Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Hansard source

I wish to make it clear that the government does believe that this bill, when it is introduced, should be referred to a committee. I believe the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs would be an appropriate committee to deal with the bill. There was an exposure draft which we referred to that committee. It was done for the reason that this is a complex area and we wanted to give the committee a preliminary opportunity, if you like, to look at the legislation and to look at issues in the broad, so that the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs now has a fairly good appreciation of the issues involved in this. I think that, for that reason, there would be benefit in sending the final bill, as introduced, to that committee. That is my thinking on that. Of course, it is up to the Senate as to what it refers, and I will not pre-empt that decision, but that would be the government’s view in relation to that.

In relation to the time line, Senator Ludwig has asked that there be adequate time, and it is certainly planned to introduce the bill in these sittings. The bill has the appropriate status for that to happen and I believe that the committee would have the time to look at the bill.

There has been extensive consultation in this process: two exposure drafts, which is quite unusual. The two exposure drafts have been the subject of comment by industry. Consultation is ongoing. Indeed, part of the consultation that was conducted in relation to this particular bill formed part of the broader consultation for the more general aspects of the legislation which we will be dealing with later.

In relation to Senator Ludwig’s other queries, I think that, of the question on notice he mentioned, I can say that, in relation to special recommendation VII of the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, the amendments to restrict division 3A of part II of the FTR Act to authorise deposit-taking institutions will not achieve full compliance with special recommendation VII. I think that answers the question that Senator Ludwig posed.

That further compliance which is needed will be done under the bill—if I can call it this—which is dealing with the wider issue of anti-money-laundering reform. It will be dealt with when it is brought into the parliament. The amendments to schedule 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2005 are meant to provide an interim solution to the issues identified by the non-bank money remittance businesses. That is how we are approaching it with special recommendation VII.

In relation to the submissions by the private sector and when they were received, some of the government amendments that we are moving today are the product of consultation with the private sector, and I can indicate those when I deal with each of the government amendments in turn. If Senator Ludwig’s question is a broader one, dealing with all the submissions that we received and when they were received, then we will have to take that on notice.