Senator PAYNE —My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Justice and Customs. The Australian Customs Service, which is responsible for ensuring the integrity of our national borders, has recently played an integral role in record drug seizures. In light of that latest positive work, the minister may be aware of a recent newspaper article which criticised Customs for allowing in prohibited weapons. What is the minister's response to that article?

Senator VANSTONE (Justice and Customs) —I thank the honourable senator for her question. The Commonwealth's role in relation to dangerous weapons is to enforce import restrictions. Under schedule 2 of the Customs Prohibited Imports Regulations, there is a very extensive list of weapons that are prohibited unless special permission is received. That means that, except in some very limited circumstances—and they are limited—items on that schedule are prohibited imports. That list closely represents the list of prohibited weapons for possession under state legislation throughout Australia, including New South Wales. It is not exactly the same, but it is a close parallel.

I was, therefore, amazed to see the article that Senator Payne refers to in the Sun-Herald on 21 February, which pictured a range of weapons that are listed in schedule 2 and claimed that Customs were allowing the importation of these weapons. I think I recall a headline to the effect of, `Take your pick'. These claims are simply incorrect and misleading.

Customs have advised me that, based on a careful examination of the photographs in the newspaper, most, if not all, of the weapons are prohibited imports under Commonwealth regulations. Further, one of the knives—a particularly unattractive knife with a curved blade and spiky things that come out of the handle you hold it by—looked very similar, and I am advised that the same knife on the front page of the Sun-Herald was seized by Customs and lent to the New South Wales Police Service. What an ironic twist of fate in an election that Customs lends a weapon in good faith as an example of a dangerous weapon that they are in fact seizing and the next thing we know, in a New South Wales election context, the weapon is on the front page of the Sunday paper as an example of weapons that Customs let in. I have here the letter from the New South Wales Police Service requesting that the article be given to them.

It is true that Customs officers can only legally seize goods that are prohibited by Commonwealth regulations. The Ombudsman has, on occasion, rightly criticised Customs officers for being overzealous. Law enforcement agencies should always stay within their jurisdictional limits.

As Customs minister, I am always open to suggestions from states and territories as to the types of items they think should be added to the schedule. Where there are weapons that a state has banned the possession of but the importation is not banned, I look to speedily amending the Customs regulations where we can get state agreement. There will always be one state that wants to be tougher than another, but we will happily look at suggestions put forward by the states.

What I am sure Senator Payne realises is that this little exercise was drummed up in New South Wales as an election initiative to make the Carr government look good. I would like to take the opportunity in the remaining minute and such other time as might be available to put this in context for you, Madam President, because I know it is important you understand the real facts of crime in New South Wales. I can assure you that Customs is not letting prohibited weapons in on a day-to-day basis. The Carr government don't want you to know that they have the highest crime rate in the nation. They don't want you to know that armed robberies have more than doubled in the last three or four years, and the same with unarmed robberies. They certainly don't want you to know that assaults in New South Wales have increased by 44 per cent since 1995. They wouldn't want you to know that, would they? Furthermore, New South Wales has the lowest rate of finalised investigations of armed robbery of any state. (Time expired)

Senator PAYNE —Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Are there any other matters in the Commonwealth-state discussions which pertain to this issue which the minister might advise the Senate of?

Senator VANSTONE (Justice and Customs) —I thank the senator for her question. Yes, Senator Payne, I think what is important when the states and Commonwealth come to discuss these matters is that we look at the role the states are playing in law enforcement. The message I would take to such a meeting would be that it is unacceptable for New South Wales to have the lowest rate of finalised investigations of armed robbery of any state. I see Premier Carr saying he does not need more police; I see the Police Commissioner saying he does not need more police. But when you know that they have the lowest rate of finalised investigations of armed robbery of any state, you have to ask yourself, `Why don't they?' They have the lowest rate of finalised investigations of unarmed robbery.

We should have used this next fact yesterday on International Women's Day. What is a disgrace for them more than these other things—perhaps I should not put it that way but, in any event, I think it is disgraceful—is that sexual assault in New South Wales is a national disgrace. They have the lowest percentage of offenders proceeded against in sexual assault cases—only 25 per cent in New South Wales. If they don't need more police, I do not know what is wrong with them.