Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:17320] 
5.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Was the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand (OFCANZ) established on 1 July 2008 as scheduled; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Although I have not formally launched the agency I am pleased to advise that it is already working on its first file. 
Simon Power 
: Can she confirm that Cabinet considered papers on the proposed Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand without seeing the dissenting advice of the Serious Fraud Office despite the fact that those papers proposed subsuming the Serious Fraud Office into the new organised crime agency; and why did Ministers refuse to meet with the Director of the Serious Fraud Office before making their decision? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Considerable discussions had taken place around the establishment of the Organised and Financial Crime Agency and when Cabinet came to make a decision discussions had already been held including discussions between the Commissioner of Police and the Serious Fraud Office. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Can the Minister tell the House what steps have been taken to establish the Organised and Financial Crime Agency? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The police have worked hard to establish the Organised and Financial Crime Agency and that work includes appointing the establishment director John Beaglehole in December 2007; putting in place an establishment team which includes a detective superintendent a superintendent and a detective inspector who are working closely with the Serious Fraud Office to ensure a smooth transition; and working with other agencies to identify the most significant areas of organised crime so that taskforces can be most effective. 
Simon Power 
: Why was Cabinet denied the opportunity to take into account advice from the Serious Fraud Office that the proposal to roll it into the new Organised and Financial Crime Agency was based on “facts that are either misleading or even worse untrue” and that “some Ministers will be misled by this paper with potentially very serious consequences.”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can assure the member that Cabinet had many many discussions and meetings on the establishment of this agency including discussion on the role of the Serious Fraud Office. 
Simon Power 
: Does she agree with the former Director of the Serious Fraud Office David Bradshaw who said today that “dropping the powers to order suspects to produce documents and answer questions would delay investigations for years and would see cases dropped without the facts coming out”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: If Mr Bradshaw said that today then he does not know what powers have been transferred over from the Serious Fraud Office to the new agency. 
Simon Power 
: How does the Minister respond to the submission by Mr Bradshaw to the Law and Order Committee in which he said that during his 10 years with the Serious Fraud Office the police had never asked it to help investigate serious fraud relating to organised crime and that “If organised crime is now moving into the financial world you’d surely want at the very least the same capability and the same powers.” not less? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am staggered that Mr Bradshaw said that to the committee. Let me remind the member what powers have been transferred over. Production orders and examination orders will be carried over to the Organised and Financial Crime Agency under the Serious Fraud Office (Abolition and Transitional Provisions) Bill. The powers are essentially the same as those in the Serious Fraud Office Act but judicial approval is needed to exercise those powers. In other words one gets approval from a judge to exercise those powers. They are the same powers. If one tried to introduce those powers now one would not get them through this Parliament because there was no provision for oversight. Oversight of those powers requires a judge giving approval. They are the same powers with the same— 
Simon Power 
: They are not the same. They are a different regime. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member is screaming out they are not the same; they are the same powers with judicial oversight. What is wrong with that—to have someone else have oversight? It happens every day in the issuing of search warrants and other orders that are given. It is a protection for the people of New Zealand; it ensures that the powers are being appropriately applied. Once approval is given the powers can be applied. What does the National Party find objectionable about that—other than its wanting unbridled power?