HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-11-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

FINANCIAL TRANSACTION REPORTS (STATE PROVISIONS) (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 November 2012.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (16:56): I speak on the Financial Transaction Reports (State Provisions) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2012. Members would be aware that the principal act, the Financial Transaction Reports Act, makes provision for the monitoring and reporting processes to deal with suspicious financial transactions. I read this bill with some interest, as it appeared to be, in itself, simply updating the regime in relation to the commonwealth Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006, and we would need to complement this and some other legislative changes which have extended the regime and require a broader range of entities to report the types of transactions.

Essentially, the reporting process works on the basis that certain entities and persons are obliged to report significant and suspicious cash transactions to AUSTRAC, and that entity is obliged to keep those records; but, also, a number of entities are obliged to keep records of other unreported transactions. I had some experience with the importance of this type of legislation when I was the chair of the audit committee of the TAB (pre its sale) and over a number of years it was frequently brought to my attention the number of transactions that needed to be reported consistent with this legislation.

It is obviously important in the cashless world that we are supposed to be now operating in, and certainly a number of us do, where there is a number of transfers and transactions via electronic means, and even these processes need to be accommodated in the updating in order to combat crime in relation to this era.

The basis of the principal legislation is one which is meritorious. From time to time entities do need to update. As I understand it, this bill is also consistent with a COAG-type agreement to bring things up to date. The proposed amendments to the principal act will require cash dealers to make reports to AUSTRAC when they suspect that the transaction could be relevant to the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005 (SA) and the Serious and Organised Crime (Unexplained Wealth) Act 2009 (SA). The principal act previously required cash dealers to report with respect to an offence against any law stated specifically—the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005 (SA). The amendment will merely add the crime (unexplained wealth) act 2009 (SA) to the provision.

With the advent of legislation covering these areas, the number of entities is extended and relevant to a broader range of legislation. I think the language in the act is also designed to be brought up to contemporary standards with the national scheme.

I am also advised, and I think this comes from the contribution of the Attorney, that once information has been reported to AUSTRAC, the Commissioner of Police or an investigating officer, namely from SAPOL, may only request further information from the cash dealer where further information is narrowly defined to be information relevant to the investigation of or prosecution of an offence, or would assist in enforcing the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005.

As I understand it, SAPOL have presented their argument to the government that that definition is unduly restrictive and that a definition consistent with the 2006 act is appropriate. Accordingly, the amendments expand the scope of further information to include information that relates to any purpose, power or function of SAPOL under any act or law. Whether it is necessary to go that far is yet to be seen, I suppose, but, in any event, it seems the government has been persuaded to extend it to that level.

The act is also to be amended so that persons who become aware of information as a result of the regime will be prevented from disclosing information, unless the disclosure is in the course of their duties. This is intended to cover forensic accountants, lawyers, police, DPP, and the like, who may be involved in investigations, prosecutions or the defence of a case. That is a confidentiality in respect of that information, which appears to be with merit.

There is no question that the transfer of funds is one which needs to be monitored. The opposition considers this to be an important contemporising of the act. The opportunity for our law enforcers to be able to detect crime and also subsequently successfully prosecute criminals, particularly in respect of what is known as white collar crime, does require them to have access to this information. On the face of it, there is quite a steep obligation on cash dealers, and the like, to keep records and make reports, and that is quite onerous. However, the opposition takes the view that that is necessary for the proper enforcement of the law and it is not unreasonable that it be utilised to provide for better detection, with adequate aspects of privacy.

My recollection in relation to the TAB is that all bets over $10,000, for example, were required to be reported. If they were suspicious—if there was a repeated pattern of large bets, for example—even amounts under that limit could be reported. The whole purpose of that exercise was to be able to alert, I suppose, the relevant authorities to a person who might be utilising the TAB facilities to launder money or to be able to 'clean' money, as it was said of those who used the TAB for the purpose of trying to cleanse their ill-gotten gains from other pursuits or activities. Money that had not been identified on the way in came out as winnings.

In fact the current Acting Speaker (Hon. Mr Wright), as a former minister for racing, sport and recreation, would be familiar with this practice. That these are areas that need to be kept under surveillance is a good clearing house point, upon which law enforcement officers are able to act. Accordingly, I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the bill.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (17:06): I want to say thank you very much to the member for Bragg and, through her, to her colleagues for supporting this piece of legislation. I guess we will not need to go into committee or anything of that nature, and that is fantastic.

I want to say some highly relevant things in relation to this piece of legislation. The first one is that I would like to thank the member for Bragg for the cut and thrust of her parry across the chamber for the last 12 months. As always, it has been challenging and sometimes, from my point of view, a little bruising. She can be very tough with me. She does say some very hurtful and challenging things, but occasionally she does say something nice. I recall that on one occasion she said that I had finally got it. I cannot remember the other nice things she said, but that ranks amongst them. I want to say to the honourable member for Bragg that I enjoy it always—

Ms Chapman: Just say, 'Merry Christmas'.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I'm coming to that. I would like to say that I enjoy it always, but that would suggest that I maybe have some sort of wish to be injured. I do sincerely thank the member for Bragg for her contributions in this place. If I am allowed to have a little lament, it is that the member for Bragg is not technically my counterpart in the parliament.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No; that's right. I am confident of this: if I were able to deal with many matters before the parliament across the chamber with the honourable member, I am sure that, before we got in here, we would be able to sit down have a very common-sense chat about things. I am sure that she would be quite merciless in her pursuit of me over matters about which we disagreed, but I suspect that they would be fewer and further between than they are presently.

Anyway, my wish to the honourable member for Bragg—and I hope this is not a curse or some sort of terrible thing to say—is that maybe next year we will get the chance to work a little bit more closely on a number things, and I think that would be highly productive for the state.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That's not really what I had in mind, no. I invite the honourable member to consider including some other portfolios amongst water, including Attorney-General, and consumer and business affairs, in particular. I thank all members of parliament for their terrific engagement in the parliamentary process over the last 12 months. My staff have advised me that we have had 38 bills, I think, in varying stages in the parliament, which means most of the time that people have spent here on bills has been, one way or another, connected with bills that we have been working on. I have had the privilege of listening to people talk about those bills and I am very happy to say that I think all of the contributions, without exception, have been useful and helpful, and it is good to see the parliament functioning in that way.

Thank you to all members of parliament, particularly my parliamentary colleagues, who are very supportive and very tolerant. I also thank members of the opposition and hope you all have a very peaceful, enjoyable and relaxing Christmas break and successful new year.

Ms Bedford: Not too successful.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, I am not thinking of 2014. I hope you have a good new year anyway. Let's leave it at that. Do not have too much to drink and all that sort of stuff. With those few highly relevant words I will close the debate.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (17:11): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (17:11): I wish to agree with the Attorney that considerable work is undertaken by members of his department in providing us with advice during the course of the enormous amount of legislation that comes through the Attorney-General's office, and a little from the Consumer and Business Services. On the whole, that has been very well received and appreciated by the opposition. I hope that 2013 brings a new era of disclosure though on behalf of the Attorney, of information and, in particular, submissions and the like. In the absence of that, it does delay what I think would otherwise be a more orderly and prompt passage of legislation.

With that, I wish the Attorney and his family a merry Christmas, and you Mr Acting Speaker. I would like to say this: many of our committees are chaired by you. I appreciate your fair and balanced approach to the management of those committees. Sometimes they are not easy but, on my observation, you do a sterling job of that and I thank you for it.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT