David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024 expands the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 and aims to create a hostile regulatory environment for money laundering and terrorism financing, which are very eminent ideals. I would just like to remind members of this House that the coalition is concerned about some of the unintended consequences of this rushed-in bill.

The government's own modelling predicts that the regulatory cost to industry and to the economy will be $13.9 billion over 10 years. In rural Australia, people like accountants, car dealers, real estate owners and people involved in advising trusts and companies are really concerned that they will be left holding these costs, which will make small business in those particular fields of professional work unviable, which will just put more work back into big corporate organisations. We have a long history of supporting anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing. The actual act that is being amended and deleted by this bill was created by the Howard government. After the September 11 terrorism attacks, we really got involved with stamping out terrorism financing and the act has been very successful thus far.

I'm concerned that we've got 165 pages for people to digest. There are lots of businesses that, as I said, this bill classifies as high-risk businesses, because they have a perception that all this money laundering is going through small legal firms and real estate deals in country Australia or regional Australia. They think every crook is buying a Lamborghini and then cashing it out, or bringing in money from overseas, buying Australian property and then rinsing it out on the other side. But these costs are going to be huge for people that deal in these industries. They called for the regulation of designated non-financial businesses and professions, or the so-called 'tranche 2' entities, which may be big players in money laundering and terrorism financing. I can tell you that in Laurieton, Wingham, Taree, Foster-Tuncurry and Wauchope we have hardworking lawyers, accountants and businesspeople that sell land and houses and, trust me, they are not financing terrorism. I think it's a long bow to put in a bill that's going to cost all these people $13.9 billion over 10 years, yet the government predicts that there might be—might be—a $2.4 billion return to the government in stopping dodgy terrorism financing using mum-and-dad businesses in regional Australia.

There is a concern that if we don't do this, we will be given a black mark or a grey listing by the international finance industry, but I don't think that will happen because we will know by our tax records and by our listing of real estate. We have a very transparent property transfer system. It's there for anyone to look at and see if there are concerns. Likewise, cars are all registered and sold, and cash transactions already have to be reported. It's not just me that's thinking: 'Slow down. We need to really work this through.' The regulatory cost is one thing, but the mismatch between the allocation of costs and the benefits is huge. The Real Estate Institute of Australia has come out against these proposed reforms. Even the Law Council have come out against this because they are concerned that small legal firms will have to employ people to do due diligence on just about every transaction that is bread and butter for a country legal firm. I'll tell you, if the Law Council are concerned about it, they are not the only professional body. Accountants from CPA Australia, CA Australia and the Institute of Public Accountants are also concerned because they are just being buried in paperwork. They have to be up-front with people about their fees but, if they're going to have compliance officers in every country accounting firm, people will be paying through the nose for simple transactions and for management of trust and super funds. They're already paying thousands of dollars every year. If you're a business, you are paying an accountant and getting audited. All these processes we have already. COSBOA, the Council of Small Businesses of Australia, also has concerns on the impact for small businesses and their ability to comply due to limited resources.

I also note that there are huge proposed regulatory or legislative instruments and directions that the minister responsible for this act will have for the next four years, which could totally redefine things. The so-called Henry VIII clause will give the minister four years to make rules under the bill. I think it would be a case of making haste slowly. Rather than rushing this through, wait until the Senate legislative committee has finished its review. Then we can be realistic about how we can reduce the costs on all these industries that were badly affected and all consumers who will be paying through the nose for their legal advice on property purchasing, tax matters and trust and family business matters. It is a really significant change, so I would make haste slowly, listen to what the Senate committee comes up with and look at the amount of heartache you will cause for what appears to be a marginal benefit over 10 years.

See this speech in context