Adams Amy: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Adams Amy: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:653;Page:2607] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the third reading of the legislation that began as the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill and is now before the House as a divided bill with the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill. The bills between them as we know set up a new civil forfeiture regime that will work as a powerful enhancement to the crime-fighting arsenal of the New Zealand Police and in particular to the ability of the police to clamp down on the illegal gang activity that is of such concern to the good people of New Zealand. 
This legislation will repeal the Proceeds of Crime Act. We know that although the philosophy of that Act is agreed it has not worked in the way it was intended to. It has been shown that it simply does not have the teeth to get to where the real money is in criminal offending. That is why we have the need for these bills to come before us to replace the law we have and to ensure that the law we intended to pass has the teeth this House wanted. 
This Government has given the legislation legislative priority because we are committed to clamping down on gangs and to disrupting their behaviour. It has been said many times in this House during the passage of this legislation that we need to hit gangs in the pocket if we are to have any impact on their activities especially those gangs making millions and millions of dollars out of the P trade which we know is so destructive to our communities our children and our sense of well-being. 
I will just for a moment comment on a little part of the speech made before mine. This legislation does not address just gangs. Let us remember that. It addresses any criminal offending. If white-collar criminals are found guilty of any criminal offending then their assets and profits will be subject to this legislation just like any other criminals. Although we talk about gangs—and certainly they are a big part of the focus of the legislation—the legislation will target any criminals who are convicted it will target any criminal gains that are made and it will allow the police to trace the profits that are made from criminal offending through to wherever those profits might sit. 
It is an important part of the legislation that one does not need to have been convicted for one’s goods to be seized. Although that represents a significant departure from the existing situation it is necessary because we know that with the way complex criminal organisations often work the funds do not always sit with the person who committed the offence. The funds and profits and the property that arises from them will often need to be traced back through many layers of holding to get to where it sits. That is the nature of the way complex criminal organisations will often work. 
The regime proposed in the legislation is very simple. It allows the courts through the police as the enforcement agency to target anyone who has knowingly directly or indirectly received or derived a benefit from significant offending whether or not the person himself or herself was involved in the offending. That is an important change and it is the simple part of the legislation that will give it the teeth that the Proceeds of Crime Act before it lacked. 
When we talk about that sort of significant criminal offending we note in the provisions of the legislation that we are looking at the sort of offending that is subject to a maximum imprisonable term of 5 or more years or from which $30000 or more in value has been derived. We are not talking about the kids who shoplift from the local dairy. We are not talking about minor offending. We are talking about significant offending for which a serious penalty has been imposed by this House or from which serious money has been made. That is the sort of offending we are talking about and this legislation allows the police and the courts to look at offending that has occurred any time in the previous 7 years and then not only to trace the actual proceeds of the crime—we are not talking solely about a situation where a bank has been robbed and one can go away find a bag of money and claim it—but to follow those proceeds through into the benefits or the property that has been purchased with those funds. If $100000 worth of profit was made from the commission of an offence then $100000 worth of property can be seized from the people who have benefited from the offence. 
If we do not take these sorts of measures we will not get at the gangs where it hurts them. We will not be hitting them in the pocket. If there is one thing we have come to know it is that we have to address this thing economically. If there is one thing this House understands it is that we need to hit gangs in the pocket. We need to get at their lifeblood which is their money. This legislation is designed to do that. It takes significant steps forward in doing that. I am very happy to be supporting it. 
When I was speaking on the second reading of the legislation— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: We remember. 
AMY ADAMS 
: —I remember it well too; it was a high point—I talked about a number of the legal aspects of the legislation which I think are worth commenting on. 
I accept that this legislation in going further than has been gone before does raise the prospect of affecting people’s rights. We have to be very careful when we look at limiting or restricting people’s rights to freely hold property that we do so carefully and with due consideration. But I suggest to the House that within the legislation we have the sorts of checks and balances in place that will ensure that these sorts of powers are not used inappropriately. I for one have considerable faith in our police force and our judiciary in terms of their ability to deliver on the expectations that Parliament is setting for them and to make sure they do so appropriately. 
I have been involved in the legal system for 15 years and although I freely admit that it is a long way from perfect I do believe that we have a highly talented judiciary—a judiciary that applies the highest standards of care and proof to make sure its members make their decisions well. I think the same can be said of our police force. Given that the police force is now the agency that will be administering these powers I think it bears repeating that in this country we are very blessed to have a police force that works incredibly hard to make our society a safer place. 
I am very well aware of the lengths the police go to and I know they will be very grateful for any additional tools we can give them that will help them in their battle to crack down on gangs and illegal criminal organisations. The police know as we in this House know that the way to do that is to stop gangs and other criminals from making the sort of money they currently make from crime. That is how we will do it. Yes we can put criminals in jail for the offences the police catch them for but we know that the money supply has to be stopped. We have to turn off that tap and this legislation will be a big part of doing that. 
We have talked about the restraint provisions that allow the court to seize property for up to a year which can be acted upon by themselves or be followed up by the permanent forfeiture provision. When we went through the second reading we went through in some detail the provisions that work in around that—the matters the court will take into account in either of those orders. 
As I have said I think the bill strikes a good balance between checks and balances in relation to safeguards but equally makes no apology for the fact that it puts the necessity of clamping down on criminal organisations ahead of concerns around the rights of criminal organisations. I have no issue with that; I will sleep well at night knowing we might have taken away a right from a criminal organisation if it makes New Zealand a safer place in which to live. 
I think that when we look through the three bills that this legislation has now become we can see that National has taken the Proceeds of Crime Act given it teeth and done so as a matter of priority because this Government follows through on its promises. We do not talk big or huff and puff for 9 years about clamping down on gangs; we deliver on the promise. This bill languished on the Order Paper under Labour for 18 months and went nowhere but with this Government the National-led Government people will see real action on clamping down on gangs. This legislation is a big part of that action and I am pleased to support it.