Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

Before I comment on the specific amendments before us I want to briefly refer to the minister’s response to the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Minister, you are well aware—perhaps not all of your ministerial colleagues are, particularly those in the lower house—that that committee does not operate on a partisan or political basis. It tries very hard to operate on principle. I must compliment you on your thoughtful and helpful response to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee’s recommendations with respect to this bill. As you know, I have been on that committee for over 10 years, and I think that with respect to your response to this bill, and your response to other matters that you have had to deal with from the committee, you quite frequently represent an example that others of your colleagues might follow. There you are; you can have a kiss on the forehead for December!

Turning to the amendments before us, the Democrats had put these amendments forward as well. I concur with the remarks made by the shadow minister for the official Labor opposition. Their amendments, in sequence, are based on recommendation 1 of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs which seeks to delay the first stage of implementation of the bill until three months after the date of royal assent. We should note that this was requested by a number of the stakeholders who appeared at the committee’s hearings—and so that they could have the opportunity find the time to set up the appropriate risk based systems required by the bill. As the minister would understand, despite the lengthy and detailed consultation with some of them, most would be reluctant to commence the implementation systems until the legislation was actually passed. Otherwise, it might be wasted time, effort and money. So we think the amendment is appropriate.

Opposition amendment (2)—and Democrats amendment (2)—is based on recommendation 4 of the committee report. That recommendation was that clause 6(7) be deleted from the bill so that the table in section 6 cannot be amended by regulation but can only be amended by a bill before the House, to ensure parliamentary scrutiny of any changes to the services which are impacted by the provisions of this legislation. This was an area of concern to stakeholders who appeared before the committee, who were worried that changes may take place, without appropriate consultation and without appropriate parliamentary oversight, and they would not be aware of them.

Amendment (8) was that the act be reviewed in four years rather than seven, which reflects recommendation 13 of the committee report. I heard the minister’s response to that and I concur with the shadow minister’s views. I am absolutely certain you will be coming before us before seven years are up. The horrors of terrorism and the calumny that is represented by crime are likely to need a continuing response to and finetuning of this legislation.

I also happen to be of the view that, once you start to implement this legislation, you may find it desirable in fact to bring forward the implementation of some of those matters that are proposed only to come into play in 3½ years time. I am not convinced that once you have assessed the situation, you will necessarily want to hold to that timetable—and, of course, as the minister would surely recognise, that represents some dangers; if you want to have an anti-money-laundering regime, the sooner it is in place, the better. I would encourage the minister to be flexible in his mind on that matter and to recognise the validity of the remarks made by the opposition shadow.

The other point to make is that a review need not be of the whole act; it could be of a part or sections of the act that are already in place. Having moved the same amendments as the opposition, I do of course support them. With that motivation I trust we will move to a vote.