Dalziel Lianne: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — Second Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1373] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am very pleased to see that the Government has seen the error of its ways and decided to progress this very very good bill in its 100 days of action. I thank the Government for including the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill in its 100 days of action. It has turbocharged the bill; it is just great to see that. 
I am glad to see that this Government rates this bill as more worthy than the measures it has been talking about in the media over the last couple of days measures that it has signalled are scheduled for debate tomorrow under urgency. Apparently we are getting boot camps and apparently we are getting the “three strikes and you’re out” rule but not for a very long time. I think that one has a 20-year implementation period. 
Chris Hipkins 
: But not for Gerry Brownlee. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I think Gerry Brownlee is on more than his three strikes. I do not know how many strikes the Government will allow Gerry Brownlee but it is definitely more than three. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Boot camp! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: He might be at boot camp as we speak or at least applying for it as he works studiously at his table across the Chamber. The point I want to make is that the Government has at least brought forward a positive measure because we know that those two measures that I have mentioned already the boot camps and the “three strikes and you’re out” rule are internationally condemned as failed models—absolutely condemned. So it is great to see that legislation introduced by the very good Labour-led former Government is now proceeding through the House at a reasonable pace. 
I say to the Minister Simon Power that if he would like to include this bill in the urgency motion tomorrow then we could get it through the rest of its stages and it could be implemented very very quickly. That might make us think that the Government really is committed to 100 days of action rather than to smoke and mirrors and the implementation of populist ideas that everyone in this House knows do not work anywhere in the world. But this idea does work in many places in the world. I understand that Australia Ireland and the UK have all passed similar laws in respect of the proceeds of crime allowing the Crown or the State to confiscate the profit made from a crime after someone is convicted of a crime and that profit has been spread around others who have not been convicted. I guess that is what makes organised gangs the target of this bill. 
The bill is very much based on the principle that crime should not pay. I will tell an anecdote to the House. I remember my husband having a conversation with a relatively well-known person of disrepute in my patch in Christchurch. My husband went to his house—it was a very good house an amazing house; it was stunning—and said to the guy: “Gee you’ve got an amazing house here.” This guy said: “Well who who who would say that crime d-d-does not pay?”. He has a stutter. Now everyone in Christchurch knows exactly whom I am talking about. 
But the point is that crime must not pay. This is actually where deterrence works. It is not only the risk of getting caught but also the consequences of getting caught that determine the behaviour of those involved in criminal activities in the drug-related area and also in white-collar crime. This is an area where deterrence does work. Addressing the ability of anyone to profit from the proceeds of crime acts as a deterrent. 
We can go much further than just the confiscation of property associated with direct criminal activity. This legislation gives the Crown the power to confiscate profits and assets obtained through criminal activity but instead of basing that power purely on the criminal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” which is required for conviction itself it bases that power on the civil standard of proof which is “the balance of probabilities”. That means that this bill will allow the Government to tackle gang leaders who do not like getting their own hands dirty but certainly enjoy the benefits of their fellow gang members’ illegal activity. This bill finds an appropriate balance between targeting the proceeds of crime and protecting personal and property rights. 
As I said earlier this legislation appears in other jurisdictions so New Zealand’s adoption of this approach shows that it is an effective mechanism and one that produces real results. 
Looking at the Law and Order Committee report on the bill we see that it spent a considerable amount of time talking about where the recovery body might be located. In fact the bill as introduced talked about a recovery body rather than about the police or the then Serious Fraud Office. There was some debate about where it would be appropriate to locate the recovery body. Members of the House may recall that we had a debate as to whether the Serious Fraud Office should be relocated within the New Zealand Police and the former Government subsequently decided to do that. The incoming Government has decided to overturn that decision so it is probably a jolly good thing that the select committee decided to include references to the New Zealand Police because that removes all doubt as to where the body should lie. 
I think the committee did a very good job on this bill. Actually I do not know who chaired that committee. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Martin Gallagher. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Was it Martin Gallagher? Well I am sure that Martin Gallagher is tuned into the House tonight and I congratulate him for an excellent piece of work in considering this particular bill. The reason the bill is good is because by having the police take up the responsibility for enforcement we already have in place the protection of an independent complaints regime through the Independent Police Conduct Authority. That is an excellent consideration by the committee in terms of ensuring that the authority could respond to other issues that were raised in submissions. 
A serious issue raised in submissions was whether there would be sufficient oversight essentially because of the change of the onus of proof and of spreading the net a little wider as it were in terms of recovering criminal proceeds. 
Another issue dealt with in the select committee was the whole question of restraining orders. I think the select committee also tidied up that issue to make it clear that the type of property in question could be restrained only by the operation of an earlier restraining order if that order explicitly applied to subsequently acquired property. I know that that sounds like a relatively technical detail but I think the select committee again got it right in the recommendations it made. 
The final thing I will refer to is the question of professional privilege. This is a serious matter. The question relates to the recommendation of the select committee to insert new clause 167A “to protect tax advisors with a form of professional privilege similar to that available under the bill for the legal profession.” The select committee considered “that this privilege should be similar to that afforded by the Tax Administration Act whereby an advisor must be subject to a code of conduct and disciplinary process and belong to an approved advisory group which is defined in the Act. Since New Zealand’s tax system is one of voluntary compliance we recommend protecting tax advisors to maintain their good cooperation.” 
Again that is very helpful because the question of the proceeds of crime is integrally linked to the amount of money a person actually had compared with the amount he or she declared for tax purposes. That is often the way of resolving the question of what the proceeds of crime are. 
I feel that the select committee has done excellent work on this bill. Again I pay tribute to the Government for picking up and progressing this excellent legislation and I encourage it to pick up the bill again tomorrow under the urgency motion and pass it through its remaining stages so it can take effect as soon as possible.