George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 7095, relating to the collection bill; and opposition amendment (1) on sheet 7096, relating to the consequential amendments bill:

(1)   Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:

(1)   Page 3 (after line 5), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of operation of AUSTRAC cost recovery levy

(1)   The Minister must cause an independent review of the operation of the levy imposed by the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Act 2011 to be undertaken as soon as possible after the second anniversary of the commencement of section 3 of that Act.

(2)   The person who undertakes the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months after the second anniversary of the commencement of section 3 of the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Act 2011.

(3)   The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days of receiving it.

(4)   A report prepared under subsection (1) must include but is not limited to:

  (a)   a review of the levy calculation methodology;

  (b)   consultation with industry participants including small and micro businesses about the impact of the levy and the costs of complying with the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Act 2011;

  (c)   whether the definition of small business that is to be used (of a business employing less than 5 employees) should be amended to the definition of small business currently used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (a business employing less than 20 employees).

In reliance upon the advice of the clerks, the substantive amendment takes the form of an amendment to the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011. But, because of the interlinking of the different bills in the suite of legislation, it will give effect to the operation of the scheme established by the principle bill—that is, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Collection) Bill 2011—as we are advised.

The amendment, as I have indicated, which gives effect to the opinion of the Liberal senators in the committee would mandate a statutory review of the operation of the levy and the methodology for the calculation of the levy within two years or as soon as practicable after the second anniversary of the commencement of the legislation. I note the minister's comment that the legislation provides that there may be a review, depending on the circumstances, after five years. There are two reasons why that is not sufficient from the opposition's point of view. First of all, there is no guarantee of a review after five years. The opposition's amendment would mandate that there be a review and so remove any element of contingency. Secondly, for a new scheme—which, as both opposition senators and Senator Xenophon have pointed out, imposes an uncertain but potentially very significant regulatory cost, especially on small business—it is the view of the opposition that five years is way too long for there not to be a review of its operation.

If this were an adjustment of an existing scheme of regulation, that might be fair enough. But as there is no scheme of calculating a levy and compliance with these statutory requirements at the moment, and therefore the way in which it will impact, particularly on small business, is unknow­able. For that reason, we believe having a review after two years is appropriate. Nobody can seriously suggest that the features or characteristics of the operation of this levy will not be able to be ascertained within two years of its operation. Nobody could seriously maintain that, if there are problems experienced in the operation of the levy, particularly in relation to regulatory burden, it should take five years before there is an opportunity to review and correct them. For that reason, as I have said, we favour a mandatory review as soon as practicable after the second anniversary of the com­mencement of the act. As indicated in subsection (4) of our proposed section 4 of the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, the report would review the levy calculation methodology; conduct consul­tation with industry participants, including small and micro businesses, about the impact of the levy and the costs of complying with the levy; and consider whether the definition of small business that is used—that is, of a business employing fewer than five employees—should be amended to agree with the definition of a small business currently used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics: a business with fewer than 20 employees.

As I have said, we support the principle of the legislation and we support the legislation itself, but this is, let me urge the government, a sensible measure. If there is reason for concern about the way in which the collection and the calculation of this levy impinges on small business, it is unthinkable that small businesses so affected should have to wait for five years for a review of its operation. A mandatory levy after two years is the opposition's recommendation to the chamber.