Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I move, That the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 9 February 2023.

Our civil forfeiture regime set out in the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 is among the best in the world. The inter-governmental Financial Action Task Force rated New Zealand as one of only five countries having a high level of effectiveness at confiscating proceeds of crime. However, organised crime and transnational offending will always seek new ways to evade law enforcement. This is why I am pleased, this evening, to recommend the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill to the House.

This bill will improve the success and efficiency of our laws at restraining and forfeiting property derived from significant criminal activity. This will reduce the ability of criminals to continue or expand criminal enterprise and help to deter profit-driven criminal conduct. The four amendments will contribute to achieving New Zealand’s transnational organised crime strategy for responding to local, national, and transnational organised crime. These will also complement our reforms in the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill.

I’d like to start with the new restraining and forfeiture orders. These are designed to respond to the particular difficulties that arise in going after the leaders and facilitators of organised crime. Under the current law, police must satisfy the court that either a person’s assets were derived from significant criminal activity or that the person knew they were profiting from significant criminal activity. However, organised criminal groups will deliberately structure their activities so that the leaders and facilitators avoid involvement in or knowledge of the specific offending, even as they benefit from a portion of the profits. For example, in one case involving approximately $10 million worth of property, police relied on evidence from 16 different police operations over nearly 20 years. The investigation could not identify a legitimate source for this wealth, with the owner alleged to have received a portion of the proceeds from criminal activity undertaken by other people.

The new asset forfeiture orders will allow a court to restrain or forfeit property if satisfied to the required standard that, first, the respondent has interest in, or control over, specific property; and, second, the respondent is associated with an organised criminal group whose members or participants have been involved in or unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity; and, third, the respondent’s legitimate property would have been insufficient to acquire that specific property; and, fourth, the value of the specific property not explained by the respondent’s legitimate property is at least $30,000. The burden of proof will be on the police to prove these criteria to the standard of reasonable belief to believe, for a restraining order, or, on the balance of probabilities for a forfeiture order. If police prove these criteria to the required standard, the court must presume the property is tainted. The respondent will have the opportunity to rebut this presumption by proving, on the balance of probabilities, the specific property in the application was not derived from significant criminal activity. In addition, the court will have the discretion to decline to make a forfeiture order if it would not be in the interests of justice to do so. These provisions protect respondents against unjust seizure. This new type of asset forfeiture order will improve the Act’s effectiveness in disrupting organised crime. It will enable police to intervene to prevent illicit profits being reinvested in crime or used to recruit prospective members.

Next, I’ll speak to the new disclosure of source orders. These respond to difficulties arising from obtaining information from persons overseas. Police are already able to restrain assets that are in New Zealand and likely to have been derived from offshore offending, such as illicit drug trafficking and international money laundering. For example, police cases have identified criminal proceeds invested in our real estate markets and our financial sector. However, if the owner of the property is overseas, this can impede forfeiture. Domestic respondents are subject to production and examination orders. It is an offence to fail to comply with these orders, which require the production of documents or examination to answer questions. But these are not enforceable against residents where outside of New Zealand, and it is not always possible to obtain the information required for forfeiture from foreign jurisdictions. This new disclosure of source order will require the respondent to provide information on the source of a restrained property within two months. If they fail to respond, or file a materially false or misleading disclosure, the court can presume that the property is tainted. The respondent would still have the opportunity to rebut this presumption at a forfeiture hearing. This new tool will allow more investigations to be pursued and will deter further offending. This will help to protect New Zealand’s reputation as a safe, secure, and high-integrity jurisdiction against efforts to launder illicit funds here.

The third amendment fixes a technical gap in the Official Assignee’s authority to temporarily hold property seized under a warrant. Currently, property must be returned after 28 days unless subject to a restraining order, or until the determination of an application for forfeiture. This leaves a gap in cases where an application for a restraining order has been made but the courts do not make a determination until after the 28-day period. This amendment allows seized property to be retained until the determination of any restraining order. This also avoids police having to return and then re-seize property, with the risk that the respondent uses the opportunity to dispose of the assets.

Finally and briefly, this bill will allow funds in KiwiSaver to be forfeited where they have shown under the Act to be the proceeds of crime. Currently, section 127 of the KiwiSaver Act 2006 provides a general prohibition on KiwiSaver funds being passed to another person unless an enactment expressly provides otherwise. This presents any funds in KiwiSaver from being forfeited until withdrawn from the scheme. This could enable criminals to abuse the KiwiSaver scheme by hiding the proceeds of their crimes in their KiwiSaver. This change will allow funds in the KiwiSaver schemes to be subject to civil forfeiture orders. It will put KiwiSaver in an equivalent position to other retirement schemes, such as bank accounts and managed funds, which do not have a prohibition preventing forfeiture.

These amendments have been carefully designed. They strike a balance between upholding the rule of law in terms of the effectiveness at seizing illicit assets, and safeguarding human rights to a fair hearing and freedom from unreasonable seizure. The new powers will only be available where their respective evidential standards are met, and where there is a presumption in favour of forfeiture. Police must have first satisfied the courts of the relevant criteria. The court can decline a presumption if they consider it would not be in the interests of justice, and respondents will have the opportunity to rebut a presumption. At the same time, they fulfil the Labour Party’s 2020 election manifesto commitment to ensure police have the resources and powers to disrupt criminal activity and seize proceeds of crime. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and the National Party will be supporting this bill, the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill, to the select committee. We support any efforts to strip gangs and other organised criminal gatherings or groups of their ill-gotten gains.

It was funny to hear the Minister referring to the manifesto, because this was legislation that was first announced, with great fanfare, back in May 2021—more than a year ago—and was supposed to be delivered before the end of the year. But it turned out that the previous Minister of Justice had checked out and didn’t seem to be too interested in it. Then suddenly this year—in the context of a breakdown of law and order in many of our cities and a sense of chaos, a massive increase in gang membership, ram raiders and smash-and-grabbers all through our cities in Auckland and Hamilton over the weekend, and a sense of the Government not being in control of the law and order situation in this country and in our cities—the Government has suddenly moved fast after its slumber to actually get on with this piece of legislation.

The problem is, of course, it does have a sense of being slightly rushed, and I turn to the impact summary, and the officials say, “Oh dear, well, the analysis that we looked at on this bill has been constrained by a lack of consultation. The time frames in which the policy proposals have been prepared did not allow for a consultation beyond Government agencies affected. So we didn’t talk to the stakeholders, and so we don’t really know too much about this.” Then there was the lack of opportunity for further analysis. “With more opportunity for further analysis of the operation of the existing profit forfeiture orders, justice might have been able to develop alternative options for the organised crime proposal.” That, I thought, was a reasonably snide set of comments from officials, pointing out the fact that, if only they’d had a bit of time to actually work out what this proposal was and how it fitted with the current arrangements and how it was going to improve things, they might have done some research. What is strange to understand is why, if this was a commitment by Labour, they hadn’t got the officials on to it earlier and got themselves organised to come up with a well-designed and well-organised piece of legislation.

Now, we hope that this basis, this legislation, will do some good. It does ultimately reverse the onus of proof for people with large property which is either tainted or which has been owned by or held by a person that is associated with a member of an organised crime group and, as well, that can’t show how they obtained that property legitimately. So that does give the police extra powers to hunt down and collect these properties in order to seize them—restrain them first; and then seize them, secondly—and return that money to the people of New Zealand so that they can more effectively prosecute other people and send a clear message that crime doesn’t pay. So it may well work, and time will tell.

But it’s interesting to see that Crown Law had a look at this in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and did notice that the legislation does impact upon freedom of association, although it’s not clear just what an “associate” means. We’ve seen that Cabinet has made some subsequent changes and tightened up the definition of “associate”, so it doesn’t mean a mere acquaintance, and that seems about right. But just how wide the net for associates is, is a moot point, and we’re very much looking forward to the select committee process in order to better understand that. Then, if they are an associate, the second thing was—which was a rather strange piece of advice from Crown Law. They then argued about the threshold, and the Crown Law people said, “Well, if the threshold was $50,000 or $30,000, that might be all right, because it would indicate that there’s been some serious criminal activity. But if it was lower—if it was $10,000—then maybe it wasn’t sufficiently serious in order to justify the breach to the freedom of association rules.”

That was interesting. We understand that there was a big fight within Cabinet and the Cabinet committees about this threshold level, because the slight problem we have is that we’re going to be tough on the gangs, we’re going to sort them out—so the Government says, belatedly, after a long period of time—we’re going to show them who’s boss, but when it comes to the many Harley-Davidsons and other bikes that are roaring up and down our streets and terrorising neighbourhoods, and great swarms going down the motorway and making people nervous, because it’s all designed to intimidate, when it comes to those Harley-Davidsons, most of them are probably just a little bit under that $30,000 threshold. And so people are left wondering, “Well, what does this bill mean?” Are any of the Harley-Davidsons going to be collected? Is any of the bling that people associate with these gang members who are out there threatening and intimidating actually going to be taken?

That’s not clear, and it shows, to my mind, just another example of the kind of mixed messages that we get from the Government. They want to be seen to be tough, but they’re not really sure that they actually want to be. They want to do lots of drug rehabilitation programmes and things with gang members, but they also want to look like they’re being tough on them, and so people are confused. There’s not a clear message coming through from this Government around what the relationship is with gangs, which have increased very significantly—about 40 percent in the last few years—under this Government. So the gangs are recruiting faster than the police, and that’s part of the reason why New Zealanders are not feeling safe in their communities.

I mean, what are the issues that people raise with you when you’re on the streets in Auckland? Well, first, they’re worried about the cost of living crisis, and they’re worried about how they’re going to pay for their cheese and all the other things like that. But, secondly, they’re worried about the breakdown in law and order in our cities. They’re worried about that, and they’re concerned about it. If they’ve got kids working in retail in St Lukes Mall or in Newmarket Mall or anything like that, they’re worried about that. They’re worried about whether they might be going to encounter another smash-and-grab or a hit and run or a ram raid or all the things that seem to be going on where people face no consequences.

So we on this side of the House are prepared to support this piece of legislation at its first reading. We want to hear the select committee reports on it. We want to hear from people in the community about how this works, because we, broadly speaking, agree with any effort to make it tougher on gangs and to strip them of their ill-gotten gains. But we do have questions about it. We also make the point that it’s got to be part of a clear, consistent, and forceful response to gangs in our country. What we haven’t seen from this Government is a clear, consistent, and forceful response to gangs. What we see is not much for five years, then a panic and a few things thrown out, some weak firearm protection orders. Now we’ve got this bill around gangs; we’ve got another one that was announced at the same time—clearly in relation to a sense that they were well behind the eight ball on this issue, and they want to be seen to be making better progress. We support them in that; they do need to make better progress, because the most important thing for all New Zealanders is that they feel safe in their communities and in their homes and in their shopping malls and in their streets and they’re not feeling intimidated. And so we do need to be much more rigorous in pushing back. So that’s why we’re interested to see that.

We’re puzzled a bit by the KiwiSaver. I’m not too sure that too many gang members are greatly focused on their KiwiSaver accounts, but, you know, there is an issue there, and they’ve just kind of thrown this into the mix. We wouldn’t want KiwiSaver funds to be some kind of safe haven for criminals to put their funds. And so, yes, we agree with looking at that, but we do make the point that, when you’re scrambling around to be seen to be doing something on law and order, actually the fundamental things that the Government needs to be focusing on is making sure that there is a very clear and consistent message from Government that society doesn’t tolerate these sorts of things and there are consequences for illegal behaviour.

That’s what people are worried about. This is what people are frustrated by, particularly with the youth offenders, when they see all this stuff going on. The most consistent feedback or concern that you hear is, “Well, there’s just no consequences for these kids. They go off, they do it, and they wind up having a family conference. They get patted on the head and ‘We’ll see you again next weekend.’ ” There are no consequences, and that message has filtered through and is what is underlying the sense of chaos and disorder that we have at the moment.

Similarly with gangs, there are a few more consequences for gangs, but what has happened is that there hasn’t been that consistent, clear message from Government. It’s been mixed: “We’ll give a million or so to gang associates down in Hawke’s Bay to do some drug rehabilitation. We’ll do some other stuff. We’ll do this, and we’ll go and meet with them. The Ministers will meet with them. We’ll talk with them. We’ll do all sorts of other stuff.” And then, of all the things that the justice Minister—the previous justice Minister—

Order! The member’s time has come to an end.

你好。Thank you, Mr Speaker. Often in this House, we talk about those on the front line and give thanks to those police officers who are on the front line, but I’d also like to give a few moments tonight to give thanks to our detective inspectors. This is a bill dedicated to those hard-working men and women—those hard-working men and women who work with people alongside Greg Williams, who worked for hours and hours to follow the money. And that’s what this bill will enable our police officers to do even better than what they have done already, and that is to follow the money. This bill will flip the onus and enable our detective inspectors and forensic accountants to be able to dismantle criminal networks far better than they have ever done previously. I think it’s important that we highlight the history of this bill and the genesis of where this started. It was first highlighted in the National Party’s action plan on tackling gangs. I believe, if you look on the internet, you’ll find it in a Cabinet paper written for Anne Tolley back in 2014. The National Party talked and wrote and confirmed in Cabinet that they would like to go for the money back those many years ago and they failed to deliver.

So I challenge—I challenge—because if we are talking about being tough on crime, if we are talking about actually delivering—

Hon Mark Mitchell: You’re soft on crime.

GINNY ANDERSEN: —for dismantling criminal networks in New Zealand, then this is the bill that will actually do that. This is the bill that, alongside additional police officers on our front line being able to undertake a detailed response for our youth, is the type of response that New Zealand has needed for a long time.

So how this will change what’s done currently—and it’s important to highlight that, particularly for those members opposite who don’t have a long history of memory; maybe Mr Mitchell may. Under the current law, police must satisfy the court that either a person’s assets were derived from a significant criminal activity or the person knew. So they had to know about it—mens rea—and know that they were profiting from significant criminal activity. However, we know that organised criminal networks will deliberately structure their activities so the leaders and facilitators of that involvement have no knowledge of that specific offending. That’s what prevents prosecutions and the seizing of assets in this space. And that is what this bill will turn around. So I’m looking forward to the speakers that come after this and explain to me why, in 2014, the National Party agreed on it in Cabinet and then for the subsequent years failed to deliver in this space.

So what will also happen with this bill is that a new court order will mean that criminals based overseas who had their assets in New Zealand will face losing those assets unless they can prove within two months that they obtained that property legally. So if there is no overt way of showing that you are able to get the gold-plated Harley, then the onus flips for you to prove how you got that, and that is a significant change. I really hope this will enable those detective inspectors in New Zealand that do hard work in this space to do their job even better than what they do already.

This bill, in addition to what we’re doing with firearms prohibition orders, with our front-line services being more equipped in terms of police numbers, specific and dedicated operations on that front line, is one of the underlying frameworks that will really enable police to do that good work, that underlying detective work to identify where these networks are operated and how they can dismantle them in the long term.

I’m really proud to be part of a Government that is delivering on this. I’m proud to be part of a Government that is playing the smart game—the smart game—not the one-hit wonders, not the window dressing, not the look good to make you score a couple of political points; this is the long-term significant change that that side promised and never delivered upon, and this side will put to rest. I commend this bill to the House.

Where do I start on that contribution? So let’s start with: it’s good to see that the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill first reading’s in the House. We agree to support it to select committee. Obviously, we are going to interrogate it fairly tough—we’re going to be tough with it in select committee. I’ll tell you why: because like all the other legislation this party is bringing to this House in a knee-jerk reaction, trying to respond to the worst levels of crime that we’ve ever seen in our country. By the way, we’ve never seen carjackings in New Zealand before. We’ve had five of them yet. Yeah, never. The Labour member at the back row there says “Never.”, well, go and have a look at the history and see whether or not in this country we’ve had carjackings—that is, people ripped out of their cars, held up by knifepoint, and having their car stolen or robbed, maybe even kidnapped and taken to an ATM and subjected to intimidation, violence, or assault. We haven’t witnessed that level of violence or that level of crime in this country before.

It hasn’t happened overnight; it’s percolated away for the last four or five years under a soft-on-crime Labour Government. We signalled to this Government four years ago when we came out with our law and order policy paper, and we said to them, “You have to get serious about the rising gang numbers, how organised they are, the new global networks that have been introduced with the advent of 501s, the new level of violence that they’re bringing to their daily activities, the fact that they’re willing to carry firearms, and that needs a really tough response.”—we said—“You’re going to have to stand up a dedicated gang task force.” They resisted that. They mocked it. They laughed at it. They ignored it. So fast forward five years, where are we today? We’ve got a Labour Government that’s scrambling to try and respond to a huge growth in gang numbers, like the Hon Paul Goldsmith said, “They’re recruiting quicker than our police are able to recruit, train, and deploy new staff.”

Every piece of legislation that they bring to this House, mark my word, is messing round on the fringes. It’s not meaningful. Their firearms prohibition order: no new search powers. Both ourselves and the Police Association were very clear about the fact, unless you put an additional search power in this bill, it’s meaningless. There is nothing new about it. It’s messing round on the fringes. Let me come back to this House in six months, because I’m going to be watching.

Simeon Brown: It’s just window dressing.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I’m going to be—it’s window dressing—watching and I am going to be tracking this just to see how effective this legislation this Government is passing is. The previous speaker: I acknowledge her experience and her past in the police service as well, and the contribution that she made. She does speak with some experience and authority on that, and I acknowledge that. But she knows as well as I do that the legislation that they’re bringing to this House that they’re passing is meaningless. She talks about our detective inspectors, I’m glad she did. Can I acknowledge our own detective inspector in my area John Sutton, one of the most experienced detective inspectors that we have in the country. He’s got a fairly good feel in terms of what’s happening in his patch—and, by the way, first time ever we had an offender get out in to the public in Rothesay Bay and Mairangi Bay with a knife and start randomly stabbing people in the middle of the day; something that that community has never experienced before.

I’ve got the Hell’s Angels that have bought commercial property in Silverdale. The first time ever—

Dr Duncan Webb: Proceeds of crime? Anything about proceeds of crime today, Mr Mitchell?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: What’s that?

Dr Duncan Webb: Are you going to talk about proceeds of crime today, Mr Mitchell?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: That’s for the Speaker to decide on—that’s for the Speaker to decide on; not for you.

Dr Duncan Webb: Just curious.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I know that you’d like me to move on. I know that it’s a bit inconvenient for you to hear the truth, and you’d like me to move on. But, actually, that’s for the Speaker to decide on.

So we are talking about the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill, and I’m just coming to that point right now. We had the Hell’s Angels come into my own electorate and buy commercial property in Silverdale. And as hard as the local police have worked with real estate agents, with other agencies inside my own patch, with regular quarterly meetings to try and block gangs from coming in, they still managed to get in. We had the Comancheros that tried to buy property in Omaha and Warkworth. We’ve had the Mongols that have got a presence down Silverdale as well. But the reality is this, if they’d actually had a proper bill, a proper bill with teeth, around criminal proceeds and recovery, then, actually, maybe they might’ve been able to block or maybe they might’ve been able to seize that commercial property that the Hell’s Angels have now set up in my patch. Maybe they could’ve done that. In fact, the feedback that I had from my own police area commander, Mark Fergus, is that had they had legislation like that, then they probably could’ve prevented them or they could have seized the asset. Well, you know, he laughs and he sort of sniggers, just like they were laughing today; just like the whole Labour caucus were laughing today when we’re talking about serious issues around people’s safety.

Simeon Brown: They don’t care.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: They don’t care. They think it’s funny. They think it’s a joke. Stand and take a call. If you think what I’m saying is not right, stand and take your call. Challenge it. I’m up for that. That’s what we’re here for, is to debate the issues.

Simeon Brown: They’re just here to give money to the Mongrel Mob.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I’d like to know, talking about that—yeah, well, absolutely. I mean, the fact of the matter is, we put up four very good policies that had they actually just decided to take a bipartisan approach and actually just take public safety seriously, they might’ve actually looked at those policies, they might’ve looked overseas and seen that the Western Australians are using them, and they’re effective. They’re using them right now. The firearms prohibition order, that doesn’t even come into effect until November. It’s not even out there to be used. It’s ridiculous. These guys are a joke. They’re an absolute joke, knee-jerk reaction. They’re trying to respond now. They’ve allowed this situation to grow over five years. That’s baked in, and it’s entrenched. It’s going to be hard to turn around.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Mitchell, it’s been six minutes. Can we just spend three minutes on the bill, please?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I’m happy to do that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You’ve had a pretty good run. It’s three minutes on the bill, please.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I’m happy to do that, Mr Speaker. But the only point that I’d make is this: I’m responding to issues that the other speaker also raised during her contribution that didn’t relate to the bill.

Actually the Hon Paul Goldsmith raised a very good point: this bill has been brought to the House in such a rush that the officials haven’t even had the chance to go out and do proper consultation with stakeholders.

Ginny Andersen: In 2014.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: They haven’t been up—are you disputing the regulatory impact statement that says the officials haven’t had time to go out and consult with stakeholders? So this isn’t a piece of work that’s been in train since last year.

Ginny Andersen: Why didn’t you pass it then?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Pardon?

Ginny Andersen: Why didn’t you pass it in 2014?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Oh, why didn’t we pass it in 2014?

Ginny Andersen: Yeah.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, it’s a bit hard for me to answer that. I wasn’t in Cabinet in 2014. But I will tell you this, New Zealand was a much safer place in 2014. New Zealand wasn’t facing ram raids. New Zealand wasn’t facing carjackings. New Zealand wasn’t facing daylight aggravated robberies with multiple offenders with weapons. So the climate today in New Zealand is far more dangerous than it was in 2014. I’m sure the member would love to rewind the clock. I’m sure she enjoyed living in New Zealand back in 2014. It was a much safer country. It’s a dangerous country now, and it’s sad.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Two minutes on the bill, please, Mr Mitchell.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

So I’ve got a really important question on this bill. Who’s going to be deemed an associate? Who’s going to be deemed an associate? So I’d like a member of the Government to stand and explain to us who’s going to be deemed an associate, because if they had any understanding in terms of how gangs work, they do intimidate people. They probably do transfer some assets over to them. Often those people are victims themselves. The Minister struggled to explain the difference between an associate and an acquaintance. What is an acquaintance? What is an associate? So I think this is fundamentally a very important—

Hon Judith Collins: What about their accountant?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: What about their?

Hon Judith Collins: Accountant. What about their lawyer? Are they associates?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah. Their lawyer or their accountant, that’s a very good question from the Hon Judith Collins. Is their accountant or their lawyer or any legal expert or any person giving advice, are they deemed an associate, and are they captured by this bill, or are they an acquaintance? We don’t know. So I would ask that whoever takes a call from the Government side would take some of their 10 minutes and explain to us how that’s going to work.

The final point is this: why did the police Minister not get the $10,000 threshold across the line? That’s what the police asked for, and he couldn’t deliver it. And do you know why he couldn’t deliver it? Because he was overridden by the justice Minister. So they’re trying to be tough on crime. The chair of the committee got up and said, “Hey, this is our response. We’re being tough on crime. This is what we’re doing.” The police made a very strong recommendation to the police Minister. He couldn’t even get that across the line. The justice Minister overrode it, and she got up in the House and said the Prime Minister supported that as well. So I don’t think you can stand in this House and give us a tough-on-crime speech. Thank you very much.

大家好, and 你好, Mr Speaker. My goodness. They talk a big game about law and order on that side of the House when in Opposition, but when they’re in Government they fail to deliver. They couldn’t deliver a firearms prohibition order scheme in nine years, despite multiple attempts, and we did. This is a Government committed to putting the most police on the streets to ensure community safety. This is a Government committed to addressing organised crime. It is a priority for us and tonight we introduced two bills in the House to do that.

We’re taking significant steps, through this bill, to provide police with the powers they need and the additional tools to seize the illicit assets of organised crime. We know that organised criminal groups are attempting to structure their affairs to avoid restraint and forfeiture of tainted property under existing section 24 of the legislation. So we know that additional powers are needed here and we have stretched into a very new space by extending those powers to associated people. It is a hugely significant step and, actually, it’s quite an invasive technique, which shows the seriousness with which we’re taking this issue. Our law does require us to put parameters of reasonableness around those powers as well.

Mr Goldsmith referenced the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. He then failed to step through the tests that you are required to do when you’re making legal changes like this. If there’s an incursion into a right, you need a justification for it.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Who’s an “associate”?

VANUSHI WALTERS: The greater the incursion, the greater the justification you need, which is why there’s a difference of treatment between gang members—

Hon Mark Mitchell: No answer.

VANUSHI WALTERS: —and associates. You asked about the definition. The definition is in new section 5A, inserted by clause 5 of the bill, but that is entirely why we are going to select committee, so that we can examine that definition again, Mr Mitchell. It’s new section 5A, if you’d like to go and read that, and, I very much look forward to engaging with you, as well as all the submitters who will be coming to select committee. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. What can we say about the rhetoric around crime that’s been flaring up in this House and in the media, flaring up because of the political rhetoric that we see thrown around here, not just by the Opposition—though, of course, flamed by the Opposition, begun by the Opposition—but the heartbreak it is when we see the Government pander to the Opposition—

Matt Doocey: You are the Government.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Should I explain “Parliament” versus “Government” to that member? Is he quite new? Anyway, I won’t explain—I won’t explain to that member what it is to be a member of the House of Representatives versus the Government. He’ll learn on the job. But what I will explain—because I am the only member of this House who has served for more than a decade at the front lines of our criminal justice system, in the courts, in the prisons, applying the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act against the tyranny that would ensue if we had police decide who goes away, whose property we take, who is and isn’t guilty, without a proper application of the onus or the standard of proof—I can say that this bill does, in fact, reverse those standards.

The issue of proceeds of crimes was something that was legislated for under the last National Party Government. So what we saw, and what we have seen until now, is that if you’re charged with a crime—the standard being that the crime has to be proved against you by the prosecution, who bear the onus from the beginning of the proceedings, to a standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”; that’s for the crime you’ve been charged with—police can bring separate proceedings and take your property before the crime has been proved, to a standard of “balance of probabilities” only. So you can go on and have your conviction dropped, you can go on and be found not guilty, but the property proceedings are separate. This bill lowers that standard still. So we’re not talking about a crime; we’re talking about an association with people that we generally don’t like.

We’ve got the word “tainted” used with no legal standard or precedent. Who do we know is likely to be seen as being tainted, by the police force? Well, the Government had two separate, independent studies—inquires—last term into our criminal justice system, both finding overwhelmingly that there were constituencies out there in New Zealand that we’re more likely to see charged with crime. So this Act, when it talks about association, when it talks about tainted property, we know, based on evidence, will be applied to certain groups of people, because we’re taking away the standard of proof, we’re taking away the right to a defence in lots of ways, we’re taking away the onus of the prosecution and that standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”, even the balance of probabilities. So who will it apply to? It will be Māori, it will be the poor, it will be other black and brown communities, it will be people with mental illness—the people that we don’t see as fit to hold property or to have a whole lot of rights. We’re saying the police decides, not based on an allegation of crime at all but on some kind of tainting. That is prejudice. It’s not good lawmaking. It won’t save our communities from harm. It won’t keep anyone safe, because there’s no evidence the person was a threat at all. That is shameful. It’s not about keeping communities safe when we get into lawmaking like this; it’s about making politicians look tough. That’s not what we should be here for.

We know already what keeps communities safe. We know already what prevents crime. Violence is wrong and bad, and people are scared—yes—but we’re talking about property crimes committed through violence. We know that—I was going to say “the average”, but it’s actually 89 percent—89 percent of under-19-year-olds that come into our criminal justice system are then diagnosed with a serious learning disability. So dropping out of school, a lack of inclusive education, is actually a criminal justice response that we’re failing at, that we are not doing, and instead we’re doing this. That is shameful. Investing in mental health care is a criminal justice response. Investing in stable, secure housing is a criminal justice response. Livable incomes—that is a criminal justice response that would show courage, and it would show us referring back to the evidence of what keeps communities safe.

That’s what we are here for. We are here to respond to the evidence of what keeps communities safe, of what keeps our communities thriving, including our young people, and youth justice has the most evidence behind it—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ms Ghahraman—six minutes now. The bill, please.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: The bill takes away the onus and standard of proof when it comes to crimes committed by gangs—this mythical word that we’ve made up. It creates a new standard without due process, without the standards that we normally apply when we decide to remove someone or their property from society in order to keep communities safe. So it will not keep communities safe, but it will make a couple of politicians look tough on crime. That is callous lawmaking. I don’t commend it to the House. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand does not commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill through its first reading and to select committee stage. We support this in the first instance, but we do have a few questions about it. The first one, of course, is: why did it take so long? In May 2021, it was first announced that this bill was a-comin’. That was 16 months ago. Now that it’s landed, the regulatory impact statement has only just been made available. In fact, I’ve just been able to pick it up off the Table there. And in actual fact, if you go on to the Parliament website, the bill is still not available for reading. So 16 months. I have to ask: what has been happening?

The disclosure statement and the regulatory impact statement indicate that while Māori have been identified as those that are going to be disproportionately affected by this legislation, no one has consulted with them. It’s all been in-house Government agency analysis instead. And why is that? Because the time frames did not allow for consultation outside of those Government agencies. Sixteen months—16 months ago, we were told that this was on its way, and yet there wasn’t enough time for the appropriate consultation, including not enough time for the officials to look at any alternative options to put forward as well.

This Government had introduced firearm prohibition orders earlier this year, which we supported, in its efforts to prevent the illegal possession of firearms. But this bill is a failure when it comes to addressing the financial consequences for that illegal possession of firearms. In September 2021, when my bill was drawn—also a criminal proceeds recovery bill—it was to raise the threshold to be able to freeze and seize assets upon finding an illegally held firearm. Government told the public that they would sort it out, and they think they’ve done this with the firearms prohibition orders. But what I’d like to say is that when gun crime is going up in our communities by 47 percent, making sure that there is a consequence to that illegal position should also be mandated—and can be—within this legislation. Auckland homes especially are becoming riddled with gunshot wounds, and we can do a lot more in that space.

What do police find when they do raid an organised criminal facility? They tell us all the time; it’s cash, it’s drugs, and it’s firearms. Instead of supporting a bill that gave consequence to illegal possession, the Government ignored it. You had a chance then, and you have another one now, and I look forward to be able to raise this issue at select committee to see if we can improve the bill and, therefore, the safety of, and to, our communities from illegal gun crime. Consequences have been missing from Labour’s attempt at crime control, and the gangs have taken full advantage of it. But this is a step in the right direction, and we do acknowledge what the Government is trying to achieve, because to truly hit the gangs where it hurts—which is in their pockets—is to delve into the areas where police can apply to the courts to force civil asset seizure from those profiting from criminal activity and those that use the ill-gotten gains as well—this includes being able to break into people’s KiwiSaver accounts and seize funds.

ACT understands and supports, on the face of it, the reasoning behind this. People topping up their KiwiSaver and knowing that it cannot be touched is the reason why. But I’d like to go through the select committee process to flesh this out a little bit more just to ensure that it’s only the ill-gotten gains that become confiscated and not actual hard-earned savings. I do note that my colleagues from the National Party talked about gang members possibly not having KiwiSaver accounts, and I do agree that that’s probably the situation. But there are others that can be brought into this regime, and I would like to ensure that their legitimate savings are kept safe.

This bill also allows the High Court to make a disclosure of source order for those that reside overseas with property here in New Zealand—property thought to be tainted property or derived from significant criminal activity. It means that they’ll have up to two months to provide information as to how the property was acquired or risk losing it. This is an interesting concept that we’re looking forward to hearing more about from officials at the select committee.

And this bill also introduces type 1 and type 2 asset forfeitures. Type 1 is a standard forfeiture where the thresholds have been met and the forfeiture is whole. Type 2 is where an associate of a criminal organised group has property they cannot explain. In that case, a restraining order can be made if the respondent was an associate of an organised criminal group when they acquired that property; if they have been involved in, or benefited from, significant criminal activity at any time; if police can show the respondent could not have afforded the property before they acquired it; and if the market value of seized assets meets the $30,000 threshold.

And this is where I believe the KiwiSaver clause has relevance, as the $30,000 threshold does not need to be met here in an entirety. A value of it is added to the $30k threshold. However, I would like clarity on that when we get to the select committee process. I also note concerns raised by those that will be affected by this legislation, including gang members who are concerned that their family members and friends could be inadvertently caught up in this legislation. My message to them: stop involving your family and your friends in your criminal activities, and they won’t have anything to worry about.

The reality is that crime in New Zealand is becoming more vicious, more violent, and definitely serious with complete disregard to our communities. A 47 percent increase in gun crime alone means the ability to apply to freeze and then seize assets, based on that illegal position, should be considered as a way to beef up this bill and give it extra teeth. A harder approach is well overdue and needed. We look forward to this bill going to select committee and hearing from the submitters. These changes to legislation will have the potential to have quite an effect on organised crime and where its proceeds end up. We welcome these conversations and support this bill through to its first reading.

谢谢, Mr Speaker. As I rise to support this bill, I’ve been listening to my colleagues across the divide and I was very taken by Mr Mitchell’s concerns about the timeliness of our actions in this, and also with his quite remarkable assertion—as an ex-prosecutor myself—that carjacking is a new crime in New Zealand. So I was thinking about these matters, carjacking and this bill and the timeliness thereof. So I did a little bit of googling, and oh my goodness, I came across this headline: “Carjacking on the Rise in New Zealand”, the Sensible Sentencing Trust was in up in arms. The problem, however, is this particular moment is from 2014. It refers to a woman and child carjacked by armed men. And 13 August 2013: “Carjackings”, January—wait for it—2010. The Opposition had nine years to do this. There was a problem. They did nothing. We’re doing it.

This is the problem when you don’t actually bother to read the bill and discover that there is, in fact, a definition of “associates” if you get past the first page. Also, it is a problem if you don’t bother to go past the first page of Google, it is that classic issue—you have to scroll down. As they say, the best way to hide anything is to make it item 11 on Google. This is not the be all and end all; it is one piece of a large puzzle that we as Government are putting together thoughtfully and carefully. The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill is going to give us a better civil regime for the recovery of criminal profits. That in itself is a worthy aim. I look forward, as a member of the Justice Committee, to investigating the many issues to make sure that we get it right for the law, for the courts, for New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

This is a split call. The Hon Judith Collins.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I need to correct that previous speaker, whatever her name is, where she said that this Government—her Government—is the first to do anything about this. Well, I would refer her to the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill. It’s the amendment for the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009. Which Act is it an amendment of? Oh, I don’t know, a 2009 Act—something that we in the National Government had to deal with straight away when we came into Government at the end of 2008. We couldn’t have been any quicker. But, of course, every law which is trying to deal with criminals and criminal behaviour needs to be amended as times change and as behaviours change, because these criminals do not get rich just by sitting around and saying, “Well, let’s all comply with the law now, shall we?” They think about ways to get around it, and they have very well-paid people to help them to do that—actually competent criminal lawyers, to find out ways to do that.

When I look at some of these questions that have been asked and I listen to them—the Hon Mark Mitchell referred to “What is an ‘associate’?”, and I heard the other side of the House screaming out, “Look at 5A.” So I went to clause 5(1) inserting new section 5A in the bill, and what does it say? An associate “(a) means a person who—(i) is associated with the member or participant; and (ii) is not a mere acquaintance of the member or participant;”—in other words, knows them quite well—“and (b) includes another member or participant in the organised criminal group (whether or not a mere acquaintance of the member or participant).” So it doesn’t have to mean that; it can mean—I don’t know. So, in fact, is the lawyer acting for them an associate? I think there could be an argument.

This is going to have to get delved into in the select committee. Is their accountant—because you just know that they’re going to have accountants, and I know that the former head of the Police Association would know. They just have to have accountants involved. There are people involved working with these people. Are they themselves now going to have their property seized by the police—who have now been told by the Government it’s OK to go after criminals now, because they had five years of being soft on crime and all of a sudden it’s starting to hurt. So I know what, let’s go after them! You guys go and do something!

This is incredible, actually, that this has suddenly turned up in the House tonight. When I looked at the impact summary reforms for the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009—the regulatory impact assessment written up by the Ministry of Justice—what is the date on that? It says 9 December 2020. What’s been happening between 9 December 2020 and now? This is now 2022. Is it 2022? So what’s been happening? And yet I hear that there’s been no proper consultation with the broader public. There has been very limited information available to the Ministry of Justice when they did this report. It sounds to me as though this has been a rush job, and yet a rush job that’s taken almost two years to get itself rushed. So it’s a truly extraordinary—it’s right up there with Kiwi—KiwiBuild. I almost said, you know, Kiwi something else about KiwiBuild.

But it is an extraordinary effort, and we still don’t have—other than the shouts from the other side, “Look at 5A.”, I don’t think 5A gives it to us. I can think, as a lawyer who really has practised, there’s lots of loopholes in this one. I can imagine—I see my colleague Harete Hipango, who has spent how many years in the courts, working. How many?

Harete Hipango: A few decades.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: A few decades, actually—a few decades. I can see her smiling away, thinking of all the opportunities here, because, actually, lawyers are supposed to do that. It doesn’t really make them associates in the normal sense of the word, but, yes, they do get paid for their job. Are they going to be protected? I’m going to ask, on behalf of lawyers. As a lawyer who still holds their practising certificate, it would be quite nice to be able to know whether or not lawyers are going to be associates. Because we do know that there have been some lawyers jailed for actually laundering money from these particular people. So I think we need to know more about it. I’m sure that the Government will have somebody competent who could possibly speak on it. But there’s always an opportunity for someone to show where they should actually be brought forward a bit.

So thank you, we are going to be supporting this bill to select committee, and we’re going to ask those questions there.

谢谢, Mr Speaker. Can I first start my contribution by acknowledging the Minister of Justice, the Hon Kiritapu Allan, for bringing this bill into the House this evening.

In 2020, we campaigned on working harder and smarter to keep our communities safer, break the cycle of offending, and tackle the root causes of crime, and, across a range of areas, that is exactly what we are doing. I’m really proud that we have increased the number of front-line police officers and that we have expanded Te Pae Oranga. I look forward to my region being the first region which will be completely covered by Te Pae Oranga panels in our community, which are doing a fantastic job in diverting crime and ensuring that people don’t reoffend.

I’m also proud to have been a member of the Justice Committee. We have been working hard on legislation to protect our communities and to put more tools with our police and front-line staff to be able to ensure that we are protecting our communities and keeping them safer. I do want to mention how effective Operation Tauwhiro has been in my area, with the huge amount of methamphetamine, cash, and guns that have been uplifted in that process, and I want to commend our police for the work that they are doing. But this is another piece of legislation to give our front-line officers more tools to be able to target those whom we are most concerned about, and they are the ringleaders of organised crime. That’s what we said we would go hard on in our manifesto, and we are. We are giving the police new powers to target the associates of organised criminal groups.

There has been a bit of discussion tonight about—and in questions over the last few weeks—the sum that we have landed on, and I’d just note that the $30,000 threshold which has been set by Cabinet is based on consistency with existing thresholds in legislation. The advice we have received is that it is New Zealand Bill of Rights Act - compliant, but we do know that the police—for operational reasons—and others may have a different view. As a member of the Justice Committee, we are actively seeking to hear those expressions and views through the select committee process and we are approaching it with an open mind about the threshold, and so I look forward to receiving submissions on this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you—

Hon Mark Mitchell: Oh, here we go.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —Mr Speaker. Thank you for that, Mr Mitchell. Here we do go, indeed. I’m perplexed as to why Mr Mitchell was wondering what the difference between an “associate” and an “acquaintance” was, and then I worked it out. Let me just mention it: first of all, in fact, “gang associate” is defined in the Privacy (Information Sharing Agreement between New Zealand Gang Intelligence Centre Agencies) Order 2018—have a read of that, if you want. It’s defined quite well as a person who assists in a gang member’s enterprise. But, indeed, if, Mr Mitchell, you were associated with something, you’d know it intimately, you’d work with it, and you’d understand it. So there’s no suggestion that he’s associated with this bill, because, goodness’ sake, he can’t even speak to it. If he was acquainted with the bill, it might be some passing knowledge, knowledge of a mere outline, he’d be able to mention a few salient facts. But he’s not acquainted with the bill either. He is a total stranger to the bill, and largely a stranger to the law. But it is a good bill. It’s going to make a real change in enforcement here. I commend it to the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m flattered that the member wants to spend his whole time talking about me, but we have asked him to speak and explain to the House what an “associate” is in the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As I heard come from that side of the House, “That will be a job for the Speaker to decide”, and he didn’t get to six minutes before he mentioned the bill, Mr Mitchell. “People in glass houses” is the reminder.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. You can judge how keen or otherwise the Government are on this bill, or, in fact, around crime in general, that the last speaker, Dr Duncan Webb, spent basically one minute and 13 seconds talking about a matter—

Matt Doocey: Talking about Mark Mitchell.

SIMON O’CONNOR: —of justice and crime—and, ironically and strangely enough, an odd fascination with the Hon Mark Mitchell, which is perhaps of a greater concern. But in all seriousness, again, for people listening to this who are suffering one of the worst crime waves that we have known, the Labour Government has short-called every time. They are so dedicated—so dedicated—to the question of justice that they don’t even take full calls. As I say, the last speaker, a minute and 13 seconds was all he wished to give.

Look, first and foremost, National supports this bill to select committee—to select committee. Now, that’s important. That’s important to make sure that, actually, the public can have their say, because in concept—in concept—we think this is a good idea. It’s been rightly pointed out that National actually proposed this. The opprobrium from the other side is, of course, we took too long—too long, they say—or didn’t implement it fast enough. Well, of course, had the Labour Government decided to throw the election, or rather, not sell its soul to Winston Peters, we could probably have passed the legislation.

The second point, of course, is that crime, when Anne Tolley was the Minister, is nothing like it is now. The other side scoffs and derides, but, actually, day after day, Kiwis, like those in my own electorate, are not only seeing crime—over 30 ram raids in my electorate; over 30 in the seat of Tāmaki. It’s not acceptable, by the way, in any electorate, but in mine it’s almost unheard of. But on top of that, of course, we are often seeing—we are often seeing—the, if you will, proceeds of this criminal activity as gang members flaunt their ill-gotten wealth, riding their rather expensive motorcycles, patched and so forth, driving up and down the likes of Tamaki Drive, making a hell of a racket, showing that they’ve got absolutely no taste in music and they don’t care at all. My constituents are completely over it.

Simeon Brown: Had enough.

SIMON O’CONNOR: So in concept—they have definitely had enough, Simeon Brown. They’re totally over it. And yep, they’ll welcome this bill; the idea, the onus of proof in many ways is reversed. It’s been a very, I don’t know, tiresome, problematic, and certainly time-consuming process to prove—to prove to a criminal standard—where these ill-gotten gains came from. So reversing that onus of proof, making this a civil matter is prudent. This might be a surprise, but I actually do pick up on some of the elements that the Green member Golriz Ghahraman was articulating in her speech, that we do need to interrogate elements of this to make sure the law does not go too far. But I think there are some sufficient early indications that we might be on the right path, and I certainly want to see them teased out.

Obviously, colleagues of mine are focusing in on the word “associate”. What does it mean? I mean, we have at the moment—look, I’m no legal scholar, but I have noticed as well that the supposed legal scholars who got out could not define nor answer the question. In fact, they deliberately prevaricated. It strikes me as—I won’t spell the word “prevaricated”; it doesn’t fit their plain English policing requirements. But, you know, in their attempt to do plain English, I suspect, in this piece of law, an associate, according to the bill, is “in relation to a member or a participant in an organised criminal group,”. Well, that’s sort of useful. I think I’ve heard it intimated that these groups are clearly defined. Again, the Green Party was trying to lead ad absurdum that, you know, anyone could be called into a gang. Well, we’re not talking the militant wing of the Salvation Army here; we’re talking about known gangs. They are very clearly defined. But an associate is “a person who (i) is associated with the member or participant;”—

Dr Duncan Webb: Genius.

SIMON O’CONNOR: —brilliant. Well, “genius”, says the supposed doctor of—well, he is a doctor of laws.

Hon Member: Professor.

SIMON O’CONNOR: No—well, actually, a professor is only a title; the doctorate is actually the academic quality. But let’s not disambiguate too much. Importantly so—there’s another big word, but I’ve offended at least twice on the plain language side of things.

But an associate is a person who associates—that’s a circular and stupid argument. So let’s ask the question—let’s ask the question—are members of the Labour Party, particularly Ministers, associates of gangs, because they give something like $3 million? It’s a little bit tongue in cheek, a little bit facetious, but there’s a question: are the Labour Ministers who, as Ministers of the Crown, visited gang members and gang pads, associates? Just asking that question—are they? They’ve gone remarkably quiet all of a sudden. Now, look, I don’t think they are. I want to be really clear: I don’t believe that’s the case. But looking at the law, it’s not particularly clear. Is giving money, as the Labour Government has, to a gang, a form of association? Certainly, a form of acquaintance, if I heard from Professor Duncan Webb earlier.

Nicole McKee: $2.75 million.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Two point something there—almost $3 million. Are members of the Government who go to a gang pad to have meetings associating with them? I think in the strict definition they are, but probably not in the meaning of this piece of law. So it’s very, very difficult.

And the Minister saying about receiving property—you know, that’s true. Harry Tam and his friends received almost $3 million from your Government, Minister. You may have forgotten that, that the Mongrel Mob received $3 million of hard-earned taxpayer money given to a gang. Let’s not forget that. My constituents certainly haven’t, because, as I say, not only are they annoyed at these gang members driving through their electorate, smashing the place up, but also they know darn well that the Government is not backing.

Look, the other element is—and it has only been lightly touched on—the whole engagement process. So, again, we had the complaint about how long it’s taken to get to the House, and I think I heard from the honourable member from the ACT Party, was it, 16 months since they announced—16 months since they announced this. Really interestingly, when you pick up the documents—this is the departmental disclosure statement. It says “External consultation … Has there been any external consultation on the policy to be [affected] by this bill?” What is the answer? “No.” I would add the term, “not a sausage”. No. Nothing. Nada. I’m sorry, I know it’s Chinese Language Week, but I don’t know the word for “nothing”. Nothing.

To make it worse for these virtue-signalling lefties, did they consult with iwi, mana whenua, Māori, who, of course, though they’ve waxed lyrical—well, certainly the Greens did about how they are terribly overrepresented. Well, that’s true; it would probably help if you didn’t commit crimes, but OK, it is overrepresented. You would think the Minister of Justice would go and consult with the very people affected by this, and I don’t mean taking another $3 million into the gang pad. I talk about going and engaging iwi, hapū, whānau, mana whenua—all the stuff they always talk about. Nothing; no consultation whatsoever.

Now, I’m sure the retort will be, “Oh well, they can come to select committee.”, but that’s not consistent. It’s not consistent at all, because, actually, wouldn’t you allow all people to come to select committee, rather than specialised engagement, or are you going to, Minister, and the Government, continued, and rightfully so, specialised engagement with Māori? I just think it’s shocking that nothing has been done with Māori who are, as I say, overrepresented.

Last couple of thoughts. We’ve had some debate already around the derived benefit being set at $30,000. We know that the Minister and the Cabinet have tinkered with that number, and I have taken on board some of the comments from Labour MPs that this is a consistency. But I think there’s going to be, you know, rightfully good questions brought up at select committee about: is that the right amount? It probably isn’t going to completely fit, but I’m also thinking about the tens of thousands of dollars of damage which these criminals in the gangs cause. So, again, I think in my own electorate, a lot of the time, not much is stolen. I’m thinking of one of my liquor stores. Very little was stolen; clearly useless criminals. They went for sort of a half-open bottle of chardonnay rather than the decent Glenfiddich. [Interruption] What, a half-bottle of chardonnay? Oh no, sorry, a colleague was asking; I was making light of something. No, no; I see.

But long and short, the damage that was done to the property in the ram raid went into the excess of $45,000. I mean, it’s the cost of this crime. You think of what’s just happened in St Lukes recently. So I have to wonder whether the purpose of the Act needs to be expanded to not only talk about significant criminal activity of, I think it’s five years or more imprisonment. I mean, granted, you can commit terrible crimes at the moment and still get home detention, but also they’re talking about derived benefits of $30,000 or more. I think there could be a discussion around actually criminal or significant criminal activity that has led to a significant amount of damage. On that, I will leave it there as we continue the debate of what an associate is.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, you wouldn’t think that the National Party agrees with this bill, would you, from listening to the other speakers? I mean, I think we should just really look again at what this bill actually does, because we’ve heard from the other side on numerous occasions that we need to take action on crime and criminal activity, and this is exactly what this bill does.

And on the point of the definition of “associate” and just to note, I think I’ve counted up at least seven current or former lawyers on this side of the House looking at this bill. Yes, it is correct that the definition of “associate” is in new section 5A, inserted by clause 5, but 5A has three subsections—oh, more than that, sorry. It has five subsections. In subsection (3)—

Simon O’Connor: Do these subsections associate with the prior subsections about associates?

CAMILLA BELICH: The bill works together and if you want to understand the meaning of “associate”, you need to look at what a “significant criminal activity” is, which features in new section 5A(3). And if you look, then, to clause 6, you will see “Meaning of significant criminal activity”, and you’ll see that there is a requirement, a threshold amount, of $30,000. So, yes, it is possible that there might be a scenario where there might be a professional person, as has been indicated by some on the other side, that may be covered by this, if they were associated with wrongdoing and receiving property of this threshold amount. So, hopefully, that clarifies the associate points for the people very interested in statutory interpretation on the other side of the House, and those tuning in today.

I think this is a really good bill. It looks at how we can better equip our law enforcement agencies to be able to make sure that those committing crimes and those in possession of the proceeds of crimes can be followed up and can make sure that they are unable to keep undertaking these activities which are enriching people who are undertaking often illegal activities or are associated with illegal activities. So I commend this bill to the House.

The question is,

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Instruction to Justice Committee