Sharples Pita: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — First Reading 
Sharples Pita: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8130] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. If members want to find out how much a decent instrument of crime goes for these days all they have to do is to log on to TradeMe. Top-of-the-range items of crime can reach prices of $20000 or more—that was the price an aluminium baton from the 1981 Springbok Tour reached. That baton was used to beat up anti-apartheid protesters and was sold by former National MP Ross Meurant. In May 2005 a private collector in South Africa bought that baton for at least $20000. Still in the rugby field the bikini of the infamous Lisa Lewis who streaked in the midst of the All Blacks game against Ireland held at Waikato Stadium last year reached only a piffling $4010. It appears that would-be buyers objected to the sale considering that because Lisa had been found guilty of disorderly conduct the auction of her bikini therefore constituted profiting from a crime. 
The objections became even more passionate when Ben Nathan attempted to sell on eBay the bloodstained shirt he was wearing in 1997 when he bashed the America’s Cup with a sledgehammer. Indeed so virulent was the hate mail that that auction attracted the item was subsequently withdrawn with eBay saying it would not sell bloodied items. Finally in my catalogue of confiscated property earlier this year we saw TradeMe withdraw the auction of the One Tree Hill Husqvarna chainsaw from its antiques and collectables section supposedly in response to public opposition. Up until the website closed the sale the highest bid was $15000 with the auction being viewed more than 15000 times. That was the chainsaw used by Mike Smith in 1994 to chop down the pine tree on One Tree Hill Maungakiekie believing it to be a symbol of colonial oppression. 
What can we make of all that? That the crime of interrupting an international game of rugby does not score highly on the list of desirable assets. Even more ironically the police baton used to bash citizens—described in the auction as “wielded in a blaze of blood”—is valued as a collector’s item although the instrument used to challenge the criminal impact of colonisation was withdrawn from sale as was the “bloodied shirt” of Ben Nathan. Presumably both of those items were interpreted to be weapons of offence but not Ross Meurant’s baton. The bloodied weapon used against people who were protesting about the inhumanities of apartheid in South Africa had a greater value than the tool used to draw the nation’s attention to the inhumanities of colonisation in Aotearoa. One was worth at least $20000 while the other was withdrawn from sale. Another bloodied article—Ben Nathan’s shirt—was withdrawn from sale because it was bloodied yet the similarly bloodied baton was not withdrawn. Those are all examples of the double standards that are the prime objection to the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill. 
The point in raising those four different objects is simply to throw up the problems that come with regard to the interpretation of what is an instrument of crime and what is not. Meurant the House may recall was the second in charge of the infamous Red Squad at the time of the 1981 Springbok Tour. That tour was the first time New Zealand police had been issued with visored riot helmets and the long baton—tools that were able to be used against anti-apartheid protesters in a way that led to the police being frequently accused of exerting an excessive degree of force. Meurant ironically purchased his own special baton from South Africa. Yet here we are a quarter of a century later with a key instrument of that violence enabling the offender to benefit from the profits of a website sale. 
So what would this bill do differently in its repeal of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991? For a start it would probably not have led to the confiscation of the bikini the baton the sledgehammer or the chainsaw—or would it? The concept is that property that either represents the profits of criminal offending or was used to facilitate the commission of crime will be confiscated. One would be hard pushed to describe streaking on the rugby field or brawling in a pub as significant criminal activity although again that is where the question of interpretation enters into it. The questions of interpretation and judgment calls are rife in this new legislation. The bill introduces a new non-conviction - based regime that will operate independently of any criminal proceedings. That new regime causes us some concern. The bill proposes that a recovery body will be established the director of which will have the power to act independently in order to search for and seize evidence and the power to apply for confiscation orders with confiscation being able to occur not upon conviction for criminal offending but merely on the suspicion of such offending having occurred. 
We have to admit to being apprehensive about such powers in the light of advice from members of the Dunedin Community Law Centre. They have raised concern that there are not enough adequate protections for the innocent in the bill or for that matter enough instruction and direction given to the police to give confidence that such powers will be operated fairly and without prejudice. As background they referred to the considerable body of knowledge that the police have already admitted that they have used and do use discriminatory practices that impact more harshly on Maori than on other people. 
Whenever the police have been given a discretionary power it has not been used as intended. Research carried out less than a decade ago reported that Maori participants were unanimous in their perception that the police are a racist institution that perpetuates strong anti-Maori attitudes. The research  
Maori 
 Perceptions of the Police 
 by Pania Te Whaiti and Dr Michael Roguski cited experiences such as the continual stopping and questioning of Maori on the pretext of criminal suspicion when no crime has been committed; racist verbal abuse by the police which precedes or accompanies physical abuse and/or arrests; disrespect for tikanga Maori; and the minimalisation by the police of racist attacks on Maori. 
There was accompanying research  
Police Perceptions of Maori 
 that confirmed that policing behaviour differentially targets Maori. That supports Moana Jackson’s 1989 hypothesis of target amplification. In other words Maori may be more likely than Caucasians to be identified and treated as suspects by the police because of policing strategies. The data also suggests that on average almost one in four police officers have negative attitudes towards Maori and that at least two-thirds of those surveyed reported that they had heard colleagues using racist language about suspects or offenders. 
I have taken the time to expand on the cautionary advice we present about police perceptions of Maori. I was a member of the police commissioner’s advisory team and two police district advisory groups when the findings of that research came out. We worked with the commissioner to try to work with the police in terms of their attitude towards Maori and vice versa we worked on projects in the Maori community about the police. This is a hot topic of debate in the public at present not only in the light of the policing review and the implications for legislation such as the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act but also because it draws out the concerns of the Dunedin Community Law Centre specifically to do with this bill now before the House. This issue is absolutely central to the implementation of a bill that operates by vesting in the hands of the police the power to target people and confiscate property and assets upon suspicion. 
In that context “upon suspicion” has ultimately led us to vote against this bill for in it the onus of proof is reversed. Now people are automatically deemed to be guilty until they prove themselves to be innocent. We have major questions around such a precedent being established reversing the usual “innocent until proven guilty” provision. We are not convinced that there are adequate protections in the bill for the innocent nor indeed that the racist context of policing from time to time which several reports have identified has been sufficiently addressed. We are also not confident that other parties like the owners of gaming machines and casinos who themselves could be seen to benefit from the proceeds of crime the recipients of stolen goods and problem gamblers who are embezzling to feed their habit should be exempt from the provisions of this legislation. Our predominant concern is about how we can be sure that justice will be seen to be done. We do not believe that this bill is consistent with the principles of human rights and natural justice that many New Zealanders deem to be very important. Thank you Mr Speaker.