McClay Todd: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
McClay Todd: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2227] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I thank my friend and colleague on the other side of the Chamber for giving me the opportunity to speak so early in this debate. I recognise the work that the Law and Order Committee has previously done on this issue. As I was looking through the notes just a moment ago I noticed that of the members of the select committee who worked so hard on this issue some are currently in this Chamber but unfortunately some are no longer with us today. I recognise a former chair of the select committee Ron Mark. When it comes to Part 2 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill which is quite a weighty part if Ron Mark—a man who spoke very strongly on law and order issues in this House and outside of it—was in favour of this then that means some good work was done in that select committee. 
I also say that it is good to see that this bill has been given priority and I congratulate the Government and the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Power on taking the issue of gangs seriously and on taking the issue of crime seriously. I say to this Committee that anything that we can do as humble representatives of the people of New Zealand and our electorates to be serious about gangs and get on top of crime so constituents in our electorates and all the people who live in New Zealand will be safer is worthy of our consideration tonight. 
It is time we clamped down on gangs in this country and time that they hear a message loud and clear from this Parliament that they serve no good purpose in New Zealand or for New Zealand society and that we will not condone them or their criminal practices. This bill goes a long way to starting the process of getting on top of crime and gangs in New Zealand. Some communities in my electorate of Rotorua are afflicted by the poison that gangs spread. The gangs act criminally and they trumpet their gains from crime. If their possessions are gained through illegal activity as the bill refers to and as Part 2 deals with then they deserve to have them taken from them and they deserve to be imprisoned. I think there is no disagreement in this Committee about what should happen to goods gained illegally. 
In certain circumstances the bill will alter the burden of proof and do so quite substantially. If we are to take the confiscation or recovery of the proceeds of crime seriously we must as a Committee balance the possible loss of the rights of some in New Zealand against the rights of the majority of law-abiding New Zealanders who have nothing to do with crime and who have nothing to do with gangs and make sure that gangs cannot profit from their crimes. 
The bill seeks to reform the existing criminal proceeds recovery regime and Part 2 is an important part of this. My colleague Paul Quinn spoke earlier about the role of the New Zealand Police and I think the Committee has rightly seen that the police are in a very good place to implement parts of this draft legislation. Criminals care about their possessions and they seem to care even more about possessions that have been gained through illegal activity. In my electorate there is a small town of great people called Murupara. People have come together and stood up and said that gangs are not acceptable to them that crime is not acceptable that they want a better future for themselves in their small town and that they want a better future for their children in their small town. 
As I cast my mind back to last year I recall that a certain gang in New Zealand—I will not mention them because I do not want to give them any more publicity than they deserve; indeed they deserve none at all—decided to call a meeting. Gang members from all over the country came to Murupara to do whatever it is they do on their weekends away. The police in Rotorua were superb in the way that they dealt with this issue at what could have been quite a difficult and dangerous time for the people of Murupara. They showed a presence; they took it seriously. When I was able to meet and talk with them and ask them why they were so successful at making sure Murupara was not damaged and that the great community was not harmed by these people whose intent was illegal they told me that in showing a presence they set up roadblocks and they went out and stopped the various bikes to see who was there and find out what they were doing. 
It surprises me that the police said that some of these bikes which would have been gained through illegal activity and the proceeds gained from illegal conduct are so important to these big burly gang members that they left their bikes at home. They got in minivans and asked their partners and wives to drive them to the meeting so that they would not lose those possessions. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I call Todd McClay. 
TODD McCLAY 
: Thank you. I had not quite finished talking about the great work of the police in Rotorua and Murupara. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I remind the member that this speech should be a little more about the bill and less about his personal reflections. 
TODD McCLAY 
: In fact Part 2 refers directly to the role that the New Zealand Police has. I want to give an example of why it is important that the Committee has recognised that the police should play a role here. To finish what I briefly started I say that the example from Murupara suggests to me that the police can get out and stop gang members from riding their illegally gained motorbikes into a town or a small community. This bill will help them to do this when it passes into law. The police know greatly what they are doing—and they should do. 
Paul Quinn also said that criminals will stop at nothing to protect their gains and the gains from crime and that they will be violent in doing so and will wreak havoc upon society. I accept the intelligent and sage words of my colleague Paul Quinn. I am glad that I have had the opportunity to hear him speak on Part 2 this afternoon because this is a serious issue for New Zealand. When we come to Part 2 we see that it does a number of things. As I look at the overview—the great work of the select committee—I see it states that Part 1 and Part 2 will “provide for the restraint and forfeiture of property derived as a result of significant criminal activity without the need for a conviction;”. 
Simon Bridges 
: Define “significant”. 
TODD McCLAY 
: Well “significant” is obvious to those people out there in New Zealand who have suffered at the hands of these criminals. We need to get serious about this issue; we need to not allow criminals to hide behind the current law and to use the law to keep their property. I think Part 1 and Part 2 will go a long way towards this. The overview also states that Part 2 “deals with general matters relating to the criminal proceeds and instruments forfeiture regime;” which is important; it “deals with the restraint of property that may later become the subject of a forfeiture order;” which is also important; and “it deals with civil forfeiture orders (which are assets forfeiture orders and profit forfeiture orders);”. I am glad that my colleague Simon Bridges spoke at great length on this issue earlier in the evening particularly on Part 2. 
Simon Bridges 
: He makes it sound like it was boring. 
TODD McCLAY 
: It was an entertaining speech from my colleague from Tauranga; I can see why the people of Tauranga like him so much. 
Part 2 deals with civil forfeiture orders as I have said. Also it “deals with certain procedural matters associated with conviction-based instrument forfeiture orders;” and “sets out the powers of the Official Assignee;” and “subpart 6 of Part 2 sets out the powers of the police;”. I think everybody in this Chamber supports the role of the police and I am glad that the Committee is able to decide that this is an appropriate place for the power to implement the bill. Part 2 “provides for investigative powers for various agencies;”—well if we do not know what these gangs and criminals are doing and where they are hiding their assets then how can we find them to take them from them? Part 2 also “deals with foreign restraining orders and foreign forfeiture orders;”. 
Simon Bridges 
: What’s a restraining order? 
TODD McCLAY 
: A restraining order is an order whereby we restrain something in the simple terms of the law. Finally it sets out the consequential amendments to the bill. I would like to refer to other parts but I say to members opposite that yawning in itself will not help the people of New Zealand yawning will not help us move Part 2 forward and yawning in relation to this bill is part of the reason that members opposite are on that side of the Chamber and not on this side. I happily offer my support for the bill. 
Hon Annette King 
: It happens to be our bill actually. 
TODD McCLAY 
: I again congratulate the select committee on its good work. I recognise that the bill was put up by the previous Government but how many years did the bill sit on the Order Paper? It is serious legislation—Part 2 in particular—and the previous Government trumpeted it election after election but the bill just sat there. Although Part 2 will do the most to implement this law and make New Zealanders safer by getting rid of gangs the bill languished on the Order Paper for far too many years. I congratulate the Government and the Minister on deciding that the bill must be a priority. I very happily give my support.