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

The shadow Attorney-General has put the case very clearly with respect to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2007that is, the bill is still part of a process to which, regrettably, the government has had to be pushed. There are areas where the government has acted promptly and well, such as Corporations Law and laws to better advance corporate governance. But there are other areas where it has not done anything at all and, in fact, has moved backwards—for instance, political governance. In the area of anti-money laundering, the Labor Party indicated that it had put the government under considerable scrutiny with respect to its very slow progress—so too did the Democrats. In my portfolio responsibility, I argued the case many times for the advancement of counter-money laundering measures and questioned the responsible minister on the matter. This is one of those cases where we have to be thankful for the existence of vigorous foreign organisations and bodies, supported by foreign governments, which are very anxious for Australia to catch up in this area. That time line has been outlined by the shadow minister.

The second area that the shadow minister has covered successfully is that of continuing concern about the provisions within the legislation itself. I note with some approval that amendments which were previously put to the substantial bill and which failed are to be put again by Labor. These amendments will again attract the support of the Democrats because they are necessary.

I noted with mild amusement the shadow minister’s historical reference to the maginot line. I expected him to then start quoting Sun Tzu, Clauswitz or even Shaka Zulu—all of whom were quite expert on the issue of frontal versus flanking attacks. I think all three came to the conclusion that a flanking attack was often more effective than a frontal attack and that a frontal attack should only be used when the other side would be surprised by it. Maybe an analogy in politics might be apposite. I tend to see far too many frontal attacks in politics, and I would suggest flanking attacks might be as effective in politics as in war.

Returning to the bill—and moving away from an indulgence—it makes technical amendments to seven acts. Those seven acts include the substantive act, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-terrorism Financing Act 2006 and its companion act, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2006, the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, the Commonwealth Electoral Act, the Financial Transaction Reports Act, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and the Security Act and the Surveillance Devices Act. It is not an omnibus bill. It is just a sign that when you are making a series of technical amendments to a piece of legislation which has tentacles into other areas of responsibility, you are going to have to amend a number of acts.

The legislation does take into account—and the government is to be congratulated on this—concerns raised by reports of both the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Some of the amendments before us address concerns raised by the Democrats, Senate committees and Senate colleagues last year. In particular, the bill addresses the issue of absolute liability rather than strict liability and moves down the scale somewhat, at the request of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, from absolute liability to strict liability provisions. Amendments also address the issue of the merits review, AUSTRAC Chief Executive Officer decisions and the right to apply to the Federal Court. Like ASIO, ASIS is also going to be made a designated agency, granting its officials access to AUSTRAC information. Further technical amendments will enable intelligence agencies to fulfil their functions under legislation and consequential technical amendments.

The amendments in the bill address the concerns of several stakeholders both in the public policy field and in the political field. What remains are concerns about how the act and the amended act will operate and how effective this legislation will be at counteracting money laundering. As I have emphasised when I have addressed this matter before, in that regard this legislation is as important to tax integrity issues and the health of our economy and society as it is to the concerns surrounding terrorism.

The other point with respect to how this bill will operate is privacy concerns—whether in the proper exercise of this policy there will be transgressions in privacy matters which we might end up regretting or which might upset members of the community. Any government needs to watch that with care and react to it with sympathy and understanding if, indeed, the legislation is found to go further in its practice than it was intended.

When introducing the bill into the House of Representatives the Attorney-General did note that the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills had raised concerns about the application of absolute liability rather than strict liability to some elements of offences under many sections in the act. The Minister for Justice and Customs, a former member of that committee, did undertake to amend these sections to replace the application of absolute liability with strict liability. It is with some pleasure that I note that the new minister in that portfolio, who I congratulate on his promotion, was indeed recently a respected and valued member of the Senate scrutiny of bills committee. I look forward to as few transgressions of that committee’s reference as possible under a minister who is sensitive to those areas.

The question then is: what will be the Democrats’ attitude to this bill? Despite being cautious on privacy matters, we are nevertheless of the belief that an anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing act was an essential element in our criminal law and in our fight against these diseases that exist at large in international and domestic affairs. We are supportive of these amendments. We think though that regular review and regular oversight should be dedicated to this new act to ensure that its actual operation does not go further than its intention. I conclude by again indicating that it is our intention to support the Labor Party’s amendments.