McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill. I note that there were five submissions received three that gave oral evidence. There was plenty of time for the gangs to put submissions in and appear in front of the Justice Committee. We received advice from the Ministry of Justice and that was great advice as well because this is actually quite a complex bill that we worked our way through—trying to understand it how it affected different people and their families were very well nutted out through the select committee process.I'd like to take this opportunity to actually point out and thank Vanushi Walters Arena Williams and also Chris Penk who asked a whole lot of questions on matters that I wasn't sure if I was even understanding the answers but they managed to pull it all together so that as a select committee we could move forward and support this bill even though I do support National's stance in that it does not go far enough.The bill amends the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 and at the introduction of our select committee report there is a paragraph which I found I had to keep going back to when the scenarios that we were bandying about were being played out within the committee. It reads in the introduction: It seeks to prevent individuals from profiting from significant criminal activity by improving New Zealand's civil forfeiture regime. In particular … by targeting the illicit profits of leaders and facilitators of organised crime and transnational offending." I will keep coming back to aspects of that statement throughout this speech. The purpose of this bill is to legislatively allow the creation of new restraining and forfeiture orders by way of expanding when these orders can be applied for and granted. This is in response to the influx of profiteering from significant criminal activity.We break the regime for the creation of these assets forfeiture orders into two types; they are defined as type 1 and type 2 assets forfeiture orders. Type 1 will relate to organised criminal groups who structure their affairs to avoid the existing restraining and asset forfeiture orders. The court will be able to make a restraining order against specific property if it's satisfied that (1) the person who has the order against them is an associate of a member of an organised criminal group like a gang or is a participant in that group; (2) that the person has property but can't explain how they could afford that property—for example for valuation purposes we discussed how the value of that property would be achieved and whether it will be at reasonable market value rather than current market value. This is because what was potentially legitimately purchased 20 years ago may have a different value now but the respondent will still need to prove that they purchased it 20 years ago and could afford to do so when they did.The third one is that at the time the application for the assets forfeiture is made the value of the questionably obtained property exceeds the current threshold of $30000. The specific property can be presumed to be tainted if the respondent does not comply with the disclosure of source order or lies about how it is obtained. There is an onus of proof here. The courts need to be shown that the above criteria have been met; the respondent will need to prove that the purchase was valid and not because of ill-gotten gains from significant criminal activity. It is also outlined that when making an order is not in the interests of justice they must not. An example of this which we discussed at select committee is where essential items like beds fridges washing machines ovens—they can't be forfeited. The key here is that firstly the accumulated value must reach $30000 and secondly it must have come about from partaking in significant criminal activity.This would mean that being raided and found with a tinny of marijuana would not mean that the assets in the house are forfeited but being raided and being found with a couple of pounds of marijuana a new Harley-Davidson outside and the latest Chev Corvette in the garage while on the dole happens to hang out with the local organised crime group and hasn't complied with the disclosure of source order—well they are likely to have asset seizure forfeiture orders placed upon them.I would like to point out at this stage that my bill which went through the House looking to change the threshold meaning that finding an illegally held firearm was the new threshold to seize these assets was turned down by the Labour Government. It could have actually helped in the scenario of asset seizure and stopping significant criminal activity. So I just would like to put that in there.Type 2 asset forfeiture orders must have the same criteria met as type 1. That is that a person is a member or an associate of an organised criminal group they can't explain their assets based on their income and that the value of questionably obtained property exceeds $30000. If this criteria is also met then the forfeiture order must be made on specific property excluding the value that can be explained by the respondent's legitimate property.The same conditions apply as for type 1 whereby if the respondent can prove the ownership is legit then an order must not be made nor should it be made where it is not in the interests of justice to do so—an example is: taking the run-down 1980s car off a single mum of four. A scenario for specific property and convertible property and amounts for forfeiture is say where a home is legitimately owned and sold for $600000 and that $600000 profit is used to purchase a $1 million home. The house is now paid in full. Now the $600000 of the $1 million price can be accounted for but the other $400000 cannot. The asset forfeiture order can take the $400000 but must ensure that the $600000 remains with the respondent. In clause 5 we've inserted new section 5B(2A) to more clearly define what is "convertible property" and we inserted new section 5B(3) to better explain the exempt proportion of that specific property forfeiture.To restrain the property the Commissioner of Police would need to satisfy the court that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the property is tainted and once forfeited the presumption of police needs to be proven either for or against them for the assets seizure order to be made. It is important that presumption is used only at the forfeiture stage not during the restraint stage because to do so could prematurely taint the illegitimate and legitimate purchases before all evidence can be acquired. The committee wanted to change the bill to reflect this and have done so by amending the presumption requirements at section 24A. Because of these changes we have made we no longer believe that the due diligence clauses are required in section 24A because presumption removed from the restraint stage has removed it from that clause.The bill will also make a requirement that will allow the courts to presume the property is tainted which means it's derived from significant criminal activity. If a person who lives overseas but has property here in New Zealand cannot provide information about how that asset was legitimately purchased they have two months in which to disclose that information. We make it clear that non-compliance causes a presumption of tainted property and therefore it can be seized. It will also allow for KiwiSaver schemes to be able to be forfeited just like other superannuation schemes are able to. Currently our KiwiSaver legislation says that no one can withdraw their KiwiSaver unless they've reached retirement age. However the changes that we have made will allow where money has been hidden in KiwiSaver accounts to be forfeited by the Government upon seizure application or seizure orders by police. It won't be the entire KiwiSaver amount; it will be the amount that cannot be justified as being in there.There's a whole lot of things that we've changed in here that we've spoken to that ACT will support but we could have gone further. We most certainly could have introduced a firearms piece in there where we could have forfeiture based on that illegal possession. Thank you."