Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024. It is unbelievably bad legislation, even for those opposite. First of all, let me start by saying this. The coalition supports efforts to combat money laundering. We always have, and we always will. I know this because I was chief of staff to the Minister for Justice and Customs during September 11 and after. We learned the lesson again of the dangers and the evil of terrorism financing and serious and organised crime and how they use money laundering and the proceeds of crime to commit even more heinous crime and terrorist activities.

What I also learned during that time is what good governance and government looks like. That was during the course of many years working as a staffer in many different roles during the Howard government. It was there that I learned the importance of this place, working for a senator, working for a minister and really getting to see what good governance and good legislative processes are like. They work the best when those in this place are allowed to do our jobs. Our jobs are to conduct inquiries into legislation. They are to listen to people, to stakeholders who have points of view on the technical aspects of the bill and the unintended consequences of the bill and also have other great suggestions that the drafters or the minister's office didn't really think about at the time.

To do that in this place, we do need time. We need time for people to make submissions and for the Senate committee to contemplate those submissions and to make recommendations to improve the bill. Preferably, that would be through recommendations back to the minister's office so the bill is redrafted to adopt as many of those recommendations that that side of politics that is the government of the day can accept. Then the rest would be played out, in the best traditions of this place, in the committee stage of the bill.

That is what I've learnt from working in the Howard government as a staffer and then in this place as a senator since 2014, mostly in government. I got to see respect for this place, for the process and for ensuring that bills have a lot of scrutiny. We didn't do non-disclosure agreements for parties who were in the in-club and got to have exposure to government legislation of all types. We didn't compress legislation to the point of the ridiculousness that we've seen today or in recent times. We didn't make the Senate committees fight hard to have hearings and inquiries into legislation. The shame of it is that those opposite have demonstrated time and time again that they care about politics, about power, about being in government and about trade union ideology.

I cannot think of a single bill that they have treated with respect. They've had 2½ years, and this morning, in that farce of going backwards and forwards about how we could guillotine these bills today to ensure there was not enough scrutiny, the minister herself said that some of these bills go back to 2023. Why the heck did you not bring those bills forward in 2023? Why as a government didn't you have more sitting days this year? We could have sat tomorrow, we could have sat all weekend and we could have come back next week so that we could ensure these bills were as good as the limited time allowed us to make them. But those opposite did not. They were complicit in that by their dirty deals with the crossbench. We know what some of the dirty deals done today were, after their first failure to get the guillotine through. But we're waiting to hear what the other pieces of silver were that they paid to ram through these bills in this chamber.

In relation to this bill, as I've said, those on this side of the chamber, particularly since September 11, know the importance of anti-money-laundering and antiterrorism financing legislation, of FATF and of legislation for the proceeds of crime. But we also know it is important to get them right. Wherever there are new opportunities to move money around, as terrorists and criminals need to do, they will always find new and innovative ways to do that so they can receive these proceeds and use them either for personal gain or for terrorism, slavery, exploitation—all of the many ills that these people have no qualms about doing.

When we were in government, one of the most important things we did in refining legislation is that we always engaged the Senate. I recall the great advice we got from the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, under the great stewardship and chairmanship of Senator Marise Payne. It was considered, it was knowledgeable and it improved those series of bills—legislation for the proceeds of crime, anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing. But those opposite have let this nation down, because poor legislation leaves gaps that criminals and terrorists looking to finance their activities will drive a truck through.

The classic example of that is what this government is now seeking to do. Instead of making sure that we have closed every loophole that we can on a risk based process—those most likely to launder significant money for criminals and for terrorists are not local lawyers, local accountants or local real estate agents. They are organisations like Gold Corporation in WA. This government knew what Gold Corporation was doing in Western Australia under the nose and possibly with the tacit approval of the then premier Mark McGowan. But, instead of going after organisations like Gold Corp that introduced new products and did dodgy deals with banks that were known to be havens for narcoterrorists, people traffickers and gun runners, this government has done nothing. If anybody wants to go and have a look, you can see the Senate's report on Gold Corporation in WA. AUSTRAC put an enforceable undertaking on them because they were so bad, and it had a liability of billions of dollars for the Western Australian taxpayer. But, instead of going after things like that that are abused by serious and organised crime and terrorists, those opposite are putting a $14 billion impost on the mums and dads who are the local real estate agents, the local lawyers and the local accountants.

The ineptitude of those opposite knows no bounds. We've come to expect this from this Attorney-General, with this sloppy approach to legislation, law enforcement and antiterrorism- and counterterrorism-financing activities. I challenge those opposite. Where is your response to the Perth Mint inquiry? Where is your response to the reasons that AUSTRAC took an enforceable undertaking against the Perth Mint? It's absolute crickets! That is what you should be focusing on and that is genuine risk based legislation and deterrence, not going after mums and dads who are the local accountants and are working in the local legal offices. What were some of the things that you've overlooked with Perth Mint alone? It ventured into gold ETFs, cryptocurrency coins, dealings with the Bank of Cyprus and the Euro Pacific bank and even bikies.

And yet, what are you doing? You're going after the mums and dads who run small businesses and you're putting a $14 billion—that's not us making it up; that's your own figures saying: 'Merry Christmas. We've already put up the cost of living. We've already put up the cost of doing business. We've already put up the cost of your staff wages. We've put up the cost of your home loan and your business loans.' And guess what? Every single small business is now going to have to pay another $30,000 to $33,000 a year. Instead of going after Gold Corp, instead of going after those who really represent the major risks in this country, you're giving mums and dads who are struggling in their businesses another impost.