Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This relates to legislation I introduced back in 2012, which is still on the Notice Paper and which needs to be debated and dealt with. The aim of the Anti-Money Laundering Amendment (Gaming Machine Venues) Bill 2012 is to detect and reduce money laundering in Australia's more than 5,400 poker-machine venues. Back in 2012, when I first introduced this bill to amend the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006, reports were emerging of a Melbourne hotel that had failed to act on suspicions of money laundering through its poker machines. Records showed an individual and his family were claiming winnings of up to $40,000 per week. Anyone who knows anything about poker machines will tell you these odds are nigh-on impossible.

The report—by Adam Shand and Chip Le Grand of the Australianwas just the tip of the iceberg of the use by criminals of poker machines for money laundering. Unfortunately, the parliament did not support the bill on that occasion; and, unfortunately and predictably, the problem has not gone away. If anything it has gotten worse. The government's money laundering intelligence agency, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre AUSTRAC, recently detected a 'significant increase' in the number of suspicious activity reports in relation to the use of gaming machines, according to a report this month in News Ltd publications by Frank Chung. AUSTRAC chief executive John Schmidt said:

AUSTRAC has undertaken focused regulatory activities in the pubs and clubs sector around suspicious-matter reporting over the past few years.

By consulting with our partner agencies in law enforcement, AUSTRAC has been able to identify patterns of behaviour that potentially constitute money laundering in hotels and clubs operating electronic gaming machines.

Regulatory engagement with the licenced venues, including sharing examples of risky patron behaviour, has helped to improve awareness and identification of potential money laundering activity.

AUSTRAC went on to say:

This work, coupled with the provision of specific guidance to industry, has created greater awareness of the money laundering risks in the industry and has resulted in a significant increase in suspicious-matter reporting being received by AUSTRAC.

I applaud the work of AUSTRAC and its partners in law enforcement, including the AFP, as well as cooperating licensed venues.

A spokesperson for the Australian Federal Police told News Ltd that the AFP was targeting money laundering, including in gaming machine venues. That person said:

The methods by which money may be laundered are varied and can range in sophistication. Organised criminal syndicates use a variety of methods and avenues, including matters involving the gaming sector.

The next comment by the AFP is crucial to understanding why it is essential that parliament look again at this bill that I have introduced again. The AFP spokesperson said:

Both state and federal police can lay charges under money laundering legislation. It is also important to note that the regulation of poker machines is a matter for states and territories.

The AFP enforces money-laundering offences but it can only charge an organised crime figure or group with money-laundering offences if the crime has been detected in the first place. This bill, if passed, will dramatically improve the ability of AUSTRAC and the AFP to detect money laundering through poker machines. Improved detection will lead to more arrests and charges and, in the long run, less money laundering in Australia's suburban poker machine lounges and through our casinos.

The AFP spokesperson also put their finger on the single biggest obstacle to the reform of the gaming machine sector in the country; that is, state governments. State governments are hopelessly compromised via the more than $4 billion in taxes that they raise each year from poker machine operators. But I do not suggest for one minute that they want to see any of those taxes coming from money-laundering activities nor do I suggest that the poker machine sector or the industry itself would want to see any money coming from money-laundering activities, which is why I am gobsmacked that they do not support this very sensible and measured piece of legislation.

According to the current laws, gambling venue owners are supposed to report suspicious transactions, but there is no legal obligation. State governments cannot be trusted to curb the excesses of this industry and have failed to curb the extent of money laundering in their own backyards, although it is preferable for it to be undertaken through federal law.

Industry sources, reported in TheSydney Morning Herald several years ago, have estimated that approximately $2 billion a year is laundered through hotel, club and casino poker machines and gambling chips each year nationally. The ability to load up poker machines with large amounts of cash, as well as the often lax regulations surrounding payouts, mean that launderers can and do get away with it. Criminals are attracted to poker machine venues because they are so commonplace. There are about 5,400 venues in Australia and many are darkly lit, anonymous places with very little face-to-face contact with staff or other customers.

The bill is even more necessary now than when I first introduced it in 2012. In that time, the number of poker machines has continued to expand, expanding the opportunities for criminals to use them for money laundering. One of the most recent assessment of poker machine numbers in Australia, based on state and territory figures from last July, indicates that Australia has about 200,000 poker machines across 5,400 venues. Combined, they reaped almost $13 billion in losses from Australians each year—forty per cent of that, parenthetically, is from problem gamblers, according to the Productivity Commission. I will not now go into the significant damage that that causes individuals, because the focus of this bill is in relation to money laundering.

This bill proposes to ensure that the extent of money laundering is restricted and that it is made much more difficult. Money laundering through poker machines can be achieved by one of two ways. Separately or in combination, criminals can load up thousands of dollars into a machine, up to but not above the trigger for payouts to be made by cheque. It is $10,000 in NSW, as I understand it. They then play a few games, usually losing a few dollars, and then cash out their credits with the venue—laundering the money in the process. Depending on the regulations in each state, careful so-called playing can ensure that the criminal walks out with thousands of dollars in clean—that is, laundered—money.

A second option for criminals, usually used in combination with the first, is to wait around venues until a gambler wins a prize. Depending on the regulations, winnings over a certain amount are issued by cheque to make sure that gamblers have a cooling-off period while the cheque is processed so that they do not gamble away their winnings. Instead, criminals approach gamblers and offer to buy the cheques off them for cash, often at a discount, which the gambler can then use to continue playing. The launderers then cash the cheques, which have been signed over by the original claimant and do not carry the name of the criminal.

This bill aims to address these practices through requiring that payouts over $1,000 are made by cheque and are threshold transactions under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006. Such transactions require a report made to AUSTRAC in the approved form under the act, allowing AUSTRAC to monitor and record such activity for the purposes of reducing money laundering and other prohibited actions. This reporting usually includes relevant personal details of the so-called winner and details of the transaction itself.

The bill also requires that any cheques or credits for winnings that are transferred into another name are also threshold transactions under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 and also requires the details of the new recipient of the cheque or credit to be reported to AUSTRAC. Failure by venues to comply with the act can result in a significant penalty.

It is important to note that because of the miserly nature of poker machine payouts, these changes will not be an undue burden on venues. There are not going to be that many transactions in a typical day that will be affected by this, but it will make a difference with the criminals who are laundering up to $2 billion a year of drug money that is made through organised crime and various illegal activities through poker machine venues. Poker machines rarely pay out in large amounts and instead are generally programmed to provide smaller, interspersed wins. Creating these two new definitions of threshold transactions will allow AUSTRAC access to information relating to larger wins and will lead to a fine-grain view of patterns and habits vital to uncovering criminal activity.

I am not suggesting that this will put an end to that criminal activity, but it is going to make it a lot harder and a lot more cumbersome for the criminals. It will make their lives just that little bit more miserable. It will mean that they will have to work a lot harder to try to launder money. It will mean that there is a higher risk of detection because of what they will have to do to get around what is being proposed. Under these proposals, each cheque drawn triggers a report to AUSTRAC and the AFP. Armed with the information on suspected money launderers, AUSTRAC and the AFP can then apply anti-money-laundering offences.

The bill, if passed, will also act as a deterrent to criminals who will no longer be able to use the machines to launder large amounts of cash. The bill also amends the act so that the controller of a poker machine venue will be considered to be providing a designated service under the act. This will mean that the controllers of poker machine venues will be required to abide by the laws surrounding threshold transactions. AUSTRAC already has regulations in place relating to some forms of gambling, including sports betting and casinos. These additional safeguards are a way to plug a loophole in the law, as well as protecting problem gamblers and venue owners.

Poker machines cause great harm in our communities. The poker machine sector is clearly wary of regulations. They fought and succeeded in stymying moves in the last parliament to limit the damage done to problem gamblers via $1 bets and mandatory precommitment, as recommended by the Productivity Commission. Such measures, if adopted, would have made a real difference to many people's lives. Now, unfortunately, it appears that the poker machine lobby, the poker machine barons, will resist these simple measures to curb money laundering via poker machines. Clubs Australia Executive Director, Anthony Ball—Anthony, if you are listening, cheerio to you—has called this bill a 'waste of the time and resources of our federal parliament'. Mr Ball went on to say:

This bill has been rejected by the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee for Gambling Reform, and its introduction would only heap further regulatory burdens on clubs, which already have significant anti-money laundering compliance measures in place despite their low risk profile.

Mr Ball reckons that anyone attempting to launder money through poker machines would have to be the world's dumbest criminal due to the presence of CCTV cameras and existing identification requirements, saying, 'The only criminal who would try to do this is one who was desperate to get caught.' What nonsense. Mr Ball clearly, incredibly, has no understanding of what is going on in the venues he is meant to represent. He should pick up the phone and call AUSTRAC or the AFP.

By contrast, Adam Masters—one who does not have a vested interest in this issue—who is a researcher with the Transnational Research Institute on Corruption at the Australian National University, has said that lowering the threshold for reporting to AUSTRAC to $1,000 would 'definitely have an effect' on the profitability of money-laundering operations. Mr Masters, a former 25-year veteran with the AFP and a former team leader for Interpol in Australia, predicted the bill would impose 'minimal administrative burdens on venues'. The poker machine sector already fleeces close to $13 billion from Australians each year. It must not be permitted to impede what I believe is sensible reform, what Mr Masters from the Australian National University says would impose a minimal administrative burden on venues but would make a difference in terms of money-laundering operations, make it harder for the criminals to launder their money.

The bill is an essential step towards bringing the scourge of money laundering in poker machine venues into sharp focus and allowing police and AUSTRAC to enforce the law. I urge my Senate colleagues to support it when it next comes before the Senate for a vote.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Senator Xenophon's Anti-Money Laundering Amendment (Gaming Machine Venues) Bill 2012. The government does not support this bill. This bill seeks to introduce amendments to existing legislation that will increase the regulatory demand on an already heavy regulated sector.

Electronic gaming machine venues, such as casinos, hotels and clubs, must already comply with strict obligations under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006. Depending on a venue's size, requirements under the existing act already include: having a program to identify, mitigate and manage money-laundering and terrorism-financing risk; identifying customers for transactions involving $10,000 or more; and reporting cash transactions of $10,000 or more. All gaming venues are already required to report suspicious matters to AUSTRAC.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the current act to lower the reporting threshold for gaming machine payments to $1,000. It also seeks to include the cashing of transferred cheques for amounts in excess of $1,000 in the definition of 'threshold transaction'. Under this bill these transactions would then have to be reported to AUSTRAC.

The government believes that the current regulatory framework, in place since 2006, provides adequate controls and mitigations for the risks of money laundering and that lowering the threshold to the level suggested would pose an unnecessary burden on gaming venues. During the passage of the original legislation, the appropriate threshold for reporting was extensively analysed. The government believes that this is an issue of balance and that the balance is currently struck in the right place. The outcome of that original analysis was to set the threshold at its current level of $10,000. There is simply no evidence that this needs to be amended, as currently proposed.

While we will not be supporting this bill, the government does take money laundering very seriously, and that is why Minister Keenan recently announced changes to the customer due diligence obligations of regulated entities. These changes are designed to strengthen Australia's anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorism financing regime. The announced changes apply to electronic-gaming venues, and will increase transparency and customer identification processes.

The ongoing work of gaming venues in customer due diligence, reporting threshold transactions and suspicious matters is of central importance. The government knows this and understands this and is acting on it. We believe AUSTRAC already works closely and collaboratively with industry and holds regular meetings with both state gaming regulators and industry associations to ensure that matters of concern are discussed and actioned where necessary, and also that all obligations under the act are understood. AUSTRAC has run a number of awareness campaigns over the last few years to increase awareness of the risk of money laundering through the use of electronic-gaming machines. As a result of these campaigns there has been a significant increase in the number of suspicious matter reports. In 2013-14, there were 381 suspicious matter reports, with a total value of $10.1 million. Compare this to 2012-13, when there were only 135, with a total value of $3.4 million. This indicates that education and awareness campaigns are working and are already having a significant effect in identifying money laundering through electronic gaming machines. These crucial measures assist law enforcement agencies to detect and investigate possible money laundering and other criminal activity connected to gaming venues in Australia.

I want to also touch on the excellent work of AUSTRAC in this area. I was very heartened to hear Senator Xenophon acknowledge the wonderful job that the organisation is doing. AUSTRAC, as the primary body responsible for tracking money laundering within Australia, plays a significant role in ensuring the safety and security of all Australians. For many years I had very close involvement and association with AUSTRAC. I have seen first-hand the wonderful job that that organisation does on behalf of all Australians.

AUSTRAC's role is to protect the integrity of Australia's financial system and to contribute to the administration of justice through countering money laundering and terrorism. They do excellent work in conjunction with Australia's other law enforcement agencies to counter the financing of terror and organised crime. AUSTRAC continues to work collaboratively with businesses and law enforcement to assess money laundering threats in Australia. These joint efforts improve our ability to prevent, deter and prosecute money laundering.

The government, through the Attorney-General's Department, is also currently undertaking a statutory review of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006. This very important review is estimated to be complete early in the new year. It will follow an on-site visit and mutual evaluation by the Financial Action Task Force. The Financial Action Task Force is the world standard-setting organisation for anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorism financing. Australia, pleasingly, is currently the president of the Financial Action Task Force. This already reflects our position as the world leader in anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorism financing.

Contrary to Senator Xenophon's assertions of undue influence on the government in relation to this matter, the government does believe that the current regulatory framework provides adequate controls and mitigations for the risks of money laundering and that lowering the threshold to $1,000 would pose an unnecessary burden on gaming venues, especially those which are small business.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Reynolds has said that I made assertions that the government was subject to undue influence by the industry. I do not think that I actually said that. I will stand corrected, but I think that she has jumped the shark on that one.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Reynolds, I have to apologise. I was talking to the Leader of Opposition Business about the running order. I am sorry I completely missed it.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I just ask that Senator Reynolds withdraw that comment. I have not accused the government of undue influence in relation to money laundering.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I do withdraw my comments. If I have misinterpreted the comments that Senator Xenophon made in relation to the organisation's influence on the government, I apologise.

The government believes that the current regulatory framework provides adequate controls and mitigations for the risks of money laundering. Lowering the threshold to $1,000 would pose an unnecessary burden on gaming venues, especially those which are small businesses. This government is absolutely committed to reducing red tape in Australia by $1 billion each year and not increasing it. This commitment was realised in the first parliamentary repeal day in March this year and through other measures such as the National Gambling Regulator. The National Gaming Regulator and its associated measures duplicated the roles of state and territory regulators and foisted a huge, unnecessary and expensive red-tape burden on hospitality venues. While the government will not be supporting this bill, the government does take money laundering very seriously. That is why Minister Keenan has announced changes, as I have previously stated, to the customer due diligence obligations. We believe that these changes will apply to electronic gaming venues and will increase transparency and customer identification processes.

Ongoing customer due diligence by gaming venues and the reporting of threshold transactions and suspicious matters where required are crucial measures that assist law enforcement agencies to detect and investigate possible money laundering and other criminal activities connected to gaming venues. AUSTRAC, with law enforcement and business, are continually assessing money laundering threats in Australia to improve joint efforts to prevent, deter and prosecute money laundering.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Xenophon, we will continue to have these discussions in this chamber, as you well know. You will be bringing back your range of issues around gambling in Australia, as you need to do and as I know you will.

The bill before us is the Anti-Money Laundering Amendment (Gaming Machine Venues) Bill 2012 [2013]. I am disappointed that we did not have the chance to consider this bill in the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs and that I could not refer to the evidence that we had received in committees that we have served on in the past on a range of gambling bills. I did go back and checked out the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform, to which this bill and three others went. They brought down their report in June 2013. Quite disappointingly, considering the amount of discussion that Senator Xenophon has brought to us today and in statements over the last year and a half to two years on this issue, when this bill was brought to the joint select committee there were only two submissions. It was probably one of the bills that attracted the least interest in the wider community. Perhaps they were scared away by the legal nature of it. Perhaps they did not want to get involved in the discussions of AUSTRAC and the various processes there. It is really difficult to get a sense of where the rights of the argument are when you only have two submissions, as anyone would know. These submissions came from Clubs Australia and the Australian Churches Gambling Taskforce. Unfortunately, whenever we get into these discussions, these two groups—who both have knowledge, who both have a passion and who both make public statements expressing concerns about problem gambling—consistently do not agree.

On this bill, there was again a great divide in the evidence they presented. The church antigambling group pointed out their worries about the process and about their inability to communicate effectively with people in positions of authority. They expressed their concerns about the sorts of issues Senator Xenophon was raising—the problems of money laundering and the extra pressure that puts on people. They had already identified the problem of compulsive gamblers and the awful consequences for them and their families—and no-one knows more about those issues than the Australian Churches Gambling Taskforce. Those were the issues they raised.

Understandably, the submission government received from Clubs Australia talked about the existing processes—just outlined here again by Senator Reynolds—the existing provisions under the act and the Anti-Money Laundering Amendment (Gaming Machine Venues) Bill. They talked about the kinds of regulations and restrictions that already existed. Then, as we consistently hear in this debate, they emphasised what the impost on them, their businesses and their staff would be of any kind of restriction or any kind of regulation. Once again, then, as has consistently been the case in this debate, we have two groups who do not agree—two groups who, I think, far too often talk at each other rather than to each other and too often speak with third parties instead of with each other.

The Labor Party is not willing to support the bill as it is written—and Senator Xenophon knows that. We are concerned that there continues to be conflicting evidence. I take your point absolutely, Senator Xenophon, about the academic research you brought to us today—which I have not read and which was not with your bill—from the well-regarded researcher you named in your contribution. I put a great deal of value on that sort of work and would like to see it continue, especially since one of the main things that has came out of our debates over the last two years is the absolute need for more independent research—that is something that everyone agrees on, I think. When we get such research, we need to discuss it from all perspectives. We need to see how the data supports the different arguments about what the impacts would be, for example, of a reduction in the amount of money that could be gambled—that thousand-dollar limit. In that context, and referring also to the evidence from AUSTRAC and the work that has already been done, we could objectively assess the claims that we hear: that there are strict regulations in place, that clubs are already regulated, that they have responsibilities which they regularly review, and that they try to ensure that their processes for discharging those responsibilities are clearly set out and transparent.

That is the argument that is going on. Clubs Australia—and, to an extent AUSTRAC—are saying that the way they are implementing the current legislation is effective. I do not believe that any piece of legislation should ever be sacrosanct. I think it is very important that, as questions are raised and as the process attracts interest, there should be an opportunity to go back and review what is going on. I think Senator Xenophon's bill highlights exactly that kind of discussion point.

The government position has been put by Minister Andrews, that he was moving away from the work that had been done by the previous government—options for various trials and the concept of having a central regulatory point. Senator Reynolds outlined that in her contribution. The government's position was that they wanted to start anew, that they would like to move forward in a reasonable and effective way to consider the important issues of gambling. That received some media attention at the time. Certainly we had a discussion in this place about what was happening—the change from what the previous government had put in place. The budget then took away money that had been allocated by the previous government in this area, replaced by a promise from the incoming government that they would take us down a reasonable and responsible path towards finding some solutions. I say, 'Let's get on this path.' Let us get on this path so the kinds of issues that Senator Xenophon is talking about can be dealt with. Let us look at the evidence that has come forward and let us undertake engagement so that we can understand exactly what is going on in this disputed space.

I shared a number of weeks on the community affairs committee with Senator Xenophon and other senators, all of whom were genuinely concerned about problem gambling in Australia. There was no doubt about that. There was no difference between the senators. In hearing them talk about the issue, you would not have been able to tell which party they belonged to or which group they represented. Certainly they took a genuine interest in these issues. We sat there for a number of hearings. First we heard, 'The sky is blue', and then we heard, 'The sky is black'—nothing, there was no agreement. As I said, what we have is an unresolved dispute.

We now have a commitment from the new government to put in place this new, responsible process to look at gambling issues in our community. Well, we have been waiting—because there are many of us who would like to walk down this path together with the government in a responsible and responsive way. So far there has not been a lot of action.

Certainly I believe the issue that Senator Xenophon has raised in this bill, which is the opportunity for criminal behaviour and money laundering to occur in our clubs, specifically around gaming machines, is a real issue. We need to see whether it is accurate and can be backed up by evidence and then balance that against the kinds of arguments we have heard pretty consistently from the clubs industry, which is about what impact bringing in yet another level of regulation would have on their business, their viability and the pleasure they provide to a number of people. If we are going to have a responsible, cooperative approach, then I stress this one paragraph we received from the government which talks about this new process 'engaging all stakeholders'. This has to happen. If you have heard me speak on this issue before, Mr Acting Deputy President, then you would know it has been the major process I have put on the table: we must engage all stakeholders. So far, I do not think we have been able to come up with any kind of common approach in this area.

In hindsight, whilst our Senate community affairs process followed the standard model where we invite people to put in submissions, we call for public hearings, we have them, we put all the evidence together and then we talk about where we will go with our report—and I would think it is a very similar process to that of the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform—we did not get the people together at any of these hearings. We heard sequential pieces of evidence from witnesses who were putting forward their own views. It should be done with everyone together, with the senators, so that we can see how people are interacting and responding to particular positions.

In this case, the kinds of evidence that Senator Xenophon has concerns about is money laundering, the ease with which this could happen and the fact that, under the current provisions of the act, AUSTRAC would not be able to gather evidence into their process for consideration. I think it probably would be more useful to hear those voices together, not speaking over each other—which sometimes happens when we get excited in these processes—but face-to-face so that we can ask questions in an engaging way rather than one where we hear the evidence, we close it off, we sit down and we do not have a chance to say, 'What do you think about that?' So perhaps in the responsible and reasonable way that the government has said they are going to move forward on the gambling issue, we could look at having some cooperative process whereby we get people who care about the issue together.

I would be particularly interested to hear more about the evidence that Senator Xenophon has just put forward, because if that kind of information has been put forward by researchers it would be useful to see the reaction to it by people who one would expect from previous experience would not share a similar consideration. This could be such a process, and I think many people would like to be engaged in it. Again, I stress that the difference is not the concern about people who are damaged by problem gambling. The difference is certainly not any concern about whether there should or should not be illegality in our registered clubs—and I think that is clear. In fact, in their submission to Senator Xenophon's Senate select gambling reform bill, Clubs Australia were very quick to point out that they actually take their legal responsibility particularly seriously and that they already have a relationship with AUSTRAC that is focused on ensuring that there are minimal opportunities for the kinds of issues Senator Xenophon describes in terms of people being able to launder money—money that would have been obtained in an illegal way and then put into legal tender so that it could be used in other ways. 'Cheque change' is one process whereby you can cash a cheque and then use that money in other ways. The clubs were clear that it was not common practice in their business. We need to see what evidence they have for that view, as opposed to the concerns about what could happen.

The other thing that was raised—and this widens the whole thing—is that Senator Xenophon's bill is particularly about gambling machine venues, and we heard that consistently. I know that a series of the bills put forward by Senator Xenophon at the time were looking mainly at the area of gambling machines. If these things are occurring and there is an opportunity for people to invest money and for it to be used in ways that are illegal or inappropriate then surely that should exist across the board in all gambling areas. My experience of the gambling world is walking through a casino, and my observation of the activities while on those walk-throughs is that there are a whole range of temptations for people who want to be involved in gambling—and they are not just in the machine area where people can win significant amounts and then get into the kind of temptation that Senator Xenophon has specifically pointed out in his bill around gambling machines.

As Senator Xenophon well knows, this debate will continue into the future in whatever way it will do so. At this stage, we are not supporting the bill in its current form. What we are supporting is that there needs to be continued action, because the problem has been identified. The reasonable and responsible response has yet to be identified.

Debate adjourned.