Pillay Lynne: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Pillay Lynne: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:653;Page:2604] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to join with Simon Power in acknowledging the contribution of Martin Gallagher in the Law and Order Committee. Indeed I know the select committee put very careful consideration into the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill now divided into the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill and spent a lot of time pondering and giving generally a lot of time—time very very well spent. The result is I think that we have much-improved legislation before this House and in previous speeches in this House I have acknowledged that. I think it is probably worth looking at some of the changes that the select committee took the time to recommend which were accepted and made the legislation more effective. 
Firstly the committee recommended that the police be the recovery body—a very sensible recommendation—and also defined the owner of property to include those who might have an interest in it. I would really like to speak a little more on that because that means that third parties who may have a stake in forfeited property have protection under these bills and that is excellent. 
They can apply to have their stake excluded from any forfeiture order. The exclusion could apply to business relationships with the property owner such as a bank or the dependants and spouses of criminals because they may be the innocent victims of forfeiture orders. The deletion of clause 111 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill which allows the director of the recovery body to issue a notice requiring the production of documents is a common-sense change. New clause 222A permits the Inland Revenue Department to provide the police with information for the purposes of civil recovery. 
The Law and Order Committee’s recommendations have strengthened the legislation. It goes a long way in giving out a very very clear message that crime does not pay. A criminal conviction will no longer be required in order to confiscate property that represents the proceeds of crime or the value of unlawfully derived income. The legislation allows us to tackle gang leaders because although they may not get their hands dirty they enjoy the benefits of the illegal activities of their fellow gang members. People who perhaps are not directly affected can derive a benefit from this legislation. The legislation achieves an appropriate balance between targeting the proceeds of crime and protecting personal rights and property rights. I note that Australia Ireland and the UK have all passed similar legislation and that it is working very effectively. 
It is a pleasure to speak in support of the legislation and commend it to the House. Members have acknowledged that the original bill was introduced by the Labour Government. Perhaps it would have been good to see it go through within the National Government’s first 100 days of action but it did not see that as a priority. Rather it thought the passing of the “90 day ‘sack-at-will’ bill” was a priority. We do not share that view but on this occasion it is a pleasure to stand and commend the legislation to the House. Thank you.