Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I acknowledge the Minister in the chair who as with previous stages of the bill is no doubt joining us on this side in wanting to examine the way that the bill interacts with fundamental rights and of course we understand and agree with the Government's intent in so far as it is seeking to ensure that those who undertake criminal activity shall not profit by it but also to thereby deter people from engaging in that activity in the first place. In Part 1 which I hope we're in—and I'm about to be told if we're not—Matt Doocey: Yes we are.CHRIS PENK: We are—thank you sir. In Part 1 we see the way that the definitions give effect to that intention in the bill. In relation to the human rights I just wonder if the Minister can help to place on record the fact that we are interested in a civil forfeiture regime which is to say that there are assets that would effectively be able to be confiscated. Of course property rights are important in their own right if you know what I mean but so too is the presumption of innocence in the criminal justice system. The potential connection between those two is that if a person can't justify having property that is regarded as legitimate property then according to this piece of legislation—and existing legislation in a similar space to be fair—that would be subject to confiscation. But it's important I think for us to all acknowledge and understand in this House—and to anyone applying the law in the courts of the land later—that such a determination can't be used and be imported into the criminal context to say Well therefore they must have done something wrong that would meet the burden of proof that is higher." Of course in a criminal case partly because of the onus of proof where that lies—and again we talk about the presumption of innocence and the burden being on the prosecution to make out their case and also the threshold which is of course beyond reasonable doubt in criminal matters.So I hope that the Minister will agree roughly speaking with the points that I've made. But if she has a different gloss to put on them that would be useful to know at this point as well.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I just want to acknowledge the member Christopher Penk's contribution. As always it was thoughtful and considered and albeit we stand on opposite sides of this House I always appreciate the way that he turns his mind to the fundamental rights and how we're grappling with these two particular areas. In the one sense here or on the one hand it's upholding that rule of law by enabling forfeiture of illicit assets and then on the other side of the ledger of course it's protecting people's rights with safeguards against undue and unjustified seizure. I think this is a good example of where we've grappled with how those two sets of rights rub up against each other.So to the first part I think that this entire committee will be well across the fact that criminal activity depends on the trade commodity. For a lot of the underworld so to speak it depends on the trade of illicit assets gained by illicit means and it is challenging to reach into and obtain that source of property. So in particular what the first part of this bill seeks to achieve is: making sure that we can do that we can crack down on the bosses of the crime so to speak those that are benefiting from the illicit profits but that we do it in a way that also ensures that the State does not encroach too much into the private affairs of an individual. We've had to do that by creating a series of safeguards in the bill as we have created these two new types of forfeiture audits.So those safeguards that we've included to uphold and protect people's rights are by and large four parts. One is that we have to be satisfied that the person or the associate could not have acquired those assets legitimately. We've put in a cash threshold there of $30000—the asset must be over $30000. Two that the police must prove the criteria for a new audit. That means that the person has a final opportunity to present evidence showing that there is indeed a legitimate source—and where they do that there is no worries. Third that the court must not make a type 2 assets forfeiture order unless it was satisfied that it would be in the interests of justice to do so. That sits also of course within the context of some of the broader overarching provisions that already sit within the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 so some of these things aren't new including that interest of justice test.So I hope that that helps the committee and the member to understand how we've tried to balance those sets of rights: one upholding the rule of law enabling that forfeiture of illicit assets sourced from illicit means; secondly by protecting people's rights with safeguards against unjustified seizure."