Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the six opposition amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2007, which are being moved together on sheet 5199. Before doing so, I wish to briefly remark on the earlier debate to say that the Democrats have also recognised the difficulties that exist with a possible overreach with respect to this legislation. In a military sense you might describe it as collateral damage—in other words, it was not intended but it occurs. I thought that the point made indirectly by the minister is the accurate one. The obligation is on the Inspector-General in his or her annual report to ensure that a sensitive eye is kept on the application and implementation of this legislation.

The broad policy principle that lies behind this act and this amending bill is supported by the Democrats, because we think this is a public interest matter which needs to be pursued. But of course we are not blind to the dangers that exist with privacy, and we hope the government is not blind to that. The government cannot ensure, cannot guarantee, that every single individual intelligence agency will act properly at every single moment—that is not possible in human affairs—so the only device we have is in fact the device of review. I would simply ask the minister to confirm that the government will ask the Inspector-General to be as diligent in this area as possible, bearing in mind the legitimate concerns that have been raised in that regard.

I turn now to the opposition amendments—and I will deal with all seven, if I may, in the brief. They have been well motivated by the shadow minister, and I do not need to repeat that. His item (1) is an amendment that was proposed by the Democrats last time the bill was before the Senate. It was supported by the official opposition, and of course the Democrats again support this amendment. I suspect that, in the usual course of the Senate since 2005, the government are likely to oppose the opposition amendments. If they do so, I would urge them to reconsider these matters. This is an amendment which arises from committee consideration. From memory, it was unanimously supported and it is a valid one. Similarly, we think that item (2) is a sensible technical amendment which will make the working of the legislation smoother. Item (3) extends the application of this subdivision to the United Nations and, given the primary role the United Nations is now taking in coordinating these matters, might well be worthy of consideration by the government. On the information available to us at present, we think that is probably the right move, unless the government can articulate strong reasons why it would not be.

Item (4) relates to the application of subsections to apply to things other than simply physical currency. It means that the police can also seize a thing as described in the legislation. Presumably the thinking is that if someone has a computer with information on it that shows currency transactions then that is the sort of thing that will be useful to us to seize. People often do not carry physical currency and collating evidence of money laundering requires a sophisticated and flexible approach. It could also refer to negotiable instruments, but the opposition has attempted to allow a broad net. It seems to me, unless the government can articulate some real reasons why it is not sensible, to be an amendment that provides necessary flexibility.

Items (5) and (6) are attached to the same approach. Item (7) is that the act be reviewed in four years, rather than seven, which reflects recommendation 13 of the committee report. In view of the sensitivities of moving into an area in which privacy may be a concern or in which unintended collateral damage might occur to individuals in some circumstances, I urge the government to consider a shorter review period. Even if you are minded to reject it at this time, there is nothing to stop you bringing that period forward. I think it is a legitimate recommendation—it is a unanimous recommendation from the committee—which should be respected.