Mark Ron: Serious Fraud Office (Abolition and Transitional Provisions) Bill — First Reading 
Mark Ron: Serious Fraud Office (Abolition and Transitional Provisions) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16102] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 It is quite interesting listening to this debate. I will put on the record before I start that New Zealand First has agreed to support this bill to go to a select committee. I note with a degree of satisfaction that it just happens to be going to the Law and Order Committee the committee I chair. I point out that that is an interesting committee because it has seven members: three National members three Labour members and one New Zealand First member. I also point out to the House that much of the criticism I have heard here tonight from National members who have now indicated that National will vote against this legislation at this stage was not aired when this bill was first publicised. In fact since it first became apparent that this bill was going to come to the House the concerns that are now being expressed by the National debating team today have simply revolved around the concerns that New Zealand First raised right at the outset. I am left blinking and wondering because Mr Power did not exactly express those concerns then. But I have a sneaking suspicion that he has had a bit of counsel along the way somewhere; he certainly now recognises one of the concerns that New Zealand First had right at the outset. 
We understand that this is the first piece of legislation within a package of legislation that is all aimed at dealing with organised crime serious fraud money laundering and the recovery of assets gained through the illicit activities of organised crime—recovery of assets legislation. I guess both Mr Power and I were a little bit gobsmacked when we had the recovery of the proceeds of crime bill come to the Law and Order Committee because contained within that bill we found that the recovery body designated in that legislation to be responsible for taking action to confiscate the assets of criminals was to be the Serious Fraud Office. Mr Power and I sort of looked at each other; I do not know whether we were looking at each other for the same reason but I think we had thoughts going through our heads as to why the Serious Fraud Office would be doing that task. 
I guess that one of the other reasons New Zealand First did a double take is that quite frankly everybody knows that the relationship between my leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters and the Serious Fraud Office over the years has not been a very comfortable one for the office. The battles he has had and the statements he has made over the years in respect of its failure to investigate and its failure to prosecute certain matters relating to the wine-box inquiry are legendary and are infamous. The clashes at the select committee table when it was alleged that the head of the Serious Fraud Office was getting advice from a Minister are well documented and people could be forgiven for wondering why New Zealand First would have any interest in or any concerns whatsoever about the notion the concept the idea of disestablishing the Serious Fraud Office because it is an organisation the Rt Hon Winston Peters has often said he has absolutely no faith in. 
New Zealand First has been told by the Government that it believes there are many reasons now why the Serious Fraud Office has passed its use-by date and its services are no longer required and there are reasons why its functions should be picked up by the police. The Government believes that the police have developed a capability with the finance intelligence agency and that they are quite capable of picking up this role. The Government believes that the Serious Fraud Office has become a little insular and a little isolated and that it has about 25 new cases a year but that some do not get pursued. That is funny because in all the time I have sat on the Law and Order Committee one of the things I have been gravely concerned about is the number of fraud cases that have been taken to the police but never ever picked up. I have three major cases sitting on my desk in my office right now—one of them going back to the Tui Cooperative Dairy Co. days—cases that the police have been repeatedly requested to investigate but they have failed to do so. They have been requested to prosecute but they have shown little interest in doing so. 
So we get to this point with some reservations and some concerns. New Zealand First has agreed to move this legislation forward to the select committee but we will be looking for a broad view by all participating members of the committee as they look at the total issues and seek to assure the public—by either endorsing the legislation as it is currently written or amending it—that this new body will be able to perform the functions the tasks for which it is going to be made responsible. We are concerned about the denigration of the powers of the investigating body—the Organised and Financial Crime Agency. I think the bottom line is that although we understand the concerns that have been expressed by the Minister today and by other people as to the range of powers there now should be within the police fold or the range of powers that should now be vested in the commissioner through this body we also do not underestimate the need for such powers when investigating high-level white-collar crime money laundering and organised crime on this scale and at this level. We understand the Minister’s reason for having judicial oversight of the exercising of those powers but at this point I think it would be fair to say that we want to discuss and pursue those matters further. 
It worries us that on television tonight there was a lady from Tauranga—90 years of age with the name of Gwendoline—who stands to lose her home as a result of Blue Chip’s activities. It interests us that the allegations and accusations are swirling around Mr Bob Clarkson right now. We wonder why he is not now to stand in Tauranga but we know that many people in Tauranga are talking about him and Blue Chip. We saw a lady on television tonight who is losing her home and we wonder to what level and depth the Serious Fraud Office has already commenced its investigations into Blue Chip’s activities. So the National Party and Dr Worth are quite right to highlight the need for Blue Chip to be investigated thoroughly by a fully competent body whose powers have not been in any way diminished. 
New Zealand First proudly stands by the fact that its reputation has been as a party that wants to clamp down on and wipe out organised crime as much as possible. We want to see credible law enforcement agencies that are empowered to do so. We believe that for far too long the police have not lived up to their obligations and responsibilities with regard to investigating and prosecuting fraud. So we want to be absolutely assured in supporting such a bill as this one that the police will pursue with vigour their responsibilities and that we will not continue to hear in the future the same sorts of excuses and the same sorry tales that we have been hearing for the last 10 years about police failure to investigate fraud. 
This legislation will place a serious and onerous task upon the New Zealand Police—a task we do not expect them to shrink from. If in the examination of this bill and in the hearing of submissions New Zealand First is in any doubt whatsoever as to the commitment the capacity and the drive of the New Zealand Police to investigate and prosecute serious fraud with vigour then there is a very strong possibility that we will not support this bill.