Huo Raymond: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Huo Raymond: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2221] 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 As I said in my earlier speech on this bill I support and like this bill. Originally authored by the then Minister the Hon Annette King it is based on the clear principle that crime must not pay. Labour believes that this legislation will help to uphold that principle. I like this bill because it is a bill that has real teeth. To tackle crime particularly organised crime we need bills of real substance not window dressing. In my last speech on this bill I cited the ACT Party’s “three strikes and you’re out” bill idea as one of the window-dressing bills. Mr John Boscawen felt in his own words honour-bound to stand up and respond to some of the comments I made. Fortunately Mr Boscawen’s speech was brought to an end because it was not addressing the right bill—namely the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill—and he had ample time to respond to what the chairman believed was a passing comment made by me on the “three strikes and you’re out” bill. Unfortunately Mr Boscawen did not respond to my comment that the “three strikes and you’re out” scheme was one that had a 20-year implementation period and that it was internationally condemned as a failed model. Therefore to tackle crime particularly organised crime we need measures that have real teeth. 
The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill consists of three parts. Of course it is intended that at the end of this Committee stage Subparts 1 and 2 of Part 3 will be divided from the rest of the bill to become two separate bills. Parts 1 and 2 will remain as the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill and on commencement will replace the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991. Currently the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 allows the Crown to confiscate the profit made from a crime but only after someone is convicted of that crime. This bill deals with this problem and instead of employing the criminal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” the bill gives the Crown power to confiscate profits and assets obtained through criminal activity on the civil standard of proof on the balance of probability. 
Subpart 3 of Part 2 which we are debating establishes two orders to deal with the removal of the profits of crime from a person. One is the profit forfeiture order which deals with the unlawful income of a person; the other is the assets forfeiture order which targets property directly or indirectly gained from criminal activity regardless of who the owner of that property is. 
It is also worth noting that the report from the Law and Order Committee has recommended a number of changes. The key recommendations include that the New Zealand Police should be the recovering body the definition of the owner of a property should be extended to include the words “who might have an interest” the definition of instruments of crime should be amended to include the words “proceeds from the sale of a property” and other aspects that I hope we will be able to address in detail at a later stage. 
To conclude this bill is a substantive measure that will go quite a way towards addressing hitting head-on and dealing with gang leaders and organised crimes. Labour believes that this bill finds an appropriate balance between targeting the proceeds of crime and protecting personal and property rights. Thank you.