11. Question No. 11—PoliceHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 11—Police11. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill In fact I think the Police raised some compelling arguments in favour of a lower threshold" and if so did he agree with the compelling arguments Police raised?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): Yes and yes.Hon Mark Mitchell: Did he ask for the lower threshold to be included in the bill?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member had listened to my answers yesterday he would know that the Cabinet paper contained a number of options.Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order Mr Speaker. It's a very direct question and I didn't ask what was contained inside the Cabinet paper; I asked the Minister if he asked to have a lower threshold.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well I can elaborate further. The advice I gave—SPEAKER: I'll rule on the matter first OK? Otherwise I'll be dishing out new supplementaries. The Minister was correct in his answers yesterday but he could be more fuller in his answers.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'm happy to be even fuller. The advice that I gave to Cabinet was contained in the Cabinet paper and that contained a range of options.Hon Mark Mitchell: Did the Minister ask for the lower threshold to be included in the bill as was his advice from his own agency?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In the Cabinet paper there were a range of options and that was one of them.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Mr Speaker I suggest to you that on two occasions the Minister has not addressed the question. The existence of more than one option in a Cabinet paper does not address the question of which option the Minister recommended and that was what Mr Mitchell had asked twice.SPEAKER: It's not quite what he asked actually.Hon Michael Woodhouse: I'll elaborate on my point. Mr Mitchell's questions did not refer to options; he asked whether the $10000 threshold was the Minister's recommendation. The answer—to say "There were a number of options." does not address the question.SPEAKER: It does actually address it because you can't require the Minister to say "Yes" or "No"; he has options. It could have been fuller but if your member's got more supplementaries that's what they're there for.Hon Mark Mitchell: Thank you Mr Speaker. Did he ask the justice Minister the Minister in charge of the bill to include the $10000 threshold in the bill?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The $30000 threshold as I indicated yesterday was set by Cabinet based on consistency with the existing threshold in the legislation which was passed by a previous National Government.Hon Kiritapu Allan: Can the Minister confirm that all of these answers that he's canvassed in the House were indeed what the Prime Minister said in the stand up when she announced this proposal?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can indeed.Hon Mark Mitchell: Why is it more difficult for the Police to operationalise the $30000 threshold?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One of the things that Police are concerned about—and I think there'll be an opportunity to canvas this through the select committee process; there's a variety of things that they would like to have considered—is that they don't want to end up spending time arguing about the difference in value of different items that might be seized. So for example is something of a value of $25000 or is it $30000? So a lower threshold or no threshold would alleviate that concern. They're also concerned that the $30000 threshold would create a safe harbour for example where organised groups like gangs spread their assets out across a wider range of people below the $30000 threshold. I do think both of those are compelling arguments as I indicated to the member yesterday. On the other hand I think that there are some other arguments put forward by Crown Law and others—which again we can work our way through during the select committee process—around the consistency of the $30000 threshold that is in the current legislation. That was set by the previous National Government based on the median income at the time. In fact if we were being consistent with the policy approach of the last National Government that threshold would go up to $55000. We haven't made that decision.Hon Mark Mitchell: Why is the Minister so reluctant to advance and fight for the recommendations that the Police have put forward to actually make the bill meaningful in terms of the threshold?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I trust in the democratic process and I hope that the select committee will be conscientious in canvassing the views of people who take the time to make submissions. This is something the Government has kept an open mind on and we will right the way through the process."