Dalziel Lianne: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — Second Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6881] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am somewhat tired of listening to the Minister of Justice constantly overlooking the contribution on the bill of the previous Labour Government. If it had not been for the previous Government a cost-benefit analysis would not have been undertaken on the impact of the changes that were proposed in the bill that we were working on when we were in Government. I say “the bill that we were working on in Government” because the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill as introduced looked nothing like the bill our Government would have introduced. I want to know why that is and when we get to the Committee of the whole House stage on the bill I will certainly be asking the Minister of Justice why he took his eye off the ball.  
Every time the Minister gets up in the Chamber and promotes a change to a policy or announces some new thing that is based on a pilot that our Government did or on a discussion document that our Government put out he never ever recognises the contribution we made. [ 
Interruption 
] We never ever did that the other way round. We were working on this issue when we were in Government— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member opposite keeps pointing interjecting and using the word “you”. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: And he is not even sitting in his own seat. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I will uphold the point of order. The member should not be interjecting in such a manner and he will desist immediately. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The point I am making is that the bill as introduced was completely and utterly dishonest. The reason it was dishonest was that the regulatory impact statement was based on the cost-benefit analysis that had been done on the bill that we were going to introduce. This bill looks nothing like the bill we were going to introduce. 
Jacqui Dean 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand that members should be speaking on the bill that is before us not on a bill that would have been introduced. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: My interpretation is that the member is referring to what has happened in the process of this bill. To date I think she has been speaking in the context of the report back of the bill. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The bill as introduced went to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and I can hardly refer to what the select committee did to the bill if I do not describe— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I have already ruled; the member does not have to convince me. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am not raising a point of order; I am just speaking on the bill. The member opposite is very new and does not know how the place operates but that is fine. I am referring to the bill as introduced and the bill as introduced into the House looked nothing like the bill that was described in the regulatory impact statement. People have to take some responsibility for the quality of regulatory impact statements. For the first time in any Parliament we have a Minister for Regulatory Reform and the quality of regulatory impact statements has never been poorer. It has never been worse than it is today and that reflects very interestingly on a Government that says it is interested in quality regulatory frameworks but in fact is not.  
The reason that this bill is now in much better shape is the select committee. I will pay tribute to the select committee but if the chair of the select committee does not want to receive any compliments from me then I am happy to assist in that regard. I will pay tribute to my colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson who took the trouble to get his head round what is incredibly complex legislation. [ 
Interruption 
] This bill now looks like the bill we would have introduced. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member Jacqui Dean who is not sitting in her own seat is referring to a member not being present in the Chamber. That is not appropriate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I did not hear what the member said but she will desist if that was the case. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The point I am making is that at the select committee hearing we ended up with the situation where the banks were essentially able to assist the select committee through the hearing of submissions. The officials were able to work with members of the committee to get the bill right. But for the Minister to come into the Chamber and simply say that a few changes were made in the select committee is to completely understate how bad the bill was when it was introduced. I blame the Minister of Justice for taking his eye off the ball and we will be asking him questions when we get to the Committee stage. If I was not aware of the Standing Orders I might reflect on where he sits on the matter right at this present moment but of course I would not reflect on that matter.  
The point I make is that a substantial sum in compliance costs was to be inflicted on the banks if we had gone down the track of the bill that was introduced which as I said was completely different from the bill now and completely different from the basis of the work that the cost-benefit analysis was done on. That is why I am saying that the bill as introduced was completely dishonest. It did not accurately reflect the true cost of what would be imposed on Australian banks operating in New Zealand.  
I have some figures here just to give a little example of what the situation would have been if it had not been for the members of the select committee taking a very serious look at what was a completely inadequately drafted bill. In one instance one of the banks identified that the cost of introducing the system that was created in the bill as introduced as compared with the case today would have been between $10 million and $22 million. That was just one bank’s assessment of how much the cost differential would have been. 
John Hayes 
: The NIS paper said $97 million. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: On top of that amount. I was saying that for that one bank alone it was between $10 million and $22 million. I do not know whether that impact— 
John Hayes 
: I’m talking the whole cost. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am getting some help from the chair of the select committee so maybe I will say something nice about him then. The point that I think he is trying to make is that when we multiply that effect across all of the banks that would have been affected by the changes then we are talking in the region of $90 million. That is a substantial sum of money to be imposing by way of compliance costs on the banking sector and on any business covered by the bill.  
I am so surprised that the Minister of Justice took such a flippant and short call on this matter. The reason I am surprised is that when he refers to minor changes he has completely missed the point of the work the select committee has done. Major changes are contained within the bill. Let me use the example of clause 23 which has been deleted and replaced. Previously the clause dealt with the requirement that the Government wanted to put on the banks: “Before a reporting entity establishes a business relationship or conducts an occasional transaction that involves a customer or a beneficial owner who is a politically exposed person the reporting entity must in addition to the requirements in sections 21 and 22—(a) have approval from its senior management for establishing the business relationship in accordance with the regulations (if any); and (b) meet any other requirements prescribed by regulations and that apply to politically exposed persons.”  
The clause has been completely altered and now begins with the phrase: “The reporting entity must as soon as practicable after establishing a business relationship or conducting an occasional transaction take reasonable steps to determine whether the customer or any beneficial owner is a politically exposed person.” I think some of the members in the House will be surprised to know that everyone in the House is a politically exposed person. We are on the list because we are politicians. A requirement on the banks even to go into an occasional transaction would have required an assessment to be undertaken of the requirements of sections 21 and 22 before that could occur.  
I acknowledge the work that has been done at the select committee. I particularly acknowledge the banks that have made the effort to provide information to the select committee and to others with an interest in this particular area. The costs that would have been imposed if everyone had taken his or her eye off the ball in the way the Minister of Justice took his eye off the ball when he let the bill be introduced in a way that was never intended have been improved by the process at the select committee as a result of all of the work that was undertaken by the previous Government and also by my very good colleague Clayton Cosgrove who required the cost-benefit analysis to be undertaken that underpins quality regulation. I congratulate the select committee but at the Committee stage I will be asking the Minister of Justice some pretty hard questions because he did take his eye off the ball. I am sure others will have some questions about other matters that are associated with suspicious transactions.  
I will leave my contribution there and I ask the House to support the passage of the bill in its new form.