Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to 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.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment Bill 2014 and follow on from the member for Kingsford Smith, and I thank him for his support for the bill. Every Australian has an inherent expectation to be safe and protected in their homes and in the community. We have this expectation, which ultimately goes hand in hand with our expectation that those who are tasked with or select the job of enabling this protection are being provided with the appropriate powers and mechanisms to do so effectively and efficiently. In our community this level of protection varies between a number of different tiers, from our volunteer Neighbourhood Watch to the different levels and organisations within our state and federal police forces. At our borders, however, we have a different organisation altogether—our Australian Customs and Border Protection Service officers—who are tasked with protecting the safety of every Australian from prohibited air and sea cargo, protecting us while we travel both domestically and internationally, and protecting personal luggage or cargo when people are trying to enter our country or travel within it with prohibited items.

Over the past year the coalition government has worked with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to identify those areas where officers' powers need to be enhanced and legislative areas that need to be amended or have additional provisions inserted to support officers' ability to appropriately protect our borders and ensure everything that can be done is being done to protect the safety of every Australian. We have introduced vital amendments and new provisions in this place to effectively respond to the very real threat that Australia is facing to its national security both from home-grown terrorism and from those who seek to enter our country to harm us. We have also introduced a number of amendments and provisions with respect to Australia's Migration Act, which will work with many of the proposed measures in the bill before the House today to ensure that our borders are protected from illegal maritime and air arrivals. In many of these measures our Customs and Border Protection officers' powers have been reviewed, and in some cases expanded, to reflect concerns from officers and from the government that the current legislative provisions do not afford them with the powers they need to protect our borders to the best of their ability. Many of these proposed changes to date have been technical in nature to reflect the need to better streamline such things as reporting requirements or to expand officers' ability or the ability of the responsible minister to assess the risk that particular circumstances pose to the community and how these can be better responded to.

Every member in this place would understand the importance of our Customs and Border Protection officers' role and would understand that no person knows the areas where practices could be better streamlined or provisions enhanced than those who are on the ground responding to these instances. That is one of the reasons why I recently welcomed the opportunity to join with the Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the Hon. Michaelia Cash, at Perth International Airport's Customs House to see firsthand how our Customs and Border Protection officers are working to keep every Australian safe and to understand the scope of prohibited items that organised crime syndicates in particular try to smuggle through our borders every day. I also note that that particularly Immigration and Border Protection office at Perth International Airport's Customs House is in my electorate of Swan.

From January to October this year alone, over 12 kilograms of methamphetamine, also known as ice; 1.5 tonnes of molasses tobacco and over 2,000 prohibited weapons, including firearms knuckledusters, automatic knives and laser pointers have been seized from air cargo by Perth's Customs officers. This is a significant achievement by officers, as many of these items were expertly concealed.

It is not, however, always our Customs officers who detect these prohibited items. Our officers and this government take great pride in the abilities of our detector dogs, who contributed to the detection of almost 2,379 illicit imports and exports in 2012-13. It is because the coalition government is one which recognises the importance of such programs and listens to our departments' views about those areas they believe to be lacking or in need or additional support that, in February this year, the government committed $88 million of additional funding to Australia's Customs and Border Protection measures.

This significant funding commitment was specifically focused on increasing screening of international mail and air and sea cargo, while an additional $8.5 million was also committed to expand our Detector Dog Program. In Perth alone, this funding boost has provided for an increase in inspections of 250,000 mail articles and 50,000 air-cargo consignments and has prevented a range of prohibited items from arriving on our streets and in our communities. It has also provided an additional 15 detector dog teams to support the increased inspection and examination of cargo across Australia, including three detector dog teams in my home town of Perth. They are now receiving world-class training.

In the 2014-15 budget, we also committed a further $480.5 million over a four year package to bolster the enforcement capabilities of Australia's Strategic Border Command, intelligence systems, trade and travel systems and workforce measures and training. By making these significant funding commitments and introducing legislative amendments in this place, the coalition is ensuring our Customs and Border Protection officers have the appropriate powers to do their jobs effectively. We are being proactive in responding to the ongoing threat to Australia's national security. We could turn away and hide our heads in the sand with the attitude that everything will be okay, but we are a government of reality and we are government which accepts and responds appropriately to our responsibility to protect every Australian and our assets.

The Customs Amendment Bill 2014, which is before the House today, seeks to amend the Customs Act 1901 to extend the powers of Customs officers, make technical amendments to better streamline the act's provisions and correct a technical error in the legislation. Key provisions will therefore be amended or added, with the focus of these measures being in regards to current differences between Customs officers examination powers in relation to domestic travellers on a flight or voyage to that of international travellers.

Before I highlight the proposed amendments to Customs powers, I will first outline a number of technical amendments that are proposed in the bill. The first technical amendment is in relation to the definition of an authorised officer. Currently, the act precludes authorisations by the chief executive officer of Customs applying to any offices or positions which come into existence after the authorisation to a class of offices is given. The proposed amendment seeks to amend this definition to extend such authorisations to an office or a position that comes into existence after the authorisation is given. While this amendment is largely technical in nature, a key proposed amendment in the bill before the House seeks to address an identified vulnerability in our Customs control for goods on ships and aircrafts.

Currently, all goods on board a ship or aircraft are subject to Customs control while the ship or aircraft is within the limits of any port or ship in Australia. There are, however, a number of incidences where a ship or aircraft may go to a place other than a port or airport, including when there is bad weather or permission has been granted. An example of an industry where this regularly occurs in Australia is for those industries involved in resource activities who request permission to bring vessels directly to an offshore installation. In these instances, the goods on the ship or aircraft are not subject to Customs control and can therefore not be examined by Customs officers. The bill before the House seeks to rectify this vulnerability in our Customs control orders by amending the definition of a 'designated place' to include a place where a ship or aircraft has been brought under stress by weather or other reasonable cause to ensure that Customs officers are able to exercise certain seizure, detention and personal search powers. Further amendments will also be made in relation to the reporting of goods on board these ships or aircraft.

Under the act's current provisions, an international ship that arrives in Australia must report the particulars of their arrival to Customs within 24 hours of the ship's arrival or before the issue of certificate of clearance, while an aircraft report must be made within three hours. These same time frames also apply to a ship's stores, an aircraft's stores and prohibited goods reports. These time frames are currently posing difficulties for Customs officers to effectively and efficiently process ships and aircraft when the particulars of their goods are not known.

As the bill's explanatory memorandum states, in most instances Customs Officers will conduct:

…physical boarding and intervention activities of ships and aircraft at the time of arrival at the first port or airport in Australia. However in some circumstances, it would be beneficial for ACBPS to be notified of particulars of the stores and prohibited goods including firearms, weapons and narcotics, before the arrival of the ship or aircraft.

To respond to these difficulties, the bill before the House proposes to amend the Customs Act by inserting additional provisions which allow the CEO to specify when a report must be made for certain ships or aircraft. This will effectively allow different reporting time frames to be provided for different circumstances and will enable Customs officers to appropriately assess the risk of such goods prior to their arrival in Australia.

Before a ship then departs, a certificate of clearance must be provided by the collector. Under the act's current provisions, an application must be made to the collector in writing and must contain a series of regulatory information that is outlined in the act. This method of reporting is, however, inconsistent with other application and reporting requirements. This bill seeks to rectify this by amending the provisions to ensure that reporting requirements are streamlined across this act.

A series of amendments will therefore be made, including (a) removing the requirement for the regulations to prescribe particulars for an application for the certificate of clearance; (b) requiring applications to be made in writing, in an approved form, contain such information as the form requires and be signed in the manner indicated in the form; and (c) allowing the CEO to approve different forms for applications to be made in different circumstances, by the different kinds of masters or owners of ships or pilots or owners of aircraft, or in respect of different kinds of ships or aircraft.

Further technical amendments will also be made with regard to the content requirements for goods to be unloaded or used before the departure of a ship or aircraft, to clarify when the consent must be sought from a collector and in what form. Under the proposed amendments, the application process will be standardised in line with the proposed changes to other reporting requirements, such as those I previously outlined with regard to applications for a certificate of clearance.

Similarly, the act does not currently contain any provisions which detail how to apply for permission to transfer goods between certain vessels and what form these applications must take. Again, the bill before the House will rectify the current lapse in the act and will streamline its provisions with other outlined application processes to ensure there is consistency, with the eventual aim of these permissions to be applied for online.

As mentioned earlier, although there are a number of technical amendments being made in this bill, there are also a number of key legislative changes, which will respond to the current vulnerabilities in Australia's customs and border protection measures.

As all members in this place would be aware from their own travels, domestic travellers often mix with international travellers prior to, during and after the domestic leg of a flight or voyage. An example of this would be when one plane, which is being used to travel from a country outside of Australia such as China, arrives in Melbourne and continues on to Perth. Under the act's current provisions, domestic cargo can be loaded and unloaded from this aircraft when it arrives in Melbourne without any authority or permission; however, this domestic cargo and the personal effects of domestic travellers are not currently subject to Customs control once they are loaded or unloaded. Only the goods of international passengers would fall under the control of Customs.

The bill before the House, therefore, seeks to amend the act to provide that domestic goods on international flights or voyages can be examined by an officer of Customs in the same manner as goods on a purely international flight and voyage with no domestic stop-overs. These additional examination powers would apply to goods which have been loaded onto a ship or aircraft, and those which have been unloaded. An additional measure will be inserted into the act in this regard to provide that the expense of any examination under these new powers is borne by the owner of the goods. As stated in the bill's explanatory memorandum, it is expected that this would 'mainly be applicable in the cargo environment as opposed to the traveller environment'.

As I stated earlier, this Customs Amendment Bill also seeks to correct a technical error in the legislation in relation to a new infringement notice scheme which commenced on 1 February this year. This scheme allows for the issuing of an infringement notice in relation to strict- or absolute-liability offences. The technical error that has been identified is in the interaction of this infringement notice with the claims process when dealing with prohibited imports. When an infringement notice is issued under this scheme, the person to whom the notice has been issued is given the option to pay the fine specified in the notice, or they may choose to have the offence heard by a court.

Under the provisions in the scheme, if a person opts to pay the fine and the infringement notice is not withdrawn, the prohibited goods are condemned as forfeited to the crown and, as a result, cannot be claimed. In these circumstances, where a claim can be made it must be made within 30 days of a seizure notice being issued. A problem, however, arises between these two requirements, in these instances, when a fine or penalty has been paid and the infringement notice is later withdrawn. An issue arises because the time frame for making this claim may have expired—it may be past the required 30 days. The proposed amendments will rectify this issue by inserting a provision that will allow a person to have 30 days after the withdrawal of an infringement notice to make a claim for their seized goods.

Although many of the amendments in this bill are technical in nature, this does not detract from their importance in bolstering Australia's overall customs and border protection measures and ensuring that every Australian is protected to the best of this government's and our agencies' abilities. They are important amendments and provisions to ensure appropriate powers are afforded to our Customs officers and identified vulnerabilities are swiftly responded to.

Again I acknowledge the support of the member for Kingsford Smith and the opposition for this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Nickolas Varvaris (Barton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak in favour of this bill, which amends the Customs Act in a number of minor ways to streamline, extend and enhance the way that our customs personnel are able to operate at the border. It goes without saying that our Australian Customs personnel do an indispensable job in maintaining the security of our borders. Whether it is preventing the flow of illicit drugs, minimising losses to revenue—due to smuggling and revenue evasion—protecting industry from non-compliant importers or improving the security of our sea cargo trade, our customs personnel ensure that Australia retains control over its own borders.

Under the Howard Government we saw a gold standard of customs and border protection at work. Significant improvements included the establishment of the Border Protection Command in 2004, increased funding for the Customs Service by 180 per cent, the more efficient processing of arriving international passengers and new drug-detection dog teams all across Australia. Key performance indicators, such as the inspection rate for air cargo consignments, were at a strong 60 per cent. Over the span of the Rudd and Gillard years, these figures dropped dramatically to less than 5 per cent of air cargo consignments inspected. Other figures saw a similar drop, with percentage of sea cargo inspections down to 3.5 per cent from 5.7 per cent and physical examinations of sea cargo down to 0.5 per cent from 0.6 per cent.

This government is determined to pick up where the Howard government left off by restoring customs management to a high standard and making progress on key performance indicators. The decline in the rate of air and sea cargo inspections was one of the most significant and damaging legacies left to our customs performance by the previous government, as it meant that irregular and criminal elements were more likely to slip through the cracks of the customs net, especially as the volume of incoming cargo was projected to rise. At a time when their responsibilities were most demanding, the previous government cut 700 employees from customs services. At a time when our borders faced some of the most significant challenges we have seen in recent times, budgetary cuts of $734.8 million were made, the effects of which will continue to be felt out to 2017-18.

Cuts to the customs cargo-screening program meant that our rate of sea cargo inspections plummeted, leaving our borders less secure because our customs teams were inadequately resourced. This led to an incident in 2012 when 220 Glock pistols were intercepted on Australian soil, not by the customs services, but by the New South Wales Police Force. This was a concerning incident which exposed the holes in front-line services as a result of a deficiency of Commonwealth funding. Reductions in resources, funding and jobs in the area of Customs and Border Protection reflected the misguided priorities at work in the mindset of the previous government. When there are holes in vital front-line services that the Commonwealth funds at our nation's borders, we expose our nation to a greater risk—the risk posed to the community and law-abiding industry by smugglers and crime syndicates.

This bill will ensure that future officers and positions, which come into existence after class based authorisations is given, are allowed, and this will save significant legislative work into the future. This legislation will work to resolve blind spots in our customs activities, extending control to the ports where ships and aircraft arrive—places which may not currently be subject to any customs checks. Greater flexibility in reporting the arrival of ships and aircraft will mean that our custom officers will be able to extend their jurisdiction to all excursions that carry cargo or goods into Australia. The changes brought about by these amendments will ensure that the reporting and inspection mechanisms within the Customs Act are consistent, modern and flexible so that our customs personnel will have an expanded capacity to manage the risks posed to our border security.

The establishment of the streamlined Australian Border Force, announced in May of this year, is proof positive of the forward-thinking approach of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and his department. Furthermore, under the Abbott government, immigration and customs have been combined into a single cabinet portfolio which has permanent status on the National Security Committee of cabinet. The recently announced funding increase of $630 million to law enforcement and border protection industries is a resounding sign that this government has got its priorities straight when it comes to strengthening the capable work being done at our borders. The Australian Border Force will re-invest the budget savings, which we make in combining Customs and Border Protection responsibilities into a single force, back into the front-line of customs activities—exactly where the resources need to flow to reach key performance indicators.

In summary, the coalition's focus is extending and enhancing our border protection capabilities, rather than rein them in. By streamlining areas where we need greater efficiency and investing in areas where we need an increase in resources, jobs and capacities, the government is bringing a smart and tailored approach to this portfolio for the sake of our border integrity. Just as Howard left office confident that our house was in order and that he had kept the people of Australia safe from the compromise of our borders, I am confident that our work in this place will aspire to the very same standards and even exceed them.

One way in which we are building on the success and innovations of the Howard government is in technological update. Our customs processes are moving with the developments of the 21st century, as applications permissions under the act will be able to be completed online. These amendments will ensure that our customs capabilities advance and refine into the information age. We are determined to deliver results in the sphere of customs and border protection. I am proud to be part of a team who has acted on its word, restoring order on our borders and heeding the will of the Australian people. Our priority is to ensure that our capable Customs and Border Protection personnel have the resources and legislative provisions that they require to do their job to the best of their ability. We want to see an Australia in which sea and air cargo are regularly inspected, in which passengers are facilitated with the utmost efficiency and in which criminal syndicates are met with vigilance and disruption at our border.

This bill is commendable in the action it takes to resolve customs blind spots, such as those places where ships and aircraft regularly arrive in Australia which are not officially proclaimed ports or airports. International flights and voyages will also have domestic legs of their trip eligible for customs checks. This will extend Customs presence and control to these areas, ensuring that fewer blind spots exist that can become an advantage for those who would compromise the integrity of our borders.

The electorate of Barton is a particular stakeholder to the security and efficiency of our port districts and airports. Almost totally surrounded by waterways, including Botany Bay, and immediately adjoined by Sydney Airport to the east, Barton is interconnected with our federal port and customs networks. Notably, Port Botany immediately adjoins my electorate of Barton and holds a strong relevance for the people and industries within my electorate. In 2012-13 alone, 2.1 million containers were traded through the port across both import and export operations. Clearly the people and businesses of Barton stand to gain from maritime security at our ports, as well as a robust system of inspection and screening at our major airports. According to New South Wales Ports' executive summary for 2012-13, import quantities continue to rise on average four per cent per year through the port, as volume of cargo reliably increases at ports all around Australia. This cements our understanding that, when the volume of cargo consignments and passengers coming through our air and sea ports increases, our Customs authorities must be given corresponding increases in resources to maintain their standards of professionalism.

The bottom line in regard to this legislation is that we are moving steadily towards the gold standard of border protection that was at work under the leadership of the Howard government. This bill demonstrates that the priority of this government is to keep our people safe and never to surrender control of our borders. It maintains appropriate safeguards in the interests of privacy and simplicity of travel, while making the security of our borders a priority. And, indeed, it acts on the understanding that the first priority of government is to keep our people safe—to resolve blind spots and to extend our professionalism, efficiency and vigilance in the cause of maintaining and strengthening the integrity of our borders. I commend this bill to the House.

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Customs Amendment Bill 2014 makes a number of amendments to the Customs Act aimed at increasing Australian Border Security and Customs powers. While these changes are rather technical and minor, it would be wrong to assume this bill is somehow insignificant or less important than others.

Currently, the Customs Act does not contain the provisions that customs agents require to fully carry out their duties. This is not the fault of any party or person but rather a technical oversight that we now must fix. Through due diligence, this government has identified where the legislative holes are and has dedicated itself to ameliorative action.

One technical issue that this bill will resolve relates to the crossover between domestic and international flights and voyages. Currently, customs agents do not have the powers to search the baggage of domestic travellers on international flights. Nor can they examine domestic cargo on international flights. This is problematic as passengers often travel domestically on a leg of an international flight. These passengers are mixed with international travellers; their baggage goes in the same storage. This is further problematic as Customs officials lack the powers to search and examine baggage on flights or voyages that arrive in places other than proclaimed ports and airports.

All of these loopholes provide opportunities for those who want to avoid Customs officials to exchange goods with other travellers. This creates numerous problems for authorities, each serious in their own way. Airports and docks are supposed to be sterile environments in every sense of the word. Anything that can be done to ensure the high standards of quarantine in this country must be done.

First and foremost, we must ensure that all items coming and going are essentially clean and free of any pests or diseases that may be dangerous to our ecosystem. We all know of the importance of biosecurity. Our diverse ecosystem, our stunning landscapes and our bountiful agriculture all depend on biosecurity. Stopping potentially harmful material from entering the country is the backbone of preserving these things.

This bill serves to improve our defences in two ways. First of all, with these measures, customs agents will be able to carry out their duties at places where ships and aircraft often arrive in Australia that would otherwise not be proclaimed ports or airports. Ships and aircraft land in areas that fall outside the current regulations for numerous reasons. Cruise ships, for example, can often land in non-proclaimed areas. Both vessels and aircraft can land in non-proclaimed areas due to weather as well. Numerous other exceptions also apply.

This bill also relates to security of the general kind. For every time I mention biosecurity, my point would still ring true if I discussed security generally instead. It is our ability to regulate what comes in and out of our country that grants us the protective shield against prohibited items such as firearms and narcotics.

We all know of the dangers our country now faces given our escalated security climate. The savage advance of the so-called Islamic State in the Middle East underlines the seriousness of it all. We know that this terror risk has already come to our shores. We know dozens if not hundreds of Australians have joined jihadist groups overseas. We know they have fought, killed and died. Some have even returned to Australia, bringing back their terrorist know-how and bloodlust to our streets.

These amendments will be able to give our Customs agents the power they need to better control the entry points for goods. Currently, the opportunity exists for those intending to smuggle prohibited items, firearms perhaps, into Australia.

It is well known that this government is committed to restoring the country's finances and getting the budget back on track. This involves both cutting costs and raising revenue. The Australian government went to the previous election with the solemn promise that the necessary decisions would be made in order to get the country back in the black. After six years of Labor, the task is unsurprisingly large, but by no means insurmountable.

What this bill does more than anything else is send a very clear and strong message to the Australian public, and those intending to try their luck, that this government is serious about law and order. The government has, over the last 15 months, consistently brought forward legislation to significantly strengthen the hand of Customs officials. Our commitment to defending the homeland, and thwarting those who seek to do us ill or undermine our rule of law, is resolute. This resolution has not only been confined to financial support, though we have increased the allocations in this regard. Innovation and vision are also a feature of what this government is doing in the customs space.

Take for example the announced Border Force. This will represent a new departure for both the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, and Customs. This is logical. It is a holistic approach that seeks to utilise to best effect every bit of acquired expertise and experience available to the Commonwealth. The days of agencies not being in sync is coming to an end. The right hand will know what left hand is doing. This measure, due to come into effect on 1 July 2015, is timely and benchmarks against international best practice.

Crime and criminality, like any industry, are evolving and becoming ever more complex and sophisticated. We need a government of ideas, commitment and vision. I am pleased to report to this House that in the Abbott government, and in Minister Morrison in particular, we have such leadership.

It is disappointing but not surprising that even on an issue of national importance such as the reform and strengthening of border protection agencies, the Labor Party cannot take a 'Team Australia' approach. Labor run scare stories and feed fantasies to the media about tensions, factions, and leadership tilts inside the cabinet. As if describing their own sorry story of government, they make up any old thing—just destructive and negative. The Australian people are sick and tired of that same old relentless negativity.

The people and drug smugglers know fact from fiction, and it is as simple as this: the coalition is tough on crime and even tougher on the criminals. There are no bleeding hearts here. Our side cares about the results and doing whatever it takes to keep our streets clean from the scourge of drugs and keep our country safe.

Though the particular bill under discussion is not a revolutionary piece of legislation, it is important. Important in the specific but also in the general. In the specific, tightening up and closing down loopholes is critical to keep ahead of the crims. In the general, it adds to a growing mountain of bills that this government have brought forward to strengthen the hand of our law enforcement officers. It clearly shows our commitment to keep our promise to the Australian people to stop the boats and secure our borders.

It really boils down to a question of who did we make legislation for: the criminals or the law abiding citizens? Too often Labor, and particularly the Greens, will loll between lambasting the government and putting out a dirge, all for the benefit of the innocent criminal. Let me tell them that there is no such thing as an ordinary, decent criminal. There is always a victim. The popular notion that some crimes and drugs are harmless is one of the most insidious and damaging fallacies circulating in our community. It must be put to bed for good. Illegal drugs are illegal for a reason, and our reasons are the health and wellbeing of the Australian public. Similarly, when this bill expands the eligible search zone and area for Customs officials at ports and airports, there really should be no restrictions on search zones at airports and ports.

So I applaud the minister for not only talking tough, but also matching his words with actions. This bill is testimony to that. The problem we face is that a terrorist could be anyone, and that terrorist need only be lucky once. We need to be lucky every time.

There cannot be anyone of sane and sound mind in this place who could argue against putting our domestic passenger and freight arrangements on the same footing as our international ones. Likewise, this bill extends common sense to the area of where ships dock. If a ship docks outside a designated port or major shipping point it will be open to the same level of checking. There are practical measures that address lacunas in the current legislation. It is not insignificant, as the volume of passenger and commercial ferries increases daily. Their cargo of people and products should be eligible to be checked if docked at a non-major shipping port. This bill makes the case. The cruise ship industry regularly seeks permission to visit non-proclaimed areas on the Australian coastline. Industries involved in offshore resource activities do not utilise traditional port facilities, and often seek permission to bring vessels direct to an offshore installation. The master of a ship or pilot of an aircraft—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue his remarks when the debate is resumed.