Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Enhanced Border Controls and Other Measures) Bill 2008. The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service plays a vital role in preventing the illegal movement of people and harmful goods across Australia’s borders. Customs protects the Australian community through the interception of illegal drugs and firearms, which are a high priority. Sophisticated techniques are used by Customs to target high-risk aircraft, vessels, cargo, postal items and travellers. This includes intelligence analysis, computer based analysis, detector dogs and various other technologies which are improving all the time.

On 4 December 2008, Prime Minister Rudd announced the renaming of the Australian Customs Service to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. Whilst the purpose of the new name is to recognise the important border protection responsibilities that Customs has, including its revamped role in protecting our maritime borders, it is a shame that the Rudd Labor government cannot couple this with the funding that Customs so badly needs. Additional capabilities have been given to the Customs and Border Protection Service under the new arrangement, including analysing and coordinating the gathering of intelligence, coordinating surveillance and on-water response and engaging internationally to deter maritime people smugglers.

But how can Customs possibly absorb these new functions when their funding has been drastically cut by the Rudd government? The Rudd Labor government’s $51.5 million in budget cuts to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, in real terms, has significantly hampered the ability of Customs to respond to the multitude of security threats that land on Australia’s borders. Customs does not only protect Australian borders from illegal boat arrivals. In conjunction with several other tasks, Customs is responsible for overseeing mass volumes of imports and exports, along with detecting illicit drugs and prohibited imports to ensure that they do not get through the gate.

Customs officers are the front line in protecting our borders from these threats, and the Rudd Labor government took this for granted when they recklessly slashed funds to our premier border protection agency. Our border protection arrangements have deteriorated significantly since the election of the Rudd Labor government, I believe. It is obvious that border protection is not a priority, and Mr Rudd and Labor could well be setting Australia up for a border security disaster. Rather than do something meaningful, Mr Rudd, the eternal bureaucrat, chooses to rename and reshuffle agencies in an attempt to be seen to be doing something about the increasing numbers of people smugglers who are testing the waters under this new Labor government.

This bill amends the Customs Act 1901 to enhance Australia’s border security protection measures. In particular, the bill aims to strengthen the law enforcement and regulatory powers of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, both by introducing new powers in relation to offshore maritime and sea port environments and by ensuring that existing powers are consistent with other Commonwealth legislation, such as the Crimes Act 1914. The bill contains several amendments which, while not necessarily fitting cohesively together, can be grouped into four main categories. I will briefly touch on a couple of the key amendments in each of the four categories.

The first relates to industry suggestions and improvements. I commend the activity that Customs has undertaken in listening to industry via a discussion process, adopting their suggestions, advocating for these improvements and now legislating them. I will touch on schedule 3 of the bill, which deals with the exception to the offence of failing to make a cargo report. Currently, cargo reports for ships have to be made at least 48 hours before the ship arrives in port. Cargo reports for aircraft must be made at least two hours before the estimated time of arrival of the aircraft. Shorter periods apply for short journeys. An offence is committed and is chased most appropriately if the cargo report is late. In some circumstances, the estimated time of arrival of a ship or aircraft is earlier than it actually does arrive. Following discussions with industry, it was agreed that Customs would not prosecute or serve infringement notices in relation to reports that are made at least 48 hours for ships and two hours for aircraft before the actual time of arrival of the ship or aircraft. The amendment gives legislative effect to that agreement. While a couple of other suggestions have been adopted from industry ideas, I do not think there is any need to go into further detail.

The second category of amendments concerns consistency with international law and other Commonwealth legislation. I think the key amendment here deals with the harmonisation of boarding powers. Currently, the commander of a ship or aircraft must request to board another ship before boarding and other powers can be exercised. A request has to be formally made but, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, there is actually no requirement that such a request be made before a ship can be boarded except in the case of the commencement of a hot pursuit of a ship. Leaving aside the hot pursuit, schedule 5 proposes to remove the requirement to make a request to board except when a ship is going to be chased. This is consistent with other similar Commonwealth legislation and makes perfect sense when you consider the role of Customs on the high seas and the speed with which they need to go about their business boarding sometimes unfriendly vessels.

The third category of amendments involves strengthening the powers of Customs to provide alignment with community expectations and to recognise the environments in which Customs operate. There was a key amendment here around missing goods. Currently, the Customs Act requires people who deal with goods for which duty is charged and which are subject to the control of Customs to keep them safely in account for if and when they are requested. If these obligations are not satisfied then Customs can demand the payment of an amount equal to the duty payable on those goods. In other words, the goods have to be stored, managed and moved appropriately. The current provisions do not cover non-dutiable goods that are subject to the control of Customs. While no duty applies to these goods, the goods still need to be accounted for, as they might be prohibited goods such as weapons. The amendments in schedule 4 create a new offence of failing to keep goods that are subject to the control of Customs safely or failing to account for such goods to the satisfaction of a collector of customs if required to do so. I think this puts an appropriate onus on industry to manage, as I said, the storage and transportation of goods for which duty is payable or non-dutiable goods that are subject to the control of Customs.

The other item under this category which is worth noting is schedule 9, dealing with prohibited items on board a ship or aircraft. Currently, if when searching ships Customs officers come across goods that, if they were imported into Australia, would be prohibited and should and can be seized by Customs, the goods are not part of the cargo and often no crew will claim the goods, in these cases, because of the common-law requirements for invitation, the goods are taken not to be imported.

This amendment proposes two alternatives to deal with such a situation, depending on whether they are claimed or not. First, Customs officers will be able to seize, without warrant, goods that are located on board a ship or aircraft and which are not listed in part of the cargo report, not claimed as baggage or are otherwise accounted for. Second, all items on board a ship or aircraft that has arrived in Australia that are either stores or personal effects of the crew, and which would be considered a prohibited import if they were imported into Australia, must now be locked on board the ship or aircraft, or taken into custody by Customs, until the ship or aircraft departs Australia. This avoids the issue of Customs officers leaving the goods, returning with a warrant, and finding that they have disappeared into thin air.

The fourth category of amendments is to clarify Customs existing powers. One of the amendments that is, I think, worth noting is the power to moor. Section 194 of the Customs Act states that a Customs vessel may be moored ‘upon any part of the coast, or the shores, banks or beaches of any port, bay, harbour, lake or river’. This schedule proposes to allow Customs vessels to be moored to any man-made structure at, or in, any of the natural features already covered by this section. So, as a matter of general practice, the officer in charge of a Customs vessel will look, of course, to consult with, or obtain the assistance of, the owner of the man-made structure. We need to recognise that many Australian ports that deal with the export of our resources are now privately owned, particularly in the north. So, for example, Customs would consult on the location of other vessels or potential hazards within a port, or those associated with structures, or whether the proposed mooring is able to support the load of the relevant Customs vessel and is appropriate and safe et cetera. Whilst Customs do work closely in conjunction with the managers of the port, I do agree that they need to have the power to moor when and where they are required, depending on the operation in which they are involved, and I am satisfied that their consultation process is sensible, takes into account the economic life of the port and does not place an undue burden on those who manage it. I know that they will continue to approach their activities in that spirit.

I would like to conclude by reminding the House of the coalition’s strong record on border security. In government, we created a single body in 2005—the Border Protection Command—to coordinate the planning, surveillance, intelligence and deployments of Coastwatch and the Australian Defence Force. It added teeth to border protection with approximately 450 personnel, improved resources and newer, tougher rules of engagement. The Border Protection Command is Australia’s lead organisation for security response in Australia’s maritime domain and, in its reinvented role under the changes that I alluded to by the government at the end of last year, it will still maintain that role.

When in government, the coalition built strong relationships with neighbouring countries on the need for action to stop people-smuggling. Since June 2006, Australian authorities have helped Indonesia to intercept and detain 350 people who were illegally attempting to travel to Australia. The coalition government effectively deterred illegal immigration by legislating to allow offshore processing, maintaining mandatory detention and excising from our migration zone those territories off our coast that were magnets for people-smuggling. This uncompromising approach to border protection does work. In recent years, the traffic of illegal people-smuggling vessels has all but stopped. People-smuggling is a major threat to Australia’s security, as there are serious security and criminal concerns when people arriving in Australia are not properly identified or are not prepared to properly identify themselves. There are major quarantine and health risks. Processing illegal immigrants creates considerable logistical problems. It also contravenes Australia’s sovereignty, giving us less control over our borders.

The Rudd Labor government’s changed immigration laws relating to people-smuggling have put pressure on the already overstretched Customs resources, as well as on the resources of the Australian Federal Police. Since August 2008, as my colleague the shadow minister for immigration, the member for Murray, has reminded the House on many occasions, there have been eight boats and 199 illegal boat arrivals, not including those boats that were heading towards Australia but were intercepted by the Indonesians. If those boats were included, that would total 14 illegal boats destined for Australia.

The coalition also has a strong stance on illegal foreign fishing, and Customs is responsible for the prevention of incursions by illegal foreign fishers in the Australian exclusive economic zone. As mentioned in Customs’ annual report 2007-08, the coalition government in the 2007 budget gave Customs additional funding of $197 million over four years to counter the increased number of illegal foreign fishing vessels entering Australia’s northern waters. The coalition’s response to the threat was based on two streams of activity: the heightened surveillance enforcement in Australia’s maritime zones, supported by an increased capacity to detain and process additional illegal fishers onshore and destroy their vessels, and efforts in Indonesia to support economic development and alternative livelihoods for fishing communities combined with in-country programs to highlight the consequences of illegal activity in Australia’s waters. From mid-2006 there was a marked reduction in sightings of foreign fishing vessels in Australian waters. The turnaround was due to the successful initiatives of the coalition government, including the deployment of Customs’ contracted vessel, Triton, which can tow multiple apprehended fishing boats and accommodate up to 30 detained persons and up to 30 officials, including armed Customs maritime enforcement officers, fisheries officers and specialised equipment operators.

In conclusion, our position on this bill is that we do support the changes recommended in order to strengthen the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. These changes do not give Customs additional powers but they do clarify the powers they already have. They streamline their operations and, ultimately, are designed to ensure the proper functioning of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, particularly in their role in border control. Many of the proposed amendments do no more than align the Customs Act with the provisions in other Commonwealth legislation, particularly the Crimes Act and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which Australia is a party. Some of these powers, while they do not exist specifically in the Customs Act at present, are actually available to Customs officers. While we support the bill, the coalition believes that the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service does need to be adequately funded along with other key agencies, particularly the Australian Federal Police, and it is a shame that Mr Rudd and Labor do not seem to view Australia’s national security as a priority.

See this speech in context