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

I rise to speak on the Australian Border Force Bill 2015 and the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Australian Border Force) Bill 2015.

In the past decade Australia has seen a significant increase in its border interactions from both air and sea, and with this increase comes a need to ensure that our border protection authorities remain vigilant and have the capacity to respond to the unique challenges this presents to our nation.

People often think of border interactions as those instances where a passenger gets on or off a flight at an airport or boards a vessel at one of our many ports, but this only forms part of the framework that our border protection and Customs officers operate in and protect every minute of every day and, as I said, this is only increasing.

According to statistics outlined in the Customs Annual report 2003-04 and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service Annual report 2013-14, Australia has seen a 44.17 per cent increase in the number of international passenger and crew border interactions from air and sea; an 83.59 per cent increase in the amount of incoming air cargo; and a 40.6 per cent increase in the amount of incoming sea cargo. This is the increase Australia has already seen in the past decade, but according to a recent joint report by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and Customs and Border Protection entitled Blueprint for integration, Australia's border interactions are not in any way slowing down.

In the globalised and digital world we live in, travel is becoming cheaper every day and communication more fast paced and dynamic than some of us could have even imagined. As a result, in the next four years the volume of people and goods crossing our borders is only set to increase further. In fact, it is projected to increase by 54 per cent for air cargo, by 23 per cent for air and sea travellers and by 17 per cent for sea cargo. I also found it very interesting to note that it is estimated in this same time frame that an additional 16.5 per cent student visas will be granted and 23 per cent more citizenship applications will be processed. As members can imagine, this is a lot of paperwork, a lot of processing and a lot of operational activities for both our immigration and Customs services.

By assessing and processing these statistics in this context it also highlights how these two departments regularly overlap and interact, which is what takes me to the heart of the bill before the House. That is because the aim of the Australian Border Force Bill 2015 and its cognate bill, the Customs and Other Legislation (Australian Border Force) Amendment Bill 2015, responds to this concept of duplication and overlapping by creating a new framework for border protection that ensures Australia's operative and processing capabilities are of the highest calibre and that our personnel uphold the integrity afforded by these offices.

To achieve this, and to ensure our detection methods in particular are meeting their objectives, it is therefore important for the government and our border protection personnel to regularly review their practices. It is through such a review that the framework of the bill before the House was designed and a series of reform methods identified for Australia's border continuum.

Each of these reform measures were announced by the former Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the Hon. Scott Morrison, in May 2014, and are now being implemented by the recently-appointed minister to this portfolio, the Hon. Peter Dutton—an appointment which I congratulate the minister on.

They are reforms which I fully support to ensure Australia's national security is not jeopardised onshore or offshore, in particular within our maritime sphere. I highlight Australia's maritime sphere in this context because I believe it is important to remind members that Australia is a very unique country. It includes approximately 37,000 kilometres of coastline, much of which is in remote regions, making it very difficult for our border protection officers to monitor.

The cognate bills before the House will respond to these challenges and vulnerabilities by consolidating Australia's immigration and Customs services to create a single integrated operational organisation—the Australian Border Force—within the Department of Immigration and Border Protection from 1 July. These are necessary reforms which will enhance those already passed in this place and the other, which have aimed to strengthen this government's and our law enforcement agencies' ability to safeguard Australia's national security and safeguard the lives of every individual in this place and outside it.

By integrating these agencies we will improve information sharing, remove duplication and ensure our Customs operatives are being directed as a cohesive unit under one departmental umbrella. As Minister Dutton highlighted in his speech in this place; integration is not a new concept. In fact it has been heralded by two of our western society's leading countries on national security: the United States, through the Department of Homeland Security, and in the United Kingdom with the UK Home Office.

This government has done its due diligence by taking note of how reforms have been introduced in these countries and what has and has not worked before creating a framework for our own reform measures. We have also assessed these reforms with due regard to the differences between these countries' intelligence services compared to Australia's, as well as to the unique challenges that Australia faces—particularly, as I mentioned earlier, due to our predominantly regional, and therefore largely unmanned, coastline.

Despite this challenge, as members on this side of the House know, the coalition is a government which throughout history has been recognised for its capability in protecting our country's national security. That is the view we intend to uphold now in the face of our latest terrorist threat from Daesh, or ISIL or any threat made in the future. This has also been reflected though our strong stance on border protection with regard to those who seek to enter our country illegally, through the coalition's very effective Operation Sovereign Borders policy.

This policy is in fact a perfect example of where integration has ensured policy objectives are met, as this government believes it can and will be achieved across the Customs and immigration portfolios through the provisions outlined in the bill before the House.

Operation Sovereign Borders is a policy that has stopped the flow of illegal arrivals on our shores which, as members know, blew out by unprecedented proportions under those opposite. Members on this side of the House would also remember that this is not because they were handed a failed policy as this government was. No. Those opposite created and then mismanaged their failed policy and, if this were not bad enough, they then stood in this place, time and time again, and refused to accept that their policy had failed.

Now, those opposite stand in this place and continue to criticise Operation Sovereign Borders, despite it achieving its objective to stop the boats—which is something they could not even dream of. Yes, colleagues: their policy was a failure, and it is a failure that can simply be defined by this number—51,798.

Now, I know that those opposite seem to have short memories about their policy failures, despite this being a number that should resonate very clearly with them. So, just to be sure I have acted with due diligence, I will remind the opposition colleagues what this number actually represents. This is the number of people who arrived in Australia illegally by boat, excluding crew, under those opposite's border protection policy failure from 2008 to 2013, following the scrapping of John Howard's Pacific Solution. It is a policy that was scrapped, not because it was unsuccessful in combating people smuggling but simply because it was a policy that a coalition government implemented.

Members may ask what the impact of this policy failure was. As I said, I would like to ensure I fact checked, as I do not want my colleagues to misunderstand just how monumental this policy failure was—not just for the government but for the hip pocket of every Australian. The cost of that failed policy was $11.5 billion. That is the bill all Australian taxpayers have been forced to pay because those opposite removed an effective policy initiative and decided that billions of dollars in cost blowouts over five years was a great alternative.

Of course, this failure has not only been felt in Australia. It has also been felt by those asylum seekers who have done the right thing and applied offshore for a humanitarian visa but have been rejected. This is not because they are ineligible or because the government wants to reject their application; it is because every additional illegal arrival that is granted a visa means one less Special Humanitarian Program Visa that can be granted.

Nobody can blame asylum seekers for wanting to live in Australia. This is a great nation that affords its citizens and those who reside here with some of the best education, medical, welfare, social and economic benefits in the modern world. Australia is a nation that prides itself on multiculturalism, on standing up for those who are less fortunate and on providing significant humanitarian assistance to countries around the world. What this government and the Australian people do not appreciate, however, is those who seek to take advantage of our good will. And we do not appreciate those who work with organised crime syndicates—because that is exactly what people smugglers are—to try to circumvent our laws.

As I mentioned previously, the bill before the House is part of a series of reform measures aimed at ensuring current vulnerabilities are addressed, particularly those created by the level of increased border interactions Australia is witnessing. Integration between our Customs and immigration departments will assist in achieving this, and will ensure our departments are implementing best practice methodology as identified in our international allies' respective agencies.

By establishing the Australian Border Force as the single operational organisation within the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, the ABF will be responsible for border control and investigations, both land and maritime, and will also be responsible for compliance and enforcement across Customs and immigration, including onshore detentions and offshore processing operations. Policy support would therefore be delivered by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. In this context, 'policy' largely refers to processing of citizenship, refugee and humanitarian visas, immigration compliance and revenue collection. The department would also be responsible for corporate and border services such as security, ICT, human resources, visa identity and offshore services.

As a result of these reforms, staff performing operational functions in the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service and the Department of Immigration and Border Protection will move into the newly-formed ABF. A couple of examples of departmental staff who would transfer include those working in immigration compliance, enforcement and detention services.

As members can see, this consolidation under one department, where all procedural actions are undertaken by one unit and all operational by another across both the Customs and immigration portfolios, will ensure intelligence sharing is maximised. It will create greater efficiencies within that portfolio and will reduce the duplication that we currently see.

As part of this integration process, the bill will also create an Australian Border Force Commissioner as a statutory officer to command and oversee this important enforcement entity. The commissioner will report directly to the minister and will also be the Comptroller-General of Customs, which, as members would know, is the person responsible for enforcing Australia's customs law and collecting border revenue. As the minister has stated:

The commissioner will have the same standing as other heads of key national security related agencies, such as the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police or the Chief of the Australian Defence Force.

Department personnel will report to the portfolio secretary, who then reports directly to the minister.

Part of these reforms also reflects Australia's belief that our Immigration and Customs personnel should be of the highest character and integrity. A provision in the bill will therefore allow certain workers with the ABF to make and subscribe an oath or affirmation. The commissioner will also be required to make and subscribe an oath or affirmation on commencement of his or her office.

The bill will also require all Immigration and Border Protection workers to undergo an alcohol-screening test, an alcohol breath test and an alcohol blood test or a prohibited drug test on request. If an instance of misconduct is identified, reform provisions in the bill will also establish resignation and termination measures. In these instances, if the employee tenders their resignation, the secretary of the department may opt to defer the date of that resignation by up to 90 days to ensure an APS code of conduct investigation can be appropriately carried out.

Subsequent reforms that reflect previously implemented information prohibitions in other Customs and national security bills put before the House will also be made to ensure practices are uniform across these agencies' portfolios. Such prohibitions include the unauthorised making of a record or disclosure of protected information, the breach of which would carry an imprisonment period of two years.

Consequential reforms will also be enacted under the bill's cognate legislation, the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Australian Border Force) Bill 2015, repealing the Customs Administration Act 1985 and amending a number of other acts, including the Customs Act 1901. These amendments are particularly important, as they will ensure associated bills that make reference to these departments are not deemed invalid. An example of a key provision in this cognate bill is in relation to the Crimes Act, which makes a number of references to officers of Customs or the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. An example of this is Customs officers' exemption from criminal liability within the Crimes Act from a Commonwealth, state or territory offence when involved in a controlled operation, which is often in regard to those operations to stop or prevent organised crime. The bill will therefore ensure all references to these officers are maintained as part of the integration process, by substituting references to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service with the consolidated Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

As I have previously highlighted to the House, I have witnessed firsthand on more than one occasion the integral role Australia's Customs and Border Protection officers play in meeting Australia's national security objectives. It was only recently that I welcomed the opportunity to join with the Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the Hon. Michaelia Cash, at Perth Airport's Customs House to see 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. As was highlighted to me that day, from January to October last year, over 12 kilograms of methamphetamine, or 'ice', 1.5 tonnes of molasses tobacco and over 2,000 prohibited weapons, including firearms, knuckledusters, automatic knives and laser pointers, were seized from air cargo by Perth's Customs officers. It is clear that, whether it is onshore or offshore, our Customs and Immigration officers are working hard to ensure every Australian is protected from the threats that face us at our borders, but, when vulnerabilities are identified, they need to be responded to swiftly and effectively.

Like my government colleagues and our international allies, I believe this is best-practice methodology and I fully endorse and support this legislation before the House.

See this speech in context