Mark Ron: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — First Reading 
Mark Ron: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8125] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First and to indicate that we will be naturally supporting the passage of this bill. It is the type of legislation that is core to New Zealand First beliefs and always has been. Before we all get too comforted and lulled into a false belief that has not been the position of either of the parties whose members have just spoken—historically speaking that is. It is interesting to note from the outset that this bill will repeal the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991—an Act passed supposedly for the purposes of providing for confiscation of property gained as a result of criminal activities an Act passed under a National Government and an Act that National is now saying should have been repealed long ago. National is criticising the Government for being tardy in its progress of improving National Government legislation. It might sound somewhat churlish but had some people done the job they were paid to do—and paid exorbitantly well at that—for 9 long years we would not be debating this bill right now as the legislation would be perfect. Of course we all know that perfection is what Simon Power and the National Party all strive to achieve albeit they always seem to find it impossible to achieve when they are in Government but easy to talk about and lambaste other people about when they are in Opposition. How strange is that? 
A lot of things would probably be best left unsaid by National’s law and order spokespeople as National’s track record and history are pathetic at best on matters such as this. I recall that when these issues were being discussed back in the 1990s they were championed by the Rt Hon Mike Moore and a pretty heavy Labour Opposition in terms of law and order—Phil Goff and George Hawkins. In fact it was discussed during the submissions heard by a select committee when it conducted an investigation into organised crime in New Zealand. One of the strong submissions consistently put to that committee was that crime should not pay nor should it be seen to pay and that criminals who had gained assets—gained net worth—as a result of their criminal activities should have those assets confiscated. That discussion was happening in 1990. I think it was happening in the 1980s. It was happening in 1993 1994 and we were still having discussions about it in 1997 because clearly at that stage the Act that had been passed by National in 1991 was not effective. It was proving itself to be ineffective. 
New Zealand First was able to do a number of things in its short tenure in coalition Government with National such as putting another 500 police on the beat to replace the 400-odd taken away by the National Minister who introduced a computer called INCIS to do the same work; such as strengthening the law on disassociation and consorting and intimidating witnesses. New Zealand First fought hard for legislation like that in the National - New Zealand First coalition and it put it into effect and enacted it. But this area still remained. 
Meanwhile we have seen a number of things internationally since that time. If we look across to Australia New South Wales has passed legislation as has Western Australia. In fact in 2003 the New Zealand Law and Order Committee went across and visited a number of states and looked at law and order issues. One of the organisations we visited was the Australian Crime Commission. In the discussions that the Law and Order Committee had with the commission we learnt of the steps Australia was taking to ensure that the principle that crime should not pay was being dealt with. 
In Ireland there was the infamous assassination of Veronica Guerin. Veronica Guerin who was actually an accountant by profession but became a journalist working for the  
Sunday Business Post 
 and the  
Sunday Tribune 
 set about exposing underworld people in Ireland and the massive amounts of money and assets they had accrued. She exposed them deliberately specifically and very accurately to the media which resulted in firstly a couple of attempts on her life; then finally she was shot dead in her car on 26 June 1996. That assassination so outraged Ireland the politicians and the police that there was a massive crackdown on organised crime. I think there were something like 150 arrests and legislation was moved swiftly through the Irish Parliament to deal with this very issue. 
I look at where we are at today and we have to say that it is about time and it is a good thing. New Zealand First understands the expressions of concern from the National Party and from the Minister himself in respect of protecting people’s property rights particularly if they did not know that their loved one—who happened to have “Mongrel Mob” tattooed all over his face drove a big V8 and went to the pad often—was actually involved in criminal activities and thereby they should not be disadvantaged. We understand the concerns that have been expressed there but let me just say that many of us have whanaunga and extended whanaunga who are involved on one side of the law or another. Some of them are wearing a uniform and others of them are wearing patches. It is very difficult in the criminal underworld to pretend that one does not know where one’s bread is coming from. 
We also signal that in this legislation we expect to deal with those people who take their ill-gotten gains and funnel them across into their legitimate businesses. We in New Zealand First would hate to think that just because the money is now residing in the company shares of a legitimate business—that is a legal business that goes about earning money legally and does not indulge in methamphetamine trafficking or anything of the sort—it should remain untouchable. 
 We in New Zealand First when we consider this bill further through the select committee deliberation will keep foremost in our minds a couple of simple facts—firstly that organised crime in this country accounts for a methamphetamine industry that has been conservatively estimated as being worth $400 million a year. Methamphetamine is responsible for some of the most horrendous murders bashings and rapes that this country has ever witnessed. Police officers regularly every weekend are confronted by people who are totally out of their minds and who possess superhuman strength because they are under the influence of methamphetamines and amphetamines. People who peddle—who manufacture distribute and give away free samples with the aim of creating a firm market base—do so knowing that the drug they peddle is insidious is lethal and is going to have only one result. From that it will generate much more misery amongst the wider families of the individuals who are the users. It causes people to steal to burgle and to do anything they have to do in order to raise the money to feed their habit. 
People who deal in that industry know well what they are doing. New Zealand First has no sympathies for what will happen to those people under a tight legislative regime that enables the State to remove all of their assets from them. We may too be concerned about the well-being of any dependants but at the end of the day that is what our welfare State is for; it is there to pick up people who through no fault of their own find themselves in need of State assistance—be it family support or a benefit of whatever sort. In our view it does not justify the need for going soft or light on criminals and the assets they have accrued. We look forward to the bill’s passage for the further debate of this bill for seeing people for hearing submissions and for working our way through to a workable and meaningful result.