Bridges Simon: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — Second Reading 
Bridges Simon: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1384] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to take a call in this debate on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill and it is also a great pleasure to have listened to the previous speaker Chris Hipkins. Some say there is not much in the way of mutual respect across the Chamber but I like what I have seen of Chris Hipkins. He is one of the few Labour MPs in the House who has won an electorate. There is another one over there—two of them! Chris Hipkins had a few good things to say in this debate and that is good. 
I also enjoyed listening to the Hon Dr Richard Worth who spoke in this debate. Admittedly he spoke in a rather wide-ranging way. He ranged from the Hell’s Angels of California to the pinstripes of Otaki but it was a good speech. I agree with his comments about Martin Gallagher a former MP who seems to have done a very good job in guiding this important bill through the select committee process. I say good on Martin Gallagher. We all hope he is watching tonight and has some sort of moral reward at least that this bill—finally—is back in the House under a National-led not Labour Government. 
Really if we were to sum up this bill in a sentence it would be that crime should not pay. Crime should not pay but it did pay under Labour. Crime paid under 9 long years of a Labour Government. I have seen gang members in greater Tauranga and in the Bay of Plenty who own mansions and businesses. Metiria Turei said this bill affects only the poor. Well mansions have been built in Tauranga not to mention in Auckland and in Wellington—and no doubt in Rimutaka I say to Chris Hipkins. Mansions have been built on the ill-gotten proceeds of crime. Many a Harley Davidson motorbike a boat a yacht you name it has been bought that way. Some have been seized in Tauranga I have to say but this legislation will go a long long way towards seizing more and to doing a better job of seizing them. 
Make no mistake criminals have become fat and prosperous under Labour. We were losing the war on crime under Labour. Criminals were getting fat; they had to expand their belts. National has come into office and there has been a flurry of legislation. It was needed in order to do something about the fact we were losing the war on crime. There has been a lot of talk of course from Labour members—[ 
Interruption 
] There has been a lot of talk just like we are hearing right now. A lot of hot air has been expelled over crime. But Labour was busy passing measures like the Electoral Finance Act which it now wants to do away with. It spent time passing laws like that for no good reason other than to screw the scrum it seems and criminal legislation was left on the shelf. Under 9 long hard years of a Labour Government the criminals were winning. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Hard labour. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: That is absolutely correct. Criminals were getting fat. 
Make no mistake. Huge amounts of money are involved when we are talking about crime. Millions and millions of dollars are involved. Take Mount Maunganui where I live. Over the Christmas period the police went into a factory and seized on their estimate millions of dollars worth of chemicals intended for the illicit illegal manufacture of the nasty pernicious drug P. Let us think about that. If they had not seized those chemicals—and let us face it; they are not seizing all of them—then many millions dollars of ill-gotten gains would have gone to precisely the wrong people. We have seen 9 years of that under Labour. We have seen the police knowing where the mansions are knowing where the Harley Davidsons are and knowing that they are the proceeds of crime but because the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 is not doing its job adequately and is not fit for purpose those criminals have got away not only with shall I say literally murder but also with the ill-gotten gains of their crimes. Indeed it is good that National is finally bringing this legislation to the House and we will see those criminals who are caught up with the ill-gotten gains of crime finally taken care of. 
I ask members who crime is paying. It is paying the gangs. I agree with something the Hon Dr Richard Worth said in this House—that it is no longer just the Mongrel Mob Black Power and the gang members with patches and tattoos on their faces who are making money. That is perhaps what some in this House who are voting against this bill would say. Under Labour gangs became seriously sophisticated and that is why this law is needed in order to make a change. Gang members are no longer in gang patches. They are in suits they have mansions and their tools are not crowbars and weaponry but emails and cellphones. With the increase in sophistication of criminals and gang members we need to move with the times. I commend Labour for starting the process even if it had other things like the now-deceased Electoral Finance Act to get on with. It did not seem too worried about the criminal laws on its shelves. We have got on with it we are passing this important law and now the police will have many more tools with better onuses to deal with crime. 
I also agree with something else Richard Worth said. It was a perceptive point. He said that the people peddling P are now in pinstripes—not like the Hon Dr Richard Worth; he was wearing a very nice pinstripe suit. We have other members on both sides of the House who wear pinstripes. Nevertheless those criminals have cellphones and laptops and they are in pinstripes. We are moving with the times. 
We get to this bill’s purpose. I think the recovery of criminal proceeds has traditionally been viewed by many people as an under-rated poor cousin in the criminal justice arena. But I say to this House that it is a fundamental and exceptionally important tool in the armoury of the police because it hits gangs in the pocket. It takes their mansions their Harley Davidsons and their boats. 
From my experience I have observed that seizing the proceeds of crime drives criminals apoplectic. It is funny; when criminals are fighting their charges and fighting the seizure of their Harley Davidsons it is the seizure of the Harley Davidsons they get really upset about. When they have been caught for a crime and go through trial and sentence they know they have been caught. But when their Harley Davidsons or their speedboats have been seized they get really angry. I have a theory that criminals think they have earned the Harley Davidson even though they have earned it through illegal dealings intimidation and peddling misery and they fight hard dirty and deviously for it. Therefore this bill has had to do something about that. We are curing that mischief and are making sure that the tests and the onuses are lowered and not before time because we have been losing the war. 
This bill is part of the raft of legislation being passed by National. It is a suite— 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: A rolling maul. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: —a rolling maul of legislation being passed by the National Government including tougher penalties and so on that will deal to criminals. 
Debate interrupted.