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

I rise to speak on the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill 2006 and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006. The objective of these bills is outlined in clause 3 of the legislation. Basically they aim to bring Australia into international compliance in measures to combat money laundering by criminals and the financing of terrorism. This spectrum of regulatory action is known as anti money-laundering counter-terrorism financing, commonly known as the AMLCTF regime. The bills derive their impetus from the OECD’s financial action task force recommendations. Those task force recommendations consisted of 40 recommendations on anti-money-laundering matters and nine special recommendations dealing specifically with counter-terrorism financing. Clause 3 also lists a number of other international obligations and resolutions.

After much delay, the government is now legislating to bring Australia into compliance with those FATF regimes—that is, the financial action task force regimes—but doing so in two tranches of legislation. The first tranche is these bills currently before the parliament. They cover financial, gambling and bullion-dealing industries in addition to lawyers and accountants, but only to the extent that they are in competition with the financial industry. The second tranche, which covers other activities of lawyers and accountants as well as the jewellery and real estate industries, is yet to be released. The government has not even announced a target date for the completion of that.

Rather than incorporate and amend the existing financial transactions reporting regimes under the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988, the government has adopted the unwieldy approach of formulating a separate legislative scheme, which the AMLCTF Bill creates. This bill is very timely indeed because, as the name suggests, the bill deals with money laundering and the operation of terrorists and their need for financing. Only yesterday, the Cole commission handed down its report—Report of the inquiry into certain Australian companies in relation to the UN oil for food programon the AWB. The presentation of this bill today has given me an opportunity to make some comments about the connection between those two. Make no mistake: if the Howard government’s record on money laundering and financing of terrorism was not so soft or weak, Commissioner Cole would have had the option of recommending similar charges against the alleged perpetrators of misconduct to the ones we are now intending to enact in this very bill.

Of course, the greatest shame is that the inquiry’s terms of reference were limited only to certain companies in relation to the UN oil for food program. As Commissioner Cole himself noted, in volume 4 at page 21:

The Inquiry’s terms of reference do not extend to investigating and reporting on whether the actions or conduct of the Commonwealth, or any of its officers, might have constituted a breach of a law of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory.

It has been well canvassed today in question time and by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Griffith in the censure motion that the government did its best from the outset to restrict the Cole commission’s inquiry to ensure that it could not inquire into those matters. Cole went on to say that, had he become aware of offences by Commonwealth officers detected under his limited terms of reference, he would have investigated. Given those terms of reference, it is no surprise that he found none; they put blinkers on the inquiry and tied both arms behind his back.

It is a great failing of this government that, when charged with enforcing sanctions against one of the most evil men of the last generation, the Howard government wilfully—and I believe corruptly or negligently—facilitated or turned a blind eye to some $300 million in payments to the ‘Butcher of Baghdad’. The Howard government would have to be the most morally bankrupt government to hold office in this land. They have been so arrogant that they cannot even smell the stench of corruption that reeks all around them. Indeed, they had the hubris to conduct celebratory drinks yesterday evening to enjoy their moment.

See this speech in context