Ardern Jacinda: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Jacinda: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2218] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill. As speakers who have gone before me have pointed out this bill is supported by Labour. I think it gives some contrast to the bills that we have previously debated in the House around the consequence of gangs in our communities. I also think it goes beyond some of the more tokenistic legislation that we have seen coming through this Chamber to date so I am pleased to be debating this bill. I am also pleased that the— 
Hon Simon Power 
: Tokenistic? It took me 3 years to draft it! 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I say to the Minister of Justice that I would not call this bill at all tokenistic. I also point out that we are pleased that there is some acknowledgment over the seriousness of the shift in onus which the Minister has already spoken about and which is probably the most substantial part of this bill. 
We are debating Part 2 of the bill which deals with the forfeiture regime. We have already heard about the primary aims of the bill and that is the means by which we extend the confiscation of property used to facilitate or commission a crime beyond those solely convicted—and for good reason. The Hon Clayton Cosgrove has already talked about the comparisons that we can make with New South Wales and the legislation that has been used there. I would like to make some comparisons regarding the monetary difference that this legislation could make. In New Zealand in the past 12 years $14.3 million has been paid to the Crown through assets seized on the basis of criminal activity. In comparison taking into account the different jurisdictions that we are dealing with New South Wales has seized more than $100 million in the past 14 years. It is a comparable time period and it shows a significant difference in the size of the criminal proceeds that have been recovered. 
Our existing law at that time had been criticised as being too weak because of the requirement of proof that assets were acquired by the profits of crime so the onus was primarily on the Crown in that regard. I reiterate that shifting the onus on to the criminal to prove that those assets were legally obtained is a significant shift and one that will make a marked difference to the way this legislation operates in our jurisdiction. In shifting the onus it is still important to have a certain number of standards around such a procedure. We are talking about those who have not necessarily been convicted through the criminal courts but we are still giving the Crown the ability to seize their assets. This bill does that very well as the bill still requires a civil standard of proof. 
 The Law and Order Committee deliberated for some time on two additional protections that are in the bill and I will dwell on a couple of those important features for a time. One is around the instruments of crime. The bill stipulates that these are liable for forfeiture only after criminal conviction. This is in order to reflect the reality of some of the seizures that we might see in a New Zealand context. For instance it may be unknown to a farmer that marijuana is being grown on his or her property and we have seen that in some parts of New Zealand where forestry is particularly thick. I am thinking of parts of the Bay of Plenty and around the Rotorua area; this might occur in some of those areas. I would love to hear the member from that area take a call on this issue and I am sure applaud this bill also. 
This bill is not intended to unduly punish those who have not been part of some kind of criminal activity so there are protections in it to make sure that that does not occur within the New Zealand context. I think those are important tests. 
The bill also looks at the issue of third parties. On both sides of the Chamber we acknowledge that there is the potential for third parties to be unfairly brought into the seizure of criminal property when that may not be intended. They may have a stake in forfeited property but it is not known to them that this criminal activity has occurred. This bill in the forfeiture regime provisions gives the ability for the situations of dependants banks spouses and innocent victims to be considered and for them to be able to make appeals to have their part of an asset excluded. 
I will dwell very briefly on some parts of Part 2 that demonstrate well the gains that have been made through this bill. Clause 13 lays out that no identifiable owner is required for certain proceedings relating to specific property. This will give additional speed to the Crown when dealing with forfeiture and it addresses a problem that was raised back in 2007—and highlighted I think by the media—that it can take decades and beyond to resolve the issue of or to fully confiscate land that is identified as being involved in criminal activity due to the very lengthy process that has to be undertaken once land is seized. That is one mechanism that could move a little more swifty. Clause 16 “Quashing criminal proceedings does not impact on civil forfeiture” demonstrates again the considerable shift from a criminal test; it allows civil standards to be used around our forfeiture regime. Also clause 17 allows for multiple forfeiture orders. Clause 17(1) states that nothing restricts a court from making one or more forfeiture orders—one can cover assets instrument forfeiture orders and profit forfeiture orders in combination. Again it is particularly comprehensive. 
In considering this bill the select committee has done a very good job of ensuring that we have found the right balance between making sure the Crown is able to act where it is obvious that the profits and proceeds of crime are in abundance—they may not have been of direct benefit to a criminal but they may have been moved around in a particular way—and applying a new standard a civil standard that also includes safety checks and measures for those who may indirectly be affected. I think we have come out with a very balanced bill. It achieves what it intends to achieve and it ensures that no one benefits from crime in this country. I look forward to seeing the effective implementation of this bill.