Power Simon: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8122] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I rise to agree with Mark Burton on something today and I can say that the National Party will be supporting the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill through its first reading. I take this opportunity to make a few preliminary remarks about the background to the bill and the scope of the bill itself. At the 2005 general election it was National’s election policy to amend the Proceeds of Crime Act in order to target the economic base of organised crime. Members on this side of the House believe that the bill currently before Parliament warrants the support of the main Opposition party in order that further discussions can be held at the Law and Order Committee. 
It has to be said though that with the best will in the world the Government has taken its time to bring this legislation to the House after it introduced the Criminal Proceeds and Instruments Bill back in June 2005—something that the Minister did not spend a lot of time dwelling on during the course of his introductory remarks. That bill was intended to introduce a civil forfeiture regime that would force criminals to prove that all their property was not the proceeds of crime once the court had decided it probably was. In fact the then Minister of Justice the Hon Phil Goff said at the time that the retrospective legislation would have “an immediate impact” and would recover an estimated $14 million a year. Of course the problem with that statement of Phil Goff and with the subsequent lack of explanation from the Minister in his speech was that the Government mysteriously withdrew that bill in the following month after that statement was made before it could even be debated. So members in hearing the Government claim this afternoon that it is getting tough on those who are secondary parties to the proceeds of crime should not forget the history of the procedural muck-up that the Government is presently mopping up with the first reading of this bill today. 
One thing I do agree with the Minister on in respect of the process around this bill is that we need to hit the gangs in particular in the pocket if we are to have any impact on their activities and especially to hit those presently making supposedly millions of dollars from the manufacture and peddling of methamphetamine or the drug P. Of particular concern though linked into that is the fact that in recent weeks we have seen a huge number of P cases presently clog up the High Court. The High Court of course in many instances has been unable to get to those cases. I suggest to the Minister that one of the things National will be interested in when this bill goes to the select committee—and I am pleased it is to go to the Law and Order Committee which I sit on—is to ascertain how this legislation will work within the courts’ capabilities in order to deliver not only timely justice but also the slightly more complicated regime that is currently being proposed. I will also be interested to see how the practicalities around establishing a separate mini-bureaucracy for the enforcement of recovery will work and I see the Minister is acknowledging that that is probably a novel point in the legislation. I wait with interest to hear from the officials on that point. 
I have to say too the value of assets that the Government is confiscating under the Proceeds of Crime Act is presently dropping despite the number of cases increasing. Despite the number of cases doubling to 41 since 2002-03 the total value seized is one-third of what it was—a drop from just under $4 million to $1 million—and the average value of each seizure has dropped from about $183000 to $24000. So this legislation in that sense is timely. 
I will also be very interested to receive advice around the comment the Minister made that this legislation will help us to meet our national obligations in respect of the laundering of money. I will be interested to hear advice from the officials on that point. I did not place a lot of emphasis on that when I first read through the draft bill late last week but I look forward to receiving advice in that area. That leads to the point set out in the general policy statement that what this bill does do—and we hope it does this—is finally to put us in line with countries like Australia Ireland and the UK which as I understand it operate similar regimes to the one currently proposed. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Judith Tizard that that was a very helpful contribution! 
As I said it will be interesting to take the opportunity at the select committee stage to have the officials run through how the procedure will actually work from start to finish. Although the bill is filled with good intentions of course often the problems associated with our court system and the recovery of the proceeds of crime are far more technical and difficult than any legislation will at first perhaps predict. I think the Minister in fairness would acknowledge that these problems are not straightforward. So I will be interested to see whether the—to be fair—laudable policy statement can be translated into workable mechanisms to ensure the recovery of the proceeds of crime. 
Members should make no mistake about this legislation; even from National’s point of view some of the steps proposed in this bill are large ones. We are talking about shifting in a couple of cases the burden of proof quite substantially. That is not without merit in my view but it is a big step. I think that members of the Law and Order Committee will be interested to question officials and those who make submissions on the bill as to how that would lie against any international obligations we have in respect of civil liberties or the like. It is a discussion worth having and the only reason I say that is that if we are to take the confiscation or recovery of the proceeds of crime seriously we must balance the loss of rights of some people against the requirement of the majority of New Zealanders to make sure that gangs and the like cannot profit from crime second or third-hand. It is a delicate balance. National said at the last election that it would tackle this issue if elected. National members are convinced that this legislation at the very least starts the debate in a constructive way. We are prepared to support the referral of the bill to the select committee at its first reading. 
I note there is no regulatory impact statement in the bill and I would be interested to know whether that is because it does not need one or because one was not asked for. Perhaps the Minister would like to talk to me privately prior to the vote about exactly what the background is to that issue. I think one of the things National will have to be convinced about is the separate bureaucracy that is to deal with the issue of recovery—the separate director of the recovery body who will have the power to act independently in relation to decisions to investigate. I would hate that body to cut across the work that the Sentencing Council for example might be doing or something similar to that to occur. We would hate to have yet another body in the justice system that served to create another barrier between those seeking justice and those delivering justice on behalf of the legislature. 
On that basis and with those few preliminary remarks I say National will support this bill at its first reading. I have highlighted some areas where National does have concerns about the bill. We believe the bill is a step in the direction that National promoted at the last election which was to target the economic base of organised crime and we will be interested to see how thoroughly it is able to do that. We will also be interested to see that the mechanics involved in that particular process work not to the advantage of those who profit from crime but quite to the contrary of that to ensure that those who profit from crime find themselves dealt with more harshly than this Government has been able to do for the last 8 years.