Parliament bill

Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Royal assent

Last checked
July 15, 2026 15:53
Source captured
July 15, 2026 15:53
Source
View on Parliament.nz

What this bill does

The bill passed its third reading by voice vote; no party or individual counts were recorded. According to the bill’s stated rationale, three separate AML/CFT supervisors have created inconsistent guidance and compliance burdens while the system has struggled to keep pace with financial crime. The bill aims to simplify and better resource New Zealand’s anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorism-financing system while focusing compliance and enforcement on risk. The bill replaces the three supervisors with one supervisor, the Department of Internal Affairs, and requires reporting entities to pay a levy to help fund regulatory, supervisory, and financial-intelligence work.

AI-assisted summary based on the bill text and linked Hansard debates.

Latest voting result

May 12, 2026
Third reading: Passed Voice vote

Decision recorded by voice vote; no individual or party counts were recorded.

View the vote in Hansard

Earlier votes (1)

May 12, 2026

Third reading: Passed Voice vote

Decision recorded by voice vote; no individual or party counts were recorded.

Arguments raised in Parliament

AI-assisted summary of the linked Hansard debates. Each point is grounded in the cited transcript.

Arguments for

The Department of Internal Affairs as a single supervisor will replace fragmented oversight, giving regulated businesses clearer and faster guidance while reducing inconsistent advice and compliance duplication.

The industry levy and continued Government contribution will provide sustainable funding for supervision, guidance, and the Police Financial Intelligence Unit’s investigation of suspicious-activity reports.

Arguments against

The levy unfairly places the cost of financial-crime detection and enforcement on banks, lawyers, and real-estate agents even though the benefits of reduced money-laundering accrue to society generally.

DIA’s takeover of supervision risks losing the Financial Markets Authority’s specialised financial-supervision expertise, potentially weakening oversight of fintechs, trusts, and other entities outside DIA’s usual remit.

Nuance and qualifications

The new national strategy, annual reporting, and levy review are intended to make agencies and levy spending accountable, but their effectiveness will depend on substantive priorities, timelines, ownership, and cost information.

Bill text

Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Version published April 28, 2026 00:00.

Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows: 1 Title This Act is the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2025 . 2 Commencement This Act comes into force on 1 July 2026 . 3 Principal Act This Act amends the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009. 4 Section 4 amended (Overview) In section 4(3)(e), replace AML/CFT supervisors with the AML/CFT supervisor . In section 4(5)(a), replace that identify the AML/CFT supervisors and their functions, powers, and ability to delegate supervisory functions; with that set out the functions and powers of the AML/CFT supervisor and its ability to delegate supervisory functions; . Replace section 4(5)(b) with: b subpart 2 includes regulation-making powers, rule-making powers, and provisions relating to exemptions from the requirements of the Act. 5 Section 5 amended (Interpretation) In section 5(1), insert in their appropriate alphabetical order: national strategy means the national strategy adopted in accordance with section 14…
Read full bill text
Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows: 1 Title This Act is the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2025 . 2 Commencement This Act comes into force on 1 July 2026 . 3 Principal Act This Act amends the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009. 4 Section 4 amended (Overview) In section 4(3)(e), replace AML/CFT supervisors with the AML/CFT supervisor . In section 4(5)(a), replace that identify the AML/CFT supervisors and their functions, powers, and ability to delegate supervisory functions; with that set out the functions and powers of the AML/CFT supervisor and its ability to delegate supervisory functions; . Replace section 4(5)(b) with: b subpart 2 includes regulation-making powers, rule-making powers, and provisions relating to exemptions from the requirements of the Act. 5 Section 5 amended (Interpretation) In section 5(1), insert in their appropriate alphabetical order: national strategy means the national strategy adopted in accordance with section 149A public service agency has the meaning given to it by section 5 of the Public Service Act 2020 rules means rules made under this Act work programme means the regulatory work programme adopted in accordance with section 149D In section 5(1), definition of AML/CFT requirements , after Part 2 , insert and regulations, rules, and notices made under this Act . In section 5(1), replace the definition of AML/CFT supervisor with: AML/CFT supervisor means the public service agency that, with the authority of the Prime Minister, is for the time being responsible for supervising reporting entities under this Act In section 5(1), definition of applicable threshold value , replace regulations with regulations made under section 153 or 154 or by notice under section 156D in each place. In section 5(1), definition of approved entity , replace regulations with notice made under section 156F in each place. In section 5(1), definition of bearer-negotiable instrument , paragraph (g), replace regulations with rules made under section 156B . In section 5(1), replace the definition of code of practice and proposed code of practice with: code of practice means a code of practice made under section 64 In section 5(1), definition of customer , replace regulations with regulations made under section 154 or by notice under section 156F in each place. In section 5(1), definition of designated business group ,— a paragraph (b), replace regulations (if any) with requirements (if any) prescribed by notice under section 156F ; and b paragraph (d)(xiii), replace regulations with notice under section 156F . In section 5(1), definition of designated non-financial business or profession , replace regulations with regulations made under section 154 or by notice under section 156F in each place. In section 5(1), definition of facility , replace regulations with notice under section 156F in each place. In section 5(1), definition of financial institution , replace regulations with regulations made under section 154 or by notice under section 156F in each place. In section 5(1), definition of legal arrangement , replace prescribed arrangement with arrangement declared by regulations made under section 154 or by notice under section 156F . In section 5(1), definition of occasional activity , replace regulations with regulations made under section 154 or by notice under section 156F in each place. In section 5(1), definition of occasional transaction , replace regulations with regulations made under section 154 or by notice under section 156F in each place. In section 5(1), definition of ordering institution , replace regulations with regulations made under section 154 or by notice under section 156F in each place. In section 5(1), definition of reporting entity , replace regulations with regulations made under section 154 or by notice under section 156F in each place. In section 5(1), definition of transaction , replace regulations with regulations made under section 154 or by notice under section 156F in each place. In section 5(1), definition of wire transfer , replace regulations with regulations made under section 154 or by notice under section 156F in each place. In section 5(3), delete relevant . In section 5(3)(c), replace any AML/CFT supervisor with the AML/CFT supervisor . In section 5(4), delete relevant . 6 Section 16 amended (Standard customer due diligence: verification of identity requirements) After section 16(1), insert: 1A Subsection (1)(b) and (c) does not require a reporting entity to take steps to verify any information obtained under section 15(d). In section 16(1)(d), replace regulations with rules made under section 156B . 7 Section 39A amended (Interpretation) In section 39A, replace the definition of suspicious activity with: suspicious activity — a means an activity undertaken in circumstances— i in which— A a person conducts or seeks to conduct a transaction through a reporting entity; or B a reporting entity provides or proposes to provide a service to a person; or C a person requests a reporting entity to provide a service or makes an inquiry to the reporting entity in relation to a service; and ii where the reporting entity has reasonable grounds to suspect that the transaction or proposed transaction, the service or proposed service, or the inquiry, as the case may be, is or may be relevant to— A the investigation or prosecution of any person for a money laundering offence; or B the enforcement of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975; or C the enforcement of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002; or D the enforcement of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 or the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009; or E the investigation or prosecution of an offence (within the meaning of section 243(1) of the Crimes Act 1961); and b includes an activity— i that occurs in the course of carrying out the business of a person who is in trade in respect of 1 or more of the articles described in section 67A; and ii where the person in trade has reasonable grounds to suspect that the activity is or may be relevant to 1 or more of the matters described in paragraph (a)(ii)(A) to (E) . 8 New section 40A inserted (Certain persons in trade may report suspicious activities) After section 40, insert: 40A Certain persons in trade may report suspicious activities 1 This section applies to a person who is in trade in respect of 1 or more of the articles described in section 67A. 2 A person to whom this section applies may report any suspicious activity to the Commissioner that occurs in the course of carrying out their business. 9 Section 41 amended (Nature of suspicious activity report) In section 41(1), after section 40 , insert or 40A . In section 41(1)(a), replace prescribed with approved . In section 41(1)(b), replace regulations with rules made under section 156C . In section 41(1)(c), after reporting entity , insert or person in trade . In section 41(1)(d), after reporting entity , insert or person in trade . In section 41(2), after reporting entity , insert or person in trade . 10 Section 46 amended (Disclosure of information relating to suspicious activity reports) In section 46(2)(a), replace a with any . Replace section 46(2)(b) with: b the AML/CFT supervisor; or In section 46(4), replace An AML/CFT supervisor with The AML/CFT supervisor . In section 46(5), delete that made the delegation . 11 Section 60 amended (Annual AML/CFT report) In section 60(2)(a), replace prescribed form with approved form (if any) . In section 60(2)(c), replace regulations with rules made under section 156B . After section 60(2)(c), insert: d provide any sector-specific information required by the AML/CFT supervisor under rules made under section 156B . In section 60(3), replace its AML/CFT supervisor with the AML/CFT supervisor . 12 Sections 62 and 63 repealed Repeal sections 62 and 63. 13 Section 64 replaced (Procedure for approval and publication of codes of practice) Replace section 64 with: 64 Chief executive of AML/CFT supervisor may make codes of practice 1 The chief executive of the AML/CFT supervisor may make 1 or more codes of practice for the following: a all reporting entities: b specific classes of reporting entities: c specific activities or classes of activities regulated by this Act or its regulations or rules. 2 The purpose of a code of practice is to provide a statement of practice that assists reporting entities to comply with their obligations under this Act, regulations, notices, and rules. 3 Before making a code of practice, the chief executive must consult— a the persons or bodies that the chief executive considers may be affected by the proposed code of practice; and b the Minister. 4 A code of practice made under this section is secondary legislation ( see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements). 14 Section 65 amended (Amendment and revocation of codes of practice) In section 65(2), replace Sections 63, 64, 66, and 67 with Sections 64 and 67 . After section 65(2), insert: 3 Section 64(3) does not apply to amendments to codes of practice if the chief executive of the AML/CFT supervisor is satisfied that— a the amendments are only correcting minor errors; or b the amendments are otherwise of a minor or technical nature only. 15 Section 66 repealed (Proof of codes of practice) Repeal section 66. 16 Section 67 amended (Legal effect of codes of practice) In section 67(3), (4), and (5), replace section 64(6) with section 64 . 17 Section 70 amended (Reporting requirements) Replace section 70(a) with: a be in the approved form (if any); and In section 70(c), replace regulations with rules made under section 156C . 17A Section 79 amended (Possible responses to civil liability act) After section 79(a), insert: aa issue a censure under section 80A : 17B New sections 80A and 80B and cross-heading inserted After section 80, insert: Censures 80A Censures 1 The AML/CFT supervisor may censure a person in accordance with subsections (2) and (4) if the AML/CFT supervisor is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the person has engaged in conduct that constitutes a civil liability act. 2 The AML/CFT supervisor must, at least 10 working days before censuring the person, give written notice that the AML/CFT supervisor may censure the person and set out the grounds upon which it proposes to do so. 3 A person who receives a notice under subsection (2) may make a written submission on the matter within 10 working days of receiving the notice. 4 The AML/CFT supervisor must give written notice of a censure, and the notice must set out the grounds upon which the AML/CFT supervisor has censured the person. 80B Appeals against censure A person may appeal to the District Court against a decision of an AML/CFT supervisor to issue a censure against the person under section 80A . 18 Section 118 amended (Powers under search warrant) In section 118(3), replace 118, 119, and 130 with 118 and 119 . 19 Section 130 repealed (AML/CFT supervisors) Repeal section 130. 20 Section 131 replaced (Functions) Replace section 131 with: 131 Functions The functions of the AML/CFT supervisor are to— a monitor and assess the level of risk of money laundering and the financing of terrorism, including through providing risk assessments and intelligence to the Commissioner and reporting entities: b monitor reporting entities for compliance with this Act and regulations, and for this purpose to develop and implement a supervisory programme: c provide timely and up-to-date guidance to reporting entities to assist compliance with this Act, regulations, and rules: d investigate reporting entities and enforce compliance with this Act, regulations, and rules: e engage with reporting entities to identify and mitigate unintended consequences of the application of this Act, regulations, and rules: f engage with the Ministry and the Commissioner on policy development, regulatory reform, levy settings, administration, ministerial exemptions, and as otherwise requested under section 149(ca) : g engage with domestic and international agencies that have oversight functions about any matter relating to the AML/CFT supervisor’s functions, both bilaterally and in relevant forums, to— i ensure the consistent, effective, and efficient implementation of this Act; and ii meet international commitments: h make codes of practice for reporting entities: i make rules relating to AML/CFT requirements and other matters under this Act: j make notices relating to the application of this Act. 21 Section 132 amended (Powers) In section 132(1), replace An AML/CFT supervisor with The AML/CFT supervisor . In section 132(2), replace an AML/CFT supervisor with the AML/CFT supervisor . In section 132(2)(a), after on notice , insert given in accordance with subsection (3A) . In section 132(2)(b), after section 133 , insert (including via an audio or audiovisual link) . After section 132(2)(b), insert: ba require any person whom the AML/CFT supervisor reasonably suspects has knowledge of a possible contravention of this Act or regulations to attend a meeting (including via an audio or audiovisual link) with the AML/CFT supervisor to— i answer any questions relating to a reporting entity’s records and documents; and ii provide any other information that the AML/CFT supervisor considers necessary or desirable for the purposes of performing or exercising its functions, powers, or duties under this Act and regulations; and In section 132(2)(c)(iii) and (iv), replace and regulations with , regulations, and rules . In section 132(3), replace An AML/CFT supervisor with The AML/CFT supervisor . After section 132(3), insert: 3A The AML/CFT supervisor may require production of, or access to, records, documents, or information under subsection (2)(a)— a as soon as possible after notification, if the AML/CFT supervisor considers that the production of, or access to, the records, documents, or information is a matter of urgency; or b in any other case,— i by any specified date that the AML/CFT supervisor considers reasonable in the circumstances; or ii if no specified date is given, within 10 working days. 3AA A person required to attend a meeting under subsection (2)(ba) may— a be represented by a lawyer at the meeting; and b end the meeting at any point. 3B A person is not required to answer a question asked by the AML/CFT supervisor under subsection (2)(ba) if the answer would or could incriminate the person. 3C Before the AML/CFT supervisor requires a person to answer a question under subsection (2)(ba) , the person must be informed of the rights specified in subsections (3AA) and (3B) . 22 Section 133 amended (Matters relating to conduct of on-site inspections) In section 133(1), replace An AML/CFT supervisor with The AML/CFT supervisor . In section 133(1), delete a dwellinghouse or . In section 133(2), replace an AML/CFT supervisor with the AML/CFT supervisor . In section 133(3), replace an AML/CFT supervisor with the AML/CFT supervisor . In section 133(4), replace an AML/CFT supervisor with the AML/CFT supervisor . In section 133(5), delete (as defined in section 42) . 23 New section 133A inserted (Power to enter dwellinghouses) After section 133, insert: 133A Power to enter dwellinghouses 1 Despite section 133(1), the AML/CFT supervisor must not enter a dwellinghouse to conduct an on-site inspection except— a with the consent of the occupier; or b pursuant to a warrant issued under subsection (2) . 2 An issuing officer may, on an application made by the AML/CFT supervisor in the manner provided in subpart 3 of Part 4 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, issue a warrant to enter a dwellinghouse if the officer is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the dwellinghouse is a place where— a a reporting entity carries out work; and b records, documents, or information relevant to the supervision and monitoring of the reporting entity under this Act are likely to be kept. 3 A warrant issued under subsection (2) authorises the AML/CFT supervisor to exercise only the powers specified in sections 132(1) and (2)(b) and 133 and only in respect of the parts of the dwellinghouse where the reporting entity carries out work. 24 Section 142 amended (Financial intelligence functions of Commissioner) In section 142(h), replace AML/CFT supervisors with the AML/CFT supervisor . In section 142(k), replace AML/CFT supervisors with the AML/CFT supervisor . Replace section 142(l) with: l co-operate with relevant agencies domestically and internationally to help ensure the effective implementation of the requirements under this Act and regulations, including participation in international forums and as requested under section 149(cb) : m make rules relating to reports and other matters under this Act: n make notices relating to the application of this Act. 25 Section 149 amended (Role of Ministry) After section 149(c), insert: ca establishing reference, working, and other groups— i as required to give effect to section 149D ; and ii as considered necessary by the Ministry to give effect to this Act and regulations; and cb engaging with domestic and international counterparts and participating in relevant forums to ensure the consistent, effective, and efficient implementation of this Act in a way that is consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations; and cc issuing a regulatory work programme for AML/CFT; and In section 149, insert as subsection (2): 2 The chief executive has the following functions: a making notices relating to prescribed thresholds and amounts under section 156D : b making exemption notices under section 156E . 26 New sections 149A to 149F and cross-heading inserted After section 149, insert: National strategy and work programme 149A National strategy for AML/CFT must be adopted 1 The Minister must adopt a national strategy for AML/CFT. 2 The purpose of the national strategy is to direct the AML/CFT supervisor, the Commissioner, the Ministry, and other public service agencies in performing or exercising their functions, duties, and powers under the Act to give effect to the purpose set out in section 3. 3 In developing the national strategy, the Minister must have regard to any relevant risk assessments or intelligence provided by the Commissioner or the AML/CFT supervisor. 3A Before adopting the national strategy, the Minister must consult the persons or bodies that the Minister considers may be affected by the strategy. 4 Any direction to the Commissioner in the national strategy must be consistent with section 16 of the Policing Act 2008 (which provides for the responsibilities and independence of the Commissioner). 149B Publication of national strategy After adopting a national strategy under section 149A , or after amending or replacing the strategy, the Minister must, as soon as practicable,— a present a copy of the strategy to the House of Representatives; and b notify the adoption, amendments, or replacement in the Gazette ; and c publish the strategy on an Internet site maintained by or on behalf of the Ministry. 149C Duty to review national strategy after Financial Action Task Force evaluation The Minister must review the national strategy following the publication of a Financial Action Task Force mutual evaluation final report relating to New Zealand. 149D Regulatory work programme must be issued 1 The Ministry must issue a regulatory work programme for AML/CFT following the issue of a national strategy adopted under section 149A . 2 The purpose of the work programme is to set out how the AML/CFT supervisor, the Commissioner, the Ministry, and any other relevant public service agency will give effect to the national strategy. 2A Before issuing the regulatory work programme, the Ministry must consult the persons or bodies that the Ministry considers may be affected by the work programme. 3 The Ministry must publish a summary of the work programme on an Internet site maintained by or on behalf of the Ministry. 4 See also section 155C , which requires the Minister to have regard to the work programme when recommending the making of regulations that set a levy. 149E Ministry must report annually on work programme and levy 1 The Ministry must provide an annual report to the Minister on the work programme and the levy. 2 The annual report must be provided within 12 months after the end of each financial year. 3 The annual report must include— a details of the total amount of levies collected: aa details of how the levies were used: b future projections of cost and revenue. 4 The Ministry must publish the report on an Internet site maintained by or on behalf of the Ministry. 149F Ministry must review levy funding for work programme 1 The Ministry must, 3 years after levy regulations are made or significantly amended,— a review the levy funding for the work programme; and b provide a report to the Minister on its findings. 2 During the review, the Ministry must consult the persons or bodies that the Ministry considers may be affected by the levy funding for the work programme. 3 The Ministry must publish a report made under subsection (1)(b) on its Internet site within 6 months after the provision of the report to the Minister. 4 The requirement in subsection (1) does not apply to any minor or technical amendments to the levy regulations. 5 In this section, levy regulations means regulations made under section 155A prescribing a levy. 27 Sections 150 to 152 repealed Repeal sections 150 to 152. 28 Section 153 amended (Regulations) Repeal section 153(1)(a) to (c) and (e) to (h). In section 153(1)(i), replace an AML/CFT supervisor with the AML/CFT supervisor . 29 Section 154 amended (Regulations relating to application of Act) Repeal section 154(1)(a), (ac) to (d), (f), and (k). After section 154(1)(l), insert: m declaring a person or class of persons to be, or not to be, a designated non-financial business or profession for the purposes of this Act: n declaring an arrangement to be a legal arrangement for the purposes of this Act: o declaring a person to be, or not to be, an ordering institution for the purposes of this Act. 30 New sections 155A to 155D inserted After section 155, insert: 155A Levies payable by reporting entities 1 Every reporting entity must pay to the Crown, or to a prescribed person on behalf of the Crown, a levy prescribed by the regulations made under subsection (2) . 2 The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations providing for the levies. 3 The levies must be prescribed on the basis that the following costs should be met out of the levies: a a portion of the costs incurred by the Ministry, the AML/CFT supervisor, and the Commissioner in performing or exercising their functions, powers, and duties under this Act; and b a portion of any additional costs associated with giving effect to the national strategy adopted under section 149A and with the work programme issued under section 149D ; and c the full costs of collecting the levy money. 4 For the purpose of subsection (3)(a) and (b) , the Minister must determine whether the whole or a portion of the costs will be met by levies under this Act (and the size of any portion). 5 Levies may be prescribed on the basis that any actual cost that could have been, but has not been, recovered as a levy shortfall for a year may be recovered (along with any financing charge) over any period of up to 5 years. 6 The regulations may— a specify the class or classes of reporting entities that are required to pay a levy: b specify the amount of levies or the method of calculating or ascertaining the amount of levies: c include in levies, or provide for the inclusion in levies of, any shortfall in recovering the actual costs: d refund, or provide for refunds of, any over-recovery of the actual costs: e provide for the payment and collection of levies: f specify the financial year, or part financial year, to which a levy applies, and apply that levy to that financial year, or part financial year, and each subsequent financial year until the levy is revoked or replaced: g require payment of a levy for a financial year, or part financial year, irrespective of the fact that the regulations may be made after that financial year has commenced. 7 Regulations made under this section may provide for different levies for different classes of reporting entities. 8 Regulations made under this section are secondary legislation ( see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements). 155B Miscellaneous provisions relating to levies 1 If a person is in 2 or more classes of reporting entities in respect of which different levies have been prescribed under section 155A , the person must pay each of those levies (unless the regulations provide otherwise). 2 The person to whom the levy is payable must ensure that each levy payment is paid into a Crown Bank Account and is separately accounted for. 3 The amount of any unpaid levy is recoverable in any court of competent jurisdiction as a debt due to the Crown. 155C Matters to which Minister must have regard Before recommending the making of regulations under section 155A , the Minister must have regard to the national strategy and the work programme. 155D Minister must consult on proposed levy regulations 1 Before recommending the making of regulations under section 155A , the Minister must consult the persons or bodies that the Minister considers may be affected by the proposed regulations. 2 A failure to comply with this section does not affect the validity of the regulations. 31 Section 156 amended (Consultation not required for consolidation of certain regulations and minor amendments) In section 156, insert as subsection (2): 2 The Minister is not required to comply with section 155D in respect of regulations made under section 155A that amend other regulations if the Minister is satisfied that— a the amendments are only correcting minor errors; or b the amendments are otherwise of a minor or technical nature only; or c it is necessary or desirable in the public interest that the amendments be made urgently. 32 New sections 156B to 156J and cross-headings inserted After section 156A, insert: Rules 156B AML/CFT supervisor may make rules 1 The chief executive of the AML/CFT supervisor may make rules for all or any of the following purposes: a prescribing requirements (generic and sector-specific) for standard, simplified, enhanced, and ongoing customer due diligence and any other AML/CFT requirements, including, but not limited to, the following: i information to be provided or obtained for the purposes of identification and verification: ii the circumstances in which a particular type of customer due diligence must be conducted: iii specifying entities or classes of entities, or products, services, or transactions for which a reporting entity may conduct simplified customer due diligence: iv the conditions in which third parties may be relied on to conduct customer due diligence: v the conditions on which a member of a designated business group may adopt an AML/CFT programme of another member of the group and share and use the policies, controls, and procedures of that programme: vi the circumstances in which corporations are deemed to be affiliated: vii the factors that a reporting entity must have regard to when assessing risk: viii the time period for auditing of a reporting entity’s risk assessment and AML/CFT programme: b prescribing instruments to be bearer-negotiable instruments for the purposes of this Act: c prescribing the information to be included in any of the following documents required under this Act: i any documents required under subpart 1 of Part 2: ii annual reports under section 60 (including, without limitation, sector-specific information): d prescribing the information to be included in records, and the manner in which records are to be kept, by reporting entities or any specified class or classes of reporting entities: e prescribing other identifying information that allows a transaction to be traced back to the originator for the purposes of section 27(1): f prescribing the manner in which any of the following are to be given or served: i any documents required under subpart 1 of Part 2: ii annual reports under section 60: iii formal warnings under section 80: iv written notices under section 80A(2) : v censures under section 80A(4) : g prescribing requirements for the purposes of section 30(b) that apply to new or developing technologies or products that might favour anonymity. 2 Sections 156H to 156J apply to the chief executive of the AML/CFT supervisor when making rules under subsection (1) . 3 Subsection (2) does not apply if the chief executive of the AML/CFT supervisor is satisfied that the rules make an amendment that is minor in effect or corrects a minor or technical error. 4 Rules made under this section are secondary legislation ( see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements). 156C Commissioner may make rules 1 The Commissioner may make rules for all or any of the following purposes: a prescribing the information to be included in documents or reports: b prescribing the manner in which documents or reports are to be given or served. 2 In this section, documents or reports means— a suspicious activity reports: b prescribed transaction reports: c cash reports. 3 Sections 156H to 156J apply to the Commissioner when making rules under subsection (1) . 4 Subsection (3) does not apply if the Commissioner is satisfied that the rules make an amendment that is minor in effect or corrects a minor or technical error. 5 Rules made under this section are secondary legislation ( see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements). Notices 156D Chief executive may make notice prescribing amounts or thresholds 1 The chief executive may, by notice, prescribe amounts or thresholds that are required to be prescribed for the purposes of this Act or regulations. 2 The chief executive may prescribe 1 or more amounts or thresholds for the purposes of different provisions of this Act or regulations. 3 Without limiting subsection (1) , the chief executive may prescribe threshold values for the purposes of sections 68 and 69 and may prescribe the person or class of persons, transaction or class of transactions, or financial activity or class of financial activities to which that threshold applies. 4 The chief executive may not exercise the power under subsection (1) in relation to a particular amount or threshold if any regulations made under section 153(1)(d) already provide for it. 4A Sections 156H to 156J apply to the chief executive when making an exemption notice a notice under subsection (1) . 5 Notices made under this section are secondary legislation ( see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements). 156E Chief executive may make exemption notice relating to reporting entity or transaction 1 The chief executive may, by notice, exempt either or both any of the following from the requirements of all or any of the provisions of this Act: a a reporting entity or class of reporting entities: b a transaction or class of transactions. b a transaction, product, or service or class of transactions, products, or services: c a financial activity or class of financial activities described in the definition of financial institution in section 5. 2 The chief executive may grant an exemption on— a the chief executive’s own motion; or b the recommendation of a New Zealand government agency; or c application by 1 or more reporting entities made in a manner or form approved by the chief executive (if any). 3 The chief executive may grant the exemption— a unconditionally; or b subject to any conditions that the chief executive thinks fit. 4 Sections 156H to 156J apply to the chief executive when making a notice under subsection (1) . 5 An exemption notice made under this section is secondary legislation ( see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements). 156F AML/CFT supervisor may make notice relating to application of Act 1 The chief executive of the AML/CFT supervisor may make notices for the following purposes: a exempting or providing for the exemption of any transaction, product, or service or class of transactions, products, or services from all or any of the provisions of this Act: b exempting or providing for the exemption of any financial activity or class of financial activities described in the definition of financial institution in section 5 from all or any of the provisions of this Act: c declaring an entity or a class of entities to be an approved entity or approved class of entities for the purposes of section 33(3A): d excluding certain relationships or banking services from the application of section 29 (which relates to correspondent banking relationships): e exempting a reporting entity from its obligation to obtain some or all of the information set out in section 27(1) in relation to a specified transfer or transaction: f declaring an account or arrangement to be, or not to be, a facility and the circumstances and conditions in which an account or arrangement is, or is not, a facility for the purposes of this Act: g declaring a person to be, or not to be, a reporting entity and the circumstances and conditions in which a person is, or is not, a reporting entity for the purposes of this Act: h declaring an activity to be, or not to be, an occasional activity and the circumstances and conditions in which an activity is, or is not, an occasional activity for the purposes of this Act: i declaring a transaction to be, or not to be, an occasional transaction and the circumstances and conditions in which a transaction is, or is not, an occasional transaction for the purposes of this Act: k declaring a transfer or transaction, or a class of transfers or transactions, not to be a wire transfer and the circumstances and conditions in which a transfer or transaction, or class of transfers or transactions, is not a wire transfer for the purposes of this Act: l declaring a person or class of persons to be, or not to be, a customer and the circumstances and conditions in which a person or class of persons is, or not, a customer for the purposes of the Act: m declaring an entity or class of entities (whether domestic or overseas) to be eligible for inclusion in a designated business group: n prescribing requirements for written elections for a person to become a member of a designated business group: o declaring a person to be, or not to be, a financial institution for the purposes of this Act: p declaring a person to be, or not to be, a designated non-financial business or profession for the purposes of this Act: q declaring an arrangement to be a legal arrangement for the purposes of this Act: r declaring a person to be, or not to be, an ordering institution for the purposes of this Act. 1A Sections 156H to 156J apply to the chief executive when making a notice under subsection (1) . 2 Notices made under this section are secondary legislation ( see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements). 3 Notices made under this section must be consistent with any regulations made under section 154. 156G Commissioner may make notice relating to application of Act 1 The Commissioner may make notices for the following purposes: a exempting a reporting entity or class of reporting entity from the obligation to report under section 48A in relation to international wire transfers: b exempting a reporting entity or class of reporting entity from the obligation to provide some or all of the information in section 48B(1)(b) in a prescribed transaction report in respect of a particular transfer or transaction: c exempting certain movements and receipts of cash from the application of subpart 6 of Part 2. 1A Sections 156H to 156J apply to the Commissioner when making a notice under subsection (1) . 2 Notices made under this section are secondary legislation ( see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements). Process for making rules and notices 156H Matters to which maker of rules or notice must have regard Before making rules or a notice under sections 156A to 156G , the maker must have regard to— a the intent and purposes of this Act and any regulations; and b the risk of money laundering and the financing of terrorism, including, where appropriate, the risk associated with a reporting entity, the products and services offered by the reporting entity, and the circumstances in which the products and services are provided; and c the impact on the prevention, detection, investigation, and prosecution of offences; and d the level of regulatory burden on a reporting entity; and e whether the rules or notice would create an unfair advantage for a reporting entity or would disadvantage other reporting entities; and f the overall impact that the rules or notice would have on the integrity of, and compliance with, the AML/CFT regulatory regime. 156I Maker must consult on proposed rules or notice 2 Before making rules or a notice under sections 156A to 156G , the maker must consult— aa the persons or bodies that the maker considers may be affected by the proposed rules or notice: aab the Minister: a if the chief executive is the maker, the AML/CFT supervisor and the Commissioner: b if the chief executive of the AML/CFT supervisor is the maker, the Ministry and the Commissioner: c if the Commissioner is the maker, the AML/CFT supervisor and the Ministry: d in all cases, any other public service agencies or regulators that the maker of the notice considers have an interest in the proposed rules or notice. 3 A failure to comply with this section does not affect the validity of the rules or notice. 156J Maker of rules or notice must publish reason for making rules or notice The maker of rules or a notice under sections 156A to 156G must publish the reason for making the rules or notice alongside the rules or notice. 33 New section 159B and cross-heading inserted After section 159A, insert: Forms 159B AML/CFT supervisor or Commissioner may approve forms 1 The AML/CFT supervisor may approve the forms of the following documents: a any document required under subpart 1 of Part 2: b annual reports under section 60: c formal warnings under section 80 . : d written notices under section 80A(2) : e censures under section 80A(4) . 2 The Commissioner may approve the forms of the following documents: a suspicious activity reports: b prescribed transaction reports: c cash reports. 34 Schedule 1 amended In Schedule 1,— a insert the Part set out in Schedule 1 of this Act as the last Part; and b make all necessary consequential amendments. 35 Consequential amendments to principal Act Amend the principal Act as set out in Schedule 2 . 36 Consequential amendments to other enactments The enactments specified in Schedule 3 are amended in the manner specified in that schedule. 1 New Part 3 inserted into Schedule 1 3 Transitional and savings provisions relating to Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2025 8 Interpretation In this Part,— Act means the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 amendment Act means the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2025 commencement means the commencement of the amendment Act DIA means the Department of Internal Affairs FMA means the Financial Markets Authority RBNZ means the Reserve Bank of New Zealand secondary legislation means secondary legislation made under the Act secondary legislation provision means any provision in the Act that provides for the making of secondary legislation. Transitional provisions relating to AML/CFT supervisor changes 9 Consequences of transfers of functions under Act 1 This clause applies to— a a function or power of the FMA in relation to this Act that is transferred to the DIA as a consequence of the amendments made by the amendment Act; and b a function or power of the RBNZ in relation to this Act that is transferred to the DIA as a consequence of the amendments made by the amendment Act. 2 On and after commencement,— a all information that relates solely or principally to the function and that is held by the FMA or the RBNZ and that is transferred by the FMA or the RBNZ to the DIA is held by the DIA; and b all rights, liabilities, entitlements, and engagements of the FMA or the RBNZ in relation to the function become the rights, liabilities, entitlements, and engagements of the DIA; and c all directions to the FMA or the RBNZ that relate to the function or power and that are in force immediately before the commencement become directions to the DIA; and d anything done, omitted to be done, or that is to be done in relation to the function or power by, or in relation to, the FMA or the RBNZ is to be treated as having been done, having been omitted to be done, or to be done by, or in relation to, the DIA; and e the commencement, continuation, or enforcement of a proceeding relating to the function or power by or against the FMA or the RBNZ may instead, with the agreement of the FMA or the RBNZ, as relevant, be carried out by or against the DIA without amendment to the proceeding; and f a matter or thing relating to the function or power that would, but for this clause, have been completed by the FMA or the RBNZ may be completed by the DIA. 3 On and after commencement, property identified by the FMA or the RBNZ as being owned by the FMA or the RBNZ solely or principally for the purposes of the function or power and that should be transferred to the DIA is vested in the DIA. 4 The transfer of information from the FMA or the RBNZ to the DIA under subclause (2)(a) does not constitute an action that is a breach of information privacy principle 8 or 11 (as set out in section 22 of the Privacy Act 2020). 10 Restriction on compensation for technical redundancy 1 An employee of the FMA or the RBNZ is not entitled to receive any payment or other benefit on the ground that the position held by the employee in the FMA or the RBNZ has ceased to exist if— a the position ceases to exist as a result of a transfer of a function or power from the FMA or the RBNZ to the DIA as referred to in clause 9 ; and b in connection with that transfer of a function or power,— i the employee is offered equivalent employment in the DIA (whether or not the employee accepts the offer); or ii the employee is offered, and accepts, other employment in the DIA. 2 In this clause, equivalent employment , in relation to the employee’s employment in the FMA or the RBNZ is employment in the DIA that is— a in substantially the same position; and b in the same general locality; and c on terms and conditions of employment that are no less favourable than those that applied to the employee immediately before the offer of equivalent employment (including any service-related, redundancy, and superannuation conditions). 11 Employment of transferred employee to be treated as continuous employment 1 The employment of a transferred employee by the DIA is to be treated as continuous employment for the purposes of any legislation. 2 In this clause, transferred employee means a person referred to in clause 10 who has been offered and has accepted employment in the DIA. Savings provisions relating to secondary legislation 12 Saving of secondary legislation provisions for purpose of revocation 1 This clause applies to a secondary legislation provision in the Act repealed by the amendment Act as it was immediately before commencement. 2 The secondary legislation provision remains in force after commencement for the purpose of revoking any secondary legislation made under it. 13 Saving of secondary legislation made before commencement 1 This clause applies to any secondary legislation made before commencement. 2 The secondary legislation— a remains in force after commencement; and b may be revoked as provided for in clause 12(2) (but not amended) after commencement. 2 Consequential amendments to principal Act In section 3(2), delete , AML/CFT supervisors, . In section 6(4)(d)(ii)(I), replace an AML/CFT supervisor with the AML/CFT supervisor . In section 10, replace regulations with rules made under section 156B in each place. In section 13(b), replace regulations with rules made under section 156B . In section 14(1)(d) and (3), replace regulations with rules made under section 156B . In section 15(f), replace regulations with rules made under section 156B . In section 18(1)(c), (2)(q), and (3A), replace regulations with rules made under section 156B . In section 19(1)(d), replace regulations with rules made under section 156B . In section 22(1)(e) and (6), replace regulations with rules made under section 156B . In section 23(1)(b), replace regulations with rules made under section 156B . In section 24(1)(c), replace regulations with rules made under section 156B . In section 27(1)(d), replace regulations with rules made under section 156B . Replace section 27(3) with: 3 A reporting entity may, by notice made under section 156E or 156F , be exempted from the obligation to provide some or all of the information set out in subsection (1) in relation to a specified transfer or transaction. In section 28(1)(b), replace regulations with rules made under section 156B . In section 29(2)(g), replace regulations with rules made under section 156B . In section 29(3)(d) and (e), replace regulations with notice made under section 156F . In section 30(b), replace regulations with rules made under section 156B . In section 31(4)(c), replace regulations with rules made under section 156B . In section 32(1)(a) and (b), replace regulations with rules made under section 156B . In section 32(1A), replace regulations with rules made under section 156C . In section 32(2), replace and regulations with , rules, and regulations . In section 32(3), replace An AML/CFT supervisor for a reporting entity that is part of a designated business group may require the reporting entity with The AML/CFT supervisor may require a reporting entity that is part of a designated business group . In section 33(1), (2)(c) and (e), and 3A(b) and (d), replace regulations with rules made under section 156B . In section 34,— a replace prescribed by regulations with prescribed by rules made under section 156B ; and b replace this Act or regulations with this Act or rules . In section 35, replace and regulations with , regulations, and rules . In section 39(3)(c), replace regulations with rules made under section 156B . In section 48, replace An AML/CFT supervisor that has, in the performance and exercise of its functions and powers under this Act, obtained personal information about employees or senior managers may disclose that information with The AML/CFT supervisor may disclose personal information about employees or senior managers obtained in the performance and exercise of its functions and powers under this Act . In section 48A, replace regulations made under section 154 with notice made under section 156F . Replace section 48B(1)(a) with: a be in the appropriate approved form (if any); and In section 48B(1)(b)(vi), replace regulations made under section 153(c) with rules made under section 156C . In section 49(2)(g), replace regulations with rules made under section 156B . In section 49(3)(b), replace for the reporting entity, or the Commissioner, with or the Commissioner . In section 49A(2)(b), replace for the reporting entity, or the Commissioner, with or the Commissioner . In section 51(1)(d), replace regulations made under section 153 with rules made under section 156B . In section 51(3), replace its AML/CFT supervisor with the AML/CFT supervisor . In section 52(b), replace regulations with rules made under section 156B . In section 57(2), replace AML/CFT supervisors with the AML/CFT supervisor . In section 58(2)(g), replace AML/CFT supervisors with the AML/CFT supervisor . In section 58(2)(h), replace regulations with rules made under section 156B . In section 58(3)(c), replace and regulations with , regulations, and rules . In section 59(2),— a replace regulations with rules made under section 156B ; and b delete relevant . In section 59A,— a after regulations , insert or rules ; and b delete relevant . In section 59B(5), replace its AML/CFT supervisor with the AML/CFT supervisor . In section 61(1), replace regulations with rules . In section 61(2)(a), replace its AML/CFT supervisor with the AML/CFT supervisor . In section 68(1)(c), replace regulations with by notice made under section 156G . In section 69(c), replace regulations with by notice made under section 156G . In section 72(2)(b), delete relevant . In the heading to section 76, replace supervisors with supervisor . In section 76,— a replace an AML/CFT supervisor with the AML/CFT supervisor in each place; and b replace officer, employee, member of, or member of the board of, with officer, employee, or agent of . In section 77, replace or regulations with , regulations, or rules . In section 79, delete relevant . In section 80(1), delete relevant . In section 80(2)(a), replace prescribed with approved . In section 80(2)(b), replace regulations with rules made under section 156B . In section 81(1),— a delete relevant ; and b replace or regulations with , regulations, or rules . In section 81(2), delete relevant . In section 82(1), delete relevant in each place. In section 85(1), delete relevant . In section 87(1), delete relevant . In section 89(1), delete relevant . In section 90(1), delete relevant . In section 102,— a replace any AML/CFT supervisor with the AML/CFT supervisor ; and b replace that supervisor with the AML/CFT supervisor ; and c replace or regulations with , regulations, or rules . In section 103, replace an AML/CFT supervisor with the AML/CFT supervisor . In section 116, definition of enforcement officer ,— a delete relevant ; and b replace an AML/CFT supervisor with the AML/CFT supervisor . In section 124(2), delete relevant . In the cross-heading above section 130, replace supervisors with supervisor . In section 134(1), replace An AML/CFT supervisor with The AML/CFT supervisor . Repeal section 137(2) to (5). In section 137(6), replace an AML/CFT supervisor with the AML/CFT supervisor . In section 137(7), replace an AML/CFT supervisor with the AML/CFT supervisor . In section 138,— a replace An AML/CFT supervisor with The AML/CFT supervisor ; and b after that information , insert , including that it may be used for the purposes of this Act . In section 139(1), replace an AML/CFT supervisor with the AML/CFT supervisor . In section 139(2), replace an AML/CFT supervisor with the AML/CFT supervisor . In section 140(1),— a replace an AML/CFT supervisor with the AML/CFT supervisor ; and b replace or AML/CFT supervisor with or the AML/CFT supervisor . In section 141(1), replace an AML/CFT supervisor with the AML/CFT supervisor . In section 141(2), replace An AML/CFT supervisor with The AML/CFT supervisor . In section 141(3)(b), delete relevant . Replace the cross-heading above section 149 with: Role of Ministry In the cross-heading above section 153, after Regulations , insert and levies . In section 158(a),— a replace Ministers with Minister ; and b replace supervisors with supervisor . In section 159A(1), replace an AML/CFT supervisor with the AML/CFT supervisor . 3 Consequential amendments to other enactments In section 4(1), definition of law enforcement or regulatory agency , after paragraph (h), insert: ha the public service agency (as defined in section 5 of the Public Service Act 2020) that, with the authority of the Prime Minister, is for the time being responsible for the supervision of reporting entities under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009: In Schedule 1, Part 2, repeal the item relating to the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009. In section 5(1), repeal the definition of AML Act . In section 5(1), definition of direction , replace , the prudential legislation, or the AML Act with or the prudential legislation . In section 5(1), definition of law enforcement or regulatory agency , paragraph (a), after Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 , insert , the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 . In section 10(1)(f)(ii), delete the AML Act, . In section 10(1)(i), delete the AML Act, . Repeal section 13(c). In section 26, delete the AML Act, . Repeal section 50(c). In section 59(1)(a), replace , any prudential legislation, or the AML Act with or any prudential legislation . In section 59(2)(a), replace , any prudential legislation, or the AML Act with or any prudential legislation .

Hansard

April 30, 2026

Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Third Reading · Full day report

Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill Third Reading Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (17:04): I move, That the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill and the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. These bills are about making it easier for New Zealanders to get on with building businesses, creating jobs, and growing their incomes. And while we’re at it, we’re making it harder for criminals to exploit our financial system. For too long, our anti-money laundering and countering financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regime has asked too much of the wrong people and not enough of the right ones. It has burdened legitimate businesses with excessive compliance, while struggling to keep pace with increasingly sophisticated criminal activity. These bills fix that. They shift the system back to first principles: focus on risk, target harm, and get out of the way of productive activity. Because every hour that a small business spends ticking boxes is an hour not spent hiri…
Read full Hansard debate
Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill Third Reading Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (17:04): I move, That the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill and the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. These bills are about making it easier for New Zealanders to get on with building businesses, creating jobs, and growing their incomes. And while we’re at it, we’re making it harder for criminals to exploit our financial system. For too long, our anti-money laundering and countering financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regime has asked too much of the wrong people and not enough of the right ones. It has burdened legitimate businesses with excessive compliance, while struggling to keep pace with increasingly sophisticated criminal activity. These bills fix that. They shift the system back to first principles: focus on risk, target harm, and get out of the way of productive activity. Because every hour that a small business spends ticking boxes is an hour not spent hiring staff, investing in new ideas, or growing their businesses. That matters, because growth is not some abstract economic idea. Growth means more jobs, it means higher wages, and more opportunities for New Zealanders. At the heart of these reforms is a more practical and proportionate approach. A single supervisor with the Department of Internal Affairs will replace the fragmented three-supervisor system that created confusion, delay, and inconsistent guidance. Businesses will have clearer rules, faster answers, and greater certainty—the kind of environment that supports investment and innovation. Planning for the transition to a single AML/CFT supervisor within the Department of Internal Affairs is already under way and is on track to go live on 1 July this year, subject to the passage of these bills. The changes to the regime itself reinforce that same principle of less duplication and more clarity. These bills create a genuinely risk-based approach that directs effort where it is needed most. That is what good regulation looks like; not more rules, but better rules. The Government should not be an overly cautious overseer that treats every risk as a reason to regulate. It should be a partner in enabling New Zealanders to succeed and focus on the most serious risks. When we default to asking, “What’s the worst that could happen?” in even the lowest risk situations, we end up building systems that penalise ambition and discourage innovation. These bills take a different approach. They ask, “How do we stop real harm while backing people to get on and create value?” This is how we build a more dynamic economy, that is how we encourage innovation, and that is how we lift incomes for working New Zealanders. Of course, none of this comes at the expense of enforcement. In fact, it strengthens it. By reducing unnecessary compliance for low-risk activity, we free up resources, both for businesses and for regulators, to focus on detecting and disrupting serious criminal behaviour. That is what fixing what matters looks like in practice. The supervisor and levy bill also enables an industry levy to support the system’s long-term sustainability. An effective AML/CFT regime must be properly resourced to provide guidance and detect crime. The introduction of a levy as part of a hybrid funding ensures the system can function as intended over the long term, and also reflects the public and industry benefits of the system. I would like to acknowledge the work of the select committee, the officials, and submitters, whose input has helped sharpen these reforms. New Zealand cannot afford a system that slows down the productive economy, while failing to stop crime effectively. These bills strike a better balance that supports growth, encourages innovation, and protects the integrity of our financial system. There are practical, targeted reforms that will make a real difference: less red tape, more opportunity, and a system focused where it counts. For those reasons, I commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (17:09): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is the second bill—in fact, second and third bill this afternoon—that we’ve seen looking at, essentially, financial crime, having just looked at the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill. We’re gratified that the Government is taking seriously the issue of money-laundering and the financing of terrorism—money-laundering, in particular, because obviously the issue with illicit drugs in this country is pretty much out of control, with methamphetamine use and presence in the community skyrocketing. It’s kind of enforcement 101 to follow the money, and so if we can have a more effective anti - money-laundering (AML) framework, then all well and good. We also support the genuine idea of regulation which is proportionate to the risk, but I do want to express some caution that risk-based regulation becomes a bit of a mantra and it is misinterpreted by officials to say, “Get rid of regulation.”, because good regulation, particularly in this area, is absolutely essential. We support this bill, but these bills largely lower the bar in terms of obligations. The Minister’s speech—at least the first half of it—was pretty much focused on making it easier, saying that there were excessive requirements under the existing legislation and making things practical and proportionate and just a long kind of list as if to say that our anti - money-laundering rules were an awkward impediment to the doing of business. Now, we agree that every time you look at a rule, you want to say, “What’s the problem? Is this an effective fix and is there a better alternative which is less onerous?” All good questions to ask, but across Government we’re concerned that there’s a principle or an underpinning value that getting rid of regulations is good, full stop. So we just want to make sure that when we approach a question like this, we approach it thoughtfully and carefully. Having said all that, we support this bill. We think it’s appropriate to make it easier for people who are low risk to move money between entities and so on. So the Minister, in a previous stage of this legislation, looked at family trusts. He noted that there are hundreds of thousands of family trusts, many of which will be doing extremely innocuous transactions, buying a new house, and whilst they might not have previously gone through an AML know-your-customer procedure, the current law would require them to bring their passports along or so on and so forth, and, in fact, they’ve been at the bank for 30 years and it’s not in question. Having said that, we also need, I think, to make sure that the rules are sufficiently flexible so that where there is some aspect of a transaction which is unusual, even though it fits within the low-risk category, it should trigger further investigations. Most good entities, banks, financiers, lawyers—the good ones—will do that anyway. But if we look, for example, at children’s bank accounts, sure, children’s bank accounts are a good thing, and if you’re giving them 10 bucks or 20 bucks a week or whatever it might be, or even a bit more, if you’ve got a bit of money and you want to teach them to save— Hon Cameron Brewer: Be a bit more generous. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, I’m simply not, but the point is that if we see a child’s bank account and all of a sudden it’s got $30,000 dropped into it for the third occasion, then we need to think, “Hang on, that’s really unusual.” Maybe they’ve got lots of generous aunties and uncles, but it’s also possible that someone is putting that money in it and using it to launder drug money or some other thing. Let’s just make sure that when we approach these questions—because this is a really important tool. Of course, the worst possible outcome would be that we change the rules and people with nefarious intent will spot the changes and go, “Great. There’s a little ray of light.” The money will follow the weakest path, the path where it’s most likely to be undetected, so let’s make sure that we don’t create a pathway for illicit money that then funds the drug industry, the illicit drug industry that in this country is out of control. Let’s make sure that we do that right. Of course, the other point that’s going on here is this levy. Essentially, it’s another tax that this Government’s imposing—imposing it on the businesses like banks and lawyers and real estate agents. They’re going to be taxed to fund the work of the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) in this area. Now, I can understand a little bit of cost recovery there, but the point of money-laundering is it’s, essentially, detection and enforcement, right? That is very much a public interest matter. No one expects a levy on retailers for police costs for addressing retail crime, so why should you tax financiers for addressing financial crime? We’ve got to be really careful there. Now, I get that it’s an easy win. No one minds too much if you ask a bit more of banks and lawyers, but I think we’ve got to be cautious when we’re funding something which is a public interest matter where the benefit of the activity actually falls across society as a whole—the absence of financial crime and money-laundering and what have you—and yet you put the impost on a narrow section of society, because whilst it’s easy when it’s banks and lawyers, I worry that we’ll look elsewhere and before you know it, there will be other industries which are perhaps less able to bear the cost. Of course, the other point—again, which we support—is the rationalisation of the entities that are undertaking this work, putting all of the functions into the Department of Internal Affairs. Certainly, as I understand it, there were reports that pretty much accepted that depending on who your regulator was, whether you were regulated by the Reserve Bank or by DIA or by the Financial Markets Authority (FMA), you’d be getting different advice. Now, I always have trouble when you’ve got the same law administered by different agencies and they’re all giving different advice. You’ve got to kind of ask what’s going on there and why is it that agencies seem to think that they can almost tell industry what the law is on the basis of their interpretation when they issue a guidance document or a policy document or an operational document of some kind. Bringing it together in DIA is good, but that transition needs to be well resourced because this is not form-filling. It requires not only good record-keeping but also some significant forensic financial skills, because one transaction alone is probably innocuous, even if it’s a large and unusual one. It may well be able to be explained, but the question is: what are the other related transactions? What have the parties to that transaction done in other guises elsewhere? The kind of data matching and forensic accounting that needs to go on is not something which you can just pick up and do. We need to make sure that the expertise that exists in all of those organisations, particularly the FMA, comes over into DIA who then is able to run a really robust, world-class anti - money-laundering framework because it’s a really important thing to do. Good to see that financial crime, funding of criminal enterprise, particularly drugs, is on this Government’s agenda. That’s a good thing. We support that and we will look with interest to see how this piece of legislation is implemented. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:19): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to speak on both the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill and the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The Green Party will be supporting both bills. To start with, I do want to thank the Minister for her engagement throughout this committee stage, particularly her due diligence and her transparency, and also the fact that she made what for many may sound like two very technical and potentially boring bills really interesting and exciting. It was a great committee stage, and it was one of the few instances of associated bills that we have seen here in the House, and yet it’s important to note that the committee stages were done separately. There were a number of, I guess, humorous incidents where people in the committee did get the two bills muddled up and we had to kind of move things around a bit. In terms of these two bills, they are two out of the four bills that were introduced as part of the AML/CFT, which I will use as an abbreviation for the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill, because otherwise it is a lot to—yeah, try saying that five times fast. With the AML/CFT, these two bills are bills Nos 2 and 3. We did pass the first bill, and, as we’ve been told by the Minister, there will be a fourth one coming. In terms of the first one—the AML/CFT amendment bill—one of the first things to note, which we discussed as part of the committee stage, was the fact that the commencement date for this bill is happening after the Royal assent, whereas the commencement date for the subsequent bill, which is the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, is happening on 1 July. I thought it was an interesting conversation with the Minister around why they are different dates and about the requirements for the different dates, particularly in light of the fact that the supervisor, levy, and other matters amendment bill requires additional processes and also systems to be set up within the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) to make sure that it does function by 1 July. That was an interesting observation, because that wasn’t the case when the legislation was first introduced. In terms of the first bill, the definition part is something that we did spend a little bit of time on because, again, there were certain exemptions that were given and it was really important for Parliament and for this House to be able to seek clarifications from the Minister both in terms of the definition of a beneficial owner, but also in terms of the definition for, I believe, the exemptions granted for trust and company service providers. So that was something that was discussed at length. I think, for me, the crux of this particular bill that was really interesting was around—and there was a definition I will mention later on in terms of suspicious activities in the second bill. But in this first bill, the insertion of the definition around stored value instruments is a really important one, because one of the things that we do see is while some of the money-laundering and also financing of terrorism that’s happened from a monetary perspective, we do see more money-laundering happening by other avenues. While the stored value instruments talk about portable devices, but it also includes things like gold, silver, precious metals, and precious stones, the portable devices are those that contain monetary value that is not a physical currency. It’s really important in light of a drastic increase over the last decade of the use of cryptocurrency. The example that we used as part of the committee of the whole House stage was around NFTs—non-fungible tokens—where the NFTs, for example, are something that was hyped up quite a bit over the last few years, where there’s suddenly a huge inflation in its value and it got shrunk at the same time. But with NFTs, one of the issues we do see there is once you are in that kind of system, it kind of disappears, they are very hard to trace, and it has been used as a mechanism for money-laundering. The issues with NFTs, of course, and also with cryptocurrency are around the underlying blockchain technology that is used for a lot of that as well. So it is really good to hear from the Minister that, for example, something like that is on the agenda and will be considered more seriously as part of this package, because, again, when we are looking at legislation, legislation sometimes is hard to catch up with the advances that we’re seeing in technology. So with something like this, we are hoping that there is able to be better agility and better ability for our agencies both domestically but also internationally to be able to respond to blockchain technologies and changes in the way that money-laundering is done at a global scale. I think, finally, in terms of the first bill, it’s also something that was brought to our attention as part of this select committee stage by the Minister that the Minister has put in two additional amendments which takes up certain sections from this bill to be inserted in the other bill—censure being an important aspect of that. As I mentioned in my second reading speech, formal warning was something that was reintroduced into the bill as part of the select committee process, noting that while formal warning is more proactive, censure takes more of a punitive and punishing mechanism. That is something it’s important for both to retain. Censure has been moved from one bill to the other. That’s an important aspect from the select committee stage as well. Now, moving on to the second bill. One of the first things that we mentioned, again, in terms of suspicious activities and in terms of what we are looking at, the example that I gave in the second reading around Lafarge cement, which is a subsidiary now of the Swiss cement company Holcim, which also operates here domestically, is: how then do we look at suspicious activities when you are looking at something that is a subsidiary of another company? How is the way that DIA, potentially, will be able to, with the tools they have, analyse or counter some of those—is really important. Again, this is something that was good to hear from the Minister on some of the reassurances around how things like this could be held accountable and the way that things could be traced if a parent company, for example, is implicit in a lot of these actions. Again, Lafarge cement was part of a landmark case in France regarding the countering of terrorism in Syria and surrounding areas. Again, this was something that was important for us to tease out in part of the definition for clause 7 of that bill. Additional ones to mention as well in terms of this, obviously the most important part of the supervisor levy and other matters bill is the reduction of three supervisors to one. That was a key component of this. The three supervisors currently are the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ), the Financial Markets Authority (FMA), and of course DIA. It’s important, also, to note that there was a lot of disagreement or dissent from the RBNZ as well as the FMA around, I guess, in some ways, the removal of both of them as part of this process and retaining with DIA. One of the conversations we did have with the Minister is around how that expertise from the RBNZ and FMA is able to be transferred over to DIA. Again, it was good to hear that that is something that has already been considered by the Minister and that is something that will be taken on board as part of the expertise and potentially moved over to experts within DIA. One of the other comments that the RBNZ made—and this comes down to the levy component—was the idea that this is a costly structural change. But it’s important to note that while the levy has been introduced—and it’s good to see a tiered levy based on the level of risk that foreseeable they may produce. So banks, potentially, will have a higher bracket of levy than other areas. It’s also important to note that the legislation kind of specifies that only a portion of the costs will come from levies, whereas there’s a baseline understanding that the public interest aspect will still be funded publicly and by budgetary implications as part of, I guess, Vote Internal Affairs. Finally, although there are definitely things that are important for us to keep an eye on and see how they progress—things like secondary legislation, code of practices under the chief executive, that is something we’re looking forward to as part of the review process with our financial action task force in 2028. That’s something that the Minister has also given reassurances around in terms of how that review will potentially review this whole AML/CFT package on the whole. With that, the Green Party is comfortable with where both bills landed and we’ll be supporting both bills. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (17:29): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s really good to get to this stage of these two bills. I’m looking forward to seeing the positive effect, as well, that these bills will have going forward. It’s really important, like the Minister mentioned in her third reading speech moments ago, that this will be helping New Zealand grow as a whole. Essentially, what this bill does is it strengthens the laws around anti - money-laundering and countering the financing of terrorism. It does this by simplifying the system, by reducing red tape and unnecessary burdens on businesses—which is very important to us in the National Party—and still making sure that authorities are given better and practical tools to recognise risks and tackle crime. I commend this bill to the House. Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs) (17:30): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the two bills before the House—to save everyone a bit of time, I won’t name them. As a New Zealand First MP, it is behoved on me to remind everyone that New Zealand First is a party that is founded on some very basic pillars, and two of those relate specifically to this bill, which are building a prosperous nation and protecting communities and country. It is encouraging to me to hear the speeches across the House today recognising the impact of organised crime and that money-laundering is the critical component. The work that I have been doing around organised crimes in recent months is focused particularly on this concept of “follow the money”. Criminals will not commit the offences if they can’t profit, and the more we can do to pursue money and prevent money from being taken from our economy, from ill-gotten gains, is really important. I would like to commend the Associate Minister of Justice for the hard work she has done in navigating this complex area. The important component which I think is worth mentioning is the concept of the single supervisor. As has been mentioned, this is not about weakening our response; it is actually clarifying our response. It is that actually putting a single supervisor in charge will ensure that we have great clarity and that, therefore, we can respond where risk exists, rather than a blanket response across all activity, and that is what we had in place prior to this legislation. It is really encouraging that we have some real clarity around this space, that we have the opportunity to focus our resources on a single-supervisor accountability and that the sector—both those trying to do business and grow our economy—will have greater clarity and that we are sending a much clearer message around the funding of terrorism and money-laundering, that we are going to be risk proportionate and responsible in our approach. Therefore, New Zealand First is happy to commend this bill to the House. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (17:32): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to take the second call to support my very studious colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s contributions on the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill, which is being read in association with the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. These two bills are a part of a suite of four bills. One bill has already gone through the House, and these are the next two to move through the House. Procedurally, it was different—for the parliamentary nerds that are watching the House at this last hours—to see that, although we’re reading these two bills together in the third reading and did so also at the second reading, when we were in the committee of the whole House stage, we were considering them separately, as well, and that led to a little bit of humorous confusion amongst members. It was good to have a Minister that was engaging, good to have a Minister that was open to actually having a discussion as members across the House tried to tease out some of the inconsistencies, if they were that, if this was a normal process—so, for example, the differences around commencement dates that needed to be synced up between the two different bills, to make sure that when these do receive Royal assent that, actually, these things will be able to move forward effectively. There was a considerable, interesting debate around the supervisors, reducing it from three to one. We originally—still have—had one supervisor from the Reserve Bank, one with the Financial Markets Authority (FMA), and one with the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA), and so this will be reduced down to DIA. We know that there were concerns at some of those different agencies, where they wanted to retain that role within their organisation, but what we did discuss at the committee of the whole House stage is that it would be more effective and more efficient for that to happen within one organisation. That’s going to be happening in DIA. We were given assurances, actually, that the people or, at least, the skill sets in those other two organisations will be migrated over into DIA, so some of the concerns that people have—well, actually, an organisation like the Reserve Bank has a very specific skill set and so do folks within the FMA, so knowing that those skill sets will be migrated over into DIA is a source of comfort. Also to note, as well, is that there is going to be a two-year review period. Maybe the House got it wrong and we’ll know that within two years. So, possibly, adjustments could be made at that two-year period. There was a really interesting debate that we had around some of those different skill sets. I think one of the members from the Labour Party talked about how money-laundering could happen, used to happen, and probably still happens around real estate agents, as well. That was an important part to make and important to alert the Minister that, actually, this is also one of those areas of expertise that experience should be migrated over into that single supervisor role, as well. Along with the awareness around stored portable devices—we are in a very changing world. Things are not just showing up on USBs; NFTs are also an issue, the rise of cryptocurrency. Making sure that we have a system that is dynamic can actually capture that. Moving through the system is also really important, as well. The point around subsidiary companies, I think, is an important one. Dr Lawrence Xu-‍Nan did talk about the case with the Lafarge cement company, who were found to be financing terrorism in Syria and closely related areas. I think that would be an area of future work for this framework to make sure that, well, actually, if this is happening within our jurisdiction, something needs to happen there. I would recommend to the House, to the Minister as well, to make sure that that’s something that happens, because we don’t want that happening on our watch. The Greens are very comfortable with these bills. It is really important that we do have a robust framework, that there are checks and balances. Being able to tease that out in the committee of the whole House stage was incredibly important. These were two bills read together, in association, in this third reading. They were back to back in the committee of the whole House stage. I think that one more bill will come through the House, so we look forward to that, to making sure that we have a comprehensive suite which has those checks and balances. Thank you, Mr Speaker. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (17:37): These bills taken together address a serious concern for New Zealand. That is why it’s great to have all parties in this Parliament vote in favour of this bill. With that, I commend it to the House. REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East) (17:38): Thank you. I am taken to my feet a little earlier than I expected after such a succinct offering from the member on the other side of the House—not necessarily a criticism. Not necessarily a criticism when it’s an offering from the other side of the House; sometimes the more succinct, the better. However, on this occasion, we are speaking in agreement and speaking on the Anti-‍Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, as well as the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill. Even this week, with the similarity of both the subject matter and also the titles of those bills, there was, in fact, at times, confusion in the House from members around which bill we were speaking on. There was no confusion, though, about the importance of the issues around how we can regulate and monitor both money-laundering, or the potential for money-laundering, and also the very important financing of terrorism—how we can monitor and be across that issue, because we know that, in both instances, there are very real harms as a result of both. As lawmakers in this House, we have a responsibility to ensure that we are stress testing the futureproof legislation that we have been moving through the House this week. The reason that we’re doing it is to aim to improve the efficiency and effectiveness, to reduce the compliance costs, and also to simplify the laws that we put in place so that they can be not only risk-based but also so that they can be agile and nimble enough to shift and adjust, as the risks that they seek to address and mitigate are also very nimble. As you would have gathered from previous contributions in the House from this side, we do support this bill, and that is around the introduction of a single supervisor for the anti - money-laundering and countering the financing of terrorism. We do also, though, think that it’s very important not to confuse this as an issue of cutting red tape and at the same time losing some of the very vital tools that we have to address organised crime. We know that in New Zealand we’ve got a problem currently with drugs and with crime, and we’re seeing drug use, particularly methamphetamine—those use stats—really heading in a dangerous direction. The better the tools we have to monitor and control and crack down on the illegal drug trade in this country, the better. We also can see that we’ve got a number of existing and new sectors that are shifting and changing the way that they transact and the way that they operate, so this is an enabling legislation to assist new tech and new initiatives. But we also have a duty of care, when we are putting in place something that is an enabling legislation, that we don’t lose sight of the structure and framework that still is required in law to make sure that bad stuff doesn’t happen, to put it very simply. I guess one of the challenges is that we need to decide and we need to agree what “low risk” is, and that process isn’t straightforward. It’s been good to be able to work through this legislation in the House this week, and, particularly in the committee of the whole House stage, to give it some real scrutiny with the Minister in the chair. I actually would like to thank the Minister for the generosity of the answers and the engagement that she provided through that committee of the whole House process. It was a very good backwards and forwards exchange. We were able to make fulsome contributions both around the content of the legislation but also any of the areas of the legislation that we were a little unsure or unclear of its intention or its wording. The Minister was very good at providing substantial answers back in regards to those, which was appreciated and unfortunately isn’t a process that we always get with that committee of the whole House. It’s not always as good and robust a conversation as it was in this instance. One of the areas that we sought, or that I specifically sought, clarification on was around the supervisor, because in the bill as it sits, it didn’t explicitly name the supervisor. There was, obviously, an assumption on everybody’s part of who the supervisor would be, but it wasn’t explicitly named in the bill. There was some discussion around that and also some slightly, I thought, ambiguous wording in clause 5(2), where it talked about “for the time being”, the responsibility—which I thought felt a little a little loose and imprecise, but we did get a good assurance from the Minister about why that was. One of the other things that we really wanted to dig into in Part 1 was around clause 6, talking about verification of identity requirements. A lot of people talk about wanting fast and frictionless transacting, and the risk when you do that is that fast and frictionless can also mean that there are no fingerprints, which makes it very hard to see who is doing what in a financial transacting context. But in probing that further with the Minister in the chair, we were able to clarify that this is actually borne out of a frustration that customers who are going back to the bank on multiple occasions to carry out relatively routine processes were being compelled to provide their identification and go through that rigorous process every time. That felt a little unnecessary and had led to some frustrations that bank staff were bearing the brunt of, which didn’t feel very fair. One of the other areas that we looked at specifically, and I’m just trying to find it here, because it was quite an interesting one around the powers that it was giving and—yeah, here it is, here. In clause 21(5), we were talking about the ability to get information from people if they thought that there was a contravention of the Act—for the supervisor to be able to get that information—and, really, whether this was summons power, or to what extent it empowered the supervisor to be able to get that information. Similarly, in clause 21(8), inserting section 132(3A), there was a section around search powers. We did well on some questions there around the extent but also the limitations and what that was comparable to. One of the points—and it’s my final one. I notice I’m just about out of time, which is a pity, because I feel like I could probably get another 10 or 20 minutes of questions based on the robust conversation that we had with the Minister in the chair. But, on— Dan Rosewarne: Clause 32. REUBEN DAVIDSON: I haven’t even got time to get to clause 32. Hopefully, there will be a colleague that does. It was really around the question of the term “dwellinghouses” being used in the legislation in new section 133A and about not having power to enter dwellinghouses, and, really, seeking clarification on what a dwellinghouse was, because I’ve lived in lots of different things; I’ve never called them a dwellinghouse. Also what we know is that a number of people live and work in the same environment—so the definition of when that goes from being a dwellinghouse to being an office. We also know at the moment that a number of people live in cars in this country, so the question there was whether someone’s car could be counted as a place of work or a house or a dwellinghouse. On balance, happy to support the legislation, grateful for the opportunity to debate it, and important that we continue to with issues as important as this. Hon CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) (17:48): Some 10-minute calls feel like 10 seconds and some feel like 10 hours. Some even feel like 10 days. I’m not going to add to that last performance, other than saying with this anti -money-laundering third reading that it exactly exemplifies what this Government is all about: reducing business compliance costs, improving regulatory effectiveness and efficiency, continuing regulatory compliance with related international obligations, and providing sufficient funding for the regulatory system, and, of course, one single supervisor. Get the Department of Internal Affairs, Financial Markets Authority, Reserve Bank of New Zealand—taking it down to one. I commend the bill. DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (17:49): It’s pleasure to take a call on these two bills at the third reading. The Minister started off the debate. She highlighted that too much of the wrong people and not enough of the right people are getting the attention, and that’s 100 percent correct. She also highlighted that modernising the regime was long overdue. During committee of the whole House, I really did appreciate the to and fro with the questioning. I had a couple of questions around the strategy in clause 32, I think it was, or maybe—was it 36? It was one of those two clauses. Because strategy, it needs internal coherence, it needs internal validity, it also needs some external validity, and it needs to flank with other strategies in the system just as well. So I really enjoyed the to and fro with that, and also the other questions that came out from around the House, particularly around that clause, whether it was 32 or 36—I can’t quite remember. But the Hon Dr Duncan Webb eloquently highlighted that illicit drugs, they are out of control in New Zealand, and any legislation that helps curb that is very important and also curbing the criminals—the white collar criminals—that sit at the top of some of this criminal architecture and curbing a lot of that illicit behaviour, And then, also, around children’s bank accounts and, as the Hon Dr Duncan Webb highlighted, getting $20 in there for mowing the lawns for a child, that’s expected, but if there’s a $30,000 contribution for a child mowing the lawns, then I’ll be asking some questions, particularly if that $30,000 was going in there every week that they mowed the lawns. These are the things that this legislation really aims to counter. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan—there were a couple of doctors actually contributing in this debate. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Not proper doctors. DAN ROSEWARNE: You said that there, Dr Duncan Webb—your words, not mine. But Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, as only an academic can do, spent about two minutes highlighting that these two bills are two of four bills. But on a serious note, he highlighted that the crux with this bill is addressing those other financial instruments that can be used for illicit activity. We went through a couple of them: Cryptocurrency comes up a lot; but the other one was—what is it?—non-fungible tokens. You might be aware that a couple of years ago they did peak in price and then they declined in price pretty quickly, so it looks like they’re, probably, a passing fad. Criminals might use those alternative pathways to store money, and this legislation really helps address that. Then also, other devices that we kind of know about: USBs, cloud storage—that’s a new thing that criminals are increasingly using as a vector for illicit activity. I would also just highlight that this legislation is extremely important, and it would have been good to get some more substantive calls from the other side of the House, because, it’s their legislation; we’re supporting it—it has broad support—but it would be very good if they could help round out these contributions so it’s not just this side of the House doing the lion’s share of the work. The other thing I just want to highlight, the red tape was often highlighted, like in previous readings. Now, anti - money-laundering and the countering financing of terrorism and the legislation behind it, is not red tape; it’s designed there to protect people, it’s designed there to protect our most vulnerable in our communities, and so it really needs some significant attention. In summary, it’s a good bill and I 100 percent commend it to the House. Thank you. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (17:54): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of these two bills that we are speaking on our third reading of. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Which one’s your favourite? Dr VANESSA WEENINK: It is a useful—which one’s my favourite? I think the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is the most favourite of them all. The reason that these are good is that they both reduce the burden of administration on businesses and those who are trying to legitimately raise capital or other financing, while still protecting and detecting criminal activities. This is well supported across the House, and I also add my honorary doctor’s very endorsing— Hon Dr Duncan Webb: You’re a proper doctor. Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Just to correct my colleagues here saying, “I’m a real doctor.”, actually, those who are Doctors of Philosophy are the real doctors and those who are medical doctors are doctors by convention and are given an honorary title. So I commend the bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): On that intriguing note on academia—this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 12 May. Have a productive week. Debate interrupted. The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.

Documents and supporting material