Hodgson Pete: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — Third Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7109] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I am a little surprised that National members have stopped— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Do your tie up. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I thank the Leader of the House very much. He should tuck in his shirt. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Why? It’s fashionable. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member cannot? OK. I was surprised that National members did not seek the call but I was very happy to do so. 
I want to make a point at the outset. Because we are going into urgency I am not going to give a 30-second speech even though the case for my giving a 30-second speech is very strong. The Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill is now in its last phase. It has been done and dusted through this House through the various phases that legislation must go through and it has been spoken about at length by people who know about the legislation and also by one or two folks who do not. In the case of those who do the listener would have had no difficulty working out what the legislation is about; what its origins were; how the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee worked; what a great person the chair was; what a great group of folk the New Zealand Bankers’ Association was; how good the officials were after we had had a little disagreement earlier; and the role this legislation plays in our country and in our relationship with other nations. That does not need to be repeated. It is well understood now. Folk have generously talked about this legislation and its role for hours and hours so a 30-second speech would be a really really good idea. But you see we have to teach the Government to manage the House better. We do not particularly mind staying around on a Thursday night; half of us are here anyway. It does not much matter. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: It’s that arrogance that meant the public actually said no to Labour. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: We have just been advised by the intellectual giant opposite that because Labour lost the last election after spending 9 years in Government—the longest time a Labour Government has been in power since the Second World War I say parenthetically—somehow or another I should be giving a 30-second speech not a 10-minute one. That leap of logic—that cascading paroxysm of intelligence that just emanated from the vaguely humanoid piece of protoplasm over there—does not stand up to scrutiny. So I will stand here and make a point of wasting Parliament’s time. I will make a point of wasting Parliament’s time because the Hon Gerry Brownlee is in the House—it is good to see him—and we want to ask him to try to manage things a little better so that we do not find ourselves as we did a few weeks ago adjourning the House early one day and then whipping back in under urgency the following day. It is not necessary. There are certainly times when the House needs to go into urgency— 
Jo Goodhew 
: Lazy Opposition! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Government members are really getting annoyed about it and that is great because that is the whole point of my speech. If Government members go silent I have nothing to bounce off. The way to shut down someone who is trying to waste Parliament’s time is to go quiet. If members heckle then I immediately have something to feed off. They give me oxygen. So I ask National members to please keep the noise running; I love it. It is what makes it work for me. I have no difficulty getting through 10 minutes. In fact I could get through 10 hours. 
Jo Goodhew 
: We have to listen to 10 minutes even though he has nothing to say. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There is another heckler. The member is from Timaru. I spent last weekend in Timaru and I have one or two things to say about that member that I learnt on Saturday and Sunday from her constituents in Timaru. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I was there on Monday. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Trevor Mallard was there on Monday so he has an update. I dare to suggest that if we tried to introduce that material into the debate Mr Deputy Speaker would say that it is getting a bit broad. I will not do so because I might be ruled out of order. I just say to the member from Timaru that she would be well advised not to heckle because you see another 30 seconds have gone by. Or was it 60 seconds? I am happy to stand here. I have studied Fidel Castro. It is not difficult to speak for 6 hours. I have watched a man do it. He is an amazing gentleman. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I’ve seen Venn Young do 75 minutes here. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That is amazing. It is astonishing. 
I say to members opposite that we could have had this legislation through the House a long time ago and be well down the Order Paper but for the fact that the Government has decided again that it does not know how to run the House properly and will put the House into urgency again. 
I just say that urgency is a legitimate thing for a Government to do. We had a lot of urgency when we were in Government and the previous National Government had it a lot but we did it out of necessity or because there was some degree of urgency over this that or the other legislation. Here the Government is showing its inability to manage the House in ordinary times not in extraordinary times. The Bolger-Shipley Government did not do that until the 8th year but here National is doing so in the 10th or 11th month. I remember that in the 8th year of the Bolger-Shipley Government—and I will come back to my money-laundering point—Jenny Shipley said she was going to run the House with machine-like efficiency but it stalled when Max Bradford tried to get the electricity system wrecked. The mismanagement is now reaching— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Tell us about the Plimsoll line! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No that is outside the scope of the bill. The Deputy Speaker is very very accommodating and I do not think we should abuse his accommodation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Yes but the ship might be carrying laundered money. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Ah that is a point. I am sure that some money-laundering occurs on the sea—I have no doubt. Some occurs by air and some occurs by wire but certainly some occurs by sea. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s normally folding stuff. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That is right and that is why the Plimsoll line is important. If it is folding stuff the Plimsoll line is visible; if it is solid gold the Plimsoll line disappears. That is one reason why a money-laundering cop would want to look at the Plimsoll line. If the ship is laden with gold then the Plimsoll line will be out of sight; if it is folding money as my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard said we will see the Plimsoll line high and mighty. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Paper can be pretty heavy. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes but paper is not as heavy as gold. That is the point. The Hon Trevor Mallard makes a good point but it is not good enough. Actually when one thinks about it a dollar’s worth of gold is heavier than a dollar. The Hon Trevor Mallard is probably correct when regarding a gold coin versus pure metal gold. I ask whether my time is finished. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: 2 more minutes! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: We are just reflecting on whether a gold coin being laundered on the sea will be more likely to make the Plimsoll line disappear. On reflection given that the price of gold these days is a little over $1000 per ounce— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: US! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: —US$1000 per ounce the Hon Trevor Mallard is probably right and I am probably wrong. Gold in the form of pure metal is likely to be lighter dollar for dollar than a gold coin. On the other hand if we move to folding money I am correct. The devil is often in the detail. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well it depends on the denomination of the note. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: OK we could play that. We start at $5 and go up to around $100. Is there a $200 note? Can anyone tell me? I do not think there is. But at $5 or $100 I still think I am correct. On the other hand if we are talking about $1 and $2 coins then my colleague—my learned colleague— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No I’m not learned! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: My non-learned colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Don’t go that far! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Ha ha! If we are talking about $1 and $2 coins he is probably correct. 
I think we can conclude that when trying to detect money-laundering on the sea the Plimsoll line is probably not as much use as we would have hoped. One does not know whether one is dealing with pure gold metal or with folding money. If it is folding what is its denomination? Or is it $1 or $2 coins? The Plimsoll line will bounce up or down depending on all of those factors and I imagine that the Plimsoll line would sit highest out of the water if the ship is carrying $100 notes. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s the point. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I say to that member that I hope my point is now made.