Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I have an amendment but I will not move it at this time. I have some questions, arising out of those amendments, that I would not mind a response to. It was pointed out in a submission by Allens Arthur Robinson that the restriction of cash dealers to ADIs in sections 17FA and 17FB would lead to noncompliance with special recommendation VII. When asked whether this was the case, the response from the Attorney-General’s Department, as far as I can see, did not quite answer the question. The Attorney-General’s Department said in section 4 of its answer to the first question on notice that the limitation in the FTR Act framework meant that special recommendation VII obligations could only be applied in a more limited class than would be the case when the AMLCTF bill is enacted at a later date.

Provisions in the AMLCTF bill comply with special recommendation VII, so I am curious as to the answer to the original question. Should we assume that it applies in a more limited class—and is that a euphemism for noncompliance? I will go through that again. Allens Arthur Robinson pointed out that the restriction of cash dealers to ADIs in sections 17FA and 17FB would lead to noncompliance with special recommendation VII. The answer given did not seem to address that issue. The answer was that the limitation in the FTR Act framework meant that special recommendation VII obligations could only be applied in a more limited class than would be the case when the AMLCTF bill is enacted at a later date. As you can see, that does not quite answer the question.

I will go on to other things while you reflect on that. Perhaps it is worth while to talk a little about this issue. This bill amends changes to the Financial Transaction Reports Act which were enacted last year by the Anti-Terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2005 but have not yet gone into operation. The bill before the Senate is regrettable in that it has amendments to a poorly drafted piece of legislation which the government rushed through in 2005. But it is less than a year since we passed the Anti-Terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2005 into law and already we have returned to fix this piece of legislation. Not only that, but we have also brought in further amendments to fix it again—and it seems to be only on an interim basis, in any event. I am happy for that to be clarified further in the committee stage.

It seems to me that the provisions in the ATB have not yet even come into force. Already, the government has been forced to concede that there are significant problems not only in the bill itself but also in the explanatory memorandum that further amends that legislation. It has gone so far that it seems to me that the government now concedes that this legislation as it stands, without this amendment, would destroy legitimate businesses when it goes into operation.

It would be helpful if we understood as well—and you might want to take this question on notice during the committee stage—what feedback has been received, from what industries, to indicate that, and when it was received by industry. It seems to me that industry was not consulted in the first instance. In addition to that, if this is going to be, as I understand it, an interim solution, will it then be resolved in the first or second tranche of the AMLCTF legislation? Is it going to be rectified or covered again in the first tranche? The bill is currently in an exposure draft, on which the government has received submissions, but it has not yet been introduced into this chamber.

The provisions introduced by the Anti-Terrorism Act, which this bill amends, implement the special recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force, FATF, in relation to combating terrorism funding. FTAF is an intergovernmental body designed to develop and promote policies to combat international money-laundering and terrorist financing. To that end, as we know, there are 40 recommendations on anti money laundering and, since September 11, a further nine special recommendations in relation to the financing of terrorist activity.

The history of the situation so far is that in 2003 the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Ellison, promised that we would have an updated financial transaction report brought into line with those special and general recommendations. It is now more than three years since that promise to bring the legislation before the parliament. The minister could indicate in this debate when that bill is likely to be brought forward. As I understand it, there is a commitment for that legislation to go to a committee as well for a further look. The minister could also provide assurances that that will be the case and that there will be sufficient time for that committee to have a look at the legislation in toto.

It is a substantive piece of legislative drafting. I understand the department has been drafting it for some time—and I think that would be an understatement—with the draft legislation going back and forth between industry and the department. So the additional factor would be that the committee does have sufficient time to hear from industry—in other words, we need to allow sufficient time for it to be advertised and for us to hear from industry as to what issues may arise in respect of the bill, and then to allow the committee sufficient time to report back to parliament. If it is the intention of the minister to have the matter passed before the end of the year, time is now running out.

The other matters I will come to shortly, when I seek to move the amendment that I have made. But I will first give others the opportunity to participate in this debate and deal with some of the questions I have raised, if there are any to answer at this point; if there are not, I will go on with some other issues.