Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Hansard source

As I undertook earlier, there are a couple of issues that Senator Ludwig raised in relation to the anti-money-laundering bill. I think there was a question in relation to why AUSTRAC could not share information with the United Nations. Section 27(11A) of the Financial Transactions Reports Act permits disclosure of intelligence to a foreign country. This section has been replicated in clause 132 of the AML/CTF bill. That carries through that the exchange of financial intelligence is designed to enable effective action to be taken to prevent the commission of money laundering or predicate offences or to enable effective investigation of those offences by law enforcement agencies. The United Nations is a diverse organisation which is neither a law enforcement agency nor an investigatory body. General disclosure of AUSTRAC information to such a body is an inappropriate approach to the proper use and protection of this information.

Basically, what we are saying is that it is appropriate that AUSTRAC deal with other law enforcement agencies—the authorities of other countries—and this applies domestically to state and territory police and to such a thing as a royal commission. Designated agencies in clause 5 include Commonwealth, state and territory royal commissions. In the event that a similar inquiry is established by the UN in the future, amendments to the act could be considered, but in the meanwhile we do not think it is appropriate that AUSTRAC share that information for those reasons. I think that has dealt with that issue.

The other issue deals with deregistration of providers of remittance services. I think the important point to note here is that, whether or not they are registered, remittance service providers are reporting entities under the bill and are subject to all relevant provisions of the bill. A power to remove providers of designated remittance services from the register under part 10 of the bill is not necessary. The government has decided to implement FTRA special recommendation 6 by establishing a registration scheme for remittance service providers. Registration will not confer any authority or seal of approval on providers of these services. It merely will enable AUSTRAC and law enforcement agencies to identify and locate the providers of these services and to take effective action against those who do not register. That is the rationale for that issue, and I put that on the record.

In relation to the Customs Legislation Amendment (New Zealand Rules of Origin) Bill 2006, I thank Senator Wong for her contribution. The proposed new Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement is the result of a lengthy process. It is a process that included a study by the Productivity Commission, extensive consultations within the Australian government and Australian industry and detailed negotiations with the New Zealand government. The Productivity Commission’s research report on the agreement released on 28 May 2004 concluded that the inserted ROO were outdated and acted as a constraint on further trans-Tasman trade.

The proposed amendments to the closer economic relations agreement allow for a change in tariff classification methods to be used in determining whether the goods meet the rules of origin for CER. Rules of origin—ROO, as they are known—are an important aspect in relation to the CER. The new CTS method, together with the current factory cost method, will allow importers on both sides of the Tasman to have the option of using either method until 31 December 2011, when the factory cost method will cease to operate.

The government and industry are aware of one manufacturer who does not support the change in tariff classification methodology. I am advised that, together with national newspaper advertising by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, they and other departments undertook industry wide consultations. In December 2004 this resulted in the Australian Industry Group advising all its members, including that manufacturer, of potential changes to the CER rules in its newsletter in December 2004.

The amendments will simplify the process of determining whether a good from New Zealand is a New Zealand originating good. The current factory cost method can be administratively burdensome for the manufacturer and can lead to uncertainty because of exchange rates as an example. The proposed amendments will bring greater certainty and be administratively simpler. They will improve efficiency by allowing greater use of inputs not produced in Australia or New Zealand without an adverse impact on the ability to claim origin, and they are consistent with the international trend to use the CDC approach.

I commend the amendments as cementing even further the stronger economic and trade relationship between Australia and New Zealand that has grown significantly since the entry into force of the CER in 1983. I might add that, just recently, I met with my counterpart, the New Zealand Minister of Customs, and we enjoyed a very constructive session of talks. We are both totally committed to enhancing the closer ties between the Customs services of our two countries. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.