Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I certainly welcome this opportunity to speak on the Combating the Financing of People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2011. This bill makes certain amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006. As we know, that was created by the Howard government. It talks to the requirement for the reporting of international funds transfers of over $10,000. So those performing remittances need to report those transactions to AUSTRAC. This was a bill for the time. There were issues regarding terrorism—as there still are today—and issues regarding criminal activity, the money-laundering problems that still exist today. So it was very much an act for the time. There is no doubt that it served its purpose. I pay tribute to Senator Ellison for the work that he did to bring that bill and then act before the parliament.

That is one thing. That is what the act at the time was designed to achieve: to make sure that those transactions that took place were properly reported and then investigated if required. That was what it was all about. On the other hand there was the issue of border control and the people smuggling that took place. To fix that problem, the government at the time decided on a different set of measures. Those measures were ultimately successful, as they reduced the boat arrivals to a mere trickle. I think there was one boat arrival in 2002, and it was pretty much along the same lines after that. So there was a law for money laundering and counter-terrorism financing. And there was a policy with Nauru and temporary protection visas. That solved the other problem.

When we look at this bill—and I am holding up a copy of the minister’s second reading speech—what we see is an attempt to convert the original Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act into something which the government is putting out there and suggesting is going to represent progress on solving the problem of people smuggling. It has already been pointed out by so many speakers before me that there is very little reference in the second reading speech—or the bill, really—with regard to people smuggling.

The problem is that the ultimate problem is not going to be solved by this sort of thing. We know how to solve the problem. Those members who were here before knew how to solve the problem. The member for Leichhardt was around when the problem was solved before, when the measures were put in place that actually stopped all the boats—or stopped all but one or two boats a year. But, unfortunately, the government cannot bring itself to put those measures back in place which would solve the problem. So we are shadow-boxing around with this bill, where the government brings it before the parliament and supposes that this is going to be the panacea that will result in a reduction in people smuggling. But we will get to that.

This bill is about the 6½ thousand providers of remittance services. This bill is about those other organisations and bodies that might also end up providing remittance services. It is basically about more remittance providers being included under the original act and the ability for more government agencies to be informed about the remittances that take place. That is basically what this bill is all about. We know that it supposes itself to be an attempt to reduce people smuggling. That is what it supposes. I noted, when I was listening before to this debate this evening in my office, a number of comments that were made. I think it was the member for Canberra and the member for Dobell who waxed lyrically about the $2 billion that the government has spent on its anti people-smuggling border control strategy.

See this speech in context