James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024, is a disgrace, ladies and gentlemen. This is an attack on every small business in Australia, if you run a small business, if you work in a small business, if you buy from a small business, if you walk past a small business—shame on you, because you should go into the small business and buy off them! This bill, notwithstanding the fancy title, the nice big words and all the acronyms, is an attack on every small business in Australia, and this government should be ashamed of itself for the war that it has declared upon small business.

Why is small business important? It employs millions of Australians. Why is small business important? From every small business comes a medium business and a large business. From every small business comes the tax revenue that is so important for the public services that help make this country a great place but also for ensuring that Australians have the quality of life that we should have in such a rich country. But we have a Labor Party in power who have never seen a business that they don't want to tax into the ground, which is what this bill effectively is about. It is a de facto tax on every small business in Australia. It is a full-on attack on every small business in Australia.

COSBOA, one of the great representative bodies of small business, have expressly noted the Attorney-General's failure to follow best practice and said that the bill 'leaves the door open to cost confusion and compliance headaches for small businesses'. Why is that important? If you run a small business, if you own a small business, guess what—you're the director of finance, you're the director of HR, you're the director of maintenance, you're the director of operations and you're the director of governance, because it's just you running that small business. There is no bureaucracy of people, as you see in large businesses and in the public sector, to help you run your business.

When the Rhodes scholars who sit around the cabinet table of this country—those Mensa society members that are the Labor Party—come up with ideas like this, they fail to understand how small businesses operate. They have no experience in small business because they've come from the unions. In the UK there is the House of Lords, but here in Australia we've got the 'House of Union Barons' because every single Labor senator—

Thank you for laughing at that one, Senator Gallagher; I've used it before, but it's a good one and an old one!

They're all union officials, so they don't understand what makes small businesses run. Guess what makes small businesses run? It's the 'a' word—'aspiration'. It's the 'd' word—'dream'. It is the dream that that little business that you have, whether it's a cleaning business, a corner shop or a place that cuts keys, is your income and your world, and that that is how you can feed your family, pay your bills and get on with life. And one day you might be able to open up another branch of your business. Maybe one day you can get a bigger shop, maybe one day you can employ someone else and maybe one day you can grow your business so it earns more money—not because you want to go and live on a superyacht in the Mediterranean but because you want a quality of life that comes with living in Australia. That's what small business does for Australians. That's why it's the dream of so many Australians. And that's why this bill is a nightmare for small businesses. That's why this bill has the unintended consequence of once again making small-business life tough for those people who want to own a business, run a business or use such a business.

The Real Estate Institute of Australia has referred to experiences in New Zealand where real estate agents over there have been slugged with additional costs between $30,000 and $60,000 in exchange for an unquantified public benefit. These aren't just numbers someone has tapped into a calculator or put into their iPad; this is real money. This is going to hurt small businesses, it's going to hurt the owners of small businesses and it's going to hurt Australians. For the life of me, I do not understand why any political party or any political movement or particularly any government wishes to make it tougher for those Australians who run small businesses. The Real Estate Institute of Queensland, in my home state, has significant concerns that the legislation is too complex, poses a disproportionate burden on real estate agents and adds to the transactional costs of buying a house.

We've got a weird form of Santa Claus here at the moment. We've got a semi-retired Prime Minister who is heading off to his nice retirement home. He thinks he's Santa Claus because he'll get all these bills rushed through the Senate today. The Labor Party are a lot like those uni students who leave all their work till the last day and do an all-nighter. They will rush all these bills through, and we're going to have the unintended consequences of the costs to small businesses and also the red tape. We're going to have a weird form of the Labor Party—think of Prime Minister Albanese as Santa Claus, flying around Australia with reindeer, but instead of sprinkling presents he's sprinkling red tape everywhere on small businesses, red tape that is going to suffocate small businesses because of the burden it puts on them.

I refer to my earlier comments. A small-business owner is the director of operations, the director of governance, the director of finance, the director of taking out the rubbish in the mornings—they do everything. They open the door up, they close the door up and when they get home they then do more work. Who is going to have to deal with this? It is the small-business owners. Guess what? They've got enough on their hands at the moment. They've got a cost-of-living crisis. Have you seen how much power costs? I was crying before because Simon Birmingham is leaving the building. I sort of told a fib; I cried two weeks ago because of my power bill. If you don't cry when you get your power bill, you are not a human being. Quite frankly, they are just exorbitant at the moment because of this Labor government and what they're doing. They've got these poor small-business owners who are trying to earn a buck, trying to employ people, trying to live the great Australian dream, and we've got the Christmas grinches coming along trying to take it all away from them. The Law Council of Australia has noted:

The legal profession is already the most extensively regulated profession in Australia, and dual regulation of legal services remains an ongoing issue for the legal profession, not least because increases in regulatory costs inevitably put upward pressure on the cost of legal services.

I would file that quote under what bears get up to in forests and the religion of the bishop of Rome because, quite frankly, Sherlock, of course costs are going to go up when governments put more burdens on small businesses. What are these small businesses going to do? Are they going to be like a charity and say: 'I'll take on the burden of these costs. It means I won't have as much money to pay for my bills and for the mortgages.' Remember, interest rates have gone up 12 times since the Labor Party came to power. Insurance has gone up, I think, by 16 per cent since the Labor Party came to power. What they will have to do—they don't want to do this—is pass their costs on to the consumers. It is Australians who are going to lose out because of this piece of legislation. It is going to cost more for Australians.

In question time over the past few weeks it has become clear that the secretary of the Labor Party has briefed the Labor cabinet that there's cost-of-living crisis out there and they should do something about it. So we're hearing the words 'cost of living', 'cost of living', 'cost of living'. It's almost like one of those country auctions in terms of how many times 'cost of living' has been said. But this is going to make it worse. We've got the words of the Labor ministers saying, 'We're going to do something about the cost of living; it's terrible,' because the secretary of the Labor Party has briefed them on that, yet we have a bill before us in this chamber which is actually going to increase the cost of living for Australians. Merry Christmas, Australia! This is what you're getting from this Labor government. It's not the 12 days of Christmas; it's the 31 bills rammed through this Senate chamber a month before Christmas. This is the disrespect that the Labor government and their friends in the Greens have for the Australian people. I've said this before: friends do not let their friends vote for the Greens, and friends do not let their enemies preference the Greens, because you end up with legislation like this.

You may be thinking: 'This bill, with this very nice title, sounds like an eminently sensible bill, Senator McGrath. Why are you opposed to it?' Well, I'm opposed to it because of the red tape and the costs to small business. If you think this bad, you'll find this is just a foretaste of things to come should Labor and the Greens win the next election. This bill is an amuse-bouche. Is that the correct pronunciation, Senator Hughes, for when you go to fancy restaurants and they give you nice little bits of food—an amuse-bouche? This is what this bill is. It's not even the entree. It is an amuse-bouche in terms of what is coming towards Australians at the moment. It's just a little taster, and it is a bad taster. It is a gagger in terms of how bad the taste of this bill is going to be for the small-business owners across the country.

Next week I'm going to be travelling around Queensland, as is my wont. What the people of Queensland are going to be asking is: 'Why would the Senate do something like this? Why would the Labor Party do something like this?' I'm going to say to them, in all my coffee catch-ups and all the pubs I go to: 'It's because we've got a Labor government who do not understand what actually drives the economy. We've got a Labor government who are so detached from reality that it's not the Canberra bubble but 'Canberraworld' that they're in. It's a bad TV series. It's something that you might see on Netflix that was produced by a uni student or something like that. This is how bad this government is—Canberraworld. The mob in Queensland, the people who voted for David Crisafulli on 26 October in that landslide win, are going to say: 'What? We've got a government who are going to put more red tape on small business? We've got a government who are going to make small businesses hurt financially? This is some type of joke.' But the sad thing is that this is not a joke.

It is sad what this bill means for small businesses across Australia. It is sad—the other legislation that is being rammed through this parliament because of the preference deal between Labor and the Greens; the impact that it's going to have on small businesses. On this side of the chamber, we will always stand for the small businesses in Australia. We will always stand for those who work in small businesses, whether they're employees or those who run the businesses or whether they're shareholders of the family trusts or whatever it is, because this is going to hurt small business. When small business hurts, that means Australia hurts. When Australia hurts, that means that's just not a good place to be, because government is supposed to help Australians. It's not supposed to punish Australians. This bill, as Senator Cash has pointed out, punishes hardworking Australians. It punishes small businesses. So, regardless of all the nice language in the bill and all the other things that are in the bill, when it is distilled down to the essence, it is a bad bill because it hurts small business.

What we need to see in Australia is a government and a political movement, something that you see with the Liberal-National party coalition, that understands that bills like this are bad for small business. In fact, what we should be doing is bringing in bills to help small business, not hurt small business, not hinder small business, not punish people who want to get on with their lives. A rich small-business environment means more taxation revenue. More taxation revenue means we can help pay down Labor's billion-billion-billion-dollar debt that they've given to the Australian people. It's going to be a trillion-dollar debt under the Labor Party—a trillion dollars worth of debt under the Labor Party. We've got the Guinness book of records over there in terms of the debt they are giving to the Australian people. It's a trillion dollars. It's enough to make Santa Claus blush, and we know that he's not the type of fellow to blush. So I wish everybody a Merry Christmas. Vote down this bill. (Time expired)

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that, Senator McGrath. Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President—

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) | Link to this | Hansard source

It's like open mic night—

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Ayres, if you wouldn't mind, it's Christmas. In the spirit of that, the other day, I went and bought some red ribbon. It cost me a couple of bucks a roll. I like to wrap my presents with red and white paper. I put red ribbon around them, and I've got the lovely red and white tags. I'm actually a bit OCD, and my lovely Christmas tree and all the wrapping underneath need to match, and everything looks pretty. I get very upset when everyone turns up with an unexpected present with paper that doesn't match. But little did I know of the bargain I was getting for $3 a role for this red ribbon. None of these small businesses across Australia—accounting businesses, real estate businesses, lawyers—are going to get a $3 lot of red ribbon. They're going to get a $33,000 bill of red tape—$33,000 a year. So Merry Christmas from the Albanese government to these small businesses! At a time when we are seeing the most insolvencies ever of Australian businesses, this government has absolutely no clue when it comes to running a business. They genuinely think that somehow their job creation, because they've employed more public servants, is growing the economy. It's not the public service that grows the economy, people; it's small business. It's medium businesses. It's companies that employ people that the economy grows from, not employing people on the public purse.

But we know no-one over on that side—I vaguely remember that, I think, Senator Chisholm once had a job outside of a union, but no-one else over there has ever had a job in the private sector. They've always worked as union reps, union officials and political staffers and have absolutely no concept of what it is like to run a small business and what costs every small business has when it goes to its accountant and every business has when it has to deal with its lawyers. A lot of these small businesses, family businesses, use accountants and lawyers who themselves are running small businesses. Whilst it's the lawyers and the accountants and the real estate agents who are going to see the $33,000 hit to their bottom line directly, those businesses that are managing to survive and can sustain through this are going to have to pass those costs on. So who's going to pay for it? It's going to be the small and family businesses who are the clients of these lawyers and accountants and real estate agents—$33,000.

If this wasn't sounding bad enough—now, I may get the pronunciation wrong, but I think the Macquarie word of the year is 'enshittification'. It's when things keep getting worse. Enshittification means that situations continue to decline. This government is subjecting our economy to enshittification every single day, because our economy is getting worse every single day. Conditions are 'enshittified'—I don't know if I can use that word. I may have made up a new word! These businesses are struggling more and more every single day to keep their doors open, to keep people employed and to keep operating. Now they're going to be hit with even further costs.

If we're surprised by the 31 bills they're jamming through today—some of them have been on the books for not only months but years. They've done no work on them. There's no detail, and they're once again guillotining bills through this place, so there'll be no proper review. Unintended consequences, here we come, yet again. But in order to get this guillotine, in order for them to ram through this number of bills, the cost to the Australian taxpayer today is half a billion dollars. They have done a dirty deal with their mates up at the end of the chamber, worth half a billion dollars, to get them to support a guillotine, to shut down debate and to stop there being reviews of legislation.

Mr Albanese, the Prime Minister, keeps saying that we're going to an election in May and that he's going to go full term. He says there'll be no early election; it's going to be a full term. So why do we need 31 bills rammed through today? Why do they need to be done today? We're back in February.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

We could come back tomorrow.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) | Link to this | Hansard source

We could come back tomorrow. We could have some process.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Or the weekend.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you know what? We could hang out all weekend. What a great time that would be! Love it! We're back in February. We don't need to ram these through if there's not going to be an early election. So Mr Albanese needs to come clean. Is he putting the Australian people at risk by ramming through these 31 pieces of legislation, like they have so many other pieces of legislation? They are in such total shambles and chaos that they never have time for a proper committee process and they never have time for proper review. This government that was going to be so transparent and was going to be about integrity and openness has been the most opaque government I think we've ever seen. The way that they're behaving is unbelievable.

This bill that we're now debating, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024—no-one is saying we want money laundering. No-one is saying that. Just because you come up with a sexy name that sounds like this is the problem you're solving—it was actually in the Howard years that movements were first made and things were introduced. The AML/CTF Act was introduced in the Howard years. It was a Howard government initiative, and it came about after September 11, in particular reference to money funnelling into terror organisations.

The coalition has a very strong record in this area. But what we don't have a strong record on—and it's a record we never, ever want and one I don't think anyone could ever match—is the volume of red tape that this government is continuing to layer on small and family businesses. They're constantly being bombarded. It doesn't matter whether it's, all of a sudden, climate reporting on how many cows you've got and how many times that cow broke wind in a paddock. You've got to account for that now, and, when you've got to go to the accountant, it's going to cost you more because they've now got to find an extra $33,000 a year to pay for their red tape burden.

This is a government who is clearly hell-bent on destroying business, on destroying jobs and on destroying the Australian way of life—the aspiration and the dreams that Australians have about owning their own business and working for themselves. But, as someone who has run a small family business, I can tell you that the work doesn't stop when the shop closes, We did haven't a shop; we had an agricultural contracting business. But I can tell you that it was 24/7, whether it was working on the accounts, chasing up clients, sorting out maintenance and repairs or moving around the state to where the different work was being done at the different times of harvest. It doesn't stop. But that's what having your own business is, and it's unfortunate that no-one in the government has that experience, because, if they did, they might not bring forward this ridiculous sort of legislation that will destroy businesses, will destroy jobs and will push further costs onto other small businesses that are utilising their services.

It's not only double-dipping; it's triple-dipping, when you go through all the different agencies and organisations that are going to have to do these checks. It's just insanity—absolute and utter insanity. But it's not only unsane; it's potentially unconstitutional. I know Senator Payman got very upset when Senator Hanson suggested she should refer herself to the High Court—something I fully support Senator Hanson on, having been through the High Court myself; there are a number of people in here who were subjected to section 44. But we could also be back to the High Court with this, because the Law Council of Australia and the Australian Bar Association have both said that this legislation puts at risk the relationship between a lawyer and a client. It means that a lawyer may have to refer their client on and report on their client without even letting the client know.

A fundamental tenet of legal representation and legal advice is the confidentiality between a lawyer and their client. The fact that this bill would impose a burden on those lawyers to potentially report clients outside of that relationship means that it could be unconstitutional. So we could put these businesses through all of this—all the cost of putting this legislation in place and all the imposts. Now, we don't have any funding going to businesses. There's no support going to business with regard to software updates to help them manage this process. There's no support there. It was only the other day that someone mentioned to me—I don't know if it was you, Senator Reynolds—the expenditure on updating of the software of one of the departments. It was hundreds of millions of dollars.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) | Link to this | Hansard source

There was hundreds of millions of dollars to set that up, but there's no assistance for small businesses and family businesses that are going to—

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

It was $1.2 billion.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) | Link to this | Hansard source

$1.2 billion! These guys just throw it around—B's or M's, it doesn't matter.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

And it won't even work.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) | Link to this | Hansard source

And it won't work. The NDIS—well, God, we see how well they do there. It's just outstanding. But there's no assistance to businesses to update their IT systems. They could have that expense, set up IT systems, work towards it, know they've got $33,000 a year, just to end up in the High Court, and guess who'll pay for that? You lot at home.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Taxpayers.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) | Link to this | Hansard source

Every taxpayer in the country, because the government will, of course, fund a defence to try to say it is constitutional.

This is just insanity, but this is a prime example of what this place is for. This place is to review legislation. This place is making sure that there aren't unintended consequences, that legislation is reviewed properly by stakeholders who understand the nuance of these particular industries, that understand the legality around these issues, that can give advice to senators so they can amend legislation as required, or even, as we saw this week when the government withdrew its own legislation, pull it off the Notice Paper. It was such a bad bill that they managed to unify everybody in Australia against it. Seriously, it is a big ask to unify the entire country on how bad a bill is. Thankfully, we can all now have a conversation with each other out in the hallways of Parliament House without worrying about some bureaucrat coming and hauling us off to jail because they don't agree with our opinion.

Thankfully, they withdrew that. But they won't withdraw this. They're not withdrawing so much of the other stuff. They're not putting it to committees. They're not putting it through a review process. They're not allowing time for the Senate to actually debate this, review this, inquire into it, hear from stakeholders and make sure that any unintended consequences can be revoked. It is just everywhere. It is mind-blowing.

I think Australians are really starting to see what this government is like, how incapable they are, how incompetent they are and how they clearly live in a different world to the rest of us when they stand in here answering questions. If you listen to them, Australians, what are you talking about? You've never had it so good. They're doing such a great job. They've got these fabulous talking points. My personal favourite is every time they chirp out 'cheaper child care'. When you actually see every study, childcare costs have gone up, because yet again they've stuffed up the way they've done the payment, so everyone has just put their fees up. So parents are actually more out of pocket than they were beforehand.

They clearly live in a different world to the rest of us. Australians are doing it tough. Australians are struggling to put groceries on the table. Australians are coming into this Christmas season not filled with joy or hope. They're filled with dread. They don't know how they're going to afford to put their presents, which in my house would be wrapped in beautiful red and white paper with a lovely red bow and beautiful red ribbon, under the tree. They don't know how they're going to buy those gifts. They don't know how they're going to have a Christmas holiday. They don't know what they're going to do. They are finding it harder and harder to put groceries on the table and harder and harder to pay their power bills.

Do you remember the $275 that was supposed to come off your power bill? Everyone's power bill has gone up about $1,000 instead. When you tell people 97 times that you're going to reduce their bills, the very least they expect is that they're not going to quadruple, but that's what they've seen under this government and its complete incompetence. Yet they will stand in here and say: 'Everything is great. We've done a great job with cost-of-living measures.' Their cost-of-living measures have done nothing but make the situation worse. This is another example of a bill that is going to completely destroy small and family businesses and everyone else who relies on them.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) | Link to this | 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.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Reynolds, I remind you to address your remarks through the chair.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Acting Deputy President. Let's have a look at what other businesses have said. The Real Estate Institute of Australia refers to experiences overseas. Even if those opposite and the Attorney-General think slugging mum-and-dad businesses in the local suburban shopping centres $33,000 a year in new compliance costs might be a good idea, don't you think it would have been a good idea to check what the overseas experience of this has been? But no. The Real Estate Institute of Australia referred to recent experiences in New Zealand, where businesses are being slugged with about the same cost, an extra $30,000 a year, and some up to $60,000, in implementation costs—in exchange for what? The government haven't identified what the benefit will be. The government haven't identified the risk to Mr Smith, the local lawyer in the local suburban business area. What is the benefit to him? What is the benefit to the community? There is none. What they've said in New Zealand is that it doesn't work. There are no realisable benefits in terms of preventing money laundering and terrorism financing.

The Queensland Law Society highlighted some interesting overseas references to cost and impacts. They reported that the regulations that this government is implementing are so complicated that only 18 to 50 per cent of entities will be able to fully comply with them anyway. So poor Mr Smith, who's trying to make his local accounting company work with all the other costs, will only be able to comply with 18 to 50 per cent of the paperwork. This is despite the UK spending the equivalent of 75 per cent of the annual UK Ministry of Defence budget on a futile attempt to do so. In the UK, they tried this, and they failed because it is too complicated. It is not risk based, and it will further cripple businesses.

In the UK, the experience was also that, despite the tens of thousands of hours spent on compliance in law firms and all of these companies doing all of this extra compliance, only 0.29 per cent of suspicious activity reports came from the UK legal profession. For all of that effort and for all of that crippling cost, there were almost zero extra suspicious activity reports. That was for lawyers. In the UK in 2019 to 2020, 64 per cent of law firms audited were found to be partially or fully noncompliant because they simply could not achieve what those opposite are now seeking to do on our own small businesses. Merry Christmas to small businesses here in Australia—$30,000 extra for no net benefit to this country and not stopping a single crime. (Time expired)

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

This piece of legislation is another attack by the Albanese Labor government on small business. It's the only way you can describe the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024. This is at a time when small business is already struggling. We heard in the chamber here earlier this week that the insolvency rate is now 5.04 per cent. That is one in 20 businesses in Australia failing in a given year. That's a rate that's 25 per cent higher than prior to the pandemic. We've heard from the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, COSBOA, the umbrella group, that small businesses are under colossal pressure. They're complaining, rightly so, about increasing costs in energy, about increasing costs of insurance, about higher interest rates, about complex industrial relations changes, about declining household disposable income and, now, about this—a growing regulatory burden.

The Attorney-General's Department, in its own analysis of this bill, assesses the regulatory burden, the compliance costs, of this piece of legislation to be $13.9 billion over the next 10 years, which works out to be $33,000 per year per small business, with a turnover of up to $2 million in compliance costs. The firms that are going to be hit by this are accountants, small law firms and real estate agents—some of the small businesses that collectively employ over five million Australians and also form the life blood of many communities and the heart of many small towns, cities and suburban shopping centres.

The impact of this bill is quite colossal and especially for the benefits, which are unclear and in many respects specious. There will be, on the department's own estimates, $84 million in extra costs for the financial services sector; $99 million in extra costs for the gambling services sector; $136 million in total in extra cost for bullion traders, digital currency exchanges, remitters and gemstone dealers; $1.36 billion in extra costs for providers of trust and company services; an extra $2.8 billion in costs for legal service providers, which includes small sole practitioners and small law firms; an extra $3.6 billion in costs for accountants; and, staggeringly, an extra $5.9 billion in costs for the real estate sector. This is a colossal impost to be putting on small business at a time when the economy is weak, when small business is already struggling with the burdens of complexity in industrial relations, higher input prices and weak consumer demand.

The purpose of anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing legislation is sound, and fundamentally the regime that we're talking about amending today was a response to the September 11 terrorist attacks of 2001. It was a Howard government initiative which has its roots in the international cooperative efforts to stem the flow of terrorist financing in the wake of that al-Qaeda terrorist attack. In every term of coalition government since those attacks, we've worked to improve our anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing architecture to make sure that we crack down on areas where this sort of financing can still be accessed and where loopholes can be exploited. It was the coalition government in 2002 that criminalised terrorist financing as part of the Criminal Code and moved money-laundering offences into the Criminal Code. It was the coalition government in 2006 that introduced and passed the AML/CTF Act, conferring on AUSTRAC, the regulatory agency, the significant and far-reaching powers that it enjoys today. It was the coalition government in 2015 that led Australia through our last mutual evaluation process. And it was the coalition government that last upgraded this particular piece of legislation, in 2017, to implement the first suite of changes to that process, the mutual evaluation process.

But here the case for urgency is not made, and the court process that has underpinned the consideration of this legislation needs to be revisited. The committee process was truncated; it was abbreviated. The Senate has not had time to properly consider the implications of these changes or to consult with stakeholders. This bill has been introduced and it's now being requested that it be passed as a matter of urgency, but the bill deals with matters that have been the subject of discussion for some time. It's hard to make the case that, in this last sitting day of this last sitting fortnight of the year, this bill should be making the guillotine.

Given the size of the imposition that is being proposed here and the significant compliance burden, uncertainty and impact it will have on many small businesses across Australia, you would have thought that a higher degree of consultation and stakeholder management was warranted, but we have not had that in this case. The stakeholder reactions we have heard, though, have been uniformly negative. COSBOA, the organisation I mentioned before, which represents small business and has said that small business is under colossal pressure, said that the Attorney-General's failure to follow best practice leaves the door open to cost confusion and compliance headaches for small business. The Real Estate Institute of Australia, whose members will be significantly impacted by this change, referred to the experience in New Zealand, where real estate agents have been hit with additional costs between $30,000 and $60,000 in exchange for a public benefit that is diffuse at best and unquantified at worst. The Real Estate Institute of Queensland have expressed significant concerns that the legislation is too complex, that it imposes a disproportionate burden on real estate agents and that ultimately it will add to the transaction costs of buying and selling a property. The Law Council of Australia, the peak law body of Australia, noted the legal profession is already the most extensively regulated profession in Australia and dual regulation of legal services remains an ongoing issue for the legal profession, not least because the increases in regulatory costs inevitably put upward pressure on the cost of legal services.

This will be an impost on small business, but ultimately who is going to pay? It will be the consumer of those services. It will be the family who are buying or selling a house. It will be the person who needs legal advice to deal with a civil matter, a commercial matter, a challenged will, a negligence case—whatever it may be. Ultimately, these costs are going to be passed on to them.

Small firms in particular are likely to bear the brunt of this. They are the ones that do not have large compliance departments, that usually have the sole proprietor or the family that owns them doing the books, accounting, compliance and whatnot. They are likely to feel the impost of this, and many of these small businesses are often owned by people who are at or approaching retirement age, like in the accounting professions and the legal services professions, and they are quite likely to think this is all becoming too hard.

In terms of the impact of this, and how to assess it, we have seen, and the government has argued, that this impost on businesses is necessary to avoid the risk of greylisting. 'Greylisting' is a term which means enhanced monitoring and scrutiny by the Financial Action Task Force, the FATF, the international body that monitors money-laundering and terrorism-financing standards. FATF puts a country under enhanced monitoring where it considers there are strategic deficiencies in its money-laundering and terrorist-financing framework. Greylisting is a serious concern, and Australia should take it seriously; I certainly take it seriously. But the government has not made the case for the risk, the imminence or the likelihood of greylisting. The government asserts greylisting may be the outcome if we don't regulate tranche 2 entities—those entities that are being proposed to be regulated under this bill. But how do we assess the risk of Australia being greylisted? The government has been clear in its own analysis that the likelihood of being greylisted cannot be determined on the available evidence—so it has no idea about the likelihood.

If greylisting happens, there are a whole number of different scenarios the government looked at—and that's provided it happens. They assess the costs of those different scenarios ranging from between $560 million, half a billion dollars, up to $10.7 billion—so there is a spread of $10 billion in variation, if greylisting happens at all. But we know the costs of this regulatory burden are going to be at least $14 billion; that's been assessed. The risks of greylisting are unknown, and the cost to us of greylisting is significantly less than the regulatory burden that's likely to be imposed.

When you've got a situation like this where the costs of regulation are clear and will be concentrated—

I wish I could understand the joke, Senator Ayres.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish I could understand the speech!

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Would you be happy to bring me into it later?

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Interjections are disorderly. Continue with your remarks, Senator Sharma.

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry; I didn't want to miss out on whatever the humour was.

When you've got a situation where the costs of this new set of regulations are quite clear and quite concentrated, and they will hit small business especially hard, but the harm that this bill is intending to prevent is unclear, unquantified and even on the best estimates significantly less than the costs that will be imposed, you would think this would be a time to pause. As I said, this is especially the case when small business faces the toughest environment it has in several decades. We've got small businesses reeling under the costs of higher energy—up 20 per cent under this government—electricity and gas; higher insurance because of inflation pushing up the costs of inputs; higher interest rates, with 12 successive rate rises pushing them four percentage points higher; complex industrial relations changes, with some 700-odd pages added to the Fair Work Act; difficult definitions for small businesses to interpret and manage around casual employees and the right to disconnect; and declining household disposable income, meaning consumers have less to spend on many small-business services.

We heard again in the chamber this week that household disposable income in Australia has been the worst performer amongst any OECD or advanced economy since the end of the pandemic. From the first quarter of 2022 till now, household disposable income is down by about eight per cent. So, if you're an average full-time earner on about $95,000 a year, you're taking home around $8,000 less in pay, which means you have $8,000 less to spend. Small businesses are feeling that. That is why we are seeing insolvency rates so high—five per cent across the small-business sector, as high as eight per cent in the hospitality sector and close to six per cent in the construction sector. COSBOA, the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, has foreshadowed that those insolvency rates are likely to rise even higher.

Why are we rushing this piece of legislation through at this time when there is no urgency for action, when the costs of this piece of legislation are so large, when they're so concentrated, when it's small business that will be disproportionately impacted and feel the pinch of this, and when it's accounting practices, small law firms and real estate agents that will be hit? Many of them are already grappling with complex industrial relations changes. Accountants, for instance, only just avoided having a whole new set of requirements imposed upon them which would have added to the regulatory burden and which many on the coalition side fought against. When all this is happening and small businesses are facing the perfect storm in many respects, why are we rushing this piece of legislation through, when the case is not well made? Why are we putting this impost on small businesses which will ultimately feed through to their employees, the families they support and the communities they support—the sports teams they sponsor and the community organisations they invest in? Why are we doing that when the case for these changes has not been well made?

There has been stakeholder reaction not only from industry groups—of course, they would speak how you'd expect them to—but from groups like COSBOA that looks after small businesses across the country and like the Real Estate Institute. You can look at the overseas experience in New Zealand. You can hear the Law Council of Australia urging that this amendment to this legislation should be better designed, should have better consultation, should take into account the impost that it's likely to have and should provide businesses with some guidance about how they are potentially meant to meet these massive costs of compliance.

This is, at the worst possible time, another attack on small business by the Albanese Labor government. It's at a time when the economy is reeling, when small business is suffering, when households—many of whom are small-business owners—are under pressure and when businesses in hospitality are failing at a rate of about one in 12 and businesses in the construction sector are failing at a rate of about one in 16. When things are getting worse, why are we rushing this piece of legislation through, putting this impost upon them and making their lives and those of many Australians so much harder?

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) | Link to this | Hansard source

I will echo a lot of the comments of my colleague Senator Sharma there because he was right. Why are we rushing this through? I thought the priorities of the Albanese government this week were the social media ban and electoral reform, but we haven't got those. Instead, we've got this poorly drafted, ill-considered anti-money-laundering bill, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024, that has zero stakeholder support. It beggars belief that we're here.

In typical Labor fashion, we've got a bill that is poorly drafted, with high-level legislative rules that will require regulations that have not been drafted yet. So how can anyone be confident that the implementation will actually work? In fact, they can't be, because the Attorney-General's Department is on the record noting that there is a lack of evidence in the context of the likely impact of these reforms on the amount of money laundered in any year. If the Attorney-General's Department isn't even confident that these reforms will have an impact, what are we doing? Why aren't we taking the time to sit down with stakeholders, have the conversations, get the feedback, draft some regulations, understand how they will actually land on the ground and then come back?

As Senator Sharma rightly said, the coalition is not against anti-money-laundering laws or counterterrorism financing laws. In fact, it was the coalition that started this process, following September 11. It was the coalition that introduced the first tranche of the anti-money-laundering counterterrorism financing legislation, in 2006. It was the coalition that instigated a review of the AML/CTF Act in 2017. It was the coalition that, after that sensible, considered, constructive review, put through the first amendments to this act. Those amendments included civil penalties, with hundreds of millions of dollars imposed on Westpac, the Commonwealth Bank, Crown Melbourne and Crown Perth. So the coalition is clearly in favour of strong, robust anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing laws. What we're not in favour of is rushed and ill-conceived amendments that will, by and large, have a disproportionate impact on the suburbs and the regions and on small business.

The regulatory costs of these proposed reforms alone will force many small businesses to close—and it will overwhelmingly happen outside metropolitan areas—because it has been estimated that, for a small business with a turnover of up to $2 million, these reforms will impose an additional cost of over $33,000 per annum. That is staff they can't employ or bills that they can't pay. That $33,000, it is now estimated, will impose a $13.9 billion cost on businesses over 10 years—$13.9 billion in regulatory costs.

That is not productivity. In this cost-of-living crisis, with the pressures on inflation, you are putting additional costs on small businesses that will not deliver an ounce of increased productivity. And people wonder why we can't get away from this sticky inflation! It is because this government doesn't understand what productivity is. They don't understand that the implementation of their policies, like their IR policies, cost businesses and mean that businesses are paying for things that hamper their productivity. That is why we cannot shake this sticky inflation.

At the end of the day, what are the businesses that will pay these costs? It's the accountants—my financial adviser, my accountant. It's my real estate agent. It's the real estate agents who manage sales and rentals—Albo's real estate agent; sorry, the Prime Minister's real estate agent—who will have to pay these costs.

Not at all. It is the country-town lawyers who run small practices. Most country-town lawyers are sole traders. They run small practices in rural and regional Australia. These are the sorts of businesses that will be paying the bill, paying the price for this reform—and I use that term loosely. They will be paying for these amendments that have zero support—because, while every stakeholder absolutely supports efforts to combat money laundering, we've got the Law Council, the Real Estate Institute, COSBOA and others now all on the public record as criticising this bill. COSBOA expressly noted the Attorney-General's failure to follow best practice by releasing an exposure draft. They said that the bill as it stands leaves the door open to costs, confusion and compliance headaches for small businesses.

Yet again, the failure to adequate consult is why we have another bill before this chamber that is not fit for purpose. There is a reason why we consult on important reforms and legislation. There is a reason why we use exposure drafts. There is a reason why we shouldn't be using non-disclosure agreements, but that's clearly this government's preferred practice.

There are also concerns about the constitutionality of this bill. The former Justice of the High Court, Geoffrey Nettle AC KC, has said that the bill is potentially unconstitutional in relation to barristers, and similar concerns have been raised in relation to solicitors. The concern is that, essentially, lawyers may be forced to report on their clients, but will not be able to tell their clients, or even the court, what they've done. I thought we had lawyer-client confidentiality. This is another example of a poor bill drafted after poor consultation and without getting adequate feedback.

I guess the Attorney-General just thinks that small businesses, lawyers and solicitors are all aiding and abetting drug traffickers and cybercriminals. When the Real Estate Institute of Australia had a look, they referred to the experiences in New Zealand, where businesses have been slugged between $30,000 and $60,000 each in implementation costs in exchange for an unquantified public benefit. But maybe the Attorney-General thinks the Real Estate Institute also stands with terrorists and money launderers.

Clearly, this bill is a mess. This bill needs an awful lot more work. We did send it to a committee. The committee did review it, and the report and the views that were flushed out through that process helped firm up our position that this bill should not be supported in its current form. As I said at the outset, we are very much in support of strong anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism-financing laws. We are the fathers of it. But there is no excuse to rush through a bill that has so many concerns, has so many stakeholders worried about its actual impact and has—I'm going to say it again—a $13.9 billion cost to business without a single improvement in productivity.

I would have thought that, after 2½ years in government, the Albanese government would've learnt how to draft bills, how to have proper consultation and how to be able to get consensus, particularly on an issue such as this, which should have bipartisan support. But the fact is that we've got this error-laden bill that has legal and constitutional questions over it and has the potential to cost small business an exorbitant amount of money. Even the Queensland Law Society has spoken out against this bill and is looking at other examples of what's happened overseas and compared that to what we've got before us. Labor should actually be a bit embarrassed by the process it has undertaken and by where we are today.

Again, I ask the question: why are we talking about this bill? I thought you had other priorities this week. We're about to end this year of parliament. We're about to go on the Christmas recess—and I hope everyone has a very safe festive season as they go on their merry way and celebrate whatever festivals they want to celebrate. To think, this is the last bill we're going to be properly debating. Thanks to the guillotine motion, we can't have proper debate about a lot of the other bills that we'll be addressing tonight when there were other important priorities that Labor wanted us to be talking about. But clearly not.

It just goes to show that this Labor government is so disorganised it can't even get a bill drafted in a way that people are confident about. We've got a shambolic government that is not focused; it has been distracted. They were distracted for the first two years of government by the Voice, and that's why they haven't yet learnt how to have proper consultation. They should have learnt from the Voice that they need to talk to grassroots communities, talk to the people who will be impacted the most—and actually listen—and then give clear, concise drafting instructions. Think about the regulations and how they will be rolled out and how they will be impacted. Get it right and you might get support. But, as it stands, we can't support this bill. There are too many flaws in it, so I urge the Senate to vote against it.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) | Link to this | Hansard source

It's been a day of highs and lows, I have to say. And it's very good to have the last remaining two and a bit minutes to reflect upon this debate, which, after some very strong contributions earlier this afternoon, has really had the coalition ending the week with not bang but a whimper. The last hour and a half that I've been in here has been like an open mic session at a Trotskyite funeral. Senator Shoebridge might have been to a few of those Trotskyite funerals. Maybe no others of us have, but it was very reminiscent of that.

It is good to see some members of the coalition following Senator McGrath's injunction to be early adopters of AI, because it's hard to understand some of the contributions without that. What we've seen from the coalition this afternoon is the anti anti-money-laundering proposition. The people who this piece of legislation will hurt are bikies, drug traffickers, arms smugglers, terrorists, sex traffickers, dark web crypto criminals, funders of Russian and North Korean bot factories. Who does money laundering hurt in the end? It hurts ordinary Australians. It hurts small businesses. It hurts families. The extravagant claims that have been made by the coalition in this place about the impact of regulation in this area cannot be believed.

But I just say this. The idea put forward by Senator Sharma—who was auditioning for a new role this afternoon, after we heard the unhappy news of Senator Birmingham's retirement—that a grey listing for Australia's economy would somehow be a preferential outcome than dealing with money laundering is an utterly scandalous position. It shows how reckless and arrogant Peter Dutton's coalition really is. The consequences of— (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to the order agreed to earlier today, the time for consideration of various bills has expired. After I put the question that is before the chair on the Anti-Money-Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024, I will then put the questions on the remaining stages of the bills. The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) | Link to this | Hansard source

I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024. The addendum responds to matters raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. In addition, I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government's amendments to this bill.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the government amendments on sheet ZB355 be agreed to.

Government's circulated amendments—

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 3), insert:

(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4, column 1), after "Part 1", insert ", Division 2".

(3) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5, column 2), omit "table item 4", substitute "table item 3B".

(4) Clause 2, page 3 (table item 11, column 2), omit "table item 4", substitute "table item 3B".

(5) Schedule 1, item 19, page 9 (line 11), omit "or", substitute "and".

(6) Schedule 1, item 19, page 9 (after line 11), at the end of paragraph 10A(1)(a), add:

(iv) the conditions (if any) relating to changes in membership, dissolution, administration or operation of the group that are specified in the AML/CTF Rules are satisfied; or

(7) Schedule 1, item 19, page 9 (line 22), at the end of paragraph 10A(1)(b), add:

; and (vi) the conditions (if any) relating to changes in membership, dissolution, administration or operation of the group that are specified in the AML/CTF Rules are satisfied.

(8) Schedule 1, item 19, page 9 (after line 22), after subsection 10A(1), insert:

(1A) Subject to subsection (2A), a person may be a member of a group to which paragraph (1)(b) applies even if the person is a member of a group to which paragraph (1)(a) applies.

(1B) The requirement in subparagraph (1)(b)(i) to make a written election does not apply in relation to a member of a group in the circumstances specified in the AML/CTF Rules.

(9) Schedule 1, item 19, page 9 (after line 24), after subsection 10A(2), insert:

(2A) If a person is a member of more than one reporting group, the AML/CTF Rules may specify circumstances in which that person is taken, for the purposes of this Act, to be a member of only one of those reporting groups.

(10) Schedule 1, item 24, page 18 (lines 31 and 32), omit subsection 26F(8), substitute:

Reporting entities must develop and maintain AML/CTF policies before providing designated services

(8) A reporting entity must not commence to provide a designated service to a customer if the reporting entity does not comply with subsection (1).

Civil penalty

(8A) Subsection (8) is a civil penalty provision.

(11) Schedule 1, item 24, page 18 (line 33), omit "(1)", substitute "(8)".

(12) Schedule 1, item 24, page 19 (line 3), omit "(1)", substitute "(8)".

(13) Schedule 1, item 24, page 20 (lines 2 to 11), omit subsections 26G(4) and (5).

(14) Schedule 1, item 24, page 27 (line 29), omit paragraph 26T(3)(c), substitute:

(c) subsection 26P(2);

(d) Division 5.

(15) Schedule 1, page 31 (after line 7), after item 35, insert:

35A Paragraph 123(1)(a)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(a) the person is or has been:

(i) a reporting entity; or

(ii) an officer, employee or agent of a reporting entity; or

(iii) a member of a reporting group; or

(iv) an officer, employee or agent of a member of a reporting group; or

(v) required by a notice under subsection 49(1) to give information or produce documents; or

(vi) required by notice under subsection 49B(2) to give information or produce documents; and

(16) Schedule 2, item 5, page 38 (lines 1 and 2), omit ", in or for an Australian government body,", substitute "(whether or not in or for the Commonwealth)".

(17) Schedule 2, item 7, page 44 (line 29) to page 45 (line 3), omit subsections 28(9) and (10), substitute:

(9) A reporting entity that contravenes subsection (1) in relation to a customer commits a separate contravention of that subsection in respect of each designated service that the reporting entity provides to the customer at or through a permanent establishment of the reporting entity in Australia.

(10) A reporting entity that contravenes subsection (1) in relation to a customer commits a separate contravention of that subsection on each day that the reporting entity provides designated services to the customer at or through a permanent establishment of the reporting entity in a foreign country.

(18) Schedule 2, item 7, page 45 (line 5), omit "(1) Despite", substitute "Despite".

(19) Schedule 2, item 7, page 45 (line 30) to page 46 (line 3), omit subsections 29(2) and (3).

(20) Schedule 2, item 7, page 48 (lines 12 to 21), omit subsections 30(7) and (8), substitute:

(7) A reporting entity that contravenes subsection (1) in relation to a customer commits a separate contravention of that subsection in respect of each designated service that the reporting entity provides to the customer at or through a permanent establishment of the reporting entity in Australia.

(8) A reporting entity that contravenes subsection (1) in relation to a customer commits a separate contravention of that subsection on each day that the reporting entity provides designated services to the customer at or through a permanent establishment of the reporting entity in a foreign country.

(21) Schedule 3, item 1, page 58 (line 31), omit "20", substitute "30".

(22) Schedule 3, item 9, page 65 (starting at line 26), omit the item, substitute:

9 Subsection 6(2) (table item 46, column headed "Provision of a designated service", paragraph (b))

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(b) the service is not specified in the AML/CTF Rules

(23) Schedule 3, item 10, page 66 (table items 1 and 2), omit the table items, substitute:

(24) Schedule 3, Part 3, page 70 (after line 12), at the end of the Part, add:

10A Before subsection 6(7)

Insert:

Services provided by barristers on instructions of a solicitor

(6B) Despite anything in this section, a service is not a designated service if the service is provided by a person in the course of legal practice as a barrister on the instructions of a solicitor, if the instructions are given in connection with the provision of a designated service.

(25) Schedule 5, item 2, page 81 (line 24) to page 82 (line 6), omit paragraph 123(1)(a), substitute:

(a) the person is or has been:

(i) a reporting entity; or

(ii) an officer, employee or agent of a reporting entity; or

(iii) required by a notice under subsection 49(1) to give information or produce documents; or

(iv) required by notice under subsection 49B(2) to give information or produce documents; and

(26) Schedule 8, item 14, page 100 (line 17), omit "other".

(27) Schedule 8, item 22, page 102 (line 11), after "receives", insert "or otherwise obtains".

(28) Schedule 8, item 22, page 102 (line 19) to page 103 (line 14), omit subsections 63A(1) to (3), substitute:

(1) Whether a person is an ordering institution is to be determined in accordance with the AML/CTF Rules.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), AML/CTF Rules made for the purposes of that subsection may specify the following:

(a) criteria or other requirements that a person must satisfy to be an ordering institution;

(b) circumstances in which a person is an ordering institution.

(29) Schedule 8, item 22, page 103 (line 17), omit "incidentally", substitute "in circumstances where the transfer is reasonably incidental".

(30) Schedule 8, item 22, page 103 (line 28) to page 104 (line 18), omit subsections 63A(5) to (7), substitute:

(5) Whether a person is a beneficiary institution is to be determined in accordance with the AML/CTF Rules.

(6) Without limiting subsection (5), AML/CTF Rules made for the purposes of that subsection may specify the following:

(a) criteria or other requirements that a person must satisfy to be a beneficiary institution;

(b) circumstances in which a person is a beneficiary institution.

(31) Schedule 8, item 22, page 104 (line 21), omit "incidentally", substitute "in circumstances where the making available of the value is reasonably incidental".

(32) Schedule 8, item 22, page 106 (line 5), after "value,", insert "or otherwise gives effect to the transfer of value,".

(33) Schedule 8, item 22, page 107 (lines 12 to 21), omit subsection 65(3), substitute:

(3) If:

(a) the beneficiary institution:

(i) detects that it has not received all of the information mentioned in paragraph (2)(a); and

(ii) has not otherwise obtained the information; or

(b) the beneficiary institution detects that some or all of the information received or otherwise obtained about the payee is not accurate;

then the beneficiary institution must, in accordance with its AML/CTF program, do at least one of the following:

(c) refuse to make the transferred value available to the payee;

(d) take such other action as the beneficiary institution determines.

Note: See also section 26G (reporting entities must comply with AML/CTF policies).

(34) Schedule 8, item 22, page 108 (line 16), after "subsection (2),", insert "and the intermediary institution has not otherwise obtained the information,".

(35) Schedule 8, item 22, page 110 (line 3), omit "that", substitute "if the beneficiary institution".

(36) Schedule 8, item 22, page 110 (line 4), omit "a custodial wallet controlled by".

(37) Schedule 8, item 22, page 110 (line 7), omit "a custodial wallet controlled by".

(38) Schedule 8, item 22, page 110 (line 35), after "institution has", insert "received or otherwise".

(39) Schedule 8, item 22, page 111 (line 2), omit "64(3)", substitute "65(2)".

(40) Schedule 8, item 38, page 117 (line 23), omit "ownership or control of", substitute "person who controls".

(41) Schedule 9, page 140 (after line 13), after item 26, insert:

26A Section 5 (after paragraph (b) of the definition of qualified accountant )

Insert:

(ba) the Institute of Public Accountants; or

(42) Schedule 10, item 6, page 145 (lines 19 to 23), omit the item, substitute:

6 Subsection 6(2) (table item 47, column headed "Provision of a designated service", paragraph (b))

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(b) the service is not provided in the course of carrying on a business that provides short-term accommodation for travellers; and

(c) the service is not specified in the AML/CTF Rules

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment on sheet 3204, circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendment—

(1) Schedule 5, item 2, page 83 (after line 29), after subsection 123(4), insert:

Exception information sharing when person no longer able to supply professional legal services to customer

(4A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the disclosure of information covered by paragraphs (2)(a), (e), (f), (g) or (h) by a person if:

(a) the person is a reporting entity, or an officer, employee or agent of a reporting entity that is:

(i) a legal practitioner (however described); or

(ii) a partnership or company that carries on a business of using legal practitioners (however described) to supply professional legal services; and

(b) the person makes the disclosure to a customer of the person, a court or tribunal, or a regulatory body, for the purposes of stating the reasons why the person is no longer able to supply professional legal services to the customer; and

(c) the person does not disclose the content of any report, information or document given or produced, or required to be given or produced, under subsections 41(2), 49(1) or 49B(2).

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (4A) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment on sheet 3066, circulated by the Jacqui Lambie Network, be agreed to.

Jacqui Lambie Network's circulated amendment—

(1) Schedule 3, page 58 (before line 3), before Part 1, insert:

Part 1A — Small business exemption

Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006

1A Section 5

Insert:

small business employer has the same meaning as in the Fair Work Act 2009.

1B Subsection 6(1)

After "this Act", insert "and subject to subsection (1A)".

1C After subsection 6(1)

Insert:

(1A) A small business employer is taken not to provide a designated service covered by the tables in subsections (3), (5A) and (5B).