Mr WILLIAMS (Attorney-General) (10:35 AM) —in reply—I thank the members for Denison and Moreton for their support of the Customs Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . The member for Denison raised in the context of the second reading debate of the bill the subject of Coastwatch, Tough on Drugs and, as I understood it, an issue relating to the liability of an importer for the actions of a customs broker. He did not refer to the relevance of the first point. He said of the second that it was not directly relevant. I submit it is not relevant—either indirectly or at all. He said of the third that it was not immediately relevant. I would say that it is not even remotely relevant. It is not relevant at all to the subject of the debate. I will not add to the answer given in respect of the first two items by the member for Moreton. I would simply say that I am sure that the matters will in due course be drawn to the attention of the Minister for Justice and Customs.

In respect of the third point, I briefly respond to say that I am advised that it is not correct that an importer is obliged to process their goods through a broker. They can do it themselves. But I will ensure that the matter is raised with the Minister for Justice and Customs. If she has the correspondence referred to by the member for Denison, I am sure it has already been drawn to her attention.

The only other matter that I wanted to refer to is the question of retrospectivity mentioned by the member for Denison. This was actually the subject of a report by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The minister responded to that—an extract of the response being published in the Scrutiny of Bills 12th report of 1999.

The minister advised the committee in effect that the retrospective operation of these amendments does apply to the facts of the Prechelt case but in order to be able to collect the duty that was in fact payable on the consignment of cigarettes—the subject of the decision—the Chief Executive Officer of Customs must demand the payment of duty short paid within 12 months of the short payment. The minister advised that the CEO does not intend to exercise his discretion after the passage of the bill in a way that will reverse the outcome of the court's decision in the Prechelt case. The minister also advised the committee that there is no other litigation pending as a result of the Prechelt decision that might be affected by the retrospective operation of these amendments.

The committee itself noted that, since the CEO of Customs does not intend to use the retrospective application of this bill to reverse the outcome of the Prechelt case and there is no other litigation pending as a result of that decision, it does not propose to make any further comments. I commend the bill to the Main Committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.