Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I move Democrat amendment R(5) on sheet 5015 revised:

(5)    Schedule 2, item 4, page 6 (after line 32), after subsection 234A(1B), insert:

      (1C)    For the purposes of subsection (1B), the exercise of the power of a Collector of Customs to issue a written notice directing the holder of a security identification card not to enter into, or be in or on a section 234AA place, or other relevant place, is limited to circumstances where an immediate criminal or security threat or emergency is present in the section 234AA place, or other relevant place.

     (1D)    A Collector may not issue a direction in accordance with subsection (1B) to a person who is a member of one of the following classes:

             (a)    a person holding a valid visitor identification card;

             (b)    a person holding a valid security identification card;

             (c)    a lawyer attending in his or her capacity as a lawyer;

             (d)    a medical practitioner attending in his or her capacity as a medical practitioner;

             (e)    a union official attending in his or her capacity as a union official;

              (f)    a translator attending in his or her capacity as a translator;

             (g)    a member of such other class of persons as may be prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.

The amendment attempts to reflect the recommendation of the committee to limit the exercise of the power of the Customs officer to immediate criminal or security threats or an emergency presence in the section 234AA place or other relevant place. The amendment to section 234A(1B) attempts to set up a system where Customs can exclude anyone it likes from certain areas, whether or not they have a security identification card. As I have pointed out previously, if a person has had their bag searched and needs a translator or lawyer then the Customs officer could exclude the person who would be there to assist the person of interest without giving reasons. I am moving the amendment to ensure that certain people with specific skills are not able to be excluded by Customs and must be given access for legitimate purposes.

I know the minister addressed this in his second reading speech and indicated that he felt it was not appropriate for the government to support the committee recommendation. I nevertheless hold to the view that if you are starting to move to limit civil liberties in the way you are, it is better to do so on a restricted basis and then, if you discover that that restricted basis is insufficient, to advance it more broadly. The government seems to be taking a very broad attitude in its restrictions right at the outset.