Adams Amy: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Adams Amy: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2219] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I rise to take a call this afternoon on Part 2 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill and I comment as other members have done on how pleasing it is to be speaking in the Chamber on a bill that has such widespread support and such wide agreement on its necessity. There is recognition of the fact that our current law is simply not meeting the needs of our community hence the need to get it done. 
I also join with my colleagues on both sides of the Chamber in congratulating the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Power the former Minister the Hon Annette King and the select committee that worked on the bill. As we have heard this afternoon already there is currently a significant deficiency in the law we have around the recovery of the proceeds of criminal activity. We have heard that under current legislation we are not able to get right to the heart of the gang empire which is as has already been said in gang members’ pockets. If we cannot start effectively to get them where it hurts we will not make meaningful inroads into the problem. 
We are looking at the moment at Part 2 which is obviously the most meaty part of the bill before us. It is made up of 10 subparts and contains the real heart of the regime. It goes about setting up a new civil forfeiture regime which I think will be a powerful enhancement in the crime-fighting arsenal we currently have and which will certainly aid New Zealand’s police force in its ability to clamp down on gang activity. Let us remember at this point that gang activity is a serious concern to the people of New Zealand. Up and down this country it is one of the No. 1 issues being talked about and I think that it is no coincidence that this bill has been so widely supported. 
We have heard already in relation to this bill that the current Proceeds of Crime Act really helps us only in the simple crime situation where the guy who has pulled the trigger for want of a better term is the one who will profit from the crime. But the reality is that that is just not the way the business of complex crime-rings now works. And it is a business—that is what we need to recognise. It is a business and to effectively deal with it as a business we have to stop the money flow. That is what this bill will do. 
We need a more comprehensive system where those ill-gotten gains can be traced right through the criminal network and the important point is that that goes beyond those directly involved in the commission of the offence. That means we have to have a system that does not require the physical legal owner of the goods to have been convicted of a specific offence and that is the key aspect of the change in this bill. Part 2 clarifies the civil aspects of the regime and the property that can be restrained or forfeited or first restrained and then forfeited. We know that restraining prevents property being sold and moves it to the official assignee on the basis of there being reasonable grounds to believe that the property is tainted and that the person has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity. In general terms restraint of that property would expire 1 year after the order was made or until a forfeiture order was granted or declined. 
One of the points I want to make around forfeiture orders in particular is about their flexibility. The assets to be forfeited can be the specifically tainted assets that were involved in the crime which is provided for under assets forfeiture orders or—and this is particularly interesting—they can simply represent the value of a benefit a person has derived from significant criminal activity. This is an important hurdle to be able to overcome because we no longer need to show that the Harley Davidson the gang member in question is riding is stolen; it is enough if that item represents the value that that gang member has acquired from criminal activity. That flexibility will go a long way to addressing those deficiencies in the current legislation that I have already spoken about. 
If we did not bring into place that sort of change it would be an insurmountable evidential hurdle. I suspect that that is why we have seen relatively few successful prosecutions under the Proceeds of Crime Act we have certainly seen a decline in the numbers and value of proceeds that have been confiscated under that regime. That evidential hurdle is significantly reduced if prosecutions can go for either tainted property or property representing the value of the benefit. 
Part 2 also deals with the difficult question of who the recovery bodies should be as we have already heard talked about and following the particularly good work of the Law and Order Committee which we have already made reference to the bill now provides that the recovery body for this legislation should be the New Zealand Police. I think the consensus we have across the Committee is that that is the obvious and sensible place for that function to rest.