
PAUL QUINN 
: Thank you for your guidance Mr Chairperson and I deeply apologise for dragging you into the discussion. In fact it is a discussion that the National members seem to be having amongst themselves because there is a lack of engagement from the Opposition benches in respect of the very serious and important bill that we are discussing. 
As I was saying in terms of the organised crime that affects New Zealand we are talking about gangs and they are our modern-day equivalent of the mafia. The gangs are wide ranging. We talk about Black Power the Mongrel Mob Highway 61 the Killer Bees and the Tribesmen. They are endless and we can review the literature.