Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I've been listening carefully to an excellent debate actually if I may say across the House and I just had a brief comment which includes a couple of questions along the way if I may regarding new section 24A as it will be within the Act so that's clause 15 within Part 1. I think this is probably my final contribution on Part 1 but my eye was drawn actually initially on seeing this—it might have been at first reading but if not then during the select committee process—to the phrase restraining order" and of course in the law restraining order usually has a different meaning and it's what you might think of of course; it pretty much does what it says on the tin which is to stop an individual having contact and you know restraining him or her from—usually him actually to be fair—having contact with another person for pretty good reasons and that's sound public policy basis for that meaning and effect of restraining order. In this legislation of course it's property itself that would be restrained so that would be the specific property of the "respondents" to use the phrase in the legislation. I'm just interested in the way that determination would be made and I see it's set out actually very clearly I think—and a bit of a nod to the drafters there and also the officials who have advised you Minister—because I think using the formulae to determine what meets the threshold as to value and also the tests involved along the way is actually really helpful. I think this is quite readable legislation and that's a very good thing. So we see that that an order restraining a particular piece of property can be made if there's reasonable grounds to suspect or believe that the respondent was an associate of one or more members and you know you can imagine how the word "associate" itself can be quite vague—others will have comments to make on that and indeed already have including my colleague and friend Harete Hipango—but those members or participants have in that capacity been involved in significant criminal activity or unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity. The unlawful benefit I guess is a bit circular in the sense we're saying it's on a level—property is illegitimate or unlawful if it was the result of unlawful activity. In a way that might sound intuitive but it's important of course to be clear in the law. So that's fine. The question that I have along the way is whether there is any guidance that the Minister can give as to what significant criminal activity might be whether that's examples or just maybe an underlying philosophy—the way that she might think that that would play out. Instinctively of course significant criminal activity—probably some very learned judge would say "criminal activity that's not insignificant" and that would be about as helpful as these things always are when they're quite circular in nature. So any guidance the Minister can give in that regard would be helpful. I guess for the sake of completeness it's worth noting that the effect of property being restrained means that it can't be flogged off in the vernacular—that is to say that it can't be disposed of or dealt with other than as provided for in the restraining order. I suppose the restraining order might set out a way in which it can be dealt with and it would be under "the custody and control of the Official Assignee" who is—you know that's an office or an institution if you like even that we're used to having control of assets for those who society or the law has deemed aren't appropriate to be handling them. Of course in an insolvency context that's reasonably familiar to practitioners of the law and some poor souls are all too familiar with it on their own account. But in any case that's obviously part of the architecture of the law that we have already. So I'm interested in the fact that the legislation is making use of these existing mechanisms and ways of thinking and really—just to reiterate before I resume my seat probably for the final time in Part 1—that I would be keen to know any guidance that the Minister can give the committee on the subject what might be "significant criminal activity" for these purposes.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Again thank you for those insightful questions and particularly with respect to the distinction that the member has observed at clause 24A(1)(b)(i) and (ii). So there for the committee's benefit: "all or any of those members or participants have as members of or participants in the group—(i) been involved in significant criminal activity at any time; or (ii) unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity". Yes on their face they could include anything and everything under the sun. In the primary legislation—the Criminal Proceeds Recovery Act 2009—at sections 5 6 and 7 but in particular 6 and 7 "significant criminal activity" is defined and it means "an activity engaged in by a person that if proceeded against as a criminal offence would amount to offending—(a) that consists of or includes 1 or more offences punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 5 years or more; or (b) from which property proceeds or benefits of a value of $30000 or more have directly or indirectly been acquired or derived." and there's a little bit more there. Then to the "unlawfully benefited" this is defined in section 7 of the primary legislation: "In this Act unless a context otherwise requires a person has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity if the person has knowing directly or indirectly derived a benefit from significant criminal activity (whether or not that person undertook or was involved in the significant criminal activity)."CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Harete Hipango—well if she still wants the call."