Pillay Lynne: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Pillay Lynne: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2217] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill and to voice my support for it. As other members have acknowledged before me this bill was originally of course a bill introduced by the previous Labour Government. I do not get the opportunity to do this very often but on this occasion I will congratulate the National Government on showing some good judgment. I have heard other members speak about the principle behind this bill which is that crime simply should not pay. I think everyone in this Chamber would agree with that very sound and precious principle. 
The Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 allowed the Crown to confiscate profits made from a crime after someone was convicted but we all know that those profits can be spread among many people and not all of those people can be convicted. I might use organised crime as an example of that. This bill addresses that problem and gives the Crown the power to confiscate the profits and assets obtained. It will allow us to tackle gang leaders who although they do not get their own hands dirty certainly enjoy the benefits of illegal activity. We think this bill strikes an appropriate balance between targeting the proceeds of crime and protecting personal and property rights. I also note that Australia Ireland and the UK have passed similar laws quite recently. 
Two orders are established to deal with removing the profits of crime from a person. One is the forfeiture order which deals with a person’s unlawful income. It also targets the property used to commit the crime. For example if a farm is used to grow marijuana then that property will be termed an “instrument of crime”. A recovery body is also established under the bill and that will be part of the Organised and Financial Crime Agency. The New Zealand Police will still be responsible for the confiscation of instruments of crime but the bill will help the two agencies to carry out their roles by giving them a broad suite of powers to search for seize and restrain the proceeds of crime. All in all the bill is a very constructive one which goes a long way towards addressing what was missing before it came into the House. 
 Like the previous speaker the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Power I would also like to acknowledge the Law and Order Committee which undertook a robust—I think that was the Minister’s term—analysis of the bill and also under the very excellent guidance of its chair Martin Gallagher gave some very constructive suggestions which were taken up. Certainly maintaining that the Police should be the recovery body defining the owner of the property extending that definition to include those who may have an interest in the property and defining the term “instrument of crime” are suggestions that show this was a very hard-working committee as I am sure the Minister will agree. 
Other recommendations from the committee include the clarification of the circumstances in which property was acquired after a restraining order was made the clarification of the ability of third parties to have property separated from a restraining order the deletion of the powers of the director of the recovery body to issue a notice requiring production of documents and alignment with other legislation regarding immunity for people who disclose information on money laundering. I think that was a very important contribution that the select committee made. The committee also recommended that the Inland Revenue Department be permitted to provide the police with information for the purpose of civil recovery. I think there were other recommendations that covered asset forfeiture only interests on a title of the Crown and the duration of production orders being shortened to 30 days. The retention of documents for as long as is necessary only was a very common-sense suggestion and I am sure the Minister will agree with me on that point. The disclosure in the application for the search warrant of any other applications made and the provision that tax advisors are protected with professional privilege were other recommendations of the select committee. 
All in all after what was already a good draft bill from the Labour Government the committee amendments and suggestions and the common sense that has prevailed have gone a long way towards making this a very good bill that will really address justice and as I said before really reinforce the principle that we all hold dear which is that crime should not pay. Thank you very much Mr Chairperson.