The SPEAKER ( Ms Anna Burke ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
The next decade will see more young Australian combat veterans live in our community than since the 1970s.
… demanding changes in the way the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs care for service personnel and veterans.
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Fadden speaking for a period not exceeding 17 minutes.
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2012-2013
That this bill be now read a second time.
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2012-2013
That this bill be now read a second time.
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 , the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of a new post-entry quarantine facility at Mickleham, Victoria.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012
Should we as Australians be grateful to be able to exist or should we ask to be given the chance to contribute and prosper?
The Coalition is so committed to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, for instance, that we've offered to co-chair a bi-partisan parliamentary committee so that support for it doesn't flag across the three terms of parliament and among the nine different governments needed to make it work.
Should we as Australians be grateful to be able to exist or should we ask to be given the chance to contribute and prosper?
The Coalition is so committed to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, for instance, that we've offered to co-chair a bi-partisan parliamentary committee so that support for it doesn't flag across the three terms of parliament and among the nine different governments needed to make it work.
It will never be delivered by the federal government; it will never be delivered by the state government; it will never be delivered by the services on the ground. It will be delivered by the parents and the families that surround people with disabilities.
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Truss speaking for a period not exceeding 11 minutes.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012
I receive a part payment, sixty-five dollars and fourteen cents per fortnight, with the remainder paid to my ex-husband. We share care of our son, who is 21. He has Down syndrome. From time to time, Centrelink reviews eligibility for this payment. I find this extremely frustrating. My son has an intellectual disability. There is no cure and he will never grow out of it.
The payment is small and sometimes I feel like giving up the bureaucratic battle. But I don't. I fill out the form and visit the GP to complete another form and wait to hear if I've been able to prove disability. That makes me sad.
… risk is shared as well, where those hit with life's cruellest blows get the help they need.
Vision 2020 Australia rejects the exclusion to the NDIS for people aged 65 years or over … and seeks guarantees that mechanisms will be established ensuring that all people who are blind or have functional vision loss will have access to equitable disability services and support and will not be disadvantaged on the basis of their age.
We will be back in the black by 2012-13, on time, as promised.
The alternative—meandering back to surplus—would compound the pressures in our economy and push up the cost of living for pensioners and working people.
… failure is not an option here and we won't fail.
We think certainty is absolutely paramount when it comes to the retirement income system ...
We stated our concern last year that there are still people in the Liberal Party who believe that all small businesses vote for the coalition and therefore there is no need to do anything special for the small business community. We still have that concern and will continue to have dialogue with key coalition shadow ministers as we head towards an election in 2013. It is time that the whole of the coalition came to recognise that small businesses and independent contractors are in fact a mainstay of the economy and need fairness and transparency in policy and process.
That the House take note of the following documents:
Corporations and Financial Services Parliamentary Joint Committee Statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Report, August 2011 Government response.
Intelligence and Security Parliamentary Joint Committee Review of the re-listing of Ansar al-Islam, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi Government response.
Five terrorist organisations Government response.
Hizballah's External Security Organisation Government response.
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Melbourne moving the following motion forthwith—
That private Members’ business item No. 12, Government investment in research, standing in the name of the Member for Melbourne on the Notice Paper, be returned from the Federation Chamber and considered immediately
The House divided. [15:44]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
The uncertainty created by the Government with regard to our superannuation system.
Compulsory superannuation is one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted by government on the Australian people.
Compulsory superannuation is possibly the greatest confidence trick of the last decade.
I have to say of this superannuation guarantee legislation … it is both stupid and dishonest.
… imposing compulsory superannuation on individuals does not increase total savings.
We think certainty is absolutely paramount when it comes to the retirement income system, and we want people to have the confidence that they can save in the way in which they have in the past.
I think you should proceed with caution if you are the government in an election year. I would have said it is the first cardinal rule here.
The government does not understand that this undermines the confidence of everyone because they think that they're next.
Short-term budget decisions are undermining the foundation of the super system.
Undermining the provision of long-term capital could have a significant impact on the economy, which should greatly concern any Australian.
The continual erosion of super tax concessions to meet short-term fiscal goals is in danger of being permanently damaging to the effectiveness of super as Australia's key retirement savings vehicle.
To start to dismantle super concessions can only be an electoral negative. The electorate will not swallow super as middle-class welfare.
You've got the appropriate framework for tax treatment of super.
Effectiveness of the government developed mobile phone warning system needs to be tested under these trying conditions to ensure it would not be severely compromised as it depends upon the phone system in question transmitting warnings and information about current life-risk situations. If such circumstances were to be realised, we would be faced with a scenario of public emergency warnings not being heard in one of the most heavily populated and fire prone areas in the state.
I share Mr Brown's concerns. Lives are at risk because the government is failing to ensure adequate mobile coverage on the Mornington Peninsula. The opening of the Peninsula Link Freeway, which will bring more tourists to the area, puts further pressure on a system that can't already cope. The government is spending billions on an NBN when areas such as the Mornington Peninsula don't even have an adequate mobile phone service.
… he had a long and great life, of which 3/4 of a century was here in OZ. He always told us the best thing his parents did for him was to send him to AUSTRALIA. He said "if you put in the effort, respect people, have respect for yourself, you will get everything you'll ever need from Australia" he loved it here. We were lucky to have him and call him our father.
To the Viennese, homes are only to sleep; the coffee house is their home away from home.
… addressing regulatory and other impediments to the timely development of our gas resources, particularly new CSG and shale gas resources.
Bureaucracy is like setting up scaffolding around a house to paint the place, and instead painting the scaffolding for 25 years until the house finally falls down.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) took the chair at 09:30.
The Coalition Government is aware of recent efforts to improve amenities at North Shore, however the Government has no plans or available funding to further upgrade the station.
We pride ourselves on working with students, parents, carers and the school community to deliver quality education, allowing our children to experience a unique education within a safe and environmentally friendly surrounding.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012
… we cannot confidently say that we have succeeded as we would like to have succeeded if we have not managed to extend opportunity and care, dignity and hope to the indigenous people of Australia—the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people.
The Mabo decision marked a turning point for reconciliation in Australia.
… was a significant step forward in truly recognising the proud history of the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures on our planet.
This is a fundamental test of our social goals and our national will: our ability to say to ourselves and the rest of the world that Australia is a first rate social democracy, that we are what we should be—truly the land of the fair go and the better chance.
Perhaps when we recognise what we have in common we will see the things which must be done—the practical things.
The message should be that there is nothing to fear or lose in the recognition of historical truth, or the extension of social justice, or the deepening of Australian social democracy to include Indigenous Australians. There is everything to gain.
There comes a time in the history of nations when their peoples must become fully reconciled to their past if they are to go forward with confidence to embrace their future. Our nation, Australia, has reached such a time.
Because a time has come, well and truly come, for all peoples of our great country, for all citizens of our great Commonwealth, for all Australians—those who are Indigenous and those who are not—to come together to reconcile and together build a new future for our nation.
In my experience of this world, two qualities are always in greater need—human understanding and compassion.
There is a new spirit in this land. There is a new spirit which reaches out to embrace the Indigenous people of this country, so different from the spirit that was abroad when the Prime Minister and I were young. It is a tribute to so many people in this place and around our country that this is now the case.
We're gathered to take a remarkable step forward. Forward to a nation that acknowledges its history, its heritage in its founding document. Forward to a nation who stands up to be counted as opponents of racism and proponents of recognition.
… we accept that millions of Australians' hopes and dreams are resting on constitutional recognition of Indigenous people. … It is very important that we should appropriately acknowledge the place of Indigenous people at the heart of modern Australia.
It’s time for us to recognise the first Australians. Let's write the opening chapter of our national story into our founding document of law
More I think than most Australians recognise, the plight of Aboriginal Australians affects us all.
For those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to share,
Recognising that the continent and its islands now known as Australia were first occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, …
Acknowledging the continuing relationship of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with their traditional lands and waters,
Respecting the continuing cultures, languages and heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and
Acknowledging the need to secure the advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples,
… the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
(1) The national language of the Commonwealth of Australia is English.
(2) The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages are the original Australian languages, a part of our national heritage.
It has been said from time to time that Aboriginals should be given full citizenship rights. Briefly as far as can be seen at present, the majority of Aborigines, as defined by the Act,—
have all citizenship rights except the following:
(a) They cannot exercise franchise at Federal elections.
(b) They are prohibited from obtaining liquor.
(c) If Aboriginal blood predominates they cannot receive maternity allowance or old-age or invalid pension from the Commonwealth Government. …
(d) Residents on stations have been debarred from receiving relief work provided by the Government of this State.
(e) Family endowments payments are in general, made to Aboriginals by means of orders for goods instead of in cash.
(f) Certain restrictions may be imposed on Aboriginals in accordance with the provision of the Act.
Generally speaking the restrictions imposed by the present law of this State—
are in the interests of the Aborigines, and at the present time the Public Service Board's inquiries indicate that in general the opinion is that they should not be lifted, even though there are numerous Aborigines who might with justification be placed on an equal footing with the general community.
The general opinion of those most competent to speak appears to be however that their education has not yet reached the stage where the restrictions can be lifted as a general policy, without harmful effects on the majority.
… any adult person who is a native within the meaning of the Native Administration Act, 1905-1941, may make application for a Certificate of Citizenship to a resident or stipendiary magistrate or Government Resident in the magisterial district in which he resides.
… for the two years prior to the date of the application he has dissolved tribal and native association except with respect to lineal descendants or native relations of the first degree, and—
(a) that he has served in the Naval, Military or Air Force … and has … an honourable discharge; or
(b) that he is otherwise a fit and proper person to obtain a certificate of Citizenship.
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
The Parliament, on behalf of the people of Australia, recognises that the continent and the islands now known as Australia were first occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
The Parliament, on behalf of the people of Australia, acknowledges the continuing relationship of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with their traditional lands and waters.
The Parliament, on behalf of the people of Australia, acknowledges and respects the continuing cultures, languages and heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
… one group of Australians who have been denied their basic rights to the pursuit of happiness, to liberty and indeed to life itself for 180 years—since the very time when Europeans in the New World first proclaimed those rights as inalienable for all mankind.
… we cannot confidently say that we have succeeded as we would like to have succeeded if we have not managed to extend opportunity and care, dignity and hope to the Indigenous people of Australia—the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people.
Recognising that the continent and its islands now known as Australia were first occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
Acknowledging the continuing relationship of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with their traditional lands and waters;
Respecting the continuing cultures, languages and heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
Acknowledging the need to secure the advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
… make substantive change that is required … to reset the relationship, positively, between the first Australians and the rest of the country.
I am very hurt by Julie Bishop's false claims. Spreading lies with no conscience—
His words—
about a race that is being wiped out saddens us. We feel that we have been deceived.
We didn’t hear of ongoing Tamil abuse by the Sinhalese, that’s the point.
All those international representatives I have met with in the past four years as a parliamentarian were all unbiased with their questioning and came with an open heart. I felt Julie Bishop and her colleagues were taking sides with the Sri Lankan government. They did not care about Tamil grievances. The actions of people like Julie Bishop hurt us.
… … …
They did not want to understand our reasons.
When they visited Tamil areas, they did not speak to any Tamil civilians.
In (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, (d) 2011-12, how many redundancies have been issued to Australian Customs and Border Protection Service staff based at (i) Sydney Airport, and (ii) the Sydney International Mail Gateway Facility.
The number of redundancies issued to Australian Customs and Border Protection Service staff at Sydney Airport and the Sydney International Mail Gateway Facility is as follows:
(i) Sydney Airport
(ii) Sydney International Mail Gateway Facility
All of these redundancies were voluntary.
(1) Has it ever been the policy of the Government or the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service to scan and/or inspect every item of baggage that is brought through Sydney Airport by international air passengers.
(2) In (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12, how much or what proportion of baggage brought through Sydney Airport by international air passengers was scanned and/or inspected.
(1) Customs and Border Protection has no record of a policy to scan or inspect every item of baggage at Sydney International Airport.
(2) The number of bags examined by Customs and Border Protection was:
(a) 2008-09 126,197
(b) 2009-10 129,079
(c) 2010-11 108,506
(d) 2011-12 115,543
How often are security clearances reviewed for Australian Customs and Border Protection Service staff working at Sydney Airport, and has this policy changed since 2007; and if so, how.
The regulations that dictated the requirements for security clearances in 2007 was the Protective Security Manual (PSM). At this time the security vetting function for Customs and Border Protection was conducted within the agency. The periodic review of clearances occurred as directed by the PSM or more frequently as information was obtained through a 'change of circumstances' of the employee or intelligence provided by an investigation that may have led to a 'review for cause' which is a review of a candidates suitability to hold a security clearance and access to security classified information.
Based on the position's duties and requirement to access classified information, the vast majority of staff within the Sydney Airport environment would require a PROTECTED security clearance. This level of security clearance required review after 10 years.
The timeframes for periodic review of security clearances is provided in the table below.
The Australian Government announced on 1 December 2009 that Commonwealth security vetting processes would be centralised to the Department of Defence. This central vetting unit is known as the Australian Government Security Vetting Agency (AGSVA). The AGSVA, operational from October 2010, began conducting security vetting for all Commonwealth agencies (apart from exempt agencies). Clearances granted by the AGSVA have whole-of-government effect.
With the introduction of the AGSVA the clearance level of PROTECTED altered to BASELINE and this level now requires review after 15 years. The regulations that dictate the requirements for security clearances is now the Protective Security Policy Framework.
Customs and Border Protection has also introduced an agency specific pre-employment check; the 'Organisational Suitability Assessment' (OSA). The OSA is undertaken every 5 years or when individual circumstances alter or an individual is brought to the attention of the Integrity and Professional Standards Branch. This level of scrutiny includes specific checks relevant to the law enforcement environments. These checks were previously undertaken during the security clearance process, within the agency, as the 'fit and proper' component.
In (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12, how many Australian Customs and Border Protection Service staff were employed at the Sydney International Mail Gateway Facility.
The number of Australian Customs and Border Protection Service staff employed at the Sydney International Mail Gateway Facility is as follows:
* Staff numbers for 2011/12 are as at 8 June 2012.
In (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, (d) 2011-12, how many referrals have been made to Australian Customs and Border Protection Service's Investigations Branch relating to firearms and how many of these referrals have resulted in (i) prosecutions and (ii) convictions.
(a) In 2008-09, the Investigations Branch of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs and Border Protection) received 141 referrals involving the alleged illegal importation of firearms and firearm parts. Of these referrals, three cases led to court proceedings, two of which resulted in convictions being recorded. In the remaining case, the offence was proven, but s19B of the Crimes Act 1914 was applied and no conviction was recorded.
(b) In 2009-10, the Investigations Branch of Customs and Border Protection received 118 referrals involving the alleged illegal importation of firearms and firearm parts. Of these referrals, eight cases led to court proceedings, five of which resulted in convictions being recorded. In the remaining three cases, the offences were proven, but s19B of the Crimes Act 1914 was applied and no convictions were recorded.
(c) In 2010-11, the Investigations Branch of Customs and Border Protection received 74 referrals involving the alleged illegal importation of firearms and firearm parts. Of these referrals, three cases led to court proceedings, two of which resulted in convictions being recorded. In the remaining case, the offence was proven, but s19B of the Crimes Act 1914 was applied and no conviction was recorded.
(d) In 2011-12 the Investigations Branch of Customs and Border Protection received 137 referrals involving the alleged illegal importation of firearms and firearm parts. Of these referrals, one matter is currently before the courts and other investigations are ongoing.
These statistics relate to both civil and criminal prosecutions and cover the importation of firearms and firearm parts such as barrels, silencers, stocks and ammunition. Referrals not accepted by the Investigations Branch of Customs and Border Protection all undergo compliance or enforcement action, either by the originating area, another area within the agency, or a separate agency with the capability to take appropriate action. Regardless of other enforcement outcomes, all firearms and firearms parts detected that are prohibited imports are seized at the border, unless the importer is able to provide a valid import permit.
It is worth noting that a decision to refer a matter for prosecution is made in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth . Where a matter is not prosecuted, there are a range of other actions that can be taken depending on the particular circumstances of the case at hand. These actions include; seizing the item and issuing a warning letter, initiating further audit activity, and issuing an infringement notice under the infringement notice scheme.
Are freight forwarding companies involved in delivering freight to Australia, required to provide background checks to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service for staff involved.
Freight forwarding companies that apply for or hold a customs broker, warehouse or depot licence are subject to fit and proper checks for the company and certain staff.
Depending on the nature and location of their work, the freight forwarding companies or their staff may be subject to relevant checks under other Commonwealth schemes such as the Maritime and Aviation Security Identification Card Schemes.
What proportion of investigations launched as part of 'Operation Polaris' have resulted in criminal convictions for (a) cigarette smuggling, (b) illegal firearm smuggling and (c) illicit drugs.
(a) Four (4) investigations have been undertaken into cigarette smuggling with no criminal convictions at this stage1.
(b) No investigations have been undertaken into illegal firearm smuggling.
(c) 14 investigations have been undertaken into illicit drugs which have resulted in two persons, both from the same investigation, being convicted of criminal charges. Both these matters remain before the Court pending sentencing2.
Footnote 1:
Three (3) investigations have prosecutions before the Courts.
One (1) investigation is ongoing.
Footnote 2:
Five (5) investigations either have matters before the Courts or are still being investigated.
Four (4) matters are inactive at the moment.
Four (4) matters are closed.
In respect of 'Operation Polaris', (a) when was it formed, and (b) how many investigations have resulted in (i) prosecutions, and (ii) convictions.
(a) Operation Polaris was formed on 1 July, 2010.
(b) (i) Six investigations have thus far resulted in prosecutions.
(b) (ii) One investigation has thus far resulted in a conviction (two persons).
How many Australian Customs and Border Protection Service officers have faced criminal charges as a result of investigations conducted by 'Operation Polaris? '
To date no Customs and Border Protection officers have faced criminal charges as a result of investigations conducted by 'Operation Polaris'.
In respect of investigations of Australian Customs and Border Protection Service officers for drug use, (a) how many have there been, and (b) how many have led to criminal convictions.
From 1 July 2011 until 30 June 2012, there were 4 allegations or reports of Customs and Border Protection officers using drugs. All 4 allegations were investigated by Customs and Border Protection Integrity and Professional Standards.
There were no charges or convictions as a result of these investigations:
Two allegations were found to be vexatious, malicious or unsubstantiated.
Two Customs and Border Protection officers were referred to the Organisational Suitability Assessments section for a review of their suitability with no adverse determinations made.
In respect of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service officers investigated for (a) importing illicit substances, and (b) importing prohibited items, (i) how many officers have been investigated, and (ii) how many of these investigations have resulted in criminal convictions.
For the period 1 July 2011 until 30 June 2012, there have been two allegations of Customs and Border Protection officers importing illicit substances. All matters have been investigated and no criminal convictions have been recorded.
In relation to allegations of Customs and Border Protection officers importing Prohibited Imports there have been two allegations. Both matters have been investigated and no criminal convictions have been recorded.
What procedures have the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service initiated since 2008-09 specifically targeting corrupt activity in its officers.
Staffing
Case Management System
Intelligence Capability
Integrity Risk Capability
The Integrity Risk area is staffed by six officers to deliver Corruption Prevention including the development of formal Fraud Control and Corruption Prevention Plans and education and training of all Customs and Border Protection employees.
o Fraud Control Plan 2008 – 2010; and
o Fraud Control and Corruption Prevention Plan 2010 – 2012.
Pre-Employment Clearances
Implemented from October 2010
Post-Employment Clearance Reviews
o Change of circumstances – requirement for staff to report circumstances of potential concern (eg associations; gambling; financial changes; relationship changes).
o Contact reporting – requirement for staff to report interaction with high risk persons (eg foreign intelligence officials; criminals etc).
o Risk based reviews of OSA and/or security clearance on occurrence of specific events (eg – critical incident; receipt of adverse intelligence etc).
o Security Investigations – initiated to investigate security breaches.
o Revalidation periods for Commonwealth security clearances range from 5 years to 15 years, depending on the level of clearance held by individuals.
Tone at the Top / Organisational Support
Integrity Partnership with ACLEI
New Measures
The Government has introduced legislation to implement a range of measures designed to enhance the corruption resistance of Customs and Border Protection and other Commonwealth agencies.
On 30 March 2012, I announced that the Federal Government will introduce legislation to conduct targeted integrity tests on Commonwealth officers suspected of corruption.
This includes officers from the Australian Federal Police (AFP), the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) and Customs and Border Protection.
Integrity tests are observed covert simulations designed to test whether a public official will respond to a situation in a manner that is illegal or would contravene an agency ' s standard of integrity.
Examples of integrity testing include:
Under the legislation the ACLEI and agencies including the AFP, Customs and Border Protection and the ACC will have the power to conduct targeted integrity testing.
The Integrity Commissioner, the head of the agency and/ or delegated SES will be responsible for authorising integrity tests.
The Integrity Commissioner will be made aware of all integrity tests being undertaken by agencies, and thereby have visibility of the operation of the integrity testing system.
Oversight of any use of covert police powers will be provided by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement.
Employee representatives are also being consulted on the development of the system to ensure appropriate safeguards are in place.
The legislation will build on the powers that the ACLEI already has including:
On 28 April 2012, I announced further reforms to make law enforcement more corruption resistant:
1. Doubling the number of enforcement agencies oversighted by the ACLEI. New agencies to be oversighted by ACLEI are:
o The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – Biosecurity Staff (formerly the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service);
o The Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre; and
o CrimTrac.
2. Doubling the resources allocated to ACLEI to oversight Customs and Border Protection.
3. A series of new measures the AFP and ACC are undertaking and the extension to Customs and Border Protection of the same integrity powers as the AFP and ACC. These include:
o The power to authorise drug and alcohol testing;
o The power for the CEO to make a declaration terminating the employment of an officer for serious misconduct; and
o The introduction of mandatory reporting requirements, whereby Customs and Border Protection officers are required to report any misconduct or corruption activity.
On 19 September 2012, I introduced legislation the Law Enforcement Integrity Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 into Parliament to bring about the measures announced.
In (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12, what was the number of full time staff employed in the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service Investigation Branch.
The number of full time staff employed in the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service Investigation Branch is as follows:
* Staff numbers include one Non Ongoing Full Time Employee.
**Staff numbers for 2011/12 are as at 8 June 2012.
In (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12, how many referrals have been made to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service Investigation Branch for (i) illegal firearms, (ii) illicit drugs, (iii) cigarette/tobacco smuggling, and (iv) steroid importation.
(a) In 2008-09 the following referrals were made to the Customs and Border Protection Investigations Branch:
(i) Illegal firearms and firearm parts - 141 referrals.
(ii) Illicit drugs - 277 referrals related to precursor chemicals. Detections of border controlled drugs such as narcotics and amphetamines are referred to the Australian Federal Police for investigation.
(iii) Illicit tobacco/cigarettes - 155 referrals.
(iv) Steroids – 645 referrals.
(b) In 2009-10 the following referrals were made to the Customs and Border Protection Investigations Branch:
(i) Illegal firearms and firearm parts - 118 referrals.
(ii) Illicit drugs - 428 referrals related to precursor chemicals. Detections of border controlled drugs such as narcotics and amphetamines are referred to the Australian Federal Police for investigation.
(iii) Illicit tobacco/cigarettes - 57 referrals.
(iv) Steroids – 831 referrals.
(c) In 2010-11 the following referrals were made to the Customs and Border Protection Investigations Branch:
(i) Illegal firearms and firearm parts - 74 referrals.
(ii) Illicit drugs - 414 referrals related to precursor chemicals. Detections of border controlled drugs such as narcotics and amphetamines are referred to the Australian Federal Police for investigation.
(iii) Illicit tobacco/cigarettes - 67 referrals.
(iv) Steroids – 963 referrals.
(d) In 2011-12 the following referrals were made to the Customs and Border Protection Investigations Branch:
(i) Illegal firearms and firearm parts - 137 referrals.
(ii) Illicit drugs - 566 referrals related to precursor chemicals. Detections of border controlled drugs such as narcotics and amphetamines are referred to the Australian Federal Police for investigation.
(iii) Illicit tobacco/cigarettes - 84 referrals.
(iv) Steroids – 904 referrals.
In respect of undeclared firearms, parts and accessories, in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12, (i) how many were detected by the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs), (ii) how many were seized by Customs, and (iii) how many were seized by Customs, were later returned.
Customs and Border Protection firearms statistics are referred to in terms of undeclared detections and seizures.
An imported firearm is considered an undeclared detection and detained at the border when it has been detected and identified by Customs and Border Protection as a prohibited or restricted firearm, AND where it has not been declared to Customs and Border Protection in accordance with the import requirements.
Seizures occur when the detained firearms have failed, or will fail, to meet import requirements.
Many are subsequently released after the importer has been given the opportunity to meet import requirements (eg. obtaining relevant import permits).
Table 1: Undeclared detections / seizures / releases of non-air, conventional firearms, parts and accessories, and magazines
Note: All figures are correct as of the date each respective yearly report was produced.
In respect of investigations launched by the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service Investigation Branch into suspected firearm smuggling, in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12, (i) how many were initiated, (ii) how many have led to referral for prosecution, and (iii) how many have led to criminal convictions.
(a) In 2008-09, the Investigations Branch of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs and Border Protection) initiated 42 investigations cases involving the alleged illegal importation of firearms and firearm parts. Of these cases, three led to court proceedings. All court proceedings produced successful prosecutions, of which one resulted in a criminal conviction being recorded.
(b) In 2009-10, the Investigations Branch of Customs and Border Protection initiated 30 investigations cases involving the alleged illegal importation of firearms and firearm parts. Of these cases, eight led to court proceedings. All court proceedings produced successful prosecutions, of which one resulted in a criminal conviction being recorded.
(c) In 2010-11, the Investigations Branch of Customs and Border Protection initiated 23 investigations cases involving the alleged illegal importation of firearms and firearm parts. Of these cases, three led to court proceedings. All court proceedings produced successful prosecutions, of which one resulted in a criminal conviction.
(d) In 2011-12, the Investigations Branch of Customs and Border Protection initiated 38 investigations cases involving the alleged illegal importation of firearms and firearm parts. One of these cases is currently before the courts. Investigations in relation to the remaining cases are ongoing.
Investigations undertaken by the Investigations Branch of Customs and Border Protection are all managed to an appropriate conclusion. Regardless of other enforcement outcomes, including whether or not prosecution is undertaken, all firearms and firearms parts detected that are prohibited imports are seized at the border, unless the importer is able to provide a valid import permit.
In (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12, how many staff were employed at (i) the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs) container examination facility at Port Botany, (ii) Customs' air cargo branch, and (iii) Customs' national and regional head office in Canberra
The number of staff employed at the Customs and Border Protection's container examination facility at Port Botany, Customs and Border Protection's Air Cargo Branch, and Customs and Border Protection's National and Regional Head Office in Canberra is as follows:
(i) Customs and Border Protection Service's Container Examination Facility at Port Botany
* Staff numbers as at 8 June 2012
(ii) Customs and Border Protection's Air Cargo Branch
* Staff numbers as at 8 June 2012
(iii) Customs and Border Protection's National and Regional Head Office in Canberra
* Staff numbers for 2011-12 are as at 8 June 2012
** Staff numbers include operational staff including Seagoing Marine Operations staff assigned to Customs and Border Protection's National Head Office in Canberra
In (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12, how many managed deliveries have Australian Customs and Border Protection Service officers arranged and completed.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service officers arranged and completed:
(a) 34 managed deliveries in relation to the illegal import of prohibited or regulated goods in 2008-09;
(b) 50 managed deliveries in 2009-10;
(c) 61 managed deliveries in 2010-11; and
(d) 75 managed deliveries in 2011-12.
In respect of referrals accepted for investigation by the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service that have resulted in prosecution through the courts, in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011‑12, (i) how many have there been, and (ii) how many were successful.
(a) In 2008-09, the Investigations Branch of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs and Border Protection) prosecuted 203 cases through the courts and had 199 successful prosecutions.
(b) In 2009-10, the Investigations Branch of Customs and Border Protection prosecuted 222 cases through the courts and had 211 successful prosecutions.
(c) In 2010-11, the Investigations Branch of Customs and Border Protection prosecuted 143 cases through the courts and had 129 successful prosecutions.
(d) In 2011-12, the Investigations Branch of Customs and Border Protection prosecuted 157 cases through the courts and had 147 successful prosecutions.
The interval between the commencement and completion of prosecutions often overlaps from one financial year to the next. Therefore the figures given above for prosecutions may also include prosecutions commenced in previous years.
In (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12, how many drug seizures made by Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs) were (i) the subject of warrant action conducted by Customs, and (ii) resulted in controlled operations by the Australian Federal Police.
When Customs and Border Protection detects drugs at the border they are referred to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) for further action.
Under the Crimes Act 1914, the AFP must submit a report to the Minister of Home Affairs and Justice, setting out the details required by subsections 15HM(2), (2A), (2B) and (2C) in relation to controlled operations for which the agency was the authorising agency during the previous 12 months. The data the AFP submits for this report does not distinguish between controlled operations conducted as a result of drug seizures made by Customs and Border Protection, and as such the AFP would be unable to provide figures to answer this query.
In respect of controlled actions by Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs) and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in regards to drug seizures resulting in prosecutions, in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12, (i) how many were there, and (ii) how many were successful.
Customs and Border Protection does not undertake controlled actions with regards to drug seizures. (See response to QoN1044).
The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) who undertake prosecution action in these matters advise they do not keep statistics on whether controlled actions were involved in the cases being prosecuted.
In respect of Australian Customs and Border Protection Service officers charged with corrupt activity, in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12, (i) how many were there, and (ii) how many prosecutions were successful.
Financial year 2008/2009
Customs and Border Protection raised two Briefs of Evidence for CDPP consideration involving two officers. One prosecution was successful.
Financial year 2009/2010
Customs and Border Protection raised four Briefs of Evidence for CDPP consideration. One prosecution was successful. The CDPP is deliberating on one other.
Financial year 2010/2011
Customs and Border Protection raised one Brief of Evidence for CDPP consideration. The CDPP is deliberating on this matter.
Financial year 2011/2012
No briefs of evidence were raised by Customs and Border Protection for corrupt activity.
On what date did the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service first raise concerns with the Government about the potential for the Integrated Cargo System to be monitored by corrupt or criminal elements?
16 May 2008.
The Integrated Cargo System (ICS) is primarily used by importers and the cargo industry reporting to Customs and Border Protection the movement of cargo across the border. Because of this primary role, the cargo industry needs to have a degree of access to the information held on ICS about cargo of direct interest to them. As such, limiting access beyond a certain point is not feasible as it would have a detrimental effect on the movement of trade.
However, Customs and Border Protection employs a number of operational contingencies to mitigate the risk. This includes:
o Authentication (knowing who the message is from);
o Integrity (knowing it has not been tampered with);
o Non-repudiation (knowing that the sender cannot deny having sent it); and
o Confidentiality (knowing that no unauthorised reading has occurred).
The following reviews are underway:
In (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12, how many calls have been lodged with the 'Customs Watch' information line.
(a) 2008-09 - 1547
(b) 2009-10 - 1506
(c) 2010-11 - 1515
(d) 2011-12 – 1392 as at 29 May 2012
In respect of the calls to the 'Customs Watch' information line, in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12, (i) how many raised allegations of corrupt action by Australian Customs and Border Protection Service staff, (ii) how many resulted in prosecution for criminal offences.
(i) (a) 2008-09 - 4 allegations
(b) 2009-10 - 5 allegations
(c) 2010-11 - 6 allegations
(d) 2011-12 (as at 30 April 2012) - 7
(ii) How many resulted in prosecution for criminal offences – None to date. One is still the subject of investigation.
The nature of these allegations range from minor complaints against Customs and Border Protection officers in carrying out their duties at the border, to more serious allegations of misconduct.
In respect of (a) the potential for outside visual monitoring of Port Botany's Container Examination Facility, and (b) the use of contracted labour to pack or unpack shipping containers transported through Port Botany or any other Australian port, (i) does the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs) have any concerns, (ii) have any concerns been raised with Customs, and (iii) has the Minister's office received information on any such concerns.
(a) (i) The Port Botany Examination facility is located outside the Port precinct proper and therefore truck movements to and from the facility from the wharves can be observed from public roads and other public areas. The 'hard stand' (concrete) area of the facility can be observed from neighbouring premises. Customs and Border Protection takes necessary precautions to protect the integrity of its operations and all examinations are conducted inside the Examination Hall.
(ii) Yes, concerns have been raised with Customs and Border Protection.
(iii) Yes, the Minister's Office has been briefed on action being undertaken by law enforcement agencies that are part of Taskforce Polaris to address these concerns.
(b) (i) Contracted labour is used to perform manual unpacking and repacking of sea cargo containers at examination facilities in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Fremantle, Adelaide, Darwin, Townsville and Newcastle. All contracted labour are required to undergo a baseline security clearance and are supervised while working at facilities.
(ii) Yes, concerns have been raised with Customs and Border Protection.
(iii) Yes, the Minister's Office has been briefed on action being undertaken by law enforcement agencies that are part of Taskforce Polaris to address these concerns.
In respect of the decision of Fair Work Australia (C2012/1050, C2012/1051, C2012/1052) which set aside agreements purportedly entered into between Macquarie Health and the Australia Nursing Foundation on the grounds that the employer's purported 'bargaining representative' had not been validly appointed under the Act, (a) what are the wider ramifications of Fair Work Australia's decision, (b) how will this affect the operation of 'Individual Flexibility Agreements', (c) what measures will be put in place to ensure that all bargaining representatives are properly appointed under the Act, and (d) what measures will be implemented to ensure that both employers and employees are given the tools to enable them to verify whether bargaining representatives have been properly appointed under the Act.
(a) It is not apparent that the Full Bench of FWA decision in Kaizen Hospitals (Essendon) Pty Ltd; Kaizen Hospitals (Malvern) Pty Ltd; Kaizen Hospitals (Mount District) Pty Ltd v Australian Nursing Federation [2012] FWAFB 8866; and the recent decision of Hamilton DP inAustralian Nursing Federation [2012] FWA 9905 on 20 December 2012 have any wider ramifications. These cases were decided on the basis of their highly unusual facts and are consistent with the policy that a bargaining representative for an enterprise agreement must be validly appointed.
(b) It is not possible to answer this question without knowing the details of any arrangements that may have been made and considering how those arrangements may interact with any applicable industrial instrument.
However, in general terms, individual flexibility arrangements (IFAs) made under an enterprise agreement operate as a term of the relevant enterprise agreement. Terms of an enterprise agreement only have effect whilst the instrument is in operation.
(c) & d)
The Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) and theFair Work Australia Rules 2010 (the Rules) include a number of safeguards concerning the appointment of bargaining representatives and the agreement of the parties, including that:
The Government is committed to strengthening protections for employees during the bargaining process. For instance, the Fair Work Amendment Act 2012 inserted new subsections 174(1A) and 174(1B) into the FW Act to provide that a notice of employee representational rights can only contain the content prescribed by theFair Work Regulations 2009 (the Regulations), must not contain any other content and must be in the form prescribed by the Regulations.
As noted by the Full Bench, the circumstances in this case were very unusual and the Government does not consider that the circumstances warrant legislative reform.