Parker David: Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7419. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I have a question for the Minister in the chair Todd McClay relating to clauses 58 and 59 together and I have a separate question in respect of clause 61 of the bill. Clauses 58 and 59 of the bill relate to amendments to New Zealand legislation to provide mutual assistance to overseas countries that are looking into the sorts of things that would be illegal in New Zealand.The first question I have is in respect of clause 58 which inserts a new section 31 into the principal Act which is the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992. It says that “A foreign country may request the Attorney-General to assist in arranging—(a) the taking of evidence in New Zealand;” and the Attorney-General can authorise that assistance if “satisfied that—(i) the request relates to criminal proceedings in the foreign country; and (ii) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the evidence can be taken…in New Zealand:”. I can see why that power is necessary.My first question relates to why it is that these rights go to the Attorney-General rather than sit with the police. It seems to me that these things ought not to be elevated to so high a level that in practice there are procedural impediments to actually cooperating with foreign countries trying to stamp out these sorts or corrupt practices. It may be that there has been proper thought given to that and that the reasons for leaving that with the Attorney-General relate to the fact that it is the Attorney-General who through Crown Law generally exercises those prosecutorial decisions. But it also could be argued I suppose that in respect of lower levels of criminality which none the less ought to be policed it is generally the police that exercise those questions of discretion.The second issue that I have not yet had an answer to from the Government—the Ministers in the chair—arises again in respect of clause 59 which also amends the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. I raised this issue in respect of my contribution on Part 1 and it relates to the definition of “foreign public official”. You will see in clause 59 that schedule 1 is amended by inserting into the list of offences against the Crimes Act section 105D which relates to bribery outside New Zealand of foreign public officials. I asked why it is that we have got such a narrow definition of “foreign public official” that it does not capture the sort of controversy that we have currently in respect of the Saudi sheep issue. I accept that the Government does not accept the Opposition’s characterisation of the payments that were made to the Al-Khalaf Group—a $7 million cash payment which the Opposition and the media—Ian McKelvie: Not still talking about this.Hon DAVID PARKER: I am still talking about this—that is the reference we have from the National Party. You know irrespective of whether you think that the Labour Party’s characterisation of those payments is accurate in fact I would have hoped that National would concede that if we are right in fact then those payments are improper. If a $7 million payment really was to buy the cooperation of the Al-Khalaf Group in order to stop that person blocking the advancing of the free-trade agreement with Saudi Arabia that is improper in my book. You can have a factual disagreement as to whether the facts actually show that that was the purpose of the payment but if that was the purpose of the payment—and I think it was—it was improper.That sort of payment ought to be illegal under New Zealand’s law because it is improper. But the problem with this legislation is that that sort of payment even if it is made is not made illegal because you have got such a narrow definition of “bribery of a foreign public official” that it does not capture that sort of payment. So if Mr Al-Khalaf was paid that sort of payment and it was improper and he was a public official it would be caught by this legislation but if he is not a public official—because he is not a public servant he is just someone who has got influence on public servants—it is not caught by this legislation.We have yet to have an explanation from any Minister in the chair as to what the logic is behind that proposition. Having not had an answer on Part 1 I am hoping that we get an answer in Part 2 because it arises in respect of clause 59 of the bill where reference to section 105D of the Crimes Act is inserted into schedule 1 and what is inserted is relating to bribery outside New Zealand of a foreign public official. I make the point that the definition in this bill is so narrow that the situation that we have in respect of the Al-Khalaf Group would not be caught because Mr Al-Khalaf is not a public servant or a foreign public official in that context. Irrespective of whether the Government agrees with my characterisation of what Mr McCully and his Government did the possibility that you can make those sorts of payments legally under New Zealand law is in my contention wrong.I turn to clause 61 which funnily enough is sort of the flip side of what I have been saying. Clause 61 inserts provisions relating to international policing and information sharing to assist the corresponding agency overseas. Can I just note a degree of caution here which I hope that the Government has properly taken into account. We have had experiences in this Parliament in recent years—and not just under the current Government but also under prior Governments; this is not a political point—where overseas Governments that are not very good at preserving civil liberties actually at times take what are quite political prosecutions or attacks against members of their own populations for political reasons.We have got to be a bit careful that we enable our police to pass a sniff test across what is being asked of them in terms of the pursuit of allegations of corruption in another’s home country because sometimes it is not what it seems and sometimes what can be happening in those other countries is actually oppressive of some of their own citizens. We have to retain a discretion on the part of the police as to whether they think they should be assisting their corresponding overseas agencies. On some occasions I would actually trust the New Zealand Police to say: “Actually no. We don’t think we should be assisting in this particular prosecution because this particular country overseas has endemic corruption within it and we ought not to be letting them use the New Zealand authorities to assist with politicised prosecutions that aren’t grounded in actual corruption.”That is a hard thing to do—to legislate for—and you actually cannot specify every eventuality in writing but you do need to make sure that the police have a discretion in my opinion. We need to trust the New Zealand Police to actually sort the wheat from the chaff and to responsibly exercise discretion as to whether it cooperates with the overseas authority when that foreign country wants to have the assistance of the New Zealand Police in order to gather information relating to a prosecution in that overseas country.