Hodgson Pete: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:6953] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 It is a matter of fact that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee worked across party lines and it is a matter of fact that members of the committee from time to time would argue freely with one another even arguing with members of their own side. It is a matter of fact that from time to time the National members went to sleep for long periods of time during the select committee and that is simply being replicated in the Chamber this afternoon as my colleague with his skills and I with whatever skills I have seek to tease out some of the finer points of this legislation. 
I think the member who has just resumed his seat has made some interesting points about the 3-year limit on prosecutions. It is an improvement on the bill as introduced but the member points out that money-laundering can reach back deep into history. We I think have probably come to the view that although that might mean that some people may get off some earlier misdemeanours none the less there is a degree of uniformity in the way that we approach a sort of limitation on prosecution and that that uniformity mattered. 
I do not have anything to offer on whether we have gone too far or not far enough on the issues around computers and access to computers. I am afraid the member did not have time to develop his argument there and I therefore do not have an ability to refute it but I do want to take the member back to clause 90. I say to the member gently and I suppose I am partly to blame here that failure to report suspicious transactions does not refer to the money-launderer but to the person who is supervising the money-launderer. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s right—John Key! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That is the point. That failure to report a suspicious transaction is something that might say if we were to use the analogy of the Melissa Lee case take us to New Zealand On Air to the Minister of Broadcasting and to the Prime Minister because all three of those bodies failed to report. The first of those—New Zealand On Air—reported the suspicious transaction to the person who had undertaken it for God’s sake! It was not reported to anyone of authority but to the person who was suspected of the transgression. That same person has now indicated that she will pay the money back. That is the person to whom New Zealand On Air reported. The Minister of Broadcasting tells us that at the time he did not know. Well we might explore that as the weeks go by but he did say that he knew some time in August. And here we are in October. He did not report. 
Then we had the Prime Minister on the TV3 programme  
Breakfast 
 this morning saying that his office knew but that he did not. So somehow his office staff failed to report this suspicious transaction and the only organisation that reported the suspicious transaction according to the obligations in clause 90 was TV3. Now what have we come to in this country where a quango a Minister the Prime Minister’s staff the Prime Minister and indeed the person who is responsible for the suspicious transactions did not report to anybody but TV3 did? That is why probably legislation like this matters and certainly why clause 90 matters because failing to report a suspicious transaction commits an offence. 
The rest of Part 3 tells what those offences might lead to—what sort of pecuniary penalty what sort of fine. Indeed in some cases the fines become very significant indeed. So I think we do have a nice little case in point here where there has been a serial failure to report a suspicious transaction by Government agencies by a Government Minister and by the Prime Minister of the land. If that does not tell us that there is a case for having legislation with clause 90 and the subsequent features of that legislation then it is hard to know what other argument one could adduce for such a necessity as we have in clause 90. 
Part 3 agreed to.