Bridges Simon: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Bridges Simon: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2224] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I want to summarise what I last spoke about on Part 2 and in general on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill. Firstly it seems to me that we have a consensus that the purpose of this bill is that crime should not pay. We want to make sure that it does not pay. The issue is whether in implementing the purpose in Part 2 we will achieve that. There is an interesting dichotomy between the purpose and the implementation and whether we will achieve our goals or intent in this bill. Having read it I would say to the Committee that we are achieving them. We will be able to implement the purpose very successfully. Secondly I say the other notable thing this bill shows is that the House is able to come together on important significant issues gain agreement and act in a bipartisan manner. I think that Governments should not be afraid or ashamed of picking up bills drafted by previous Governments when they have merit examining them on their merits and taking them from there. This Government is doing that. I think that is something to be proud of and it is good to see that the Opposition—the previous Government—is sticking with the position it had when it was in Government. That is a very good thing. We have agreement about the purpose and we have bipartisanship being shown on this bill. 
I have talked already about Part 2 and about the fact that there are a couple of important changes. Firstly we are moving from the criminal standard of proof to a civil standard. That is a substantial change and a good one given that we are not dealing with the liberty of our citizens in this bill. We are dealing with large amounts of money on the basis of the balance of probabilities and that is right. We have made the right value judgment on that issue as a country—as a nation—in this Parliament. It is proper that such a change is decided on by Parliament and not by the courts. We have done that. Secondly we have got away from the need for there to be an offence committed by a particular offender and we are dealing with the property. I think that that is exactly right as well given that as the Hon Clayton Cosgrove said we can have situations where things can be many parts removed from the offender. So we have done the right thing there also. 
I want to talk about Subpart 3 of Part 2 which deals with civil forfeiture orders. Clause 43 tells us that those orders may be applied for by the Commissioner of Police rather than the Director of the Serious Fraud Office. There are in fact some important safeguards in Subpart 3 that I think really put to rest any concerns that civil libertarians—whom I have a great deal of time for; they play an important role in relation to criminal legislation—may have about this bill. Firstly civil forfeiture orders can be applied for only in the High Court. I think that is significant. These applications will not be coming before the District Court on a busy list on a Monday morning when a District Court judge may have 25 drink-driving cases and many other cases to deal with. Applications will be dealt with on their merits in the High Court by our High Court judges who are essentially the best lawyers in the country. That is a significant safeguard. It means that applications will be heard by judges who are alive to the justice of the case who will give it detailed consideration and who are aware of the nuances of the facts before them. That is pretty important. 
Clause 45 “Application for civil forfeiture order on notice” also provides a significant safeguard given as I have already said that we have decoupled this measure from the offender. There is not a need for an offender to be included. Clause 45(1) states: “The Commissioner must serve a copy of an application . . . on every person who to the knowledge of the Commissioner has an interest in the property”. So it is not as though there will be difficulties with regard to people being unable to get before a High Court judge and have their say about this property. The spouses the affiliates the whanau or the neighbours who say they have an interest in the property will be able to come along and they must be served with notice of an application for an order. That is far from a ramshackle situation.