Posts

Failed Taxes Are Funding Organised Crime

,

Some have claimed that no One Nation Senators showed up to the Senate hearings into the Illicit Tobacco industry.

I sat through it myself, questioning publicans, tobacconists and small business owners about what this trade is doing to their towns.

What they told me was blunt. Smoking rates rising, legal tax revenue in freefall, and organised crime filling the gap — firebombings, shootings, communities losing businesses that will never reopen.

That’s exactly why One Nation will cut tobacco excise by 75 per cent – to take the market back off the criminals who are getting rich off this Government’s failed policy.

I did the work. I heard the evidence. And it backs our plan.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing today and for the effort you’ve gone to. I’d like to go to each one in turn. Mr Allen, you’re a publican. You used to make some money out of cigarette sales?  

Mr Allen: I did.  

Senator ROBERTS: And you’re not a smoker?  

Mr Allen: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: But you have come up with a comprehensive integrated solution in your submission. It’s multifaceted and it includes a component to decrease smoking rates. So you’re not against cutting smoking, but you just want it to be done fairly, sensibly, honestly and legally.  

Mr Allen: Correct. If you look at the trends in Australia at the moment, smoking rates have—for a threedecade period, they were on their way down, until now. I’d argue that when this household survey comes out towards the end of this year, not only will they have flatlined; they’ve gone up. That’s based on the Roy Morgan research report and the wastewater report. That wastewater report, you’ve got to remember, says between 2024 and 2025. We’ve still got this year to go, so we could go up even further. I’ve lost my train of thought.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is defeating the actual purpose of the—  

Mr Allen: Sorry, yes. Smoking rates are coming down, alcohol consumption is coming down naturally, sugar consumption is coming down. If you look at soft drink consumption in Australia—it’s all naturally coming down. We don’t have a sugar tax in Australia. People are making better choices about their lives. It’s as simple as that. My kids don’t smoke, they don’t drink a lot. Some of them don’t drink at all. And that’s the choice they’re making. We don’t need big government telling us what to do, putting in these punitive taxes on things to try to stop us having choices in life. People are making their own choice to live a healthier life and that’s why we’re seeing tobacco, we’re seeing alcohol and we’re seeing sugar consumption come down. But unfortunately, because of what government has done with tobacco, we’re starting to see that plateau and then potentially even spike.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to that in a minute. You said margins are so big that an illicit tobacco store gets shut down and they lose $200,000 of stock confiscated and it means nothing.  

Mr Allen: It’s a cost of doing business; that’s all it is. When you’ve got a $10 billion—the illegal illicit tobacco market in Australia is as big as the footwear industry. It’s huge. That’s how big it is. We’re taking a knife to a gunfight at the moment with the states trying to control this. It’s just not working.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve spoken up and spoken out in Bega. You’re speaking out very plainly and clearly here. Is there any fear behind that?  

Mr Allen: No. As I said, I’m not renewing my licence in three months. I can see no future in selling tobacco in my bottle shop, and that’s my position. I’m here to tell people how it is. I’m not here to hide behind things or try to fiddle at the margins. I’m trying to tell people what is happening in Australia and what it’s doing on a fiscal level, on a health level and on a crime level. And, as I think my evidence has shown, it’s a disaster.  

Senator ROBERTS: But there have been threats against people. There have been murders.  

Mr Allen: Absolutely. There was one in Melbourne: the young lady who was in the wrong house at the wrong time. The wrong house was firebombed. She was killed along with the dog. It’s terrible. And there have been people just killed. There’s the lady who was making kebabs in Auburn last year and just going about her business and they’ve come in and shot her and she’ll never be the same again. There was an armed robbery in Narooma a few months ago where that the poor guy behind the bar was hit in the side with a shotgun—in Narooma. He’ll never be the same again. It’s all to do with this criminality that’s coming into our regions because of illicit tobacco.  

Senator ROBERTS: So we either comply with the law or we let the unlawful—  

Mr Allen: The underworld will take it over, I’ve got no doubt. I went to the state inquiry last year and all the senators, whether they were Labor, Liberal, Green, National—like Cate Faehrmann, the Green, Stephen Lawrence from Labor—grilled Amber Shuhyta, the ITEC Commissioner, fairly hard. They were interested in what excise levels are doing. This inquiry is very politicised. The Greens and the Labor senators seem to be interested in anything else but excise. And if we don’t focus on excise, nothing is going to be solved here. I can guarantee that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Speaking of excise, I’ll just divert slightly. One Nation policy is to cut excise on alcohol—on beer and spirits served in hospitality venues. And the reason for that is that the excise is so damn high and alcohol prices are so high that they have binge drinking and what they now call preloading, tanking up before you go out, so the hospitality venues get bugger-all revenue.  

Mr Allen: I absolutely agree, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: It is causing a decrease in service from where they have responsible serving of alcohol to now binge drinking.  

Mr Allen: Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: So that’s damaging.  

Mr Allen: It was very similar when the alcopops tax came in, if you can remember, back in, I think, 2008. Kevin Rudd said, ‘We’ve got a binge drinking problem in Australia, so we’ll bring in the alcopops tax. We’ll tax premixed or RTD drinks at the same level as spirits, at 66 per cent.’ So what happened? Everyone went out and bought spirits. The kids went to the parties; they took their bottle of spirit and their bottle of Coke and just mixed it up. And often it was a much higher concentration than the four per cent premixed RTD in the can. God knows what percentage it was. But that’s the problem when you try to solve things with taxation and excise. It’s just madness.  

Senator ROBERTS: What you’re all arguing for is getting back to the core issue, the core problem, the driver of this problem, and that is excessive excise tax.  

Mr Allen: The sweet spot was 2020. We collected $16.3 billion in tax, and that adjusted is $20 billion in today’s money. In 2020 we collected $20 billion. In 2030 we’re going to collect $2 billion. And I doubt that’ll be right. That’s a 90 per cent drop in 10 years. Now, if that is successful policy, I’m not here. I don’t know what is.  

Senator ROBERTS: And smoking rates are going up.  

Mr Allen: And smoking rates are going up. It’s just absolute madness.  

Senator ROBERTS: All of you have given very direct answers, so I’ll move on to Ms Wishart. You’re a legal family-owned tobacconist. In a small town in regional New South Wales, Junee. You say that the illegal tobacco industry has devastated your small business, with income down by 80 per cent. So you’re down to 20 per cent of what you had. In your submission you’ve called for the excise to be rolled back because of the huge social aspects for the community and society in general. Is that correct?  

Mrs Wishart: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you want to expand on that?  

Mrs Wishart: Particularly in regional centres, if a business closes down, another one may never open.  

Senator ROBERTS: You lose that knowledge of the community.  

Mrs Wishart: Yes. And banks don’t like small business. You’ve got to fight to open one, let alone to survive in one. And small towns are communities. That word just isn’t a catchphrase. We are communities. So when the four local schools, when Can Assist, when the swimming club, the football club and the soccer club all come in for donations, they’re guaranteed it, or they were. I haven’t been able to donate for two years, which is horrible as a member of the community. They know not to even ask now because they know the position that I’m in.  

Senator ROBERTS: And the criminal pushing illicit tobacco doesn’t donate.  

Mrs Wishart: He’s not supporting anyone but himself. Nothing’s getting put back.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, thank you. Mr Rodie, you’re a tobacconist at Margate?  

Mr Rodie: I’m a tobacconist at Deception Bay.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, you said that. That was my mistake. You’ve come up in your submission with a list of 10 recommendations that show the comprehensiveness of the solution. You’re not opposed to cutting smoking; you just want to go about it fairly so that everyone benefits—correct?  

Mr Rodie: Yes, that’s right. I’d like a level playing field. At the moment there’s no level playing field at all.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Mr Alexiou, you’re from Devonport, Tassie?  

Mr Alexiou: Yes, Senator Roberts, I am.  

Senator ROBERTS: And you’ve got a Foodworks, so you’re a supermarket?  

Mr Alexiou: Yes. We’ve been in our business for 40 years.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re asking the Senate to recognise that illicit tobacco is not a victimless issue. It’s hurting real businesses, real workers and real communities in Tasmania—correct?  

Mr Alexiou: Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: And the social knock-on effect is important to the whole community. You’ve also said that the long-term viability of neighbourhood retail in Tasmania is at risk.  

Mr Alexiou: Of course. Have you heard the previous speakers? I concur with those comments. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you all because your evidence has been succinct and direct. I appreciate that. 

/0 Comments/by

$11 Billion Black Market

,

This is my interaction with federal agencies at the Illicit Tobacco hearing in Canberra on 18 May 2026.

Tobacco excise tax losses range from $7.7 billion to $11.8 billion annually (ITEC report).

The agencies confirmed that illicit tobacco is a massive, highly sophisticated, and growing threat tied directly to organised crime.

The Australian Federal Police (AFP) stated that intergang violence, property destruction and loss of lives can be directly linked to this illegal black-market trade.

I pointed out that the real safety issue facing everyday Australians involves fire bombings, gang violence, and murder on our streets, not just general health advice.

The agencies pointed to successful operations, such as the AFP citing specific busts netting millions of illegal cigarettes and $93 million in evaded excise. However, when I pressed them on concrete metrics to
show whether they are actually making a dent in the trade or if these seizures are just a “drop in the ocean,” they struggled to give a clear percentage or ratio against the total market.

Success isn’t just about slowing down market growth or rattling off isolated seizure statistics. The Australian public deserves to know the exact scale of the impact being made.

We shouldn’t be merely managing or stopping this illegal trade from “growing,” we should be eliminating it entirely.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing. Let’s explore your understanding. I’m going to give you free rein to show the people of Australia and the parliament of Australia what you know and are doing. Perhaps you could answer these questions in turn, please, starting on the left. Do you accept that there is a significant problem with illicit tobacco? If so, why? If not, why not? How do these problems manifest? Could you be specific about the impacts on human life and also the dollar cost.  

Mr de Crespigny: From CDPP’s point of view, I’m not sure whether we’re best qualified to provide an answer. We’re prosecuting offences, but we’re certainly very much engaged in relation to prosecutions arising from the illicit tobacco trade.  

Ms Sirec: As we said in our submission, any criminality is a concern for the Australian Federal Police. Illicit tobacco is an illicit commodity and we will target that. We do know that it’s having an impact. As we’ve heard from our ACIC colleagues, it’s impacting our communities, it’s impacting health and it’s obviously causing some violence and harm in the community. So, certainly, we work very strongly with our partners on being able to impact and disrupt the criminal environment in connection with illicit tobacco. I have forgotten the second part of your question.  

Senator ROBERTS: How do these problems manifest—if you could be specific—in terms of the cost to human life and the dollar cost?  

Ms Sirec: As for how it manifests, we know that competition is happening across organised crime gangs, so we see intergang violence. We see property destruction occurring in our jurisdictions, which our state and territory partners also have to target. We’ve heard from the ACIC regarding the loss of three lives, and I think the ACIC are on the record already about the dollar value of illicit tobacco being in the billions, in terms of impacting community.  

Mr Meyer: Building on what has been said already, I think the other element, from our perspective, is the recycling of the profits that are made through illicit tobacco into a range of other organised crime activity, as I mentioned, whether it be drugs or a range of other activities which flow on to a range of harms within the community. Just in terms of metrics and numbers, I know that the Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner’s report estimates the total amount of excise evaded in 2024-25 to be between $7.7 billion and $11.8 billion. The Australian Institute of Criminology estimated that the total economic and social cost of illicit tobacco in 2023-24 was approximately $4 billion. 

Senator ROBERTS: The other group, AUSTRAC?  

Mr Helmond: In response to your first question, in 2024 AUSTRAC developed the national risk assessment on money laundering. At the time, it assessed the illicit tobacco market as posing a medium and increasing threat of money laundering. That same product forecast that, over the next three years, the illicit tobacco threat was likely to increase. We have recently published an update to that national risk assessment which shows that illicit tobacco has increased in volume and we’re seeing that criminal groups are becoming more sophisticated and diverse in the ways in which they’re laundering that money. That’s really driven by high market demand and profitability. I think, to your second question, just referencing the ITEC annual report 2024-25, ITEC estimated that in 2024-25 the illicit tobacco market was worth up to $6.9 billion.  

Senator ROBERTS: Again, each in turn, what are the three most important points that you would like to make to this committee?  

Mr de Crespigny: From the CDPP’s point of view, there are two things that we are seeing about the place. Firstly, of the prosecutions that we’re doing, more of them involve multiple defendants, indicating large, organised crime groups. The other thing that we’ve seen about the place is a rise in state prosecutions, so the states are very much taking it on. In both New South Wales and Victoria, they’ve increased the penalties for relevant offences, such as the sale of illicit tobacco. It’s not something which is just being done by the Commonwealth; it’s also being done by the state authorities.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have a third point?  

Mr de Crespigny: I do think that there’s possibly a need to understand its impact upon the community, both in loss of revenue and in the health impact that it has. That’s something that we try to get across in our sentencing matters, because part of the point of the exercise is to, in actual fact, lower Australia’s smoking rates.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about the safety of people?  

Mr de Crespigny: People are safer if they don’t smoke.  

Senator ROBERTS: I meant in terms of firebombings and murders.  

Mr de Crespigny: That’s something that, certainly, I observe because I have heard it at the committee and read it in the newspapers, but it’s not something which falls within the CDPP’s speciality.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. AFP?  

Ms Sirec: The AFP knows that the threat is dynamic, interconnected, tech enabled and resilient. There are three points that I would like you to take away. Firstly, our approach, with our partners, is that we target supply chains, enablers and trusted insiders. Secondly, we exploit and dismantle criminal communication systems. Thirdly, we identify, restrain and seize criminal assets and financial facilitators to take the profit out of this crime.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you be more specific, please. How do you do these things? What do you need? What actions do you actually take?  

Ms Sirec: As for actions, we target the supply chains. For instance, in New South Wales, we partner with New South Wales police and the Crime Commission to target trusted insiders—that is, those individuals who allow the illicit flow of tobacco to come through the borders. We exploit and dismantle the criminal comms systems, through understanding our capabilities around encrypted communications, and being able to infiltrate and use our powers to be able to identify organised crime. Through the additional funding that the government has provided regarding our Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce, we can identify, restrain and seize the criminal assets, and we’ve done that successfully. We’ve seized directly over $39 million worth of property since 26 June 2025.  

Mr Meyer: As I mentioned in one of my previous responses, serious and organised crime see there being lower barriers to entry and lower penalties associated with illicit tobacco and the market. A bill is going through parliament at the moment, and I know that, across our state and territory counterparts, they’re also looking to have greater consistency, in terms of their own regulatory and legislative approach. Firstly, being able to level out and make it harder for serious and organised crime to operate, and increase the penalties, obviously will help to deter some of those actors. Secondly, targeting the efforts the whole way through the supply chain, as Deputy Commissioner Seric said, not just here in Australia but at the border and internationally with our partners, will be incredibly important, and we continue to do that. Thirdly, in addition to the commodity itself, it’s being able to dismantle the actual groups behind it. Those groups are involved in a range of other illicit activity as well. By effectively deterring and dismantling those groups, we’re actually going to have a significant effect across a range of threat types.  

Senator ROBERTS: AUSTRAC? 

Mr Helmond: Coming to this from the perspective of an intelligence agency, the first point that I’d make is about partnering with our law enforcement and intelligence agencies that we work with. AUSTRAC is a member of the Illicit Tobacco Taskforce, we support the national disruption group and we work with the ITEC. It’s really through those partnerships, and their ability to leverage our data, that ensures there is financial intelligence that gives a good picture of the activities there—the supply chains, and how profits are generated and moved. It gives those investigative agencies greater insights, in order to target these groups. The second point I’d make is that it’s essential for AUSTRAC, as both an intelligence agency and the financial regulator, to work very closely with our industry partners—the banking sector, the remittance sector and the digital payments sector—so that we can not only continue to get those insights from them but also work with them on increasing their risk controls, their transaction monitoring and their understanding of the nature of the threat and the way it’s evolving, in order to help them detect that activity. The third point that I’d make goes to a real investment in our crypto-tracing capability. With the impact that government is having, we’re starting to see that increase in online sales and more movement of these proceeds through digital currencies. It’s important for us to keep up with that and continue to be able to have the tools and the capability to follow those fund flows through those digital transactions that are made as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: How do each of you measure your effectiveness? Is the taxpayer getting value? And, if so, how do we know? We’ve pretty much all agreed that this problem is worth billions of dollars, it is costing lives and it has health impacts. What are you doing to reassure the taxpayer?  

Mr de Crespigny: From CDPP’s point of view, our effectiveness is measured by the prosecutions that we undertake; we think we’re undertaking those effectively and we’re getting quite reasonable results. The offence provisions are quite complex. These offence provisions—say, the Customs Act provisions—aren’t just focused on the actual importation of the tobacco; it’s a requirement that the person also had an intention or was reckless in defrauding the revenue. They’re not the most straightforward offence provisions. Our effectiveness is in working with our referring agencies and pursuing prosecutions.  

Ms Sirec: From the AFP’s perspective, we would measure our effectiveness by our ability to partner, disrupt and dismantle organised criminal groups. Only months ago, Commissioner Barrett identified her No. 1 target, who was involved not only in a myriad of other crimes but also in illicit tobacco. Through our partnerships with our offshore law enforcement agencies, we’ve been able to disrupt his ability, to directly impact. There’s a success measure there. Of course, the number of prosecutions and seizures of illicit tobacco and our ability to understand the criminal networks are another measure of success. Finally, as I said before, with the investment that the government has made in terms of our asset restraint, we’ve been able to restrain more than $39 million since June 2025 and taken the profit out of this crime.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you give me some quantified specific effect that you’re having with each of those measures? What indicates success, and what indicates how far we have yet to go?  

Ms Sirec: Sure. I can give you a couple of case studies. As per our submission, for instance, with Operation Collinsville, late last year, with the Australian Border Force and Victoria Police, we arrested six senior syndicate members and charged them with various charges. There were 14 search warrants across various factories and premises. We seized over 24 million cigarettes, six million kilos worth of looseleaf tobacco and 51,000 vapes, while also being able to seize various other items and instruments of the commission of the crime—mobile phones, cash machines et cetera. That’s just one investigation. In another investigation, in 2024, Operation Centinel-South-Tyres, over 10 million cigarettes were seized and a number of the syndicate members were arrested. This syndicate was responsible for the importation of more than 77 million cigarettes, so we disrupted that syndicate, which equated to $93 million in excise tax. In 2025, we also successfully obtained restraining orders for over $800,000 in property.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a big problem. How big is it? Is this a drop in the ocean, or has this had a significant impact on their illegal business?  

Ms Sirec: Every criminal group that we can disrupt creates an impact.  

Senator ROBERTS: In your answer, you’re not giving me anything specific, in terms of indicating your understanding of how big the problem is financially.  

Ms Sirec: We’ve heard already from our colleagues here about the dollar value, in terms of the cost of this criminality, and also—  

Senator ROBERTS: With due respect, I want to know what your understanding of it is.  

Ms Sirec: As we’ve heard, it’s a $7 billion harm to the community. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is what you’ve done, in the cases that you’ve just rattled off, five per cent or 50 per cent of the trade?  

Ms Sirec: I can’t give you a quantum of the percentage of the trade, but they are only two examples—they’re in our submission—of multiple examples that I could provide of the impact that we’re having.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s good to see that success, but is that five per cent, 50 per cent or 90 per cent? How much further do we have to go?  

Ms Sirec: I won’t speculate on the percentage; I believe that sits there. Certainly, the fact that we are sitting here today means that we’ve obviously got more to go. But we have the right capabilities and the right people involved in this to do everything that we can to disrupt this.  

Senator ROBERTS: How do the people and the parliament know from your answers—you’re not being very specific—in terms of the overall figure? Are you making a dent in it; again, is it five per cent?  

Senator COLBECK: It’s $93 million worth of excise seizure versus a $12 billion loss in excise; it’s a drop in the ocean.  

CHAIR: Perhaps I can assist, Senator Roberts. We’re all here to try to stop this market growing, and it’s great to have numbers of cigarettes, like 10 million, being confiscated at the border and so forth. But it would be really helpful if you could provide to the committee, on notice, in percentage terms, the amount of disruption that you are making with what is being confiscated versus the size of the illicit market. I can appreciate that you may not have that in front of you, and this is not to take away from any of the great work that you are doing, but I think it is an important piece of evidence for the committee, so that we are able to look at just the pure scale of what is coming into the country.  

Ms Sirec: I’ll have to take that on notice.  

CHAIR: Thank you; that would be very helpful.  

Senator ROBERTS: I want to make the point that we’re not just interested in stopping the business growing; we’re interested in stopping the business altogether. 

/0 Comments/by

Small Businesses Hit by Hasty Laws

,

During this estimates session, I brought serious concerns from my Queensland constituents regarding disruptions facing the skirmish sports and gel blaster industry. Small businesses and lawful hobbyists are trapped in a web of confusion due to recent amendments to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 and the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Act 2026.

I highlighted a specific case of a compliant Queensland business owner who has followed every weapon licensing rule, yet had one shipment seized and destroyed by Border Force and another returned to the sender. These people are legitimate business operators, not extremists or terrorists, and they need clarity.

I asked the Minister and Australian Border Force (ABF) officials how these new definitions are being applied in practice.

Acting Deputy Commissioner Smith has agreed to liaise directly with those affected to hopefully resolve their specific import and permit grievances.

ABF officials have also committed to updating and publishing clearer guidance materials online and working closely with industry partners to map out lawful import pathways.

Department Secretary Ms. Foster admitted that due to the “hurried” and “pressured” nature of drafting this legislation following the Bondi attack, no formal economic impact assessment was conducted, and no transitional provisions were included for existing businesses. She took on notice my request to investigate potential transitional support regarding stock and employment management.

Further, she said that the government’s intent is not to ban gel blasters, but rather to regulate them consistently across states. Under the new framework, importers require both a firearm-style licence for the gel blaster and an import permit.

The government confirmed they are establishing a firearms council specifically intended for ongoing consultation with industry, legitimate holders, and affected stakeholders to iron out these regulatory wrinkles.

Australian Border Force (ABF): 131 881 within Australia, or (02) 6196 0196 from outside Australia.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today; good to see you. Minister, these questions are built on an extensive session with constituents in Queensland. One in particular has followed all the rules for importing parts for gel blasters but is still being refused access to necessary gel blaster equipment for his business and personal use. He’s done everything. Border Force confiscated one shipment and destroyed the goods, and the other shipment was returned to the sender. He’s had no problem with Queensland weapons licensing, who approved the purchase. He and many others within the hobby, the hobby industry and small business, believe the industry may be at risk due to the amendments to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 and the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Act 2026. They’re confused, so I’m hoping to get some clarification.  

Senator Watt: I’m afraid that’s probably a level of detail I’ll need to get the officials to respond to, about the exact prohibitions.  

Senator ROBERTS: I was just making you aware of the context before asking the questions. The first one is to you, Minister: can you confirm how skirmish sporting equipment, including gel blasters and paintball markers and their parts, is intended to be treated under the revised import framework?  

Senator Watt: I might get the officials to speak to that.  

Mr Smith: I can speak specifically in terms of the Australian Border Force’s actions at the border, in terms of administering the prohibition. With the level of detail you’re talking about in terms of the actual legislation itself, in terms of the background behind the legislation or what the legislation has brought forward, I might have to take that on notice. Can I just check: is it the actions of the ABF that you’re looking for?  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s broader than that; it’s the interpretation. People are confused.  

Mr Smith: In terms of the administration of gel blasters at the border?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. You’ll see the questions that I ask. I’ve got quite a few.  

Mr Smith: I may have to take the specific details on notice. Broadly speaking, from the Australian Border Force perspective, in terms of changes to the legislation, we would work within the parameters that have been defined as to what a prohibited good is. I can only assume that, in the case you’re talking about, the goods themselves would fall within the parameters of being a prohibited item, which is why they’re being seized at the border.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s correct.  

Mr Smith: On the detail in relation to the legislation itself, as to what it is and what it isn’t, I might have to come back to you on notice, in terms of any complexity with that question.  

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please, and maybe add to that the subsequent answers to questions, because I think we’re heading down the same line of questioning. Given these items are defined within the legislation, can the minister or an officer clarify how those definitions are being applied in practice across the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Act 2026 and the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956?  

Mr Smith: The combating antisemitism, hate and extremism firearms laws act achieved royal assent on 21 January. The act strengthens the firearms import controls. It strengthened the permissions, the limitations and the ministerial discretion in relation to the way those laws are managed at the border. They provide specific detail in terms of the parameters of what falls within and constitutes that legislation. Again, I’ll have to take that on notice specifically in terms of the questions you have around your constituents’ concerns. 

Senator ROBERTS: It might help if we can put the constituents concerned in contact with you.  

Mr Smith: That would be good, thank you.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think I know the answer to this now: what clear practical guidance is being provided to ensure lawful individuals—these people are not far-right extremists or far-left-wing terrorists—and businesses can consistently interpret those definitions and remain compliant under the new framework? Is there guidance?  

Mr Smith: Frameworks from the Australian Border Force perspective are provided through the internet sites in terms of where our webpages would provide details—  

Senator ROBERTS: The Border Force websites?  

Mr Smith: That’s correct. Also, our engagement with industry across a number of different levels—we are working across different industry partners to ensure that any further details are published in Australian notices that go out through our industry partners.  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the intended lawful pathway or steps that businesses and individuals need to take to remain compliant under the new import requirements? Is that laid out anywhere?  

Mr Smith: It would be. It’s fair to say we maintain a strong line of communication with any individuals that may have questions in relation to trade matters. We have specific areas within the Australian Border Force who engage with importers that may be seeking clarification in relation to whether goods have fallen within the parameters of being prohibited. Those mechanisms are available through our intranet sites.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will guidance be issued to clarify how this framework is to operate in practice?  

Mr Smith: Guidance continues in terms of how the Australian Border Force administers that legislation at the border. In terms of the specific legislative framework, that may sit outside of the Australian Border Force— potentially with other agencies such as the Attorney-General’s Department or others that administer the framework.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, does the government accept that lawful operators are currently unable to determine how to comply? There’s a real problem there.  

Senator Watt: As you’ve heard from the acting deputy commissioner, there has been guidance material provided. I’m sure that the officials will take on board what’s been said today. If there are ways that that can be further clarified, I’m sure they’ll do that. Ms Foster: It would be very helpful to put the constituents in touch with Border Force so that they can hear directly from them and try and work with them.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I asked Mr Smith about.  

Mr Reynolds: We’re very happy to put more material online to assist people looking to lawfully bring these items into Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is there an approval pathway? Do you stamp approval on goods or on applications, or do you just confiscate them or send them back?  

Mr Smith: There’ll be two streams that are administered at the border. We look at our first response at the border for goods that we identify as part of our examination. Equally, we have streams that look at our preclearance interventions. That’s when we have teams that look at the specific documentation and what’s been declared the appropriate permits to ensure that what is coming through the supply chain has been validated before it arrives in the country. We have teams focused on trying to make sure that, if there are legitimate entry permits in place and the goods sit within the parameters of being a legal item, they are facilitated through the border as quickly as possible. Where there is any confusion in that, if that’s from a pre-clearance perspective such as the documentation isn’t clear and requires clarification, those goods are held pending further information from the importer. Equally, when goods are identified at the border subject to our examination, if they do not have clear documentation to support permit entries, they are held pending further details from the importer.  

Senator ROBERTS: One of the constituents said he had all the permits necessary, but one shipment was shipped back and the other shipment was confiscated and destroyed. Does he have to get any clearance from you beforehand?  

Mr Smith: It probably goes to the earlier conversation on the line of questioning you have—they are very specific details. Maybe if we discuss it with the constituent themselves, we can get clarification around that answer. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, did the government consider the needs of stakeholders involved in structured skirmish sports and related activities when developing the current framework? I know the legislation was rushed, for reasons the government made clear.  

Senator Watt: I believe that we did consider that, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you consider the skirmish industry specifically?  

Senator Watt: I wasn’t directly involved in that but I’m sure that that was given consideration.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could we get on notice not personal names but the names of groups that were consulted?  

Senator Watt: I’m happy to take that on notice and I might just ensure that that answer also reflects what other consideration was given, aside from meetings with stakeholders.  

Senator ROBERTS: I noticed—and this is not being critical; it’s being complimentary—that you said you didn’t know for sure, but you’d get back to me.  

Senator Watt: Yes. I’ll take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: That’s good. If stakeholder needs were not fully considered, will the government commit to engaging with affected groups to ensure the framework is clear, practical and workable? In other words, will you do a review?  

Ms Foster: I think we probably need to understand what the scope of the problem is, and we will then establish whether or not there is a problem of a nature that needs a review, whether there are things we can streamline or whether in fact the government’s intent is being implemented. This may not be helpful, Senator, but my understanding is that essentially there were different approaches to gel blasters in different states. What the legislation did would essentially mean was that people who wanted to import a gel blaster needed both a licence—like a firearm licence but a licence for the gel blaster—and an import permit. It may be that if we work through with your constituents what is missing in the framework we might be able to remedy it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has any assessment been undertaken of the economic impact of these changes on small businesses and associated employment?  

Ms Foster: When we were developing the legislation, we certainly had discussions, most particularly in Queensland because that’s where most of the gel blaster industry was centred. So there was a consideration of the impacts as we were preparing the legislation.  

Senator ROBERTS: The economic impacts?  

Ms Foster: That’s right, and the impacts on the businesses.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s good. What impacts were identified?  

Ms Foster: We were aware, as I said, that there was a sort of grouping, particularly in Queensland, of industry that would be affected, so that was one of the things we took into account as we were developing that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you quantify the size of the impact economically?  

Ms Foster: Not to my memory. I’m trying to answer these questions for you, because it was one of the earlier outcomes, very much from memory, not having been personally involved in the work. The level and extent of the work that was done is not something I can recall, but we can get you that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Secretary or Minister, if there is a need for it, will any transitional provisions be considered for existing businesses and lawful participants affected by these changes?  

Senator Watt: I’m sure there’d be someone who could speak to whether there are transitional provisions in the legislation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Even better.  

Ms Foster: Minister, I don’t believe we did include transitional provisions in the legislation.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t think so.  

Ms Foster: I’m also advised that we did provide some analysis on the impact but not a formal impact assessment. You’ll recall that it was a pretty—  

Senator ROBERTS: Hurried.  

Ms Foster: pressured period when we were doing this work. What we were trying to do was to actually understand and highlight the impacts so that government could make an informed decision. 

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your openness and honesty there, Secretary. If current operators need it, can they get clarification or transitional provisions on how to manage stock, employment and ongoing operations? They’re confused.  

Ms Foster: We’ll certainly perhaps include that in the earlier undertakings that my colleagues have made in terms of the import and permit issues. I think it would be helpful if we wrapped this up as a package of advice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Should these constituents go directly to someone or just follow the website?  

Mr Reynolds: They’re welcome to come directly to the Australian Border Force and we will assist them as we can.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any name to refer to within the Border Force?  

Ms Foster: I think Acting Deputy Commissioner Smith would be happy to receive representation.  

Mr Smith: Absolutely.  

CHAIR: I’m looking at the time, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: One last question: Minister, I’m not asking for a mea culpa, but does the government acknowledge the risk of unintended economic and community impact in the absence of transitional guidelines?  

Senator Watt: I guess the government made a decision, especially after the dreadful antisemitic terror attack in Bondi— 

Senator ROBERTS: Agreed.  

Senator Watt: that action needed to be taken urgently on what we described as the motive and the method for that attack. That’s why we brought in legislation that addressed the motive, being antisemitism and hate speech and hate crimes, and we also brought in legislation to address the method, which was those firearms, which I think most people would agree should never have been in the hands of those individuals.  

Senator ROBERTS: Agreed.  

Senator Watt: That is why we took the action that we did. I understand that not everyone is pleased about that, but we don’t back away from the need to take that action.  

Senator ROBERTS: With almost all legislation, there’s a risk of unintended consequences. You have consultation before and review afterwards. With the rushed legislation—and I’m not being critical because, as you’ve just explained, there’s a need to balance urgency with the risk of consequences; I acknowledge that fine consideration—there is a risk in the absence of transitional arrangements.  

Ms Foster: Let me take it on notice. Often, as you know, we build into legislation a review. Let me see if there is such a thing or what our intent is. I would note also that we haven’t in the legislation banned gel blasters. They have been regulated in a way that they weren’t previously in some states. So I am hopeful that we can find a way to work with affected parties in that regulatory framework. It would be a different matter, of course, if they had been banned and there were no options for people going forward.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, and I thank you. You’ve hit the nail on the head, I think. People are concerned that either the legislation was an attempt to ban gel blasters or it’s a precursor to banning them. I don’t think that was the case, but—  

Ms Foster: That’s not the case—you’re right—and that’s one thing that you could immediately take back to the constituents. The other thing that might be helpful is that we are setting up a firearms council with the express purpose of consulting. I’m not sure if you were here yesterday when we were working through with Senator McKenzie the very broad range of groups that we have been consulting with. She was obviously concerned to make sure that we were including industry, legitimate firearms holders and people with other legitimate uses. I think this could be very helpful in the context of the regulation of gel blasters as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/1 Comment/by

Minister Dodges Accountability as Border Force Grapples with Safety Concerns

,

At the recent Senate Estimates, I inquired with Border Force officials about what was needed to ensure the safety of Australians.  True to form, Minister Watt attempted to shift blame onto the previous government. He mentioned measures like monitoring and curfews, but refused to accept responsibility for detainee-related crimes, and failed to offer a reasonable solution. 

When asked about the government’s legislation regarding the re-detention of dangerous detainees, departmental representatives explained that it was a high bar to meet before requests could be put before a court seeking an Order.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Would you agree, Mr Outram and Ms Holben, that it’s a difficult issue? It’s a challenging issue. You’ve got safety considerations. You’ve got legal considerations—all the things you mentioned a minute ago, Mr Outram. It’s not easy.

Mr Outram: Running borders is challenging.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is, and it’s a fundamental duty of the federal government to keep our borders secure. To make it clearer and easier for us and safer for people, what are your greatest issues? What are the core
issues that you need to have addressed by the government?

Mr Outram: That’s a very wide-ranging question. I could talk for a very long time. Our functions fall into three areas, I suppose. One is the customs function that we undertake, which is of course about collection of duty revenue, management of and administration of the Customs Act, and ensuring that prohibited goods don’t get brought across our border.

Senator ROBERTS: I mean in relation to keeping people safe in this country and keeping our border secure. What do you need on this issue that we have been talking about at length for hours now?

Mr Outram: Preventing prohibited goods from coming in across our border keeps our country safe. So I’d say—

Senator ROBERTS: On this issue—

Mr Outram: the management of cargo is a big area for us. We have, as I said in my opening statement, a 70 per cent projected increase in cargo over the next ten years.

Senator ROBERTS: With respect, I’m trying to help you on this issue, which is about the safety of the citizens of this country and about dealing with hardened criminals, murderers, rapists and domestic violence offenders. I’d like to know: what are your biggest cost components? You’ve talked about surveillance. You’ve talked about so many different measures that you’ve had to do—’unprecedented’. Senator Ghosh was getting at a good point. But what do you need from us or what do you need from the government to fix this?

Mr Outram: As I said earlier on, our budget is sitting at unprecedented levels. There’s a lot of work going on behind the scenes in relation to our civil maritime capabilities. We’re working very closely with Defence and looking at how we put those capabilities on a more sustainable footing going forwards into the future. That will be really important.

Senator ROBERTS: You said that you have to comply with the law. I’m pleased to hear you say that. You said that you’ve got to do it within the legal regime you’ve got. What legal regime would you prefer? What fine-
tuning would you need?

Mr Outram: That’s really a policy question.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what do these people need to solve this problem?

Senator Watt: What was the question?

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve talked about unprecedented cost levels and unprecedented risks. What do we need to solve the problem?

Senator Watt: Sorry, what is the problem that you’re talking about?

Senator ROBERTS: Safety of people, keeping these murderers and other criminals in the country at the moment—how do we get rid of them? How do we protect people’s safety?

Senator Watt: What the government has been trying to do is to keep the Australian people safe. That’s why there are a range of cases that have had their visas cancelled with a view to deportation. Those people have been kept in detention during that time. As a result of a High Court decision and other legal decisions, the government’s attempt to keep these people in detention or deport them has been overturned. What we’ve done is follow the law, comply with the law, which I would hope that you would agree is needed, but we do it in a way that maximises the safety of the Australian people by putting into place—

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve also got—

Senator Watt: Hang on, can I just finish—by putting into place an unprecedented system of protection with electronic monitoring and curfews. We just heard in response to those questions from Senator Ghosh that, in the time Mr Dutton was the home affairs minister, it would appear that dozens of murderers, sex offenders and other offenders were released from detention without a single skerrick of protection like what this government is putting in place. There was not one electronic bracelet nor one curfew, and yet Mr Dutton and his cohorts are out there claiming that this government is not protecting the Australian people when we’re doing more than Mr Dutton ever did as the minister.

Senator ROBERTS: Will Minister Giles rescind directive 99? Will he stop people claiming to be Aboriginal connected to overturn a deportation order, failing character tests? Will directive 99—

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I think the chair has been clear that we’ve dealt with direction 99.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on then. Why has Labor not applied to redetain noncitizens who pose an unacceptable risk to the community in the last six months since Labor passed legislation specifically aimed at
doing just that? Why have you not redetained people?

Senator Watt: I think Ms Sharp addressed that prior to the lunch break, but she might be willing to give you a summarised version of that again.

Ms Sharp: Certainly, Senator. As I was saying prior to lunch, the Community Safety Order scheme is modelled on the High Risk Terrorist Offenders Scheme. Applications under it need to be made to the court and need to be accompanied by a very substantial set of evidence. The evidence needs to go to all information known to the Commonwealth for why the order should be granted, and also all information known to the Commonwealth for why the order should not be granted. That requires an extensive review of records held by government agencies across the Commonwealth, and the states and territories, followed by the receipt of expert evidence that looks at the risk profile of the individual. That expert evidence is gained through individual assessments, one-on-one with psychiatrists et cetera, to really form up whether we have a reasonable case to demonstrate to the court that the only way to protect the community from a high risk of the person committing a serious, violent or sexual offence is detention. It’s a very high legal bar to cross.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on to the recent Palestinian refugees from Gaza given fast-track visas. Why were they given special treatment, where some visas were said to be given with only an hour of scrutiny and
processing? An hour?

Chair: Senator Roberts, officials will probably dispute the assumptions made in your question. I won’t put myself on the other side of the table, but we did have extensive questioning on that earlier—it does relate to
outcome 2 as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Given that 80 per cent of Palestinians support the inhuman terrorist Hamas regime in Gaza, how can these Palestinians be shown not to be a danger to Australians in such a short time?

Chair: Senator Roberts, that relates to outcome 2. Apart from being divisive language, it’s probably not an appropriate question in parliament—

Senator ROBERTS: Last question—when will Palestine be declared a country of concern so that high-risk applicants from Palestine are not able to be considered for a visa?

Senator Watt: I’m not actually even sure if that’s possible, given that Palestine is not a nation.

Senator ROBERTS: So you have to have a nation before you can—

Senator Watt: I don’t know, I’m guessing that’s the way it works, but officials might know better than me.

Senator Reynolds: Yes—

Senator Watt: I’m doing my best to assist the committee, Senator Reynolds!

Chair: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

Chair: Thank you, Senator Roberts. Senator Paterson.

/6 Comments/by