Tirikatene RinoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I am pleased to take a call on this bill the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill. Obviously the intent of the legislation is very clear and we are supporting it on this side. Just listening to the contributions from my colleagues—I too have concerns around the practical application of firms being able to adhere to the requirements set out in the bill. It seems to me that when you look at all of the potential offences and the reasonable grounds that say a law firm may have to check off—I am just querying how practical a compliance programme with a law firm or any other of the entities that have to do reports is in practice and whether they will be able to adhere to their obligations under the bill.We are talking about misuse of drugs terrorism suppression and money-laundering legislation. Each one of those pieces of legislation is a highly technical piece of legislation and not only that we are yet to see what the prescribed form will be in the regulations as to the nature of what they have to report. I am not too sure whether the regulations have been drawn up yet or whether they already exist—well they probably would not exist under the existing legislation already.It comes down to putting more compliance on to businesses which just really want to provide their services to clients. Obviously we want to stamp out the money-laundering activities that do go on but it just seems to me that for any trader or even just a sole practitioner—I mean in addition to providing the legal service to the client or facilitating the transaction there is the actual consideration that that lawyer or sole practitioner would have to take to come to form that opinion as to whether their particular client is bona fide or whether they indeed have to report to the commissioner. It just seems to me that it can be a bit—I guess it is finding the right balance between what is practical and what is necessary and then are we actually achieving the ultimate objective whereby we want to root out the bad guys and report them to the police.So I guess it is trying to find that right balance within the obligations that are imposed in the legislation and it seems to me based on a very quick cursory look that it is quite technical. There is a range of different legislation. I would hope that the Law Society is going around its members as we speak and giving seminars on how they are to treat the obligations that will be imposed on them once this legislation is enacted because it is quite onerous.I just want to conclude by saying that when we look at the exemption around privileged communication—it seems like apart from the exemption if it is really dishonest all communications between the client and the lawyer concerned are privileged. It is a very wide definition and it could very well fall within that ambit. I guess the point I am trying to make is that if people are going to break the law they work around what the requirements are. If there is a risk of a certain person fitting a certain description committing an offence—I mean a criminal will look to work around whatever the risk is. So it will be interesting to see once this has bedded in how it is working in practice and whether we actually are catching the bad guys. But I certainly hope that we can achieve this through the passage of this legislation. Kia ora.