Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aviation and Transport Security) Share this | Hansard source

I stand corrected. That is one of the problems of having two bills on before 10.30, Attorney. I am delighted that it was introduced today and I look forward to the opportunity to have a look at it. I thank the Attorney.

A further issue with the bill was identified by the Australian Bankers Association, the ABA, with its application to the hub-and-spoke system. As identified in submissions to the Senate inquiry, the ABA noted that a number of their member organisations operated via a system whereby payments sent by other institutions to one of their offshore sites are routed through Australia. I bring this up at this point because the response of the Attorney-General’s Department was that they, to quote from the department themselves, ‘would like to seek further input from the ABA before any amendments were made to the bill to clarify this situation’.

It seems somewhat odd to me and the Labor Party that the government continually puts the cart before the horse in this way. It comes up with unworkable legislation and then seeks to consult with industry, after the fact, in trying to fix it when what is clearly required in good government is having some understanding of the industry and how it works—before you wrap it up in red tape. It is industry that is doing the job for government. The Attorney-General, Mr Ruddock, and the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Ellison, should be paying consultancy fees to the Australian Bankers Association, such are the efforts to which it has had to go to educate the ministers and their departments on these matters.

It strikes me as more than absurd that, for all the talk about the importance of combating terrorism, the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General have proven themselves singularly incapable of providing a legislative response that is adequate. I note that the parliament was recalled at great expense to fix improperly drafted antiterror legislation by changing one word. In this context, I have been extremely critical of the government for putting Australia’s national security at risk through its shoddy drafting and casual approach to legislation.

I also note that the Howard government initially attempted to give the Anti-Terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2005 just that one-day Senate inquiry. I well recall that day and being up in the press gallery lampooning the government for its arrogance in trying to rush through such important legislation without any proper scrutiny by the Senate. This bill and its consumption of parliamentary sitting time could have been completely avoided if the executive had drafted its legislation properly or had allowed the Senate and the House of Representatives adequate time for scrutiny of the education—or indeed if the executive had consulted meaningfully with the stakeholders before rushing unworkable and error riddled legislation through the Senate.

Sadly, this government, now far too long in office, has adopted an arrogant approach in its treatment not only of the Australian people but also of this place. Now that it has a majority in both houses, this government has shown a complete disregard for the proper processes of review that have traditionally been the function of the Senate in particular. I know that my colleague Senator Ludwig and others in the Senate have over the years provided extraordinarily careful scrutiny of these matters before Senate committees. It is that scrutiny which ensures that legislation is correct before it is enacted. It is that scrutiny which this government has jettisoned in its lust for power in the aftermath of obtaining a majority in the Senate as well as a majority in this place. The result of that arrogance and disregard for what have in the past been proper processes of review, particularly in the Senate, is faulty legislation in a number of areas. In this area, dealing with antiterrorism matters, we have seen it occur all too frequently. As a parliament and as a people, we are all the worse off for that. I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “while not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1)

notes the failure of the Howard Government to draft the Anti-terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2005 correctly;

(2)

notes that the Howard government initially attempted to give the Anti-Terrorism Bill (No.2) 2005 a one-day Senate inquiry, and that the government finally allowed only a shortened inquiry;

(3)

notes that this Bill and its consumption of parliamentary sitting time could have been completely avoided if the Executive would:

(a)

draft its legislation properly; or

(b)

allow the Senate adequate time for scrutiny of the legislation; and

(c)

consult meaningfully with stakeholders before rushing unworkable and error-riddled legislation through the Senate.

(4)

notes that the Parliament was recalled in late 2005 at great expense to fix improperly drafted anti-terror legislation by changing one word;

(5)

criticises the government for putting Australia’s national security at risk through its shoddy drafting and sloppy approach to legislation;

(6)

notes the extended delay in bringing forward the anti-money laundering regime due to botched consultation with affected industries; and

(7)

notes the Howard government’s failure to meet the FATF mutual evaluation on anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing, scoring just nine out of 40 on anti-money laundering, and zero out of nine on counter-terrorism financing”.

See this speech in context