Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6654. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 Sat sri akaal. Thank you for this opportunity for me to speak on this bill the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill which we are opposing. The bill introduced by the Green member Metiria Turei seeks to encourage casinos towards implementing what the Green Party considers best practice and systems to detect and prevent problem gamblers and money-laundering. The basis of the bill is that a casino as a business poses a risk in attracting and benefiting from this significant criminal activity and that casinos do not have a mechanism under which they can track and pay back money received under criminal proceeds. The Opposition believes that by passing this legislation it can ensure that the proceeds received will eventually be returned to the people from whom they have been stolen or acquired. Let me clarify this grey area. The assets once recovered are not returned back to the people; rather these are returned to the Crown. Secondly the current legislation ensures that any casino that seeks to knowingly profit from criminal activity in any shape or form can be subject to profit forfeiture. Moreover the proposed legislation should be based on evidence rather than individual thinking. Currently there is no clear evidence that casinos at present are not taking reasonable care to detect problem gambling and criminal activity. By proposing this the member wants to suggest lowering the threshold of liability on casinos to take reasonable measures and precautions to prevent criminal intent by persons who knowingly commit the crime. 
The bill does not achieve anything. It aims high by encouraging best practice. However it provides little or no framework. Rather the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 passed by the National Government already contains a civil penalisation. Under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 a profit forfeiture order may be made by a court in cases where the judge is satisfied by the evidence that a person has knowingly derived benefit from this significant criminal activity. Furthermore New Zealand currently requires casinos to protect and minimise any harm to the community due to the issue of gambling. Towards that end all the six casinos in New Zealand must have an approved Host Responsibility programme. Both the casino and the Host Responsibility programme are approved by the Gambling Commission which is an independent statutory body. As part of the Host Responsibility programme casinos in New Zealand have a policy on identifying problem gamblers which include indicators such as intensity and frequency of play and frequent use of ATM machines on the premises. 
 Casinos under the current legislation are also obliged to detect money-laundering and criminal activity. The Financial Transactions Reporting Act 1996 obligates casinos to keep transaction records and verify the identity of the people conducting occasional transactions over $10000. The Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 will come into effect in July 2013. This Act further strengthens the robust regime New Zealand has in place to monitor detect and report suspicious activity. 
In the consideration that New Zealand has comprehensive legislation in place to address the issues being discussed in this bill I do not think we require another piece of legislation. Therefore I do not support this bill.