Borrows Chester: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Borrows Chester: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2232] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on this particular part of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill and to reflect on the work of the Law and Order Committee as it was when we processed this legislation through the select committee under the wise stewardship of Martin Gallagher the chair and then later Ron Mark. A number of select committee members had very full interaction with submitters coming before the committee and amongst themselves to try to get this right. 
It was interesting to note that early on in the piece it appeared that the then Government was quite strongly in favour of the Serious Fraud Office being the recovery body for this bill; then later on it seemed to change its mind. The bill was obviously targeted at organised crime and particularly at gangs and the view of the National members early in the piece was that the New Zealand Police should be the recovery body because it was the police who had an understanding of how gangs worked—essentially of who was who in the zoo—when it came to organised crime throughout New Zealand. In actual fact the Serious Fraud Office as it was then did not have the institutional knowledge in the view of the National members to be able to fully implement and enforce the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill as it was drafted. 
 We are pleased to note that part-way through that process there seemed to be a bit of a change of heart on the part of the then Government. That was slightly embarrassing to the Labour members of the committee because they were not aware that Mr Goff had had a bit of a change of mind and that was where the bill was going. There was a bit of a lack of transparency as to why there seemed to be that reluctance but we got there in the end. 
It is sad to note that some parties in the Committee are not in support of the bill and it is a long time since I have heard a call from the Maori Party or the Green Party articulating clearly the reasons why those members are not in favour of it. I recall that the last time we were in Committee on this bill the Maori Party had a number of concerns around people with interests in multiple-owned property particularly land and around what effects for instance a restraining order or a seizure affecting one person with an interest in the land would have on the other parties with interests in the land. I know of a number of instances of cases where pockets of land have been used by certain members of a family or an interested group to grow cannabis or to store stolen property. If that land was then seized or restrained in some way it would deprive those people with an extended interest in the land from exercising that interest. Anyone would recognise that that situation is unfair particularly if those people had no knowledge of what was actually going on on the site—and the vast majority of those people would have had no such knowledge. 
But within Part 2 which we have just been discussing we have tried to explain the terms of the sections that allow for people to come and give evidence to elicit and adduce evidence and to make applications before the court. This recognises that they will have the opportunity to speak to the court and to take action against the removal or the restraint of the land or property if they had no knowledge of what had been going on there. Where for instance 20 or 50 members of a group might have an interest in the land but the criminal activity that had been going on on that land related to only one or two of them I cannot see a situation where a reasonable application would be made that that land should be taken by the Crown and that the property rights of the other interested parties should be removed. 
I understand then why the Maori Party has had those reservations about the legislation in the past but I fail to see why those reservations are maintained in the light of the ramifications of the provisions within Part 2. I have also yet to hear from the Green Party as to why it is opposed.