Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:622;Page:17295] 
2.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What changes is he proposing to the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 and why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Cabinet has agreed that the existing Act should be replaced by new legislation to introduce both a new conviction-based regime and a civil forfeiture regime. Civil forfeiture will allow the proceeds of crime to be taken away from organised crime where there is clear evidence of benefit having been derived from criminal activity but where the evidence falls short of a very high threshold required for a criminal conviction. The High Court will be able to order civil forfeiture where the Crown can show on a civil standard of balance of probabilities that a person has benefited from criminal activity. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Why is it necessary to allow confiscation of proceeds of crime on the civil standard of proof? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Experience both in New Zealand and overseas shows that conviction-based regimes are not effective at disrupting organised crime. Gang bosses who direct organisations such as drug production operations do not actually have a hands-on role and therefore there are real difficulties in securing a criminal conviction against them. Because we cannot get a criminal conviction the profits stay in the hands of the gangs which are then free to reinvest them in criminal activity and lifestyles. A civil forfeiture regime will enable us to make inroads into organised crime by targeting the profits that fund it. 
Dail Jones 
: Why is the Minister taking such a soft approach to this issue and refusing to accept the Western Australian model which is clearly the most effective way of dealing with drug barons and gang bosses and has proven to be totally successful in Western Australia; why is he being so soft on law and order? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member is wrong in just about every fact that he tried to raise there. Firstly this is the regime that is supported by the New Zealand Police the administration and the police union. Secondly this Government happens to believe that before we confiscate somebody’s assets the onus in the first instance should be on the State to prove on the balance of probabilities that those assets have been criminally derived. Thirdly when I look at the track record of Western Australia I see that it has raised less through its proceeds of crime legislation in 4 years than New Zealand did with its old legislation in 1 year—last year. The Western Australia model simply has not worked. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: How does the Minister justify this significant attack on the principles of justice when he intends to allow police officers who lose a case just to have another crack at a lower standard of proof after restraining the assets of the defendant? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: This bill does not breach at all the principles of justice that the member is referring to. The civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities is the standard that we have used for a century in this country. What we are doing in this bill is not getting a criminal conviction that will allow us to deprive a person of liberty; we would do that if we had the standard of proof for that. Under this bill it must be demonstrated that on the civil standard of proof this property has been wrongly acquired by the individual does not belong to the individual and should be taken over by the State. That does not breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or any other principle of justice. In fact it operates in countries that have high respect for civil rights like Ireland the United Kingdom and Australia. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That answer was too long. [ 
Interruption 
] I was not commenting on the noise or otherwise of the answer just the length. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister also intend to include the concept of stripping those who engage in criminal activity of unexplained wealth whereby they lose all wealth that they cannot legitimately explain as being lawfully received and not just that directly connected with criminal activity to send the clear message that living off a criminal lifestyle will not be tolerated in this country? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think that this legislation does send the message that living off a criminal lifestyle will not be tolerated and that those people will be cracked down on in a way that has not happened in this country to date. But there are three stages. First one has to show a reasonable cause to believe that the assets have been criminally acquired. That allows one to freeze them. Then one has to show on the civil standard of balance of probabilities before the High Court that the assets are more likely than not to have been criminally obtained assets. Thirdly the defendant is then able to say: “Well I’ve got a million dollars’ worth of property but not all of it was criminally derived and I can prove that a part of it legitimately belongs to me.” I think those three stages are absolutely appropriate. They are based on best practice across the Western World. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister explain why it is better for the criminal for New Zealand and for the justice system to have a process that requires the criminal to show that his or her assets and lifestyle have not been criminally acquired than to have a process that requires the criminal to demonstrate how his or her assets and lifestyle have been legitimately gained? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: What the member is proposing is the Western Australian system. The Western Australian system says that the individual must prove to the state that the assets were legitimately acquired in the first instance. No individual should have to do that until the police have met the requisite standard of demonstrating that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the assets were criminally acquired and then that on the balance of probabilities they were so acquired. 
Ron Mark 
: Soft. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member says “soft”. I tell the member that for every 100 cases that the Western Australian police have brought on their standard only 25 percent have proceeded which shows that the other 75 percent were insufficiently based. The Western Australians have acquired less money under their system than we have under our old system which we will improve upon. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister agree that any regime for stripping assets from gangs should be accompanied by a system to reinvest those assets back into initiatives that will prevent such offending in the first place or at least into initiatives for victim reparation; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No. The money that comes in that is confiscated proceeds of crime will go into the consolidated account just like fines and other things that the Government raises. In New Zealand we do not have a tied system of saying that X dollars have come from Y sources and will go to Z outputs. That has proven to be inefficient. It is a fact and it is on record that this Government has the largest ever police force in this country which is more highly resourced than ever before with the highest ever resolution of crime rate. That is not a bad record.