Cosgrove Clayton: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:652;Page:1820] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 As the previous Labour Government—in the form specifically of the then Minister the Hon Annette King—wrote the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill we will of course be supporting it. I do not think there is a lot of politics around this bill. It is based on the clear principle that crime must not pay. 
Part 1 looks at significant criminal activity and other terms around that. The major change proposed by this bill is that a criminal conviction will no longer be required for property representing the proceeds of crime or the value of unlawfully derived income to be confiscated. We support this measure; we know that crime in any form is nefarious. The Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Power has proposed a Supplementary Order Paper—which I know we will get to later—that provides some tidying-up and some technical amendments. I note that another Supplementary Order Paper Supplementary Order Paper 5 has been put forward by Mr Flavell. After some discussions with the Minister and others I think that Supplementary Order Paper 5 presents some difficulties and I believe that the Minister may want to provide some advice on this to the Committee. I am advised that he has taken a high degree of advice on this and as a learned lawyer himself he is well briefed. He may want to provide some clarification around that matter. 
Currently the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 allows the Crown to confiscate the profit made from a crime after someone is convicted of that crime. The profits of the crime however can be spread among many people not all of whom are able to be convicted of the crime. Organised crime is an example of this as we know. The bill deals with this problem by providing the Crown with the power to confiscate profits and assets obtained through criminal activity on the civil standard of proof. The bill will also allow us to tackle gang leaders who do not—shall we say—get their own hands dirty. Many of them as we know do not wear patches. This bill addresses and provides a huge weapon in the fight against organised crime and gangs as opposed to—meaning no disrespect—the bill put forward by the Wanganui District Council and Mr Borrows the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill which addresses apparel rather than providing key tools to attack gangs and organised crime. Again I say that I mean no disrespect but I think that this bill is a substantive measure that will actually go quite a way towards addressing hitting head-on and dealing with gang leaders and organised crime. Some of the most insidious gangs and elements of organised crime in our community do not parade around on motorbikes and wear patches. In fact they loathe any sunlight being poured on them or having any profile. They deal in the shadows and cause devastation with their activities. 
We in the Labour Party believe that this bill provides an appropriate balance between targeting the proceeds of crime and protecting personal and property rights. As we know Australia Ireland and the UK have passed similar laws. I think that the Law and Order Committee has done a serious job on this bill. The report of the select committee has recommended a number of changes which we will address as we go through. The key recommendations are that the police should be the recovery body that the definition of owning “property“ should be extended to include those who might have an interest in it—hence dealing with many of the nefarious activities of organised crime—and that the definition of “instrument of crime” should be amended to include proceeds from the sale of property. There is also clarification of the circumstances in which property acquired can be restrained after a restraining order has been made. 
I think this is a good bill. As I have said it addresses very simply the notion that crime should not pay. There is a high degree of bipartisanship on this; we support the bill. I look forward to the Minister providing us—as I know he can as an expert in this area—with a very extensive extrapolation of the facts and the legal tenets behind the pitfalls or pluses we might find in Supplementary Order Paper 5.