This bill became law on Dec 10th, 2024.
Budget, tax & economy
Real estate agents, lawyers, accountants, trust and company service providers, and precious metals or stones dealers will have to follow anti-money-laundering rules for higher-risk services they provide.
AUSTRACThe agency that watches for suspicious money flows and enforces Australia's anti-money-laundering laws.'s 2024 risk assessment found unregulated real estate, legal, accounting and related services, plus growing digital asset activity, left major money-laundering gaps in Australia. The bill expands anti-money-laundering rules to those higher-risk services and more crypto activity, simplifies risk-based checks, and gives AUSTRACThe agency that watches for suspicious money flows and enforces Australia's anti-money-laundering laws. stronger investigation powers.
Australia’s anti-money-laundering regime had covered banks, casinos and other high-risk sectors since 2006, but a 2015 Financial Action Task ForceThe international body whose standards Australia is trying to meet so it is not treated as a weak link in global anti-money-laundering rules. finding and the long delay in adding “tranche 2” rules left real estate, legal, accounting and other gatekeeper services outside the system as digital asset activity grew. The 2024 bill responded by extending the regime to those higher-risk services and more crypto activity, simplifying risk-based checks and strengthening AUSTRACThe agency that watches for suspicious money flows and enforces Australia's anti-money-laundering laws.’s powers, before Parliament passed it in late November and Royal AssentThe final formal step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. followed in December 2024.
The main criticism was that the bill could saddle small businesses and professional firms with heavy new anti-money-laundering compliance costs and reporting burdens for uncertain or only marginal practical benefit. That concern was raised most clearly by Coalition speakers and in amendment efforts, while broader opposition appears to have been limited and often conditional on closer scrutiny or lighter implementation burdens.
Hon Mark Dreyfus KC, MP introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor, Greens, some crossbench members; opposed by Liberal Party, Nationals, Australia's Voice, One Nation, UAP, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 10 Dec 2024
Final passage
Recorded final vote
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Passage speed
90 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Real estate agents, lawyers, accountants, trust and company service providers, and precious metals or stones dealers will have to follow anti-money-laundering rules for higher-risk services they provide.
Businesses covered by the law will use a simpler risk-based customer checking approach, with lighter checks for low-risk customers and stronger checks for high-risk customers.
Corporate groups, partnerships and franchises can run one group-wide anti-money-laundering compliance setup and share compliance work across related entities.
Australia will regulate more digital asset activity, including crypto-to-crypto exchanges, customer transfers, virtual assetA digital asset, such as crypto, that can be used to store or move value and is now treated as a higher-risk area. administration and related financial services.
AUSTRACThe agency that watches for suspicious money flows and enforces Australia's anti-money-laundering laws. can compel people to hand over documents or answer questions under oath to support investigations and enforcement of anti-money-laundering laws.
A key element of the reforms is to expand the AML/CTF regime to certain services provided by gatekeeper professions: real estate professionals, dealers in precious metals and precious stones, and professional service providers, including lawyers, conveyancers, accountants and trust and company service providers (also known as ‘tranche two’ entities).Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment explanatory memorandum
The amendments in Schedule 2 clearly outline that a reporting entity must apply initial and ongoing CDD measures that are appropriate to the ML/TF risk of each customer, rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach. This provides reporting entities greater flexibility to apply simplified CDD in low risk scenarios. Consistent with FATF Recommendations 10 and 12, the Bill also requires a reporting entity to apply enhanced CDD in high risk scenarios under new section 32 inserted by Item 6 of this Schedule.Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment explanatory memorandum
The bill will introduce simplified measures for AML/CTF programs, enabling business groups such as corporate groups, franchises and partnerships to implement single, group-wide AML/CTF risk management and compliance frameworks. This better reflects the reality of modern business structures.Minister's second reading speech
Currently, the AML/CTF regime only covers exchanges between virtual assets and fiat—or government backed—currencies by digital currency exchange providers. This will be expanded to also include exchanges between different forms of virtual assets, transfers on behalf of customers, administration of virtual assets, and related financial services.Minister's second reading speech
These amendments would enable the AUSTRAC CEO to issue a written notice to a person (under new Division 3 of Part 14 of the AML/CTF Act) compelling that person to produce documents, or to appear before an examiner to answer questions under an oath or affirmation to support its enforcement functions. This could potentially include compelling a person to disclose personal information about themselves or another person.Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment explanatory memorandum
Context
Australia’s anti-money-laundering regime had covered banks, casinos and other high-risk sectors since 2006, but a 2015 Financial Action Task ForceThe international body whose standards Australia is trying to meet so it is not treated as a weak link in global anti-money-laundering rules. finding and the long delay in adding “tranche 2” rules left real estate, legal, accounting and other gatekeeper services outside the system as digital asset activity grew. The 2024 bill responded by extending the regime to those higher-risk services and more crypto activity, simplifying risk-based checks and strengthening AUSTRACThe agency that watches for suspicious money flows and enforces Australia's anti-money-laundering laws.’s powers, before Parliament passed it in late November and Royal AssentThe final formal step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. followed in December 2024.
Australia's first anti-money-laundering tranche begins
The existing AML/CTF regimeAustralia's rules for spotting, stopping and reporting money laundering and terrorism financing through regulated businesses. started by covering sectors such as banks, credit unions, casinos and other designated high-risk services rather than the wider gatekeeper professions later targeted by this bill.
Hansard ↗Financial Action Task ForceThe international body whose standards Australia is trying to meet so it is not treated as a weak link in global anti-money-laundering rules. finds Australia failed critical standards
A speaker in the House said the FATFThe international body whose standards Australia is trying to meet so it is not treated as a weak link in global anti-money-laundering rules. reported that Australia had failed to comply with some critical standards, underscoring long-running gaps in the regime.
Hansard ↗Government introduces long-delayed tranche 2 reforms
The Attorney-General introduced the bill as the long overdue next stage of reform to extend AML/CTF obligations beyond the original 2006 coverage.
Hansard ↗House debate sets out expansion to lawyers, real estate agents and accountants
During second reading debate, MPs described the bill as extending the AML/CTF regimeAustralia's rules for spotting, stopping and reporting money laundering and terrorism financing through regulated businesses. to lawyers, real estate agents, accountants, gemstone dealers and other designated non-financial businesses and professions.
Hansard ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses agreed on the same text after the House dealt with Senate amendments, completing the bill's parliamentary passage.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal AssentThe final formal step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. makes the reforms law
Royal AssentThe final formal step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. turned the bill into an Act, finalising the legislative change to Australia's anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorism financing regime.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Considered by scrutiny committee (18/09/2024): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 14 of 2024
Considered by committee
APH bill page notesReferred to Committee (19/09/2024): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (13/11/2024); Corrigendum (05/12/2024)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Reported from Federation Chamber
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber. Later message exchanges with the other chamber were still recorded afterwards.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Considered by scrutiny committee (10/10/2024): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; Report 9 of 2024
Considered by committee
APH bill page notesRecorded vote: 30 to 29.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 32 to 28.
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Third reading agreed to :
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Consideration of Senate message
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final formal step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the bill could saddle small businesses and professional firms with heavy new anti-money-laundering compliance costs and reporting burdens for uncertain or only marginal practical benefit. That concern was raised most clearly by Coalition speakers and in amendment efforts, while broader opposition appears to have been limited and often conditional on closer scrutiny or lighter implementation burdens.
Criticism focused more on cost, timing and implementation than on the bill’s core anti-crime aim.
Heavy compliance burden for small business
Critics warned the bill would impose large compliance and reporting costs on real estate agents, lawyers, accountants and other newly regulated sectors, with a particular hit on regional and small businesses.
Rushed ahead before scrutiny and burden reduction
Opponents argued the bill was being pushed through before the Senate committee process and practical impacts were properly tested, and said the government should reduce the burden before proceeding.
Net benefits not yet proven
Some critics said they were not yet convinced the expansion of the regime to more professions was justified because the expected benefits were uncertain compared with the added cost and complexity.
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Passed 32 to 28. Support came from Labor and Greens. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Australia's Voice, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Earlier bill-stage votes
Passed 30 to 29. Support came from Labor and Greens. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Australia's Voice, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Amendments grouped by chamber. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.
House
Passed 79 to 34. Support came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The House agreed to the amendments made by the Senate, so the bill could pass both chambers in the same form.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senate
Passed 31 to 27. Support came from Labor and Greens. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Australia's Voice, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
These government changes refined the bill's technical operation and compliance rules before the final stages of passage.
Defeated 13 to 27. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and minor parties and independents.
This was a proposed carve-out from the bill's tipping-off offence for restricted legal communications, but the amendment was defeated.
Defeated 29 to 31. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Australia's Voice, and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This would have created a small-business exemption from parts of the bill's reporting framework, but the amendment was defeated.
The APH progress record says 42 government amendments were agreed on voices.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
The parliamentary record also shows 42 Government amendments agreed without a counted division.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Dreyfus strongly supports the bill and says it delivers long overdue reforms to strengthen Australia’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regimeAustralia's rules for spotting, stopping and reporting money laundering and terrorism financing through regulated businesses..
Read in Hansard ↗Gillespie opposes the bill in its current form because he says it is being rushed and will impose very large compliance costs on regional small businesses, lawyers, accountants and real estate firms for only a marginal benefit.
Read in Hansard ↗Jenny McAllister strongly supports the bill, saying it delivers long overdue reforms to strengthen Australia’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regimeAustralia's rules for spotting, stopping and reporting money laundering and terrorism financing through regulated businesses. and close gaps that criminals and terrorists exploit.
Read in Hansard ↗Fletcher says the coalition is not committed either way on the bill and is still weighing whether the costs, benefits and practical impacts justify expanding the AML/CTF regimeAustralia's rules for spotting, stopping and reporting money laundering and terrorism financing through regulated businesses. to more professions.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
3 speakers · 4 contributions · 3 support
“The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024 implements long overdue, major reforms to Australia's anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing, or AML/CTF regime. 'Tranche-one' of these reforms was introduced in 2006, and this bill will finally deliver on vital 'tranche-two' reforms.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Mark Dreyfus, including an amendment-moving contribution. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Moved amendment
Dreyfus strongly supports the bill and says it delivers long overdue reforms to strengthen Australia’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regimeAustralia's rules for spotting, stopping and reporting money laundering and terrorism financing through regulated businesses.. He argues it is needed to close gaps, regulate high-risk gatekeeper professions, modernise digital asset rules, and protect Australia from crime and grey listing.
“The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024 implements long overdue major reforms to Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing, or AML/CTF, regime. 'Tranche 1' of these reforms was introduced in 2006, and this bill will finally deliver on vital 'tranche 2' reforms.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Dreyfus supports the bill and says it is long overdue because it strengthens Australia's anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorism financing regime, closes regulatory gaps, and helps prevent greylisting. He argues it is needed to stop criminals, terrorists and corrupt actors from using Australia to move illicit funds.
“The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024 delivers on the Albanese government's commitment to protecting Australians from the serious harm caused by criminals. The bill will bolster Australia's anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorism financing regime to prevent criminals from hiding their illicit profits and funding illegal activities. It will also stop funds from falling into the hands of terrorists and disrupt activities of authoritarian and corrupt regimes. The reforms in this bill are long overdue. The former government's inaction has led to significant regulatory gaps and vulnerabilities. We are acting now to make sure that Australia stops being an attractive destination for illicit financing.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“We need to do this efficiently and well in a way that is appropriate for Australia, and that is what we are doing here and now. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
3 speakers · 1 oppose · 1 mixed · 1 unclear
“The coalition has not committed to a position either way on this bill. There are some worrying signs, and we want to hear the evidence. We want to understand what the costs and benefits are. We want to understand the impacts on the ground.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“When it comes to lawyers, real estate agents, accountants and gemstone dealers and other designated non-financial businesses and professions, we on this side of the House are not opposed to the bill at this stage.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Rather than rushing this through, wait until the Senate legislative committee has finished its review. Then we can be realistic about how we can reduce the costs on all these industries that were badly affected and all consumers who will be paying through the nose for their legal advice on property purchasing, tax matters and trust and family business matters.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 30 to 29.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Amendments considered
Recorded vote: 32 to 28.
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
House · Consideration of Senate message
House agreed to Senate amendments
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final formal step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
Considered by committee
Considered by scrutiny committee (18 Sept 2024): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 14 of 2024
APH bill page notesSenate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (13/11/2024); Corrigendum (05/12/2024)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (19 Sept 2024): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (13 Nov 2024); Corrigendum (5 Dec 2024)
APH bill page notesParliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Considered by committee
Considered by scrutiny committee (10 Oct 2024): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; Report 9 of 2024
APH bill page notes
