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

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1), (2) and (8) on sheet 5147:

(1)    Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2, cell at column 2), omit the cell, substitute:

Amendment (1) seeks to meet recommendation 1 of the committee report, which recommended a delay of three months after the date of royal assent. It is necessary to ensure businesses have sufficient time to train their staff and change their software and procedures in order to implement this legislation. It is comprehensive legislation in this area. Unfortunately, this legislation leaves a large part of the act of law to regulations and AML/CTF rules. I say ‘unfortunately’ because the rules are yet to be released in a comprehensive fashion. We have draft rules. It is important that industry has enough time to implement the rules because, under this regime, it is they who will police the rules. It is a risk based system; it is not only that AUSTRAC might say that compliance might give them a honeymoon period. By and large, this is a risk based system. The rules will provide how they apply to a broad framework, but companies and businesses will still need to have certainty when implementing this regime.

Amendment (2) is in line with recommendation 4 to strike out clause 6(7). I spoke about this in the second reading debate and I think the committee report also mentions it. I am not persuaded by the argument put by Senator Ellison that this clause is unnecessary. The government’s argument for flexibility does not pass the bar in Labor’s test of importance. We therefore will move to oppose the clause via amendment (2).

It is one of those matters where the government argues for flexibility but when you look at the overall framework of the legislation you see that it is a sufficiently flexible framework with much of the detail left to regulations and rules. I note, and appreciate, the guarantee by the government—through Senator Ellison during the summing up of the second reading debate—about how that clause would operate. However, certainty is always my choice in these things and if the clause is not there then it certainly cannot be abused by someone other than you down the track.

Amendment (8) on sheet 5147 is based on the committee’s recommendation 13 to reduce the review time from seven years to four. Seven years seems a long time—perhaps not so much to senators, but it is a very long time for a review for a piece of legislation of this complexity. It is more likely there will be amendments, given the finalisation of this tranche 2. You have already indicated there are likely to be amendments next year in relation to tranche 1. It would seem that once we have a timetable—and hopefully during this committee stage debate the government can outline what that timetable for tranche 2 is likely to be—we can see a four-year review.

Because it is ongoing work, I suspect there will be a need to revisit it even before the seven years is up. I suspect you will get caught out by putting seven years in, in any event. You will be back here with a review of some description well before the seven years because of the nature of the legislation and because of the nature of the Financial Action Task Force, being a living body that also finds new ways in which money launderers effect their crime. The task force, as you appreciate, with their recommendation 9 on counter-terrorist financing, came up with a new way and then amended their rules accordingly. They asked for those to be changed, so we have picked that up. So there is likely to be further change there, as well, as criminals with intent find new ways to launder money and the good guys find new ways to stop them.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to 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.

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

The government opposes these amendments. I outlined the reasons why in my summing-up speech earlier. I will not go over those again, but I refer to them. In relation to Senator Murray’s comment, we will certainly maintain a flexible approach because, in the implementation, we might learn some lessons, so to speak, and it could be that people say that they can implement something more quickly than they thought. We will certainly be alive to that.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate the Australian Greens’ support for these amendments.

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

I would have a division on some of these but, in the interests of saving time, I indicate that the Labor Party supported these amendments. We will not seek a division.

Question negatived.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 5165:

(1)    Clause 5, page 19 (lines 9 to 18), omit “:” and paragraphs (a) to (d) of the definition of financing of terrorism, substitute “an offence under Division 103 of the Criminal Code”.

This is an amendment that seeks to narrow the definition of ‘financing terrorism’ that is used in the legislation. For the Australian Greens one impetus for this amendment comes from the fact that we have long argued that the definition being used in earlier legislation was too broad because it did not require there to be a link to violence, and we do so again. We note also that there was a submission from Liberty Victoria to the Senate inquiry that looked into this piece of legislation which dealt with this issue.

If enacted, this bill will require financial institutions to take a range of measures to deal with the risk of financing terrorism. Under the bill it is defined to include conduct that amounts to:

a) an offence against section 102.6 or Division 103 of the Criminal Code ...

as well as:

(b) an offence against section 20 or 21 of the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 ...

These offences, in particular those that are found in section 102.6 of the Criminal Code, are very broad. They capture conduct that goes far beyond the intentional funding of politically or religiously motivated violence. Under section 102.6 of the Criminal Code it is illegal to fund a terrorist organisation regardless of the use to which the funds are put. For example, giving money to the Tamil Tigers or to the Kurdistan Workers Party for the sole purpose of assisting their humanitarian activities is punishable by 25 years if the donor knows that the recipients of the fund are the Tamil Tigers or the Kurdish Workers Party.

The broad definition and offences of terrorism on which this bill rests are central to the danger of this bill. The risk that a customer might breach these offences is the trigger for a bank or another financial institution to forward information on that customer to the authorities. The Greens believe that narrowing the base of the offences and restricting them to the intention to support violence would not only limit the chances of discrimination under this legislation but also make any attempt to prevent terrorism financing within the terms of the bill’s framework more effective.

I would like to turn to some comments on this issue that were made in the submission by Liberty Victoria to the Senate committee looking into this legislation. I will give two examples of the way in which this broad definition of financing terrorism will impact on members of the community. One of them is from the Muslim community and the other is from the Tamil community. There was an article written in the Age on 29 November 2005 by Waleed Aly, who is from the Islamic Council of Victoria. He was talking about section 102.6 of the Criminal Code. He said:

This level of uncertainty in an offence this serious is deeply worrying. And for Australian Muslims, doubly so. Because charity is one of the five pillars on which Islamic practice is built, Muslims tend to be a charitable people. That is especially true at certain times of the Islamic year when charity is religiously mandated. Countless fund-raising efforts followed the tsunami and the Pakistan earthquake, and even in the normal course of events, Muslim charities regularly provide relief to parts of the Muslim world many other charities forget.

So he is talking about the broad definition of the financing of terrorism and the way in which it has the potential to impact on the activities of members of the Muslim community.

The other example that I want to point to, as I indicated, is about the Tamil Tigers. In their submission Liberty Victoria talk about the reach of the offences being well illustrated by the listing of the Tamil Tigers under the statute. The submission states:

Because this group has been listed under the Charter of United Nations Act 1945 ... it is a crime to in/directly provide funds to this organisation regardless of the purpose to which the funds are put.

They give an example:

For instance, donating to the—

Tamil Tigers—

for the exclusive purpose of assisting reconstruction in the wake of the tsunami disaster is illegal under this Act.

They go on to talk about the contribution made by a spokesperson for the Australian Tamil rights council at a forum organised by the Equal Opportunity Commission Victoria in partnership with the Institute for International Law and Humanities, the Melbourne Law School and the Federation of Community Legal Centres. The contribution by the spokesman from the Australian Tamil rights council that Liberty Victoria quote in their submission is this:

The impact of the (counter-terrorism) laws is very real and reverberated within the community after the November raids—

he is, of course, referring to the raids by the Federal Police on members of the Tamil community in Melbourne—

and its public reporting. Many Tamils contribute towards their community either through political or humanitarian means ... There is also a concern that donations for genuine humanitarian and cultural purposes may be caught by the wide ‘financing terrorism’ laws. Many Tamils in Australia make significant donations to Sri Lankan-registered NGOs, relatives and friends. Funds are raised in Australia for various clearly identified humanitarian projects in Sri Lanka including medical centres and health programs, child sponsorship, nutritional centres, resettlement and livelihood programs undertaken by Sri Lankan-registered NGOs and civil society groups that operate in LTTE-controlled areas. It is well-known that for over 20 years the minority Tamils of Sri Lanka have relied heavily on political support and contributions made by Tamil relatives overseas and humanitarian organisations to survive and meet their daily needs.

So both of these two examples raise the spectre of Australian Muslims and Australian Tamils being disproportionately subject to suspicious matters reporting, with personal financial information being passed on to AUSTRAC and other government agencies, as the Liberty Victoria submission outlines.

The concern of the Greens is that we want to be clear on how we define the financing of terrorism. Of course, we all agree to have legislation that outlaws the financing of terrorist organisations—that is a given—but what we are trying to do is to ensure that the legislation does precisely that and does not capture people who give money for the reconstruction effort in tsunami affected areas of Sri Lanka or earthquake affected areas of Pakistan. We want to ensure that people are able to contribute to their families, their friends, registered charities, child sponsorship, the building of hospitals and a range of other services in those areas. We want to ensure that people are able to contribute to reconstruction efforts in the wake of the tsunami and the damage caused by the Pakistan earthquake.

What we are trying to do in narrowing this definition is to say that, rather than ‘financing of terrorism’ in this piece of legislation relating to either section 102.6 or division 103 of the Criminal Code, the Australian Greens amendment seeks to make it clear that the definition we believe is appropriate is the narrower definition—that is, the one already provided in division 103 of the Criminal Code. The Australian Greens amendment seeks to narrow how we define the financing of terrorism in such a way that we address what this bill is seeking to address—that is, ensuring that we outlaw and ban the financing of terrorism. But how do we do it in such a way as to ensure that we are not throwing the net too wide, that we are not encompassing the charity activities of a number of Australians, particularly those of the Muslim or Tamil community who want to contribute to the rebuilding of their families’ homes, to hospitals, to other facilities in areas controlled by the Tamil Tigers, where Sri Lankan registered NGOs are operating, or in other Muslim parts of the community that may be impacted because of the broad definition of ‘terrorism’ that exists in the Criminal Code—in particular, in section 102.6 of the Criminal Code?

That is what the Australian Greens are seeking to do with this amendment. It is a very important amendment, because it is a way of providing a safeguard to say: ‘This bill is serious about stopping the financing of terrorism, but it also understands that we are going to narrowly define what this is. We are going to be clear in making sure that we capture the right people. We want to make sure that we don’t open the net really wide and catch the people who have been caught under current Australian financing of terrorism laws, such as the owner of the record store with the same name as the obscure Peruvian terrorist group the Shining Path. We don’t want to catch the Iranian restaurateur who, last week, had $25,000 of her account frozen by Westpac because they thought she might be financing terrorism when she made regular payments to buy dates in Iran.’

We want to ensure that those people are not caught up in the legislation, and that is why we are seeking to define the financing of terrorism so that it is quite clear that we are using existing Australian law to do so, rather than throwing the net wide and allowing innocent people to be caught by this legislation. None of us wants to see that—I am sure that nobody wants to see that occur. We have seen from the examples that it has already happened in Australia. People have been caught by that, and it has taken many months of wrangling for them to get access to their money. Everyone acknowledges that it was a mistake. The owner of the record store was clearly not financing terrorism—he just owned a record store—but it took him several months to get access to his funds. The implications for small business owners in Australia are very significant. So what we are trying to do is ensure that we are targeting the people we want to target and not catching other innocent Australians with this legislation. That is why we are moving this amendment. I commend the amendment to the Senate.

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

The Labor Party does not support the amendment. What it does to that definition of financing of terrorism is to leave out:

• (b) an offence against section 20 or 21 of the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945; or
• (c) an offence against a law of a State or Territory that corresponds—

‘corresponds’ is worth mentioning—

• to an offence referred to in paragraph (a) or (b); or
• ·         (d) an offence against a law of a foreign country or a part of a foreign country that corresponds to an offence referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).

The difficulty is that the narrowing of the definition makes it far too narrow. To capture the relevant state offences, it is necessary to have the financing of terrorism defined in that way. The Labor Party does not support the narrowing of offences under financing of terrorism in the way that the Australian Greens have outlined. It would be, in effect, a retrograde step.

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

I listened to Senator Nettle’s motivation with care. Of course, she picks up a generalised fear that has been expressed from all sides—and I do not mean all political sides but from all sides of the community, in business and in politics—of the dangers of this legislation drawing into its ambit, often in an unintended sense, people who otherwise should not be caught up in it and would be found subsequently to have acted honourably. It is one of the reasons we argue strongly for a very strong oversight regime and a very strong review regime—to make sure that those unintended consequences are followed through.

However, returning to the amendment specifically, there are two issues at hand. Firstly, this legislation should be consistent with other legislation, and that is an important consideration. The second issue is whether the narrowing of the definition is appropriate. As outlined by the shadow minister, it does have the effect of essentially wiping out the four categories and replacing them with just one, an offence under division 103 of the Criminal Code. The four categories at present are:

• (a) an offence against section 102.6 or Division 103 of the Criminal Code; or
• (b) an offence against section 20 or 21 of the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945; or
• (c) an offence against a law of a State or Territory that corresponds to an offence referred to in paragraph (a) or (b); or
• (d) an offence against a law of a foreign country or a part of a foreign country that corresponds to an offence referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).

I am sympathetic to the broad worries that Senator Nettle expresses but I do not think, on balance, that the solution the Greens have found is an adequate one; it limits the definition too starkly. But it does draw our attention again to the fact that, if the legislation passes as is—which it is going to do as the government has the numbers—the government must ensure that there is an adequate oversight regime to ensure unintended consequences do not manifest themselves. I hope that the minister, in consideration of the next tranche of, shall we call them, technical amendments, might give some further thought to that matter. It is, in my view, something which worries parliamentarians from all sides of politics and it needs to be addressed.

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

The government does not support the proposed amendment. By picking up the financing of terrorism offences in Commonwealth law as well as corresponding offences in state and territory or foreign law, the definition of the phrase ‘financing of terrorism’ in clause 5 of the AML/CTF bill deals with the full range of conduct that is criminalised by the law; it is the consistency that Senator Murray has mentioned. I want to make it very clear that this bill does not impact in any way on charitable donations to any lawful charity. If those donations are made through the use of designated services, under the bill the person may need to be identified by the service provider, but that does not outlaw the donation when it is made lawfully.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to indicate why the amendment of the Australian Greens was structured as it was to exclude the offences under section 20 and section 21 of the Charter of the United Nations Act. In doing so, I will read from the submission of Liberty Victoria on the bill. It says that:

... sections 20-1 of the Charter of United Nations Act 1945 (Cth) and section 102.6 of the Criminal Code by not requiring that there be intention or knowledge that funds be used to facilitate acts of violence are at odds with provisions of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and the Financial Action Task Force’s Special Recommendations on Terrorist Financing; provisions that are said to form part of the basis of the Bill. Both these documents, while calling for the criminalisation of the financing of terrorism, define financing of terrorism in a narrower manner than sections 20-1 of the Charter of United Nations Act 1945 (Cth) and section 102.6 of the Criminal Code, by emphasising the need for an intention or knowledge that funds will be used to carry out terrorism.

Unlike the offences in sections 20-1 of the Charter of United Nations Act 1945 (Cth) and section 102.6 of the Criminal Code, those in Division 103 of the Criminal Code at least require that the funds have some connection with the engagement of a ‘terrorist act’.

That is why the amendment is structured as it is.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Nettle’s) be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move opposition amendments (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) on sheet 5147:

(3)    Page 122 (after line 24), after clause 79, insert:

79A Deregistration and register of deregistered providers

132A United Nations deemed to be a foreign country

Officer may seize other evidence

Amendment (3) on sheet 5147 picks up an idea out of recommendation 5 in the committee report that a separate register be set up for persons prohibited from supplying a designated remittance service. It goes further by extending it beyond mere consideration into the actual legislation. The present bill sets up a register of designated remittance services—for example, an informal, traditional and ethnic based remittance service known as the hawala network. Labor has no problem with that per se. But what happens in the instance of a person who has committed repeated offences under the act or is otherwise a person known to be channelling money overseas for perhaps an illicit purpose? Under the regime set up by the bill, such a person simply remains on the list of designated persons. We think that to not have the ability to remove someone from the list, to deal with it in that way, is pretty dumb, quite frankly. It may be that a process where they can be removed from the list is needed. This was a matter mentioned in a UK court, where they perceived that that in fact could not happen and they were frustrated that it could not. It is one of those issues that is commonsense, but it is not an issue that was picked up by the government.

Labor proposes setting up in effect a separate register—because, of course, the way it might work is open—of prohibited persons. This way the AUSTRAC CEO would have the power to strike off a registered person who offends the law and move them across to a separate register of deregistered providers. That way you then know where they are. Of course they may be able to, at some point, indicate that they can pass a fit and proper person test or some such way of getting back from one list to the other, so there is still an incentive to remain known and within the overall system. That is a matter that I would urge the government to consider. I know they will not pick it up at this point. Clearly they have the numbers, but I think the current system does have its deficiencies. If you look at the UK report, which I think I tabled for the Senate committee, it does point to certain problems with the way the register as currently drafted works. They recommended in fact a range of changes. One of them is highlighted in this amendment.

Amendment (4) on sheet 5147 does not arise from the committee but really goes to the Howard government’s running of interference for its damaged ministers, AWB Ltd and its various National Party cronies. How did this sorry story come to prominence? The AWB and the oil for food program scandal that rocked Australia came through originally from the United Nations Volcker inquiry. Did the government cooperate with the Volcker inquiry? In his own words, Mr Volcker described the level of cooperation offered by the Howard government as ‘beyond reticence, even forbidding’. Apparently, when Mr Howard himself found out about the ‘reticence and forbidding’ conduct of his ministers in relation to cooperating with the inquiry, he ordered on 8 February 2005 that there be maximum cooperation and transparency and that there must be full disclosure and cooperation. But, like in all these things, he did not follow it up very well at all—in fact, he failed.

Let me give an example. Senator Kirk asked the Minister for Justice and Customs on 27 March this year a question without notice. She asked:

Minister, do you agree with AUSTRAC’s claim that it was unable to assist the UN inquiry because the UN is not a country? Can the minister now identify for the Senate what section of the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 precludes AUSTRAC from sharing information with the UN inquiry? Isn’t it actually the case that this was just another lame excuse for the Howard government to turn a blind eye to the truth?

Senator Ellison responded:

Sections 25 and 27 of the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 include secrecy and access provisions that protect financial transaction reports information from dissemination other than to prescribed personnel and agencies involved in the enforcement of Commonwealth, state and territory laws. That protection is an important part of ensuring that the privacy of individuals’ and entities’ financial transactions is maintained and that financial transactions reporting information are not released for use in a manner that is inconsistent with the act. That answers the question.

I do not believe for one minute that that is an excuse for not cooperating. I ask the minister: if what you say is true, do you claim that AUSTRAC cannot cooperate with FATF or the OECD, which are not countries either? Therefore what you have is a situation where if it is not a country then you cannot cooperate with it. If you had cooperated with the UN Volcker inquiry properly—although I suspect, with the ministers of this government, we would probably still be in this mess—you would not have that excuse to be able to deny it.

If the minister does stand by his statement, and if he was in fact not misleading the Senate at the time, then surely he can move to pick up Labor’s amendment to enable AUSTRAC to share information with the UN and its agencies so that there can be no repeat of the shabby treatment of Mr Volcker. That would be the sensible thing to do: to pick it up, admit you are wrong and move on. Because this is imperative. There are a range of other sanction regimes in place and the UN may continue to oversee them. You will then repeat the same error. Maybe you want to—that is the real question. We can then ask you to strike that course out by at least picking up the ability for AUSTRAC to be able to share information with a UN inquiry such as the Volcker one. That would make perfect sense.

I turn now to amendments (5), (6) and (7) on sheet 5147. These amendments did not arise from an issue raised in the committee’s report but are raised in relation to powers given to Customs officials under the act. At present the act gives powers to Customs officers to search persons for currency and bearer negotiable instruments when leaving Australia. But here is the issue: it does not appear to give them the right to seize anything other than currency or bearer negotiable instruments. In other words, it is limited to bearer negotiable instruments or currency. This amendment will ensure that the legislation is clear, insofar as Customs officers will have the right to seize any evidence of the offence. There may be documents associated with the currency and/or bearer negotiable instruments which become evidence. That would then be a thing that Customs would need to seize. Otherwise they would have no general power to seize those things and therefore you would have another hole. It appears that at least you might be able to remedy that.

Recommendation 28 of the FATF says:

When conducting investigations of money laundering and underlying predicate offences, competent authorities should be able to obtain documents and information for use in those investigations, and in prosecutions and related actions.

Clause 199 of the bill, which deals with unlawful cross-border movements of physical currency, and clause 200, which deals with unlawful cross-border movement of bearer negotiable instruments, as presently constructed fail to meet this test. As presently constructed, both clauses 199 and 200 permit an officer—for example, a Customs officer—to seize physical currency and bearer negotiable instruments that afford evidence of an offence under clause 53(1) or 59(3). It seems to me that there is a flaw in the construction of clauses 199 and 200 in that they do not allow for an officer to seize any other thing which may afford evidence of an offence under clause 53(1) or 59(3). There is no general power for Customs to seize documents.

To put it another way, when an officer forms a reasonable suspicion that an offence has been or is about to be committed under clause 53(1) or 59(3), they may only seize the physical currency or the bearer negotiable instrument itself, and not any other thing that affords evidence of an offence. It is easy to imagine a situation where that could arise, where they then would lack power, or where, at least, you would end up with a dispute about the evidence itself—about whether or not it could be admitted in any court and whether you could rely on it. That certainly would cause significant grief if that were to occur and that evidence was excluded, but it did assist and point to a clear prosecution and the prosecution failed on the primary point that the evidence was included. So it does need a remedy there as well.

There are also savings provisions made for powers outside the bill—at the very least, the construction of clauses 199 and 200 appear to create specific sets of circumstances where the power is to be limited to seize anything but the physical currency or bearer negotiable instrument. It seems to me that you have again missed some points. But I suspect, given the time available, there are other points you have missed as well.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you have a point of order, Senator Murray?

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

I want to use this opportunity to say, through the chair, to the minister: if you want to extend the guillotine by 15 minutes to conclude this bill’s debate properly, I certainly would not object.

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

We would have to report progress and then the process itself, I think, could be time consuming. I do not want to avoid answering these questions, but what I could undertake to do is to answer these questions in the ensuing bill, which is a customs bill. I could do it then, and refer back. I will take the questions on notice and undertake to get back during that time. We will do it that way.

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

Thank you. I do not like this one, I really don’t, but for ease of the process I will advise the committee that I support all the remaining opposition and the remaining Greens amendments.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to put on record that the Greens support the Democrat and opposition amendments coming up. In relation to Australian Greens amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 5165—

The Temporary Chairman:

Order, Senator Nettle. The time allotted for consideration of this bill, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill 2006, and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006 has expired.

The question is that the amendments be agreed to, and they are: opposition amendments (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) on sheet 5147.

Question negatived.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question is that the following amendment be agreed to: Australian Democrats amendment No. (5) on sheet 5160, which is the same as Australian Greens amendment No. (4) on sheet 5165.

The amendment read as follows—

(5)    Clause 235, page 271 (after line 30), at the end of the clause, add:

        (3)    This section does not apply so as to avoid the operation of Commonwealth, State or Territory anti-discrimination laws.

Question negatived.

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

Temporary Chair, I ask that the Australian Democrats be recorded as being in agreement with the amendments.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question now is that the following amendments be agreed to: Australian Greens amendments (2) and (3) on sheet 5165 and Australian Democrats amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 5160.

The amendments read as follows—

Sheet 5165

                (vii)    trade unions;

               (viii)    representative civil rights groups;

                  (ix)    consumer groups;

                   (x)    representative privacy groups;

119A  Privacy Commissioner to conduct audit of AUSTRAC compliance with privacy obligations

Sheet 5160

Subdivision AA—Restricted access to AUSTRAC information

124A  Restriction on access to AUSTRAC information

               Penalty:  Imprisonment for 2 years or 120 penalty units, or both.

Question negatived.

ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING AND COUNTER-TERRORISM FINANCING (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2006

The Temporary Chairman:

The question now is that the following amendment be agreed to: opposition amendment No. (1) on sheet 5166.

The amendment read as follows—

Question negatived.

The Temporary Chairman:

Pursuant to the allotment of time agreed to earlier today, I now report the bills.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the remaining stages be agreed to, and the bills be now passed.

Question agreed to.