Footnotes

Chapter 1 - Introduction

[1]        The Hon. Philip Ruddock MP, Attorney-General, Second Reading Speech, House of Representatives Hansard, 1 November 2006, p.1.

[2]        Second Reading Speech, 1 November 2006, p.2.

[3]        Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Exposure Draft of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill 2005, April 2006, p.1.

Chapter 2 - Major changes to the Bill

[1]        For example, former items 38, 42-43, 48 and 52 which concern advice provided by licensed financial advisers. The obligations of designated non-financial businesses and professions, including licensed financial advisers will be addressed in the second tranche of the AML/CTF legislation.

[2]        Australian Government, Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, Draft Consolidated AML/CTF Rules for Discussion, 4 July 2006, Chapter 6.

[3]        Proposed paragraphs (a)-(c), inclusive, and proposed paragraphs (d)-(j), inclusive, respectively.

[4]        Australian Government, Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, Draft Consolidated AML/CTF Rules for Discussion, 4 July 2006, Chapter 9.2.

[5]        Proposed clauses 42, 44-45 and 47.

[6]        Proposed clauses 49–50 and Explanatory Memorandum, p.91.

[7]        Note that clause 5 defines 'person' to include an individual, company, trust, partnership, corporation sole or body politic.

[8]        Explanatory Memorandum, p.122.

[9]        Exposure Draft of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill 2005, Clauses 36, 46 and 64.

Chapter 3 - Key concerns for Industry

[1]        For example, Submission 23, p.2; Submission 26, p.1; Submission 8, p.2; Submission 20, p.1.

[2]        Submission 3, p.2.

[3]        Submission 37, p.1.

[4]        Committee Hansard, 23 November 2006, p.34.

[5]        Submission 37a.

[6]        For example, Submission 3, p.2; Submission 23, p.2.

[7]        One submission even queried whether the staggered approach to implementation was either necessary or appropriate - see Submission 5, p.4.

[8]        Submission 23, p.2. Also, see Submission 15, p.2; Submission 26, p.3; Submission 10, p.2.

[9]        Submission 16, pp 1–2. Also, see Submission 20, p.2.

[10]      Submission 15, p.2. Also, see Submission 2b, p.2.

[11]      Submission 33, p.1.

[12]      For example, Submission 2b, p.2 where the CPA Australia and the Institute of Chartered Accountants suggested a national education program, ongoing technical support and advice, and development of profession wide compliance programs.

[13]      Committee Hansard, 23 November 2006, p.35.

[14]      Submission 40, p.3. This formal assistance will include materials and educational activities.

[15]      Submission 38, p.6. Also, see Submission 14, p.4.

[16]      Submission 1, pp 13–14.

[17]      For example, Submission 14, p.3; Submission 26, p.3; Submission 35, p.3;Submission 3, p.5.

[18]      Committee Hansard, 23 November 2006, pp 33–34.

[19]      Submission 37, p.2.

[20]      Submission 30a, p.6.

[21]      Submission 5a, p.6.

[22]      Submission 14, p.4.

[23]      Submission 2a, p.4; Submission 1a, p.3; Submission 14, p.2; Submission 40, p.6 and Submission 7, p.9 which suggested that reporting entities would be likely to err on the side of caution and over-report due to the enforcement provisions within the Bill. Also, see Chapter 2 of this Report.

[24]      Committee Hansard, 14 November 2006, p.3; Also, see Submission 41, p.1 and Submission 38, p.3 which noted an extension of the obligation to overseas law enforcement.

[25]      Submission 1, pp 1–4.

[26]      Submission 14, p.2.

[27]      Submission 2, p.1 and Submission 33, p.2.

[28]      Committee Hansard , 23 November 2006, p.44.

[29]      Committee Hansard, 14 November 2006, p.5.

[30]      Committee Hansard, 14 November 2006, p.8.

[31]      Submission 5a, p.7.

[32]      Submission 7, pp 5–9.

[33]      Submission 28, p.4.

[34]      Submission 17, pp 1–2.

[35]      Submission 22, p.4. Baycorp identified remote customers and organisations with no branch networks as persons who particularly rely upon e-verification.

[36]      Submission 17, p.2.

[37]      Submission 23, p.3 and Submission 15, pp 2–3 which noted that the Amending Bill has the effect of narrowing access to information obtained under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. This position was at odds with Submission 22, p.7 which advocated greater access for less limited purposes but Submission 9, p.8 which argued that any access by reporting agencies would be subject to commercial abuse.

[38]      Submission 22, pp 4–5.

[39]      Submission 26, p.2.

[40]      Submission 27, p.2.

[41]      Submission 10, p.3. For example, the payment of unclaimed monies to a state registrar of unclaimed funds. Also, see Submission 5, p.8 where Minter Ellison, Lawyers presented similar arguments in respect of transfers and roll-overs between reporting entities.

[42]      Although the Australian Privacy Foundation did not support these changes arguing that designated business groups could effectively 'blacklist' customers – see Submission 9, p.7.

[43]      Submission 3, p.4 and Submission 38, p.2.

[44]      Submission 24, p.2. For instance, intra-group loans and parent company guarantees. The Business Council of Australia made similar comments in relation to corporate treasuries adding that the lack of qualifications and/or exemptions would increase compliance costs for corporations operating internal treasuries – see Submission 1, p.2.

[45]      Submission 22, pp 8–9.

[46]      Submission 38, pp 1–2 and Submission 20, pp 6–7.

[47]      Submission 26, p.4.

[48]      Submission 30c, p.9.

[49]      Submission 29, pp 1–2. The practical effect of this submission was that Visa's Australian members believe that they would be forced to deny cash advances at Merchants or bank branches to Australian Visa cardholders travelling overseas.

[50]      Submission 13, p.1.

[51]      Submission 12, pp 1–2 and Submission 19, pp 1–2 and Attachment pp 1–5.

[52]      Committee Hansard, 22 November 2006, p. 35.

[53]      Submission 19, Attachment p.1. The most commonly suggested minimum value threshold was $1 000.

[54]      Submission 11, p.1.

[55]      Submission 11, pp 3–4.

[56]      Committee Hansard, 23 November 2006, p.3.

[57]      Submission  30c, p.8.

[58]      Submission  30c, p.3.

[59]      Submission  30c, p.3.

[60]      Submission 30a, p.2.

[61]      Submission 40, p. 6.

[62]      Submission 10, p. 4.

[63]      See for example Submission 35, pp 1–2.

[64]      Submission 24, p. 1 and Submission 4a, p. 1.

[65]      Submission 24, p.2. It was also pointed out that the telecommunications industry is regulated by the Australian Communications and Media Authority however it is noted that many other stakeholders are also regulated independently of AUSTRAC.

[66]      Submission 30c, p.3.

[67]      Submission 30c, p.3.

[68]      Submission 25, p.3. Also, see Submission 38.

[69]      Submission 30d, pp 2–3.

[70]      Submission 28, p.1.

[71]      Submission 28, p.3. Note that only designated services are covered by the ambit of the designated business group exception.

[72]      Submission 28, p.1.

[73]      Committee Hansard, 14 November 2006, pp 11–12.

[74]      Submission 13, p. 2 and Submission 39, p. 1.

[75]      Submission 39, Attachment p.1. Also, see Submission 3, p.3 and Submission 20, p.5.

[76]      Also, see Submission 20, p.7.

[77]      Submission 39, Attachment p.1.

[78]      Submission 20, pp 4–5. For example, not being able to communicate the risk to the reporting entity providing the designated service on account of the tipping off provisions.

[79]      Submission 30c, p.2.

Chapter 4 - Privacy and discrimination concerns

[1]        Submission 1, p.5. Also, see Submission 32, p.2.

[2]        Submission 1, p.5.

[3]        Submission 9, p.6.

[4]        Submission 1, pp 6–7, p.15.

[5]        Submission 1, p.8. Also, see Submission 32, p.4.

[6]        Submission 1, p.8.

[7]        Attorney General's Department, answer to question on notice, 15 November 2006 (received 21 November 2006).

[8]        Submission 1, p.11.

[9]        Submission 9, p.2.

[10]      Submission 9, p.3.

[11]      Submission 9, pp 8–9. Also, see Submission 14, p.4, Submission 40a, p.1.

[12]      Committee Hansard, 23 November 2006, pp 17–18. Also, see Submission 15, pp 2–3, Submission 17, p.2.

[13]      Submission 14, pp 1–2. Also, see Submission 40, p.5.

[14]      Submission 14, p.2.

[15]      Submission 22a, p.4. Also, see Submission 17, p.2; Submission 16a, p.13.

[16]      Submission 40a, pp 3–4.

[17]      Submission 40, p.4. Also, see Submission 9, pp 7–8.

[18]      Submission 14, p.3. Also, see Submission 40, p.4.

[19]      Submission 9, pp 7–8. Also, see, Submission 40a, p.2.

[20]      Submission 9, pp 7–8.

[21]      Submission 1, p.12.

[22]      Submission 9, p.6.

[23]      Salinger & Co, Privacy impacts of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill and Rules, 2006: A Privacy Impact Assessment for the Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department (2006), pp 5–6.

[24]      Salinger & Co, p.99.

[25]      Salinger & Co, pp 100–104.

[26]      Attorney-General’s Department, Criminal Justice Division, Privacy Impact Statement: Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill & Rules (2006) pp 3–4.

[27]      For further Department comment in response to the PIA, see Committee Hansard, 23 November 2006, p.33.

[28]      Committee Hansard, 23 November 2006, p.33.

[29]      Submission 1a, p.3. Also, see, Submission 9, p.1.

[30]      Submission 9, p.1.

Chapter 5 - Committee View

[1]        Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, The Work of the Committee during the 39th Parliament November 1998 -October 2001, p.77.