O'Connor DamienCRIMINAL PROCEEDS (RECOVERY) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I present a legislative statement on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I move That the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.This bill makes several amendments to the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act of 2009. While our civil forfeiture regime is highly effective these changes will further improve our success and efficiency at confiscating property derived from organised and transnational criminal activity. At a high level the four amendments provide firstly new restraint in forfeiture orders where a person is associated with an organised criminal group and their known legitimate property was not enough to acquire their assets; secondly a new disclosure of source order requiring overseas respondents to provide information on the origin of restrained property within two months or else face losing those assets; thirdly express permission for funds in KiwiSaver schemes to be subject to civil forfeiture orders just like any other managed funds; and fourthly authorisation for the official assignee to hold seized property beyond 28 days if an application for a restraining order has been made to the court as is the case with applications for forfeiture.I'd like to thank all the submitters for their input as well as thorough scrutiny from the Justice Committee. The matters highlighted by the committee show the trade-off at the heart of this issue between firstly upholding the rule of law by enabling forfeiture of illicit assets and protecting people's rights with safeguards against unjust seizure. Part of the bill that received the most scrutiny was the new type 2 assets forfeiture orders. These target the leaders and facilitators of organised crime who try to keep a distance from the offending from which they profit. I was pleased—and I'm speaking on behalf of the Minister of Justice; she was indeed pleased—to see the committee unanimously recommend the bill pass with the $30000 threshold and the definition of associate". To be clear the threshold is the minimum value of assets that can't legitimately be explained and an "associate" means a person who is more than a mere acquaintance of any member of an organised criminal group. The careful consideration by the committee gives me confidence that the provisions work together to strike the right balance.There were thoughtful submissions on this matter and I understand where both sides were coming from. To those concerned about the $30000 threshold I note that the cases involving the leaders and facilitators of organised crime targeted by these orders have been in the millions of dollars far above the $30000 and the existing forfeiture orders can still be used to seize assets below $30000 if there's proof those assets were derived from significant criminal activity.To those concerned about legitimate property being unjustly taken from people associated with members of organised criminal groups I note that the bill includes provisions to exclude people who are only a mere acquaintance of a member of an organised criminal group or have less than $30000 in unexplained property and are therefore less likely to be leaders or facilitators. Also the courts must not order forfeiture if it would be in the interests of justice to do so if—must not order forfeiture sorry just to be clear if it would not be in the interests of justice to do so which protects against seizures that would be unreasonable even if someone is associated.The committee also recommended some technical amendments to better give effect to the policy. These include for example making it clear that new orders should take account of the cumulative value of multiple assets that can't legitimately be explained and that a formal valuation is not required at the restraint stage when it might tip off a person and give them a chance to dispose of their illicit assets. We all agree that people should not be able to profit from breaking the law. The changes recommended by the committee help the bill achieve the intended effect of ensuring crime does not pay and deterring anyone from participating in organised criminal groups.The committee also made several technical recommendations on the disclosure of source orders. These orders respond to cases where police have reasonable grounds to believe that assets have been derived from significant criminal activity but the property owner is overseas. If the owner were in New Zealand it would be an offence to fail to comply with court orders investigating the source of the property; however these existing orders can't be enforced when the person is overseas. In short the new disclosure of source orders instead incentivise compliance by allowing assets to potentially be forfeited if the owner fails to respond within two months.I appreciate the technical amendments that the committee recommended to ensure the bill is legally clear and achieves its intended purpose. For example the bill is now explicit that a conviction for failing to comply with a disclosure of source order is not required before the presumption in favour of forfeiture can apply.I note that there were no substantive changes to the other two amendments concerning funds and KiwiSaver and adjusting the official assignee's authority to hold seized property.These reforms also complement the law enforcement tools in the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill both of which will help deter offending and enable the seizure of illicit profits.I look forward and I'm sure the Minister will look forward to the bill passing through the remaining parliamentary stages and I commend the bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to."