Chauvel Charles: Serious Fraud Office (Abolition and Transitional Provisions) Bill — First Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Serious Fraud Office (Abolition and Transitional Provisions) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16100] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 It is disappointing to hear that the National Party appears to have changed its position on the Serious Fraud Office (Abolition and Transitional Provisions) Bill but I suppose it is no surprise given that positions seem to change quite regularly on that side of the House. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: They will change it again by tonight. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Well it is to be hoped as my friend and colleague Mr Gosche says that the position will change back again to what it was in September 2007 when Dr Worth the associate justice spokesperson for the National Party— 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Who? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: That is probably a slightly unfair question to ask about Mr Worth. He is often heard speaking late at night in the House. But he said: “Organised crime spans the width of the criminal activity spectrum. It is a good plan to scrap the Serious Fraud Office in favour of an Organised Crime Agency within the New Zealand Police.” 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Prior to the House rising for the dinner break I noted that Dr Worth the associate justice spokesperson for the National Party had initially expressed support for this bill. It is delightful to see Dr Worth in the House and I am sure he will take a call to reiterate that support. Before he does I thought I would make a few brief comments about the bill as introduced which I understand is going to be referred when it passes its first reading to the Law and Order Committee. Regrettably that is not a committee of which I am a member so I will not have the pleasure of being able to consider and deliberate on the legislation but I do want to commend the bill to the House. Clearly the nature of fraud has changed since the original Serious Fraud Office was established in 1990. Factors such as globalisation the Internet and identity fraud on a far greater scale allowed by technology than was ever envisaged previously mean that the threat posed by fraudsters warrants a new and bold approach. 
It is interesting to note that the United Kingdom and Australia have already taken steps to modernise their laws relating to the detection and prevention of serious fraud. As early as 2004 the United Kingdom Government proposed modernising its fraud laws to better equip police and prosecutors to deal with the challenge of combating fraud in the 21st century. The reforms were designed in the United Kingdom to address the concern that the law as it stood focused on specific frauds and failed to adequately take account of the wide range of possible fraudulent activity or to keep pace with rapidly developing technology. The responsible Minister noted at the time that the Government was aiming to create laws that were effective and responsive to the society we live in. The proposals would overhaul the law to simplify it cast its net wider and make it easier to secure just convictions. 
So it was that in 2005 the Home Office produced a report summarising community concerns regarding modern forms of crime and noted that these would be reflected in the development of a serious organised crime and police bill. That report specifically acknowledged that modern fraud is often committed across national borders using advanced technology. In March last year the United Kingdom Government put forward a further proposal to amend and enhance the powers of the United Kingdom’s Serious Fraud Office in foreign bribery cases. The Australians followed in 2005; in October the Australian Taxation Office completed an analysis of trends in tax evasion and serious fraud in Australia noting the emerging threat of identity crime. The Australian Crime Commission which is the body of the Commonwealth charged with countering organised crime in Australia produced a report earlier this year on current trends in organised crime. That report notes the growing influence of transnational organised crime international money laundering identity crime and high-tech cyber-crime and it highlights the importance of collaboration between Government agencies to combat such crime. 
When the provisions of this bill are considered it is obvious that this legislation is designed to ensure that New Zealand is similarly well equipped to combat these new types of fraud. The development of a new Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand offers a new mechanism to increase the attention given to serious and complex fraud tacking on both domestic and foreign fraudsters. Clearly the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand will need to work with national and international law enforcement and intelligence agencies as well as with border agencies the regulatory authorities the financial authorities and a range of other Government agencies. It is good to see that the agency will be hosted by the New Zealand Police and headquartered in this fine city of Wellington. 
With those words I welcome the legislation. I commend it to the House and eagerly anticipate Dr Worth’s speech in support of it.