Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I am happy for the chamber to be provided with the answer but, as I understand it, I do not think this fixes the problem with SR VII. I think you will agree with that, Mr Temporary Chairman. The main problem was the exclusion of ‘cash dealer’ from the section and the substitution of ‘ADI’. I thought that had to do with an objection raised by the ABA which related to hub and spoke transfers. My understanding is—and this is partially taken from the EM itself—that a customer goes to bank A and wants funds transferred to bank B. Bank A sends the transfer instructions to a related bank, bank C, which has a corresponding banking relationship with bank B.

Under the amendment, for the purposes of the legislation, bank C is taken to be acting on behalf of the customer, who is entitled to rely on the customer information provided by bank A. Apparently, this fixes an error which would have required bank C to verify the details of the customer before sending on the instructions. The AGD said they would consult with the ABA as part of their response to original questioning by me. It looks as though, in that instance, the ABA found another hole—or, alternatively, the department, in looking at this area, turned up the issue. But are these amendments designed to address the issues that were raised by the ABA in the Senate committee? Was the ABA consulted on the final wording of the FTR amendment to this bill? If not, then an explanation of where it came from would be helpful. What other industry bodies were tacking changes onto this particular bill? That is in relation to amendment (1).

What I am concerned about is that we do have to meet the 40 recommendations from FATF, plus the nine special recommendations. The OECD report earlier this year did not give Australia a very—in my words—good report. Since that time, there have been the Anti-Terrorism Bill (No. 1) and Anti-Terrorism Bill (No. 2) which, in part, were brought about to address some of the deficiencies discovered, including the fact that we, at that time, were not fully compliant with any special recommendations.

The minister says that it is a work in progress, but it has been a work in progress since November 2003 and it is still not finalised—in fact, it is significantly not finalised when we have a second tranche as yet unseen and an unknown date as to when it will be brought forward. We still have not finalised the first tranche and it is now 2006 and counting.

As to the government’s response that it is a work in progress, I am concerned that there is a requirement to meet the 40 plus nine recommendations to be fully compliant. The OECD will revisit this issue to establish whether meeting the 40 plus nine recommendations by, I think, later this year, is a reasonable timetable. You can correct me about that if I am wrong, Minister. You would certainly know better than me.

In that sense, it is not a work in progress. We do have to meet those 40 plus nine recommendations. As you would expect, as there are developments over time, legislation does change. It requires amendment and updating. But at least bedrock legislation has to be put in place, and it needs to be bedded down. You might find a slip, an error or a correction. That is not unusual. You might find that new circumstances have arisen or new procedures by industry might require amendment or change, but that is not a work in progress. It is part and parcel of the role of government to ensure that legislation remains up to date and relevant to the people who use it. But we have not got to the bedrock legislation, which I do not think should amount to a work in progress. It should in fact be here by now. It concerns me that, in an ad hoc way, we are still amending the legislation again today, when it has not even come into being. I asked a couple of questions in all of that, but I will deal with amendment (2) shortly.