Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Homeland Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2007 was last before this parliament, and I spoke on the bill in this House, I alerted the parliament to the concerns that Labor had in relation to a number of aspects of the bill, in particular two that I identified dealing with provisions in the bill at clause 5D and clause 8(1), I think. Since then the Senate committee has had an opportunity to consider the bill in more detail and has made a number of findings and recommendations supporting the two matters that I raised in this parliament and identified a number of other areas that required improvement.

With the support of the government, the Senate has adopted a number of changes, and it has picked up six or seven of the 10 recommendations that were made by that committee. We welcome the government’s willingness to listen to the good counsel of the Senate committee and to take on board those concerns, which both Labor and the Senate committee—and, I know, members of the government’s party room—expressed about the bill.

The amendments we are dealing with fix up two of those issues I mentioned a moment ago. It is worth recalling the problem that the original bill presented. Clause 5 of the bill, as it appeared previously before this House, provided that a background check could relate to one or more of the following:

(a)

the individual’s criminal history;

(b)

matters relevant to a security assessment of the individual;

(c)

the individual’s citizenship status, residency status or the individual’s entitlement to work in Australia, including but not limited to, whether the person is an Australian citizen, a permanent resident or an unlawful non-citizen;

and the offending provision:

(d)

such other matters as are prescribed by the regulations.

Effectively that would have given the government the opportunity—without coming back to the parliament, without establishing a public case for it to do so—to conduct quite invasive security checks on anybody at any time for any purpose for which the Commonwealth has constitutional powers. That is an extraordinarily broad purpose that the government sought to include in the legislation.

It is a sad reflection on the mindset of this government that it thinks providing bills of that sort is appropriate. The fact that we are here today to correct that is a good thing. It is nonetheless a cause for worry that a bill with those provisions could go through the vetting processes, be endorsed by the Attorney-General and be brought before this parliament with such extraordinarily sweeping powers, effectively for the executive, entailed in it. Whilst we understand these are disallowable instruments, nobody can honestly say that a regulation is subjected to the same level of scrutiny and public exposure as a piece of legislation. To provide such powers through regulation is not good governance, no matter who the government is.

The other provision was of a similar kind. It was picked up in recommendation 2 of the committee’s report, which recommended that clause 8(1)(c) of the bill be removed. These amendments do that as well. That regulation provided for the establishment of a background checking scheme, the AusCheck scheme, that related to the conduct and coordination of background checks of individuals for the purposes of the Aviation Transport Security Act or regulations under that act, for the purposes of the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003, or regulations under that act or—the offending clause—for such other purposes as are prescribed by regulations. Again, this is an open-ended power where the government sought to take unto itself the capacity to conduct investigations. (Extension of time granted) The combined effect of the provisions that were outlined in the original bill provides unfettered power for the Commonwealth to conduct these security checks for any purpose, as warranted by its own judgement, and affecting any Australian.

People looking at this may not appreciate what is involved in these security checks. It is not like getting a driver’s licence, and it is not like getting a pass to Parliament House. These are serious background checks, typically involving Federal Police and ASIO background checking of individuals and those closely associated with them. These are not the sorts of things that citizens in a free society expect to be subjected to. Ordinary Australian citizens expect, quite rightly in a free society, to go about their normal business and as long as they do not break the law they expect their privacy to be respected. It is a fundamental tenet upon which our society is built. They certainly do not expect the government of the day to authorise intelligence collection agencies and law enforcement agencies to delve into the depths of their personal, professional and public behaviour for no good reason—and, if there is a good reason, it will be supported in this parliament.

There has been bipartisan support for the establishment of AusCheck and for the creation of the MSIC and ASIC checks. In fact, Labor have been critical of the government’s mishandling of these security passes. Our view on this side of the chamber is that the government have done a poor job in administering these security matters, but there has not been a shortage of willingness in this parliament to have necessary security checks done where there is a good public reason to do so. The government cannot claim that they need these extraordinary powers held to the executive, and they cannot claim they need these powers because there has been some obstruction in this parliament. Frankly, in the current situation, they have the numbers in both houses, which makes it pretty unlikely that there would be obstruction.

I am pleased that the government have been willing to review the matters that were raised by me when this bill was here before and also raised more extensively by the Senate committee in its recommendations. It is unfortunate that the government have decided not to adopt all of the Senate committee’s recommendations. By way of a further amendment, I will be pursuing one of those after this matter is dealt with so as to give effect to recommendation 9 of the Senate committee’s report. The other two recommendations that the government are not pursuing do have merit but, as the government have been willing to address the major areas of concern we have raised, I will not pursue them. At the conclusion of the matters immediately before the chair, I will move an amendment to give effect to recommendation 9 and I will speak to it at that time.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bill we are discussing is the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2007. I think the honourable member for Brisbane was, in fact, debating the AusCheck Bill 2006, and all of the comments were quite superfluous. I hope he does not have to make those comments again at another time.

I would simply make the point that I think the most surprising admission that I heard in the context of the debate I just listened to was that regulations are not subject to the same degree of scrutiny as other legislation. I find that an extraordinary comment. We do have a Senate committee that has specific responsibility, with a high level of academic support, for reviewing all delegated legislation to ensure that matters are brought before the parliament if they involve any element of controversy, and there are a number of principles associated with that degree of scrutiny. For the Australian public to believe that the Labor Party takes the view that regulations ought to be subject to a lesser degree of certainty is something I find disappointing.

I thank members for their contributions to the debate on the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill. The amendments do make the law more effective in the fight against money laundering and terrorism financing. I commend the amendments to the House.

Question agreed to.