Mallard Trevor: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — Second Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6885] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think it is wonderful timing on the part of the Government to bring the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill into the House after so long and under urgency because the bill deals with the role of the Department of Internal Affairs which includes Ministerial Services. The bill deals with suspicious transactions and there are a few of them going on at the moment. It deals with politically exposed persons and clearly there is one of those in the case of Bill English. It deals with the United Nations Convention against Corruption.  
I tell the House that if what was going on here—public money going to hidden trusts—was going on in Zimbabwe then we would call it corruption in Zimbabwe. What is the difference when there is an absolute lack of transparency? What is the difference when taxpayers’ money is going to trusts about which the details are not public other than the fact that they are involved with a politically exposed person as defined in this bill as introduced? The term “politically exposed person” is in this bill as introduced and we have taxpayers’ funds going to that person in New Zealand.  
We are working towards ratifying the United Nations Convention against Corruption and this country is regularly seen as the cleanest country in the world. But how can we maintain that reputation when we have a Minister of Finance under a cloud in the way that that Minister of Finance is under a cloud at the moment?  
This bill goes to the question of whether there are sufficient details on a customer with which those organisations are dealing. I want to know whether the Department of Internal Affairs has within Ministerial Services sufficient details on its customer the Endeavour Trust with whom it has a transaction that can probably be described as a suspicious transaction; something that has been set up in order to qualify for— 
John Hayes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention and the House’s attention to the fact that the Endeavour Trust is not a subject of this bill and does not form any part of this bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order I make it clear that under the bill as it was introduced—and I am looking at areas where people have beneficial interests—there is no doubt that family members of a Cabinet Minister have a beneficial interest and therefore the trust is an area that comes within the discussion on this bill. 
John Hayes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This bill specifically excludes all politically exposed persons in New Zealand domestically. This bill excludes every domestic politician from its consideration. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Mr Assistant Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: No I will rule now. I kind of anticipated from the member’s interjections that he would pursue this line and I am listening very carefully to what the member says. I do not want to be seen as dancing on the head of a pin in this regard but I am trying to find in his speech the purpose of the bill and some relevance about that. I am not sure that the member has transgressed yet but he is getting fairly close to it. I am listening carefully. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I disagree absolutely with John Hayes. The Endeavour Trust was caught by this bill as it was introduced. If the Endeavour Trust is involved in a suspicious transaction as it does seem then I have no doubt whatsoever— 
Jacqui Dean 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You might be able to help me. I understood that the debate today was addressing the bill as reported back by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee not the bill as introduced. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Mr Assistant Speaker can I speak to that point? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: No I have already ruled on that. The bill was introduced and if it changes its form in the select committee then that is still relevant to the debate—because the debate is still subject to the way in which the committee dealt with the bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Clause 43 deals with the disclosure of information. As far as the Endeavour Trust and its suspicious transaction with the Department of Internal Affairs is concerned I want to know whether all relevant information has been disclosed. It certainly has not been disclosed to Gerry Brownlee who is the Acting Minister responsible for Ministerial Services and the Minister responsible for that part of the department. That suspicious transaction— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I will just ask the member to choose his words a little bit more carefully. Instead of saying “suspicious” the words “allegedly suspicious” are probably more appropriate.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: No—I have ruled on that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The term “suspicious transaction” in itself carries a wide range of things some of which may be illegal and some of which may be suspicious but not illegal. I have not alleged that these transactions are illegal but certainly they are suspicious. One cannot say “allegedly suspicious”. They are either suspicious or they are not. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I accept the member’s point but we are not accepting them as proven. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member may continue. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No there is a long way before the court proves that those suspicious transactions are illegal. There is a long long way before Mr English’s Endeavour Trust of which he was a trustee last year and which is now involved in the suspicious transaction— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I think he had a pecuniary interest in that.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Last year he had a pecuniary interest. There is another area—and it may be that Mr English might want to rely on it—and that is the immunities from criminal or civil liability.  
In fact in this particular area Duncan Garner has made a suggestion for immunity for civil liability for Mr English. Mr Garner in a very good blog has suggested that if Bill English accepts now that he has been falsely claiming in this area then he would not have to repay the taxpayer the $300000 or $400000 that he has claimed in the past. I disagree. I think it would be inappropriate for there to be immunity from civil liability in the case of Mr English in this particular area. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As I was saying before the dinner break this bill has to do with anti-money laundering. I want to know which member opposite hates Bill English so much that he chose to put this bill forward this week. Was it Simon Power the Minister in charge of the bill who wants to be the Deputy Prime Minister? 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Gerry Brownlee! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Was it Gerry Brownlee who hates Bill English because he put him out of his position? He wants the Deputy Prime Minister job back. Or was it Steven Joyce who wants the job of Minister of Finance?  
There are some real gifts in this bill because under the bill as it was introduced both Bill English and the Endeavour Trust are caught as politically exposed persons for the purposes of corruption and anti-money laundering. On the subject of corruption I want to ask this question: what is the difference between New Zealand and some other countries? What is the difference when someone sets up a trust and changes the trust deed in order to hide getting money for him or herself or persons he or she is associated with? If it was happening in Zimbabwe we would say it was corruption. If it was happening in Nigeria we would say it was corruption. Why are we not saying it here? Is it because we are an English-speaking country? Is it because we speak English here that it is not corruption?  
Anywhere else in the world that sort of arrangement—to hide one’s money; to pretend one is not getting it; to say “It’s not for me.”; to have a third person as defined in the Act ordering money into accounts—would be caught by this bill. In this particular case there are also very good definitions of suspicious transactions and the Department of Internal Affairs which of course includes Ministerial Services is responsible for identifying those suspicious transactions. I want to know whether they are responsible for reporting on themselves. Would the head of the Department of Internal Affairs say: “I laundered money to the Endeavour Trust.”? Is he responsible for saying that? Certainly if that is not the case then we need someone else to look at that particular area.  
There is a question of verification of identity. People are not allowed to hide their identity. They have to make their identity clear. Under the money laundering legislation people cannot hide behind trusts. There are systems for verification of that. I want to know what sort of principle Simon Power has. Did he order the change of this bill—to take Bill English out—in order to protect Bill English or was he ignorant?  
There is one final point I want to make about corruption and that is about the control of the media. I think it is absolutely corrupt for a Cabinet Minister to ring a television official swear at that official and use a seven-letter word followed by a four-letter word twice or three times in that conversation. Following that Television New Zealand took down the link to the television item. Not only do we have a politician acting to intimidate the media but also worse still we have a State-owned organisation for which the very Minister is a shareholder ordering it to take down a link and it does. That is the sort of corruption we see in Zimbabwe. It is the sort of corruption that used to happen in Russia—although I do not think we see it now. It also happens in China and it is not good enough to have that sort of approach in New Zealand.