Lotu-Iiga Sam: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lotu-Iiga Sam: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6652. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 Malo le soifua. I rise to take a call on this bill the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill. May I start off by saying that we on this side of the House do not support this bill. The main reason we do not support this bill is that it is again a sad reminder that the Opposition would rather create new problems by advancing needless legislation than fix a problem with our existing legislation. The purpose of the bill as has already been outlined by the mover of the bill Metiria Turei is to encourage casinos to implement best practice in systems to detect and prohibit problem gamblers and money-launderers. 
But what are the problems with the bill? I am going to support my colleague Mr Young and say that it does not appear to achieve its aims of encouraging this. There is no reason why currently a casino that knowingly profits from significant criminal activity cannot be the subject of a profit forfeiture order under the current legislation. The bill effectively imposes a lower threshold of liability on casinos that should have known compared with other persons who knowingly commit these acts. That is imposing the lower test of constructive knowledge as my learned colleague across the Chamber said as opposed to that more rigorous test of actual knowledge. I do not like my colleague agree with that. There is no clear evidence that casinos currently are not taking reasonable care to detect problem gambling and criminal activity. Certainly Miss Turei has not presented any evidence tonight. 
So you might want to ask what is in place currently to address this issue—you might want to. Currently as my colleague stated the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 already puts in place obligations on casinos to detect and deter money-laundering. It also has enforcement mechanisms that will achieve much of what this bill is trying to do. The Act will come into force in 2013 as my colleague said and under the Act reporting entities including casinos must put in place a programme that consists of risk-based systems processes and controls to detect and deter money-laundering. For example casinos must assess their money-laundering risks and implement anti - money-laundering programmes that are proportionate to that risk assessment. Given the nature the scale and the complexities associated with casinos obviously the expectations on them will be large. They also must undertake more robust customer due diligence measures monitor large or unusual transactions and keep a record of transactions that are larger than $6000. They must also and the Minister here will be happy with this report suspicious transactions to the police. 
That Act contains enforcement mechanisms that are more targeted and more effective than the proposed amendment. These include of course the provision that an entity that fails to comply with the Act’s requirements commits a civil liability act and a supervisor may issue a formal warning or accept an enforceable undertaking. A court may enforce that undertaking issue an injunction or order an entity to pay a pecuniary penalty to the Crown of up to $2 million on the civil standard of proof. 
Mr Chauvel might ask why not send the bill to a select committee. I say to Mr Chauvel that if you read the legislation read the Act against this bill you will realise that this bill is superfluous. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: No it’s not. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: It is. 
The Act also has checks in place to ensure that it is working as it should do. Implementation of the regime will provide evidence of whether casinos are taking reasonable steps to detect money-laundering and clarify whether any amendments are required. Under casino licensing conditions of course we know that they specify that the Gambling Commission is required to review each casino’s Host Responsibility programmes every 2 years. They can also look at whether a casino’s policy is identifying problem gamblers. This may include describing a range of indicators for identifying potential problem gamblers such as intensity and frequency of play and frequency of ATM visits. 
This is a poorly constructed bill that is simply superfluous. We on this side of the House oppose it. We believe in quality legislation for the people families and communities of our country. I oppose this bill.