Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I offer the support of the opposition for the passage of this bill. The Customs Amendment Bill proposes a number of minor amendments to modernise and remove anomalies in the Customs Act, which provides an important update to these laws. Firstly, in terms of domestic travellers on international flights, the bill extends Customs' powers of examination to the bags of domestic travellers on international flights and voyages and domestic cargo on international flights and voyages. Currently Australia's Customs and Border Protection officers have powers to question all travellers, whether international or domestic, on a domestic leg of an international flight or voyage in relation to dutiable, excisable or prohibited goods. They can also conduct personal searches of travellers on international journeys, including domestic travellers on a domestic leg of international flights and voyages. However, they do not currently have the ability to examine the personal effects of domestic travellers and domestic cargo on an international flight or voyage. Domestic travellers on such journeys have the opportunity to mingle with international travellers during embarkation or disembarkation processes on the aircraft or on the ship and in transit lounges. The advice that was given to the opposition by the department is that this provides an opportunity for bag switches and the like if someone is seeking to break the law. This can occur before international travellers are cleared on arrival or after international travellers are cleared on departure. And this issue is particularly pressing for countries with a considerable land mass like Australia, which feature some cities some distances apart.

These factors increase the prevalence of international flights that make numerous stops within our borders before making a leap overseas or, alternatively, flights returning to Australia from overseas making numerous stops once they are back in Australia. This ability to mingle at various stages presents a border risk as dutiable and prohibited goods can be transferred between domestic and international travellers to avoid detection by Customs and Border Protection staff. The mixing of domestic cargo and goods for export presents risks for diversion of cargo from one stream to another, especially prohibited goods or goods subject to border related duties and taxes. The new section proposed, section 186AA of the act, will provide Customs and Border Protection Service officers with the powers to examine that domestic cargo and the personal effects of domestic travellers who complete a domestic leg of an international flight or voyage. We also note that there is no intention to require domestic cargo to be reported. This is a positive development. It clears up an anomaly in the act and is something that we offer support for.

This bill extends control to places where ships and aircraft arrive that are not proclaimed ports or airports. Currently certain ports are proclaimed under the Customs Act for arrivals purposes. The ship owner reports that the particular ship and cargo will arrive at a specific destination as designated under the act for checking by Customs and Border Protection staff. But with the growth in Australia's offshore resources and cruise ship industries, we have increasingly seen ships requiring to arrive from a place outside of Australia that is not a proclaimed port. In 2013 Australian cruise ship passenger numbers hit a record of 833,000, making Australia the world's leading cruise market in growth and market penetration. Australia's impressive 20 per cent growth in passenger numbers was more than double the rate achieved by any other key cruise market in 2013, with more ships deployed in local waters in 2014 than at any other time. And Australia's growth trajectory seems set to continue.

As the legislation currently stands, Customs do not have the power to control goods that arrive at unproclaimed ports under section 58 of the act. These amendments will extend Customs' control to correct that anomaly. Section 58 states that a master of a ship or a pilot of an aircraft must bring the ship or aircraft to a proclaimed port or airport unless suffering from stress of weather or other reasonable cause. Rather than requiring ships or aircraft to arrive at a proclaimed port or airport where border activities can be managed, the Customs and Border Protection Service will be able to manage risks and conduct necessary activities at places which are not proclaimed ports to provide equivalence of search and examination power. And definitions of a designated place and customs place will be amended in sub section 58(1) of the act.

The bill will standardise the application process for permissions to load and unload ships and aircraft stores, transfer goods between certain vessels and apply for certificates of clearance. The act sets out arrangements for permissions to be granted on several activities at wharves, airports or at sea—for instance, to load and unload ships and aircraft stores, to transfer goods between vessels and to make an application for a certificate of clearance before departure. Currently there is a lack of detail about the nature of these forms and what they must take. The amendments propose to introduce an approved form for such applications. These amendments will give consistency to reporting arrangements that allow for reporting to occur online, so it will simplify the process and make it much more user-friendly.

In respect of reporting arrival of ships and aircraft in Australia and the reporting of stores and prohibited goods, the bill provides for amendments to provide greater flexibility to the CEO of Customs in dealing with reports of arrival of ships and aircraft in Australia and reporting stores and prohibited goods on such vessels and aircraft. Currently ships and aircraft that arrive in Australia must report to Australian Customs and Border Protection Service particulars of their arrival and of stores of any prohibited goods contained in those stores at the time of arrival—for instance, firearms and certain narcotics. These reports must be made in relation to the ship within 24 hours of a ship's arrival—disregarding weekends and public holidays—and within three hours of an aircraft's arrival. It has proved to be somewhat of a burden and an inconvenience particularly in respect of the arrival of ships. A ship may arrive at a designated port with prohibited stores on a Friday afternoon but will be unable to have those stores inspected and the appropriate measures put in place until the following Monday and in some circumstances the following Tuesday if it is a long weekend because of the operation of the act. This will simplify that process and make it much more user-friendly.

These reports are necessary for Customs and Border Protection staff to assess risks of items that may be on board and to establish a plan to deal with them especially, as I mentioned earlier, firearms and narcotics that may be required to be detained or managed in a certain way. These changes do not apply to cargo, only to stores and prohibited goods. These arrangements will allow for the CEO of Customs to specify by legislative instrument, which will be disallowable, when the reports must be made for different kinds of ships and aircraft in different circumstances. That will simplify that process and remove that anomaly that exists in respect of weekends.

The reports will be required to be made at a time that would be more appropriate to minimise impacts on the master or owner of the ship or the pilot or owner of the aircraft or that would enable the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service to deal with the information in these reports at a more convenient time and to allow earlier assessment, prioritisation and efficient deployment of Customs and Border Protection resources.

In terms of the operation of infringement notices, the bill corrects a technical error in relation to the interaction of the Customs and Border Protection Service's Infringement Notice Scheme and claims process for seized goods under the act. In February 2014 a new infringement notice system in the act commenced. The infringement notice system allows for the issuing of an infringement notice for strict or absolute liability offences under the act, including imported prohibited items. But there is an unintended consequence of the new act that is not operating the way the act intended. Prohibited imports can also be seized under the act and are then dealt with under the claims process in division 1 of part XXII of the act. Since the commencement of the INS, a technical error has been identified relating to the condemnation of goods. The INS provides that goods that will be taken to be condemned to the crown if the goods are prohibited imports. The person pays a penalty under the INS and the INS is then subsequently withdrawn.

Under the act, if a seizure notice is served a person has 30 days to make a claim for the return of the goods. And, pursuant to section 205C, if a claim for the return of the goods may be made and is not made within 30 days after the seizure notice is served then all goods are taken to be condemned and forfeited to the crown. However, a claim for the return of the goods may not be made if goods have been taken to be condemned as forfeited to the crown. The legal status of the goods is therefore complicated. If a seizure notice and an INS have been issued and the penalty in the INS has been paid but the INS is later withdrawn and the goods are condemned and forfeited to the crown, you cannot get them back, basically.

These amendments will ensure a cleaner interaction with each other and with the operation of those provisions to correct this error. The changes will mean that the condemnation of the goods will not apply if an INS is withdrawn and will allow a person up to 30 days after the INS is withdrawn for the person to make a claim for the goods in circumstances where the goods have been seized and the seizure notice has been served, an INS for an offence in relation to the importation has been given, the penalty notice has been paid within the required time and the INS is therefore subsequently withdrawn. So, it clears up that anomaly that currently exists within the act.

Finally, the bill improves the administration and appointment of authorised officers by class under the Customs Act. There is currently no provision in the Acts Interpretation Act for statutory authorisations. The current provision only allows for the CEO of Customs to authorise a class of persons. The law remains unsettled as to whether an authorisation will apply to future officers or positions within an authorised class that come into existence after the authorisation is given. The amendments will change the definition of 'authorised officer' so that authorisations can apply to offices or positions that come into existence after the authorisation to a class of offices is given. This is a clearing up of that anomaly that, again, exists in respect of authorised officers.

In conclusion, this omnibus bill, proposing a number of minor amendments to the Customs Act, has been in the making for some time. It is important that we continue to refine our border protection measures through such bills as this to ensure that the broader Australian community is well protected and international and criminal enterprises are stopped from perpetrating our borders. This act and these amendments respond to a number of issues that have been identified by practitioners and by the owners and operators in the cruise ship industry particularly. It improves the operation of the bill, and I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context