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

Well, it is coming. I am sure, given the intense legislative program, Senator Ludwig and I will be almost the first to know.

There is a technical difficulty with the proposed amendment (4), which seeks to empower a police officer or Customs officer to seize further evidence which might be relevant to the commission of an offence against section 59(3) of the act. An offence against section 59(3) can only occur if a person has first been required to produce a bearer negotiable instrument to a police or Customs officer under section 200 or if the police or Customs officer has found a bearer negotiable instrument during a search of the person under section 200. Section 59(1) provides that if a bearer negotiable instrument is produced under section 200 or found during such a search then the police or Customs officer may require the person to give the AUSTRAC CEO a report about the bearer negotiable instrument that has been produced or found. The offence in section 59(3) is for failing to provide a report when required to do so under section 59(1), which would necessarily occur after the person has been searched under section 200. It is unlikely in those circumstances that any other evidence could be found on the person pursuant to the search under section 200 which will assist in the prosecution for failing to report under section 59(3).

The general power of search flows from the Crimes Act 1914, as amended, and the ability to seize evidence is upon a suspicion of an offence under part 1AA of the Crimes Act 1914, as amended—as I have said. That is the general powers of search and seizure, where if there is a legitimate suspicion of an offence such powers can be used.

With respect to the argument which I think was also raised by Senator Murray, the government does not support the reduction of the review period. As I have said, the legislation will not be operational until 12 March 2015. Reducing the period in section 251 to four years will result in a full-scale review of the act after only nine months of fully implemented operation. We clearly say that that would be unreasonable and that you would require a longer period to analyse and assess the operation or capacity and outcomes of the capability.

I think I have answered Senator Murray’s question. I do not believe there are any other matters, other than to say that this is about the third time, with respect, that we have been through why the government proposes to enact these enactments as they are and why the government is not minded to go with the opposition’s amendments.