Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Just at the tail end of the bill as we approach the tail end of the evening: seizure of cash found in suspicious circumstances. So this is the part of the law that will say that someone can't have dealings in a very large—a suspiciously large—amount of cash and with all the implications that has for money laundering and in fact the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act is the bit of legislation it'll be changing or amending. I'm just interested to really help put on the record actually what the Minister and the Government intends by having the prohibition on certain cash transactions. This is new section 67A as it will be within the Act in clause 27. So this is saying a person who is in trade basically can't buy or sell a number of different items if the cash amount received for that would be at a certain level that would be too high. So first of all we've got a list and it has jewellery watches and then gold silver or other precious metals; diamonds sapphires or other precious stones; motor vehicles—as defined another piece of legislation—or ships which is again as defined in another piece of legislation.So if the Minister casts her mind back to law school she'll remember the principles of statutory interpretation—I'm probably getting a few reactions around the room as I take people back to those days. Harete Hipango is trying to avoid my eye and indeed her own past not in the sense of any of this kind of activity I hasten to add but just in terms of having studied these principles. Anyway so it's important when we list things that we understand—or rather that courts will understand—just how broad the legislature intended to be. So I think I'm right in saying that the intent is to really capture as many different kinds of cash or cash-equivalent transactions in that space. So if the Minister is able to confirm whether that's tonight or not that would be helpful.Then the other comment I guess was just in the amount that's being talked about. So we're making an offence of receiving the cash. This is not the person who's obtained it by some other illegitimate method so it's quite a serious matter because we're saying people can't even unknowingly be party to allowing money or cash to launder the results or the proceeds of crime. There's a cash seizure threshold—tongue-twister as it is—and it's set out to be NZ$10000 or equivalent cash amount which is about a shopping trolley's worth of groceries at the moment. Buying fresh fruit and veggies—anyway that's another subject for another day: #CostOfLivingCrisis. So we've got $10000 and then a bit later on it says Oh by the way that can be amended by regulation to be more or less than $10000." So basically it can be any amount by regulation. That's a bit "Henry VIII" clause-ish but perhaps there's a good reason for that. I suppose it's to guard against inflation or perhaps the likely nature of the offending and the items that might be traded in this kind of way. So any comments the Minister can make from that to help set the record straight for any further possible uses of the legislation would be very helpful indeed. Thank you."