Alexander Marc: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Alexander Marc: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:11717] 
9.  
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is he satisfied that the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 is proving successful in arresting the growth of criminal gangs? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No and there is limited evidence internationally that such legislation by itself actually has that effect. What I do want to see however is reform of the existing legislation to maximise the extent by which assets can be stripped from gangs and organised crime—assets that clearly derive from criminal activity. The process is already under way and should result later this year in new legislation both strengthening conviction-based confiscations and introducing civil forfeiture. 
Marc Alexander 
: Why is it that for the past 8 years the courts have been asked for only 25 forfeiture penalty or restraining orders a year for the detention of assets belonging to gangs and other offenders when we know for example that the Mongrel Mob alone has around 6600 members; and how is it possible for this soft-on-crime Government to claim that it is doing anything to combat the wealth growth and increasing organisation of such gangs when it is seizing such a pathetic amount of their assets? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are two types of assets that can be confiscated under the legislation. One relates to tainted property which is property that has been used in the commission of a crime. In fact 122 forfeiture orders have been issued on that. The one that has been used less often is the pecuniary penalty order which has been used only 14 times. That is to confiscate the proceeds of the crime itself. It is because of my discontent with that level of confiscation that I am currently considering a civil forfeiture regime. Officials have been in Australia last month looking at that. Next month I will be in the United Kingdom and Ireland to look at the regimes in those respective countries. 
Martin Gallagher 
: How much has been confiscated under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 over the last 7 years and how does this compare with amounts collected or taken in under various overseas models? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Assets in the vicinity of $8.3 million have been returned to the Crown under the Proceeds of Crime Act since 1995 but interestingly the biggest-ever return under the Act was last year when $3.7 million of assets were taken. That sounds OK but if we compare it with New South Wales for example which is slightly larger than us we see that it took in excess of $84 million in New Zealand dollar terms under its civil forfeiture regime. That clearly demonstrates to me that there is scope for changing the legislation and looking at civil forfeiture as a way of bringing more assets in from organised criminal gangs. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister confirm that he asked for his first report on the Proceeds of Crime Act in early 2000 and that every year he has been in office he has promised to introduce amendments by Christmas and that he has done it again this year; and is this not just another case of with Mr Goff Christmas never comes? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I cannot confirm what the member said because it is simply not true. What I can confirm is that in 9 long years of a National Government not only did National not introduce decent proceeds-of-crime legislation but it did not even promise to. Nor did it put into effect anything that might have led the country down that path. It was 9 years of doing nothing and now that member criticises a Government that is being proactive in this area and will act on it. 
Ron Mark 
: Has the Minister ever heard of Veronica Guerin the Irish investigative journalist who was assassinated on 26 June 1996 by Dublin’s gangsters as a result of her fiercely exposing organised crime and the assets that criminals accrued; if so why given the clear successes of the Irish Proceeds of Crime Act and the Irish Criminal Assets Bureau which was set up in 1996—4 months after Ms Guerin was assassinated—is he still dithering and wasting time? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No I am not familiar with that particular case. I am however familiar with the fact that the Irish have run a regime for a considerable period of time as has New South Wales. It seems to me that the decision to be made is the nature of the regime to be put in place. I want to look at the existing experience of countries that have run those regimes which is most effective and which will best fit New Zealand’s circumstances. That is what the ministry and I are currently engaged in doing. 
Marc Alexander 
: What specific range of proposals will the Government initiate as the present Proceeds of Crimes Act is in no way useful given that it nets a mere $280000 per month while a burgeoning 95 percent gang-controlled $800 million P industry is swamping our cities and killing our kids? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think the member overstates the case in saying that the Proceeds of Crime Act is in no way useful. He heard me just a moment ago indicate to the House that it has returned $8.3 million over the last 7 years. Is it good enough? I have also answered that question—the answer is no. Will it stop the production of methamphetamine? Unfortunately notwithstanding the promotions that have come out of Western Australia about the money that has been seized which is actually only about $2.9 million there is no evidence from any of these regimes that such legislation stops criminals engaging in criminal activities. What it does is take their assets but we also have to have proactive policing to deal with the criminals. That is why we have put $6 million into squads of police to crack down on meth labs. That is why we closed down 200 of them last year. 
Marc Alexander 
: When will the Minister concede that ordering his Ministry of Justice to tinker with the Proceeds of Crime Act will never be an effective substitute for real get-tough-on-gangs measures such as the gang asset forfeiture regime based on the Western Australian model as promoted by United Future? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Unfortunately the member did not listen to any of my preceding answers. I indicated that not only would a conviction-based regime be strengthened because there are inadequacies in it but that we are also considering a civil forfeiture regime. In terms of what model we use the Australian Federal Government looking at both Western Australia and New South Wales decided to enact federally the New South Wales model which has operated more effectively over a longer period of time. That is one of the models I am looking at at the present time. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to table three documents. The first document is a profile of Veronica Guerin 
  
which might please the Minister. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: The second document is a press release giving details of the annual report of the Criminal Assets Bureau of Ireland. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: The third document is an article dated 6 February 2003 about the Irish Criminal Assets Bureau crackdown on criminals. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table reports of the Minister of Justice Mr Goff studying the proceeds of crime legislation for the years 2000 2001 2002 2003 and this year. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.