Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. National is supporting this bill the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill which the person standing in for the Minister of Justice just outlined and thank you very much for that speech.Look I think all New Zealanders are rightly concerned about the rise in gang activity that we've seen across the country over the past few years. New Zealanders have had an issue with gangs for many decades of course but we have all of us—whether driving around streets of our cities and towns or reading the media—been made aware of the increased visibility of gangs on our streets and also the ongoing huge profits that they continue to reap from the illegal drug trade in particular. So this bill is one step forward by the Government to try and make it easier to make sure that crime doesn't pay and that some of the ill-gotten gains will be taken. Now as a general rule I think it's fair to say that we on this side of the House tend to be fairly critical of this Government's approach to law and order and justice. We are frustrated like many New Zealanders that the Government frankly has been soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime. When I say soft on the causes of crime" we think of the long-term drivers such as kids not being at school children growing up in motels and much broader social issues that haven't been effectively addressed and we're concerned about that. But of course when it comes to the actual day-to-day dealing with what's in front of police officers and the sense of criminality in our communities then they've also fallen short. We have only one clear target which is a reduction in the prison population by 30 percent irrespective of what's happening on the ground. And that of course doesn't make any sense to anybody who's concerned about ensuring that we are kept safe. And the prison population—yes we want that to be low but it has to be based on a genuine lowering of violent crime. Instead what we've seen has been an increase in violent crime and a big part of that story has been an increase in gang activity.So this bill is one step forward. We support it. We just wish there was so much more to back it up because unfortunately what we've seen from this Government is a mixed message when it comes to the gangs. We have this legislation for example which makes it easier for Government to take the proceeds of crime from organised gang activity—organised crime. Yet at the same time other wings of the Government give succour to the gangs gives them money to run programmes and sends a very mixed message. And so I think that's part of the broader problem.But when it comes to the detail of this bill—I was on the Justice Committee with our colleagues and I want to thank the chairman of that committee for most of the proceedings Ginny Andersen—Simon O'Connor: Chair individual.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Pardon?Simon O'Connor: Chair individual or chairwoman.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Chairwoman. And so I think we worked very constructively on this bill.Now of course there involve some significant trade-offs obviously between wanting to uphold the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provisions and this legislation definitely crimps those rights—in particular in relation to allowing new restraining orders against properties owned by associates of somebody involved in crime. And that is of course a difficult area and one which has potential for things to go awry. And so that quite naturally has been a cause of concern for many but ultimately there needs to be a way to defeat the ease with which some organisers of organised crime have been able to divert funds into the hands of associates in order to keep them from the law enforcement agencies.Then we also had a debate about the $30000 threshold. We were worried that was too high and that not just the metaphorical but the actual Harley-Davidsons might come below that threshold and not be caught by this legislation. I am pleased that during the course of the select committee process we did make the suggested amendment that the value of specific property would apply cumulatively so clauses 15 and 21 insert new sections to that affect. So it would "allow the restraint and forfeiture of 'specific property' that an individual associated with an organised crime group had insufficient legitimate property to acquire." And the bill as it was introduced didn't make it clear whether that comprised a specific property—like one Harley-Davidson if it was worth $27000 might not meet the threshold. It wasn't clear so we are making it abundantly clear that if you happen to have two Harley-Davidsons that were worth $27000 each you would be losing both of them if you were captured by this bill. So I think that's a useful step forward.Now we do take seriously the impact this has from a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act perspective. But we of course also have to weigh the rights of ordinary citizens to live their lives free of the marauding activities of organised crime and the safety of the community and the need for justice—not just to be done but to be seen to be done and to give the police the powers that they need to hold the perpetrators to account. And we believe the balance is fair and right in respect to this matter.We hope to be in Government by October. And like all pieces of legislation this is one where its impact does need to be monitored carefully. This is what we intend to do. We want to ensure that we capture the associates of members in organised crime—not just casual acquaintances but genuine associates. Now only time will tell how that works in practice and so come five years' time we'll be wanting to have a look at that and make sure that it has achieved what it set out to achieve as indeed we do in all pieces of legislation.In respect to any other matters of detail I do want to thank the rest of the select committee and those who did make a submission. There weren't an enormous number of submissions frankly—only five and we heard oral submissions from three. And I think that reflects a widespread recognition of the need for legislation of this type in order to help with them. Another small element was the inclusion of KiwiSaver schemes. Obviously the KiwiSaver legislation was reasonably robust in its defence of those savings for retirement but it's not appropriate for that to be a perfect vehicle for sending funds to be kept from the authorities in this situation. And so changes in that space we think are appropriate and we support that as well.So overall this is a Government that we have many concerns about in the broader law and order and justice space but they are capable of producing legislation that does take things forward from time to time. This is one of those occasions. On account of that we are happy to support this bill."