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

As we have said right from the start with this, we do not oppose the introduction of anti-money-laundering legislation that fights the financing of terrorism. It is a scourge and should be limited and got rid of. We do not object to the government bringing the legislation forward in a reasonable state, having consulted with business to ensure that it does not tie them up with red tape.

When you look at the way this has been handled, you will see that the No. 2 bill brought in the legislation, and the government limited the ability of the original committee to deal with it. As a consequence, we had a range of submitters. The government then came back to amend it, even before it came into place. So I suspect that business is getting annoyed, or at least finding that the sands are shifting underneath them all the time, because the legislation is changing and not being brought forward.

We then had more changes, which appear to be me to be straight from the ABA submission to the committee with perhaps some add-ons from other industry sources as well. So we had a situation where, having the committee hear from the government, there was no change and the bill went through. We then came back before it was enacted with even more changes—even late changes through a supplementary EM. You would have to say, upon reflection, that this process is less than perfect and in fact smacks of really ad hoc changes and a bandaid solution, because it is only an interim solution. We are still waiting for the final bill, but it will deal only with the first tranche of the entire area. This is all turning into quite a saga. There are a couple of analogies I would make, but I will refrain from doing so. It is a serious issue.

The opposition is concerned about ensuring that small business, medium business and even big business are not tied up with red tape, particularly in this area, but it does require a considered, meted change to ensure that it is effective and that business is consulted. In the consultative process the changes that are brought forward need to meet business expectations in the fight against the financing of terrorism. So far the process has not been all that satisfactory.

Amendment (2), instead of requiring just a full business or residential address, provides that a range of identifiers can be used. We do not object to that change; it is sensible to bring it forward to ensure that there are a range of identifiers, such as full business or residential address. Perhaps the minister can provide an explanation as to why the changes regarding subsection b(i) were required. It is just not clear on the record, at least to me. And in subsection b(ii), why do we need to clarify that the ID code must be unique when a unique reference is subsequently defined later on?

While the minister seeks an explanation I turn to some broad issues. As I have said, the saga of this bill is not yet over. These amendments are largely to correct problems in the bill that came about through lack of consultation in the drafting process in the first place. In fact, half of the corrections seem to come straight from the comments made by the Australian Bankers Association. Labor certainly agrees that those concerns should be taken into account by the government when drafting legislation, but of course while keeping in mind the purpose of the legislation—that is, to fight terrorist financing.

The government has gone about this in a backward sort of way. The correct process, I would have thought, would have been to consult with stakeholders, bring the bill forward and deal with it through the committee process—for those people in the wider community who still have a legitimate interest—rather than wait until the last minute to amend an already amending bill. I have to say that, in my experience, this department’s attitude to consultation with industry has been less than perfect on a range of issues. In fact, I have even been assured by AGD at a committee hearing that they would lift their game in the consultative process. That was in relation to a different bill, and it may even have involved a different part of AGD. Perhaps the minister can pass it back to AGD that they should think through the consultative process a little more broadly so we do not end up spending more time than we need to when debating this issue in the chamber.