Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in this debate on the Customs Amendment Bill 2014. I support this bill because it strengthens our customs framework, which I believe is vitally important. Given my former role as a police officer, I am very pleased to be speaking on bills such as this that strengthen frameworks.

This bill amends the Customs Act 1901. The bill consists of six measures which seek to improve the customs framework that is in place. Fundamentally, this bill will, firstly, extend the control of Customs to places where ships and aircraft arrive that are not proclaimed ports or airports. It will standardise the application process for permissions to load and unload ship and aircraft stores. It will also standardise the process for the transferring of goods between certain vessels and applications for a certificate of clearance. It will also provide greater flexibility to the CEO of Customs in dealing with the reports of the arrival of ships and aircrafts into Australia, and reporting stores and prohibited goods on vessels and aircraft. It will extend Customs's powers of examination to the bags of domestic travellers on international flights and voyages, and domestic cargo on international flights and voyages, which is also very important.

The bill will also correct a technical error in relation to the interaction of Customs and Border Protection's infringement notice scheme and claims process for seized goods under the act; and it also improves the administration of the appointment of authorised officers by class under the Customs Act.

With regard to goods on ships, currently, only certain shipping ports are proclaimed, or defined, for arrival purposes under the Customs Act 1901. Due to the ongoing growth in Australia's offshore resources and cruise ship industries, ships have increasingly had to arrive from a place outside of Australia at a place that is not defined as a proclaimed port. The bill before the House will provide that all goods on board any ship or aircraft from a place outside of Australia are subject to Customs control while the ship or aircraft is within the limits of any port or airport in Australia. The bill will rectify any ongoing issues of a passenger or freight ship arriving at a port which is not proclaimed.

Currently, the act does not allow for Customs control to goods which are on board a ship or aircraft at a place other than a port or airport in Australia to which a ship or aircraft has been brought because of stress of weather or other reasonable cause under subsection 58(1) of the act, or the master of a ship or the pilot of an aircraft has received permission from a collector to bring the ship or aircraft under subsection 58(2) of the act. This means that currently Customs officers cannot inspect goods on board a ship or aircraft which has arrived in these circumstances. The proposed section 58 of the bill currently before the House will address these issues. 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 require ships or aircraft to arrive at a proclaimed port or airport where border activities can be managed, the Customs service will be able to manage risks and conduct necessary activities at a place which is not a proclaimed port. However, to allow for ships and planes which had not been able to arrive at a proclaimed port or airport, this bill will also modify the definitions of a 'designated place' and 'Customs place' so as to provide equivalence of search and examination powers.

The bill also makes changes to the regulation of arrival reports and certificates of clearance. Fundamentally, these amendments are aimed at clearing up a range of inconsistencies. As it stands, ships and aircraft that arrive in Australia from a place outside Australia must report to Customs services the particulars of their arrival and of stores, and any prohibited goods contained in those stores at the time of arrival. The bill ensures that these reports must be made in relation to a ship within 24 hours of the ship's arrival, or for aircraft within three hours of arrival. These reports are vital for Customs to be able to assess risks of items that may be on board and to establish the most practical way to deal with them—for example, it may be items such as firearms or narcotics that may be required to be detained or managed in a particular way.

These amendments will allow the CEO of Customs to specify by legislative instrument when the reports must be made for different kinds of ships and aircraft or in different circumstances. Reports will be required to be made at a time that would be more appropriate to minimise impacts on the owner of the ship or pilot or owner of the aircraft. This would enable Customs to deal with the information in these reports at a more convenient time to allow earlier assessment, prioritisation and efficient deployment of their resources, which is vital to take into consideration. However, it is important to recognise that these changes do not apply to cargo but apply only to stores and prohibited goods. The amendments contained in this bill will allow for greater security and protection of our citizens in Australia in and near our port structures and will remedy the inconsistencies in the reporting structure. Overall, these measures do move towards strengthening our systems within the Customs framework.

In terms of the Certificate of Clearance, the act sets a regulatory regime to enable permission to be granted for some activities at wharves, at airports or at sea. Activities regulated in this manner can include loading and unloading the stores of ships and aircrafts, transferring goods between vessels, or making an application for a Certificate of Clearance before departure. However, at present, the regulatory regime does not provide great detail as to the nature of the necessary formalities. As a result, items 12 to 16 in the bill propose to amend section 118 to remove the requirement for the regulations to prescribe particulars for an application for the Certificate of Clearance. It also requires applications to be made in writing, on an approved form, containing such information as the form requires, and be signed in the manner indicated in the form. It also does the allow the CEO to approve different forms for applications to be made in different circumstances, by different kinds of masters or owners of ships or pilots or owners of aircraft, or in respect of different kinds of ships or aircraft. Through these proposed amendments, an 'approved form' for such applications will be introduced, which will give consistency to reporting arrangements and, very importantly, allow for reporting to occur online.

In addition to the measures that I have outlined, this bill will also seek to enhance the interaction of the Infringement Notice Scheme, with the claims processing under the Customs Act in relation to prohibited imports. Since the commencement of the Infringement Notice Scheme earlier this year, a technical error has been identified relating to prohibited imports. The legislation currently provides that, where goods are deemed to be prohibited imports, they will be taken to be condemned to the Crown. The person then pays a penalty under an Infringement Notice Scheme, and the Infringement Notice Scheme is then subsequently withdrawn. However, at present, if a seizure notice is served, a person has 30 days to make a claim for return of the goods and, if a claim for the return of the goods has not been made within 30 days of the service of such a seizure notice, the goods will be taken to be condemned as forfeited to the Crown.

However, pursuant to section 205B(1A) of the act, a claim for the return of goods may not be made if goods deemed to be prohibited imports have already been taken to be condemned as forfeited to the Crown. Therefore, the legal status of the goods is somewhat contradictory in the event that both a seizure notice has been served and an Infringement Notice Scheme has been issued and the penalty in the Infringement Notice Scheme has been paid and is later withdrawn. The current amendments will ensure a much 'cleaner' interaction with each other. Correcting this error is indeed a very positive step. The changes will mean that the condemnation of goods will not apply if an Infringement Notice Scheme is withdrawn and will allow a person up to 30 days after the notice is withdrawn for the person to make a claim for the goods in circumstances where the goods have been seized, a seizure notice has been served, an Infringement Notice Scheme for an offence in relation to the importation of the goods has been given, the penalty has been paid within the required time, and the Infringement Notice Scheme has been subsequently withdrawn.

I now come to what I believe is the most important part of these measures in terms of the extension of Customs powers. As I said at the beginning, as a former police officer, I am supportive of these measures. When we are looking at any sorts of pre-emptive and preventative measures, they are of course always much more preferable to reactive measures. It is why I think some of the changes in this legislation are very positive.

Indeed, that is why those of us on this side are supporting the amendments contained within this bill, particularly those regarding the inspection of domestic cargo and personal effects. At present on a domestic leg of an international flight or voyage customs officers have the power to question all travellers, whether they are international or domestic travellers, in relation to dutiable, excisable or prohibited goods. They can also undertake personal searches of travellers on international journeys, including domestic travellers, but at present customs officers do not have the ability to examine the personal effects of domestic travellers and domestic cargo on an international flight or voyage. As it currently stands this has the capacity to pose a security risk, as domestic travellers on international flights or voyages have the opportunity to liaise with other international travellers during the embarkation or disembarkation process. In some cases this can occur before international travellers are cleared on arrival or after international travellers are cleared on departure and so could pose a security risk because dutiable and prohibited goods could potentially be transferred between domestic and international travellers so as to intentionally evade detection by customs officers.

Another problem that can occur in these circumstances is the mixing of domestic cargo with imported goods or goods for export. At its most fundamental, this presents a risk for the diversion of cargo from one stream to another and so may evade regulation of prohibited goods or goods subject to border related duties and taxes. However, with the amendments proposed in this bill, custom officers will now, quite rightly, be equipped with powers to examine domestic cargo and the personal effects of domestic travellers who complete the domestic leg of an international flight or voyage. In conclusion I believe that the reforms proposed in this bill are very positive, and Labor supports these moves and moves that improve the security and protection of Australians at home and abroad. This bill and its amendments are fundamentally aimed at achieving this goal. I support this bill and commend it to the House.

See this speech in context