O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Mr Speaker. You can judge how keen or otherwise the Government are on this bill or in fact around crime in general that the last speaker Dr Duncan Webb spent basically one minute and 13 seconds talking about a matter—Matt Doocey: Talking about Mark Mitchell.SIMON O'CONNOR: —of justice and crime—and ironically and strangely enough an odd fascination with the Hon Mark Mitchell which is perhaps of a greater concern. But in all seriousness again for people listening to this who are suffering one of the worst crime waves that we have known the Labour Government has short-called every time. They are so dedicated—so dedicated—to the question of justice that they don't even take full calls. As I say the last speaker a minute and 13 seconds was all he wished to give.Look first and foremost National supports this bill to select committee—to select committee. Now that's important. That's important to make sure that actually the public can have their say because in concept—in concept—we think this is a good idea. It's been rightly pointed out that National actually proposed this. The opprobrium from the other side is of course we took too long—too long they say—or didn't implement it fast enough. Well of course had the Labour Government decided to throw the election or rather not sell its soul to Winston Peters we could probably have passed the legislation. The second point of course is that crime when Anne Tolley was the Minister is nothing like it is now. The other side scoffs and derides but actually day after day Kiwis like those in my own electorate are not only seeing crime—over 30 ram raids in my electorate; over 30 in the seat of Tāmaki. It's not acceptable by the way in any electorate but in mine it's almost unheard of. But on top of that of course we are often seeing—we are often seeing—the if you will proceeds of this criminal activity as gang members flaunt their ill-gotten wealth riding their rather expensive motorcycles patched and so forth driving up and down the likes of Tamaki Drive making a hell of a racket showing that they've got absolutely no taste in music and they don't care at all. My constituents are completely over it.Simeon Brown: Had enough.SIMON O'CONNOR: So in concept—they have definitely had enough Simeon Brown. They're totally over it. And yep they'll welcome this bill; the idea the onus of proof in many ways is reversed. It's been a very I don't know tiresome problematic and certainly time-consuming process to prove—to prove to a criminal standard—where these ill-gotten gains came from. So reversing that onus of proof making this a civil matter is prudent. This might be a surprise but I actually do pick up on some of the elements that the Green member Golriz Ghahraman was articulating in her speech that we do need to interrogate elements of this to make sure the law does not go too far. But I think there are some sufficient early indications that we might be on the right path and I certainly want to see them teased out.Obviously colleagues of mine are focusing in on the word associate". What does it mean? I mean we have at the moment—look I'm no legal scholar but I have noticed as well that the supposed legal scholars who got out could not define nor answer the question. In fact they deliberately prevaricated. It strikes me as—I won't spell the word "prevaricated"; it doesn't fit their plain English policing requirements. But you know in their attempt to do plain English I suspect in this piece of law an associate according to the bill is "in relation to a member or a participant in an organised criminal group". Well that's sort of useful. I think I've heard it intimated that these groups are clearly defined. Again the Green Party was trying to lead ad absurdum that you know anyone could be called into a gang. Well we're not talking the militant wing of the Salvation Army here; we're talking about known gangs. They are very clearly defined. But an associate is "a person who (i) is associated with the member or participant;"—Dr Duncan Webb: Genius.SIMON O'CONNOR: —brilliant. Well "genius" says the supposed doctor of—well he is a doctor of laws.Hon Member: Professor.SIMON O'CONNOR: No—well actually a professor is only a title; the doctorate is actually the academic quality. But let's not disambiguate too much. Importantly so—there's another big word but I've offended at least twice on the plain language side of things. But an associate is a person who associates—that's a circular and stupid argument. So let's ask the question—let's ask the question—are members of the Labour Party particularly Ministers associates of gangs because they give something like $3 million? It's a little bit tongue in cheek a little bit facetious but there's a question: are the Labour Ministers who as Ministers of the Crown visited gang members and gang pads associates? Just asking that question—are they? They've gone remarkably quiet all of a sudden. Now look I don't think they are. I want to be really clear: I don't believe that's the case. But looking at the law it's not particularly clear. Is giving money as the Labour Government has to a gang a form of association? Certainly a form of acquaintance if I heard from Professor Duncan Webb earlier.Nicole McKee: $2.75 million.SIMON O'CONNOR: Two point something there—almost $3 million. Are members of the Government who go to a gang pad to have meetings associating with them? I think in the strict definition they are but probably not in the meaning of this piece of law. So it's very very difficult.And the Minister saying about receiving property—you know that's true. Harry Tam and his friends received almost $3 million from your Government Minister. You may have forgotten that that the Mongrel Mob received $3 million of hard-earned taxpayer money given to a gang. Let's not forget that. My constituents certainly haven't because as I say not only are they annoyed at these gang members driving through their electorate smashing the place up but also they know darn well that the Government is not backing. Look the other element is—and it has only been lightly touched on—the whole engagement process. So again we had the complaint about how long it's taken to get to the House and I think I heard from the honourable member from the ACT Party was it 16 months since they announced—16 months since they announced this. Really interestingly when you pick up the documents—this is the departmental disclosure statement. It says "External consultation … Has there been any external consultation on the policy to be [affected] by this bill?" What is the answer? "No." I would add the term "not a sausage". No. Nothing. Nada. I'm sorry I know it's Chinese Language Week but I don't know the word for "nothing". Nothing. To make it worse for these virtue-signalling lefties did they consult with iwi mana whenua Māori who of course though they've waxed lyrical—well certainly the Greens did about how they are terribly overrepresented. Well that's true; it would probably help if you didn't commit crimes but OK it is overrepresented. You would think the Minister of Justice would go and consult with the very people affected by this and I don't mean taking another $3 million into the gang pad. I talk about going and engaging iwi hapū whānau mana whenua—all the stuff they always talk about. Nothing; no consultation whatsoever. Now I'm sure the retort will be "Oh well they can come to select committee." but that's not consistent. It's not consistent at all because actually wouldn't you allow all people to come to select committee rather than specialised engagement or are you going to Minister and the Government continued and rightfully so specialised engagement with Māori? I just think it's shocking that nothing has been done with Māori who are as I say overrepresented.Last couple of thoughts. We've had some debate already around the derived benefit being set at $30000. We know that the Minister and the Cabinet have tinkered with that number and I have taken on board some of the comments from Labour MPs that this is a consistency. But I think there's going to be you know rightfully good questions brought up at select committee about: is that the right amount? It probably isn't going to completely fit but I'm also thinking about the tens of thousands of dollars of damage which these criminals in the gangs cause. So again I think in my own electorate a lot of the time not much is stolen. I'm thinking of one of my liquor stores. Very little was stolen; clearly useless criminals. They went for sort of a half-open bottle of chardonnay rather than the decent . [Interruption] What a half-bottle of chardonnay? Oh no sorry a colleague was asking; I was making light of something. No no; I see. But long and short the damage that was done to the property in the ram raid went into the excess of $45000. I mean it's the cost of this crime. You think of what's just happened in St Lukes recently. So I have to wonder whether the purpose of the Act needs to be expanded to not only talk about significant criminal activity of I think it's five years or more imprisonment. I mean granted you can commit terrible crimes at the moment and still get home detention but also they're talking about derived benefits of $30000 or more. I think there could be a discussion around actually criminal or significant criminal activity that has led to a significant amount of damage. On that I will leave it there as we continue the debate of what an associate is."