Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): Thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of New Zealand First on this the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill. I would just like to acknowledge the contribution from the previous speaker Barry Coates because it is not often that I agree with the Green Party but he did speak quite eloquently about the resourcing in regard to the implementation of this legislation and I do think that he is right in saying that. This is an insidious crime and in fact those were the exact words of the Minister of Veterans' Affairs who gave the first contribution in this the third reading of the bill. He described it as an insidious crime.I would like to congratulate the Minister actually on his initial contribution. It was a robust and worthy contribution on such a serious matter. I would also like to acknowledge the Law and Order Committee's work which I have done previously. It is not a committee I have sat on but I do commend it because the detail in this and the movement from where we were in terms of draft legislation—and the contributions from the public and industry experts were robust and quite large. So to get to this point now that we are finally here I do commend the work of our bureaucrats and the committee members.The Minister said that this crime of money-laundering is insidious. He said that it undermines the financial system and with that I completely agree. What he said though was that we already have good laws. I would disagree with the Minister's contribution. We do not have good laws currently. This is kind of perhaps best described this particular amendment bill as a good step in the right direction but it is only the second step in the right direction. He seemed to imply in his contribution that criminals would now move into these areas to launder their money implying that they had not been doing so already. But we have heard in this House this evening some particularly pointed statistics from other members on the level of crime being committed by way of money-laundering and fraud within our trust sector in particular with our lawyers real estate and an example from Skycity—an unfortunate individual case.So to the Minister: this has been an issue and in relation to this particular amendment bill these areas have been a known issue of concern for decades. I put it to the Minister that the Reserve Bank Treasury the Police and indeed New Zealand First—particularly with regard to Winston Peters—have been telling this Government ever since it came into power that this is a huge problem and we have needed action ever since National did in fact become the Government. So it was a problem 9 years ago but the way that the industry itself has been treated—this cottage trust industry has been treated—in New Zealand over the last 9 years the problem has grown I think one could fairly say exponentially.So I view this bill as an excellent example of what should be called an indictment on the Government and especially the beacon of National Government politics—and I speak of and refer to the former Prime Minister of New Zealand because he in particular drew up an impassioned defence for these lawyers and the ongoing activities of these trusts in New Zealand. He spoke of a cottage industry returning millions to the New Zealand economy. Yet we have to put this into scope and see what the balance was of this supposed good cottage industry in New Zealand. I think as previous members have noted the police investigation team into fraud did give us some particularly useful numbers. Just last year it tried to summarise the problem for us and it came up with a figure of $1.6 billion.I say to the members opposite: that is $1.6 billion of money being currently laundered in New Zealand for illegal gain whether that be through drug cartels for example—a common example and it is not an unfair example to give. We are talking about international drug cartels using New Zealand to launder money to the tune of $1.6 billion per annum. We are talking about the facilitation of financial support of terrorism. That was used as an example and a link was made within the Panama Papers to terrorism and the laundering of money in New Zealand. It is an indictment on this Government that it has taken 9 years to get to this point.The Hon Todd McClay said to the House in 2009 that there is money-laundering in New Zealand and it comes from the illegal drug trade and it is too much and we must do much more about this. He finished his contribution to the House by saying that the sooner those who use New Zealand as a place where they may be able to launder their illegally gained funds realise that we are taking this issue seriously the sooner they will stop. Those are the words of a National MP at the time in 2009. It is not unfair it is not unreasonable to say that for nearly 9 years this Government has sat back and done nothing. It is an appropriate example of a Government that says one thing and through its inaction does the complete opposite.The words from Minister Bennett that I described as being eloquent words—they were true. But I say to him that they were hollow words because of the time that it has taken to get here. This Government has done nothing until the pressure came on and boy was there a lot of pressure from the Panama Papers. The pressure was truly put on. Now we have a Government that has acted and I have spoken in argument of the Government's actions but to be fair we are here and this is good legislation actually. It is a good second step in the combating of money-laundering and the financing of terrorism.I think I might end my contribution there because it would please Mr Naylor to no end but also because it is important that the public of New Zealand know and that this House record that New Zealand First does support the legislation. It will achieve what it has to do. Actually I do have to acknowledge Mr Young perhaps in ending my contribution because he did speak well about the cost burdens to New Zealand business and we do have to give cognisance to the obligations that this legislation puts on New Zealand business and its operations. I do agree—which again is unusual—with the member. The select committee did do a lot of work there was a lot of consultation and we have finally got here. It will cost businesses more to comply but it is fair that the New Zealand public expects that New Zealand will not allow the facilitation of money-laundering and the financing of terrorism through the New Zealand economy and these industries. We have arrived at the right place. My point is it has taken way too long and I hope the members accept that but we absolutely support this legislation. Thank you.