Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to strongly support the arguments so clearly laid out by the member for Scullin. This is a bill that we support, but I will say at the same time that it is a bill that is so narrow in its scope, so limited in its ambition, that we need to use this time that we have to consider this bill to point out that this government should be doing much more. Indeed, as I will point out during my contribution, statements from those in this government years ago reinforce how tardy this government has been in undertaking reform in such an important area.

As the member for Scullin pointed out so clearly, this is a very technical area; it is an area where it is possible to get lost in the weeds—the weeds of banking regulations, the weeds of payment systems. But what we always need to draw ourselves back to is the fact that this is not a victimless crime; this is not just about bits and bytes flowing around the world; it's not just about dollars being transmitted between one person and another, under regulators' eyes. This is about money laundering as an integral aspect of crime; it is about money laundering as an integral aspect of fraud, terrorism, human trafficking, and conveying the ill-gotten assets of totalitarian regimes. We talk often in this place about the importance of proper regulation when it comes to terrorism. We talk of fraud and the way we react internationally with regimes that don't respect human rights. We talk about all of these first-order issues but it means nothing if we don't at the same time regulate appropriately the ways in which these activities are funded or the ways in which the proceeds of these activities are distributed. It is absolutely critical that we get this right.

This bill, as I said, is a useful step forward; but it is a tiny step forward—at a time when anti-money-laundering, in its scale and sophistication, is evolving so rapidly. By some estimates—by the UN, by Ernst & Young and many other entities—global money laundering is now worth more than US$1 trillion. As I said, that US$1 trillion isn't just a number to put out there; it's a number that underpins a range of activities that are dangerous to our national interest and involve significant harm to vulnerable people.

As the member for Scullin pointed out, this government has missed so many deadlines since 2013. The then minister for justice said in September 2016 that the Turnbull government would be closely consulting on regulation of tranche 2 entities. In 2017 he said a cost-benefit analysis for extending the AML/CTF regulation was well advanced. And then he said 'it is well progressed and will be completed by July this year'—July 2017. Clearly, that didn't happen. The previous member for Higgins, when she was minister for revenue and financial services, said 'the tranche 2 cost-benefit analysis has been completed in 2017 and is being considered by the government'. That was three years ago. As the member for Scullin indicated, this is in response to a review commissioned by this government and it is also a response to numerous pieces of analysis undertaken by the Financial Action Task Force and other international bodies which point to Australia as being a laggard in this area. So by the government's own comments on its performance it is years behind schedule—and a bill like the one we are discussing today is simply not good enough.

Let's look at the OECD. The OECD said in 2019 that Australia's real estate sector, which is very attractive to foreign investors, was at significant risk from money laundering. We have had a number of instances of the media, regulators and other entities pointing to dubious transactions. Money laundering occurs in the most sophisticated ways but we in Australia, given the lack of comprehensiveness of our regulatory regime, are also exposed in a number of sectors to the old-fashioned brown paper bag of money as well. The OECD lines up with the Financial Action Task Force. The IMF says recent high-profile money-laundering cases have pointed to weaknesses in Australia's AML/CTF regime. This is absolutely critical. Money laundering is now very much an international phenomenon. It is absolutely critical that Australia does not become the weakest link, that Australia does not become a magnet for laundered money, a place where inappropriate activities that punish vulnerable people and are against our national interest are funded by international flows of money. That is a serious risk this government is taking far too long to deal with.

As the member for Scullin pointed out, we need only look at a number of very high-profile cases in recent years. The Crown junkets are a classic example of where this government is not keeping up with high-risk activities that are occurring under its nose. Indeed, it took New South Wales government investigations to turn a spotlight on this for there to be real action. AUSTRAC, the government's own regulator, gave a number of these risky casino junket operations a tick of approval three years ago, and it was only fighting for unredacted documents that demonstrated that the risk that these junkets posed was actually better known at the time than was admitted. It is a material risk that we need to better deal with. The full report made it plain that AUSTRAC and this government knew about those risks and took no action. As I said, it's disturbing that a New South Wales casino inquiry has been necessary to bring a number of these systemic problems into the light of day.

We also, of course, have Westpac, with 23 million breaches and $11 billion in suspicious transactions, with a number of those transactions relating to child abuse. Again, that reinforces the fact that this is not just about dollars swishing around the globe; this is very much not a victimless crime. In so many instances of AML, we can point directly to money being used for inappropriate activities or money flowing from inappropriate activities. We also had the Commonwealth Bank, which reported 53,000 suspicious activities at high-value ATMs. This is a bill that we will support, but so much more needs to be done, something that we have pointed out on numerous occasions. We look forward to seeing much more substantial activity in the future.

See this speech in context