Barristers and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024

15 November 2024

Dear Colleagues,

I have written to you in the last National Brief (see here) regarding the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024 (Anti-Money Laundering Bill) and the risk that the Anti-Money Laundering Bill posed in its current format.

Consequently, a submission was made on behalf of the ABA, a copy of which is available here. A number of state associations also made submissions. The ABA’s submission was informed by helpful discussions with officers of the Attorney-General’s Department.

I am pleased to report that the Senate Committee Report was delivered yesterday, which may be read here.

Happily, the ABA submission and others appear to have been effective in highlighting the problems with the Anti-Money Laundering Bill in its current form, as neatly captured by Senator Scarr in his additional comments at page 57:

“1.60    This is a matter of great importance. If an appropriate amendment is not made to the Bill to ensure that the Bill has no application to services provided by barristers briefed by solicitors, I would strongly oppose the passing of the Bill. There is a question as to whether the insertion of a note is adequate in this regard. I comment on this further below in relation to the application of the Bill to legal professionals.”

Critically, Recommendation 2 (at page viii) of the Committee is in the following terms:

“Recommendation 2

2.118  The Committee recommends that the bill be amended to include a note  that reflects the policy intent for the AML/CTF regime to not capture barristers acting on the instructions of a solicitor.”

Senator Shoebridge, in his separate comments, was also supportive of the non-application of the Anti-Money Laundering Bill to barristers instructed by solicitors at page 77, paragraph 1.4.

Obviously, the recommendation of the Committee needs to find expression in an amended version of the Anti-Money Laundering Bill. Further, the Anti-Money Laundering Bill has to secure passage in the Senate.

As matters presently stand, the reconsideration of the Anti-Money Laundering Bill seems to have been a sensible one. In that regard, I would like to record my appreciation for the very professional dealings I had with the departmental officers of the Attorney-General’s Department, who were prompt, efficient and direct in their dealings in this regard.

This topic will obviously be the subject of further communications from both this association and your local bar association.

Peter Dunning KC
President, Australian Bar Association