Introductory Info
Date introduced: 28 March 2018
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Law Enforcement and Cybersecurity
Commencement: Section 1 to 3 on Royal Assent. Schedule 1 will commence the day after Royal Assent. Schedule 2 will commence on the later of (a) the start of the day after this Act receives Royal Assent and (b) immediately after the commencement of Schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Offences) Act 2018. However, the provisions do not commence at all if the event mentioned in paragraph (b) does not occur.
Purpose of
the Bill
The purpose of the Customs
Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Offences) Bill 2018 (the Bill) is to amend the Customs Act 1901
to insert new offences for imported tobacco products into section 233BABAD of
the Customs Act, and to extend the power of arrest in the Customs Act
to these new offences (Schedule 1). The Bill will also make
amendments in Schedule 2 to enable Customs officers to investigate and
enforce the new illicit tobacco offences in Subdivision 308-A of Schedule 1
to the Taxation
Administration Act 1953 (the TAA) that do not require the origin
of the tobacco to be proved.
Background
The 2016–17 Budget announced measures to address the growing
trade in illicit tobacco to help reduce the ‘deliberate and highly calculated
defrauding of the Australian public by criminal organisations smuggling illicit
tobacco in to the Australian market.’[1]
This Bill aims to disrupt and deter these criminal groups and, together with
the Treasury
Laws Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Offences) Bill 2018 (Treasury Bill),[2]
intends to create a regime targeting the importation, possession, purchase,
sale and production of illicit tobacco.[3]
Illicit tobacco includes cigarettes, cigars, loose tobacco
and tobacco plant matter, that are either grown, manufacture and/or produced in
Australia without an appropriate excise licence, or is tobacco that is imported
into the domestic market without customs duty being paid.[4]
The illicit trade causes a loss of Commonwealth revenue and can act as a
funding source for serious and organised crime.[5]
An example of this is the case of Commonwealth Director of Public
Prosecutions v Afiouny (2014) where Mr Afiouny was found guilty of paying
bribes to attempt to circumvent border protection controls, and to avoid
payment of between $25 million and $27 million in customs duty and taxes on the
imported tobacco.[6]
The Australian Border Force (ABF) is responsible for
detecting, deterring and disrupting the illicit trade of tobacco before the
border, at the border and in the post-border environment, while the Australian
Taxation Office is responsible for illicit tobacco produced or manufactured
domestically.[7]
Although yet to report, submissions to a long-standing parliamentary
inquiry on illicit tobacco point to some significant issues with the existing
framework. The 2015 Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement’s Inquiry
into Illicit Tobacco lapsed at the time of the 2016 election and was
reinitiated in October 2016. The Committee received 172 submissions and
conducted public hearings which revealed significant impediments to the law
enforcement regime.[8]
This Bill, together with the Treasury Bill, appears to address key terms of
reference of that Committee’s inquiry, namely:
- the role of Commonwealth law enforcement agencies in responding to the
importation, use, manufacture, distribution and domestic growth of illicit
tobacco
- the loss of revenue to the Commonwealth arising from the consumption of
illicit tobacco products
- the involvement of organised crime, including international organised
crime, in the importation, distribution and use of illicit tobacco in Australia
and
- the effectiveness of relevant Commonwealth legislation.[9]
Current law
Existing section 233BABAD of the Customs Act has
two offence provisions. Subsection 233BABAD(1) requires the prosecution to
prove that the person has imported tobacco products with the intention
of defrauding the revenue. Subsection 233BABAD(2) requires the prosecution to
prove that the person conveyed or possessed tobacco products with the knowledge
that the goods were imported with intent to defraud the revenue. While the maximum
penalty is high (ten years imprisonment or a fine of five times the amount of
duty that would be paid, or 1,000 penalty units ($210,000)), the standard of
proof has created a barrier for both enforcement and for prosecution. The
Government is responding to stakeholder concerns that current legislation is
not an effective deterrent to those involved in the illicit tobacco trade:
The current Commonwealth legislation does not allow relevant
agencies to mount a comprehensive and flexible response to the illicit tobacco
risks. This situation has come about due to the historical formulation of
Commonwealth Acts such as the Customs Act and the Excise Act which have been
based on the past needs of the responsible agencies. The organised crime threat
posed by illicit tobacco has now out-grown those pieces of legislation and the
capabilities of the agencies who enforce them.[10]
Proposed
laws
This Bill creates new offences in the Customs Act
for those who are reckless as to whether importing tobacco results in the
defrauding of revenue. The standard required to establish recklessness entails
a lower level of culpability than that associated with intention or knowledge,
alleviating any barriers to enforcement or successful prosecution of these
criminal offences.
The Bill also strengthens the illicit tobacco enforcement
regime by allowing the ABF to investigate offences in the Treasury Bill where
the origin of the illicit tobacco is unknown. This will allow opportunities to
prosecute illicit tobacco offences as it will not be necessary to establish
whether the illicit tobacco was imported or illegally manufactured.
Illicit Tobacco Taskforce
As part of the Government’s focus on the illicit tobacco
trade, a multi-agency Illicit Tobacco Taskforce will be established to ‘bolster
the government’s capability to enforce the new laws and dismantle illicit
tobacco supply chains’.[11]
The Taskforce will replace the Australian Border Force’s Tobacco Strike Team
which was established in 2015 to target serious organised crime syndicates and
other commercial enterprises exploiting the border to make significant profits
from illicit tobacco. The new Taskforce will have additional powers and
capabilities to enhance intelligence gathering and proactively target, disrupt
and prosecute serious and organised crime groups at the centre of the illicit
tobacco trade.[12]
Treasury Laws Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Offences) Bill 2018
This Bill, together with the Treasury Bill,
will significantly amend the penalty and offence framework in the Excise Act
1901. That Bill will introduce a tiered offence regime with higher
penalties which intend to be able to prosecute offenders more effectively. At
the time of introduction of the Treasury Bill, the Minister for Revenue and
Financial Services, Kelly O’Dwyer, announced that, with this Bill, ‘the
government is delivering on its 2016–17 budget commitment to address the
growing risk of illicit tobacco and criminal activity.’[13]
Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
made no comment on this Bill in its report of 9 May 2018.[14]
Policy
position of non-government parties/independents
There has been no public comment on the provisions of this
Bill by non-government parties or independents.
Position of major interest groups
There has been no explicit comment on the Bill. However,
the broader issues that the Bill is addressing were presented to the
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement’s Inquiry into Illicit
Tobacco in 2015 and 2016. The Committee received 172 submissions, including
one from Philip Morris International who argued that ‘legislation of offences
should be crafted in such a way that it is possible to achieve a conviction,
rather than creating offences which are impossible to prove in a court of law.’[15]
Other submissions noted the need for reform of the relevant
legislation. For example, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute stated:
Arguably the current legislation and enforcement regime
encourage the importation, distribution, sale and consumption of illicit
tobacco to be viewed as a regulatory misdemeanour: and most definitely not a
crime.[16]
The Australian Federal Police submitted that ‘there remain
opportunities to further strengthen this deterrent [in section 233BABAD] and
improve the operation of the offences.’[17]
More broadly, some submissions noted the impact that the
lack of effective legislation was having on small businesses:
The Australian Government is losing out. It’s no secret
excise from legal tobacco sales is a significant contributor to Government
revenue. As at October 2015, the illicit tobacco market was estimated by KPMG to
account for 14.3% of total tobacco consumption nationally in the 12 months to
June 2015.
Sold legally, this would have generated an extra $1.42
billion in tax revenue for the Australian Government. Legal tobacco is an
extremely important product for convenience stores. Though it is low margin, it
still represents a considerable proportion of sales and is a key reason for
consumers to visit our members’ stores.
The rise in the illicit tobacco market is hurting small
businesses especially, as the major supermarket chains are much better
positioned to absorb the regulatory costs and the loss. The illicit tobacco
market robs legitimate businesses of sales and market share and the Government of
its entitled revenue from the sale of tobacco.[18]
The Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and
Piracy believes that ‘the level of illegal consumption of tobacco in Australia
is worryingly high. The growth in the illicit tobacco trade has been
exacerbated by regular hikes in tax on tobacco along with legislative measures
such as plain packaging’, and quoted the Australian Crime Commission’s report
of 2013 stating that ‘involvement in Australia’s illegal tobacco market is
perceived by organised crime groups as a low risk, high profit activity: they
see it as a market in which large profits can be made with minimal risk of detection
or significant penalties.’[19]
Financial
implications
The Explanatory Memorandum states that the financial
impact is an ‘unquantifiable increase to revenue over the forward estimates
period’.[20]
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the
Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared
in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The
Government considers that the Bill is compatible.[21]
Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
considered that the Bill did not raise human rights concerns in its report of 8
May 2018.[22]
Key
provisions
Section 233BABAD of the Customs Act contains
criminal offences for importing goods which are tobacco products with the
intention of defrauding the revenue, and conveying and possessing tobacco
products that the person knows were imported with intent to defraud the
revenue.
The new offences are based on the element of recklessness,
rather than intent. This is because ‘while the penalty is high, the standard of
proof has created a barrier for effective enforcement and prosecution and is no
longer an effective deterrent to those who engage in tobacco smuggling’.[23]
The Explanatory Memorandum goes on to explain the existing inconsistency
between tobacco-related evasion offences in the Customs Act and the Excise
Act:
- the Customs Act offences can only apply where knowledge or intention to
defraud revenue can be proven
- the Excise Act offences are associated with relatively low penalties and do
not provide a sufficient deterrent to those dealing in illicit tobacco and
- an
offence can only be successful prosecuted if it can be proven whether the
tobacco was imported or produced domestically (proof of origin).[24]
To demonstrate that the offences are not resulting in
successful prosecutions, the Explanatory Memorandum indicates that 69 out of
114 people have been successfully prosecuted under the Customs Act. This
amounts to just over 60 per cent and the Government intends that the amendment
made by this Bill, together with the Treasury Bill, will allow ‘greater
opportunities for successful prosecution of those involve in the illicit
tobacco market.’[25]
Item 1 of Schedule 1 will repeal and
substitute the heading to section 233BABAD of the Act. The heading will be ’Offences
involving tobacco products’. The provision currently requires that a person has
either an intention to defraud the revenue or knowledge of an intention to
defraud the revenue. Item 2 will insert two new tobacco smuggling
offences. Proposed subsection 233BABAD(2A) will require a person to be
reckless as to whether or not there is defrauding of revenue when the person
has imported tobacco products. This means the prosecution will need to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that a person is aware of a substantial risk that the
circumstance (of whether there would be defrauding of revenue) exists, or will
exist.[26]
Then, having regard to those circumstances, the prosecution must establish that
it is unjustifiable to take that risk. Proposed subsection 233BABAD(2B) will
similarly insert recklessness into the offence relating to a person conveying,
or possessing the tobacco products. The existing offence has a penalty of
imprisonment of up to ten years, or a fine, or both. The new penalty will be
reduced, to a period of imprisonment of a maximum of five years, or a fine, or
both. This is appropriate given the change in the fault element to both the
offences.
Existing subsection 233BABAD(6) provides that a person who
is convicted or acquitted of an offence against subsection 233BABAD(1) or (2)
in respect of particular conduct is not liable to proceedings under section 233
in respect of that conduct. Section 233 contains the general offences for
smuggling of goods, as well as other offences. Item 6 of the Bill will
ensure that a person who is convicted or acquitted of an offence against
subsection 233BABAD(2A) or (2B) is also not liable to be prosecuted under
section 233 in respect of the same conduct. It would not be appropriate for a
person who has been convicted of an offence against section 233BABAD to be
liable for prosecution under the general smuggling offences in section 233.
Item 8 will amend existing subparagraph
210(1)(a)(iii) of the Customs Act to allow a Customs officer or police
the power to arrest a person without warrant if the officer believes on
reasonable grounds that the person has committed or is committing an offence
against subsections 233BABAD(1), (2), (2A), or (2B) of the Customs Act. The
amendment now includes the new offences and the safeguards in Subdivision H of
Part XII of the Customs Act which will apply, including not using more
force than is necessary and reasonable; not doing anything that is likely to
cause the death or grievously harm a person; inform the person of the offence
for which they are being arrested for at the time and be taken into police
custody or be brought before a magistrate as soon as practicable.
Schedule 2 will enable Customs officers to
investigate and enforce the new illicit tobacco offences in Subdivision 308-A
of Schedule 1 to the TAA. This will be achieved through amendments to
the definition of authorised person in subsection 183UA(1)(b) and (c) of
the Customs Act. Similarly the definition of forfeited goods and offence
in section 183UA of the Customs Act will be amended to include goods
forfeited to the Crown under paragraph 116(1(aa) of the Excise Act
because of an offence committed against a provision in Subdivision 308-A in
Schedule 1 to the TAA. The definition of offence will relate to the certain
offences, as explicitly listed in the Explanatory Memorandum in Subdivision
308-A.