Mallard Trevor: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:6952] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Well this situation is rather unusual and it actually takes me back to the days when I was first a member of Parliament and the Committee stage used to be a lot less formal a lot more back and forth. There was a lot more debate with colleagues and there were often amendments from the floor. I think those were more civilised and probably less partisan days and I think we are seeing a little bit of that now. I do want to disagree with my colleague who sees the bright side of life on every occasion. I think that on this occasion he has been far too generous. 
My colleague has gone through the Melissa Lee case and he has shown the repeated appropriation of money—into profit into loss and into profit—that should have been returned to the Crown. There have been a number of instances here so we have established that we have money that has been misappropriated—it has been appropriated wrongly; it has gone into the profit. 
The question then is what happened to that money after that and I think that is where the member and I might start to differ. What I know is that if it has been paid to Melissa Lee as part of dividends and she has spent it offshore then depending on the reporting levels of this it is misappropriated money—money that has been obtained in a way that it should not have been and has then been taken offshore. My view is that unless the levels of reporting of this are so low then the legislation has been triggered. If it is not the case then the member has something to answer for because he along with a number of other members of the select committee did the work to ensure that this legislation does in fact catch people. 
I might go back to clause 104 later because it deals with thresholds and with failing to report “cash over applicable threshold value moved into or out of New Zealand”. But going back to the time limit for prosecution in clause 102 I compliment the select committee because it— 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: 3 years isn’t it? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The committee decided on 3 years—3 years after the time when the matter of the information arose—and that is a more standard approach rather than the 6 months originally. But is that long enough? 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: It should be 5 years. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is a question of whether it should be 5 years. In the case of Melissa Lee if the money that has been wrongly appropriated has in fact gone offshore it would be 5 years—and it is accepted by Melissa Lee that it has been wrongly appropriated. Melissa Lee has accepted that she has wrongly appropriated money. She calls it an error. Some people say that when one is the managing director and the chief executive of a company one takes responsibility for the errors. When one is drawing money down as a result of having that extra money to draw then it is particularly suspicious. But I am assured by my colleague that this goes back 4 or 5 years. 
I want to say that it is good to share some of the grief with my former colleague Steve Maharey who was the Minister of Broadcasting for part of that time and was also responsible for it. What is the current Minister’s name—the cigar-smoking one? 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Jonathan Coleman. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I also share some of the grief with Jonathan Coleman who is the current Minister of Broadcasting and the person responsible. 
I want to know whether clause 108 applies in this case. Clause 108 relates to persons who provide false or misleading information in connection with a cash report. If people have some money that they have gained through misappropriation in their pocket or handbag as they leave the country and they do not declare their sources in the way they are meant to is that caught by this provision? That is a very real question. Are they caught by this provision if they put the money on a credit card? What about if they put it in a TAB account? Actually no—a TAB account would not work offshore. But those are the sorts of ways that people launder money around the country and if people take that sort of approach are they caught by that provision? My final comments go and this is— 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: It’s certainly not my final comment. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No it is my fourth call on this particular set of clauses. 
My final comments go to new clause 112A which deals with the duty of persons with knowledge of computers. I ask whether the legislation goes too far or not far enough. It depends on which approach one takes.