Nash Stuart: Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNash Stuart: Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7419. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): Thank you very much Mr Chair.Hon Ruth Dyson: Excellent choice excellent choice.STUART NASH: Thank you Mrs Dyson. My learned colleague Jenny Salesa and I were on very much the same wavelength when we looked at this. I want to talk about DB 45 Bribes. Part 1 relates to a number of sections in the Crimes Act. The one I want to talk about in particular is section 103(2) but before I do let me first also just go to the definition of bribes in the Crimes Act. This is the definition—I had it here 2 seconds ago; you would not believe it. This is the definition in the Crimes Act: bribe means “any money valuable consideration office or employment or any benefit whether direct or indirect”. So we need to be pretty clear about what we are talking about here.Section 103(2) of the Crimes Act which DB 45 Bribes applies to actually says “Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who corruptly gives or offers or agrees to give any bribe to any person with intent to influence any member of Parliament in respect of any act or omission by him or her in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament.” This is quite an interesting definition. When I looked through this I wondered what constitutes a bribe to a member of Parliament.We all know that the Electoral Finance Act really tightened things up. So if we are given a campaign contribution over $1500 then we have to declare that; we all know this. If it is under that then this is fine and it is not considered a bribe. But say for example a member of Parliament was given a car and told to promote something—just as a hypothetical example. Would that be considered a bribe—when they are trying to exert undue influence by driving around let us just say a badged car? When I look at the definition here it would come quite close.The thing I cannot find though is the definition—I am sure there is one—of corrupt. So this is 7 years for those who corruptly give or offer to give bribes. So I suppose what it is is it is about the intent of the person who gives the money or the good or the offer of employment to that particular MP. So what defines corrupt? Well do they mean to mislead the public or do they want the MP to do something that he or she should not be doing or knows is morally wrong as opposed to legally wrong? I am not too sure.The Minister in the chair Todd McClay no doubt does understand the law a lot better than I do in this area and I would not mind just a little bit of direction on this because I think that in this day and age of increased scrutiny that MPs are coming under we need to be incredibly clear about what constitutes a bribe so none of us get put in a situation where unwittingly we accept a gift or an offer of money or a car or something like that that may by law constitute a bribe.There is one other clause that I would like to talk about if I may and that is clause 46. This relates to section 209 “Offences in relation to importation or exportation of prohibited goods”. Clause 46(1) states: “is knowingly concerned in any importation or exportation of—(i) goods that are designed manufactured or adapted with intent to facilitate the commission of a crime …”. The interesting thing about this is that you could argue that a gun is designed to facilitate a crime. I mean you have a gun so you can shoot something whether it is a target a person or an animal. You could mount a strong argument that a gun is designed to actually facilitate a crime and so how do things like guns or spears or shields whether they are ornamental whether they are African whether they are Indian whether they are new whether they are old—how would you actually know in fact whether you are importing a prohibited good? The definition here of “prohibited good” is quite wide I would have thought and so a little bit more definition around that—all I am after is a little bit of clarification so that good hard-working Kiwis do not get caught at the border when in fact they are bringing in stuff unknowingly. And as we know ignorance is no defence when it comes to the law—of that there is no doubt.The other thing also is paragraph (ii) which states “goods that having regard to all relevant circumstances can reasonably be considered—(A) part of or involved in an attempt to commit a crime involving dishonesty”. I suppose that is a little clearer because there seems to be more of an intent test around that because it is talking about “involved in an attempt to commit a crime” so there is a bit more of intent whereas paragraph (i) talks only about goods that are designed or manufactured with the intent to facilitate the commission of a crime like as mentioned a gun a spear a shield or any other thing that could be considered a weapon. And those of us who have flown will know that even a plastic fork these days can be used for disingenuous purposes.