McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair; thank you Minister; and just if I may also thank the officials that are here because this was a very complicated bill that we went through and they spent quite some time trying to explain to us how it was going to be effected. So while they're in the room I'd just like to acknowledge them.Minister at clause 2 on the commencement date we have within this bill various different dates of when it will come into force. Some of it will be by Order in Council others will be 12 months after Royal assent and there's also a number that come into effect on the day after the Royal assent. These clauses—the ones that will come into effect about a week after the third reading—relate to transitional settings to KiwiSaver forfeiture orders returning of property seized but not subject to forfeiture disputed ownership and it's also about when a self-incriminating statement can be used and when it can't and when there are exceptions.I'll begin with the KiwiSaver forfeiture orders Minister. Can you please advise if I am correct in understanding this scenario—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member is making comments around the commencement so we will come back to that in the debate but I'd ask her to confine her comments to Part 1—clauses 3 to 42—and Schedule 1.Hon Kiritapu Allan: I will come back to that though in that part.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you.NICOLE McKEE: OK thank you. May I carry on—may I seek another call?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I'm inviting the member to address Part 1 of the bill. The member will certainly have another call should she wish.NICOLE McKEE: Thank you Madam Chair. With the KiwiSaver forfeiture orders can the Minister advise if I'm correct in understanding this particular scenario? If you could picture a hard-working mum with a criminal son. She has $100000 in her KiwiSaver account. Her son who is involved an organised crime deposits $50000 into his mum's KiwiSaver account in cash in an effort to hide it so mum now has $150000 in her KiwiSaver and it's earning interest. Investigations are held and mum is found innocent of any wrongdoing but there is a forfeiture order on her KiwiSaver now as it's been proven that while $50000 of it was a gift it wasn't legitimate.So my first question Minister: can you confirm that all proceeds found to be legitimately contributed to mum's KiwiSaver account will be returned to her along with all the interest that she has earned and that there is indeed a short time frame for which this is to occur—that reintroduction of the money back to her account?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair and I thank the member Nicole McKee as well. I know that she's turned her mind diligently to these issues and the fact of that example is a clear instance where you are thinking about the practical ramifications of the provisions that we're introducing and I just want to acknowledge that.To clarify using that example that we've just heard the $100000 in there—that's mum's legitimate hard-working cash; $50000 from her son ill-gotten gains; and together it's $150000. The way that that would need to be separated out is that the $50000 plus the interest that's accrued on that $50000 would need to be returned. That $100000 plus the interest gained on that is the rightful property of the mother.I recall in my original discussions with officials actually using a very similar example. The origin of this particular KiwiSaver provision was an interesting one. It was based on a case—I'm not sure if that was provided to the committee but it was provided on a particular circumstance where a senior public servant had committed fraud. They had then transferred that fraudulent money into a KiwiSaver account and then there was no way for the police or for the State to be able to reach it essentially.So first of all it's not a broad way of hiding ill-gotten gains that we're aware of but it was a particular circumstance which created an unjustified result: in the first instance the resource was taxpayer money and secondly the State couldn't recover it. So that was what these circumstances were to respond to. But from my discussions with the officials I was satisfied that—as you've rightly described the situation—the ill-gotten gains would be the subject of the forfeiture but the gains that are rightly sought by the mother would be retained as her property.