United

Creation of the DHA more like an evolutionary step

News Feed
Wednesday, 23 August 2017

The recent announcement of the creation of the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) led to extensive commentary in the media. However, for those working in and around the supply chain, the announcement was not, of itself, a surprise as it had been a rumoured outcome for some time and seemed to be a natural evolution given similar structures in the US and the UK,  writes Andrew Hudson, Rigby Cooke Lawyers.

To those in industry, the announcement drew two main responses. First, how would it be established and operate? Second, what effect would it have on the 'trade facilitation' agenda which has been at the heart of the engagement between industry and its regulators?

The answer to the first question became clear on a careful reading of the material issued at the time of the announcement of the DHA. The model would not include the ABF being subsumed into the DHA along with other agencies affected by the creation of the DHA, but would result in the DHA acting to co-ordinate the agencies within its jurisdiction with those agencies retaining their current roles and statutory independence. That still left open the issue of whether that role would change to one focused on security at the expense of the traditional Customs roles of collecting duties and dealing with regulation such as anti-dumping and countervailing measures and how that would interact with its position as part of the DIBP.

Industry remained unsure on that issue and the answer to the trade facilitation question. 

The annual Industry Summit convened by the DIBP shortly after the announcement of the creation of the DHA afforded an ideal opportunity for Government to clarify the ongoing role of the ABF and also its position on trade facilitation. In speeches by the minister of the DHA and the acting commissioner (AC) of the ABF it was made clear that the ABF would continue its existing role as the Australian Customs service and with it all of its existing obligations.

Further, it was made clear that trade facilitation was still a priority and that the closer engagement through the DHA would actually assist that outcome. The immediate access to additional information on the parties and goods in the supply chain from other agencies in the DHA would assist in securing the safety of the supply chain.

The ABF has subsequently gone to some length in public to allay fears that the trade facilitation role would suffer in light of the creation of the DHA, with media interviews directly addressing some commentary by industry seeking to emphasise the ongoing importance of trade facilitation and engagement with industry. In doing so, the AC referred to a number of the forums in which engagement took place and while saying that the ABF could always improve that engagement, he said he believed that industry could better make its views heard in public, including its views on a more heavy-handed approach at the border.

The ABF subsequently issued a notice in DIBPN 2017/24 entitled 'Increased security at Australian cargo facilities' which referred to work with law enforcement partners and the OTS to 'further enhance ABF's capability to detect and intercept high-risk goods', but also commented that 'Facilitating trade remains a priority for the ABF as we focus on protecting the safety of our community'. Again, this continued the theme that trade facilitation would not be left behind.

However, I believe that many in industry (including myself) were surprised by some of the comments of the AC. I hardly think that industry could be accused of not making its views public on the role of the ABF.  From my own experience and that arising from working with industry associations, there has been a regular and active commentary on these issues for many years. That commentary has been in the media, at industry events and in the formal engagement through the National Committee on Trade Facilitation (NCTF), the International Trade Remedies Forum (ITRF), other engagement forums and their many sub-committees. In recent times the topics have ranged from concerns on the focus on the role of licensed Customs brokers (LCB) in the intervention against illegal asbestos and tobacco imports, to continued submissions on the importance of streamlining cargo reporting, to seeking support for rulings on the application of trade remedies on imports and seeking parity in regulation between LCBs and other service providers within the supply chain. Review of the minutes of the various sub-committees of the NCTF, the ITRF and other bodies would disclose regular commentary on trade facilitation issues and on increased intervention by the ABF in the supply chain.

Industry actively engages with the ABF and other agencies at every opportunity provided by Government. It should be noted that industry can only engage when Government affords the opportunity and even then Government closely dictates the nature of the engagement, which often only happens after regulation or legislation has been announced and put into place, as opposed to before or during the development of those items.

This type of engagement may sometimes limit its effect. The AC referred to the importance of the Trusted Trader Programme but that only affects a small sector of industry. Further, the regular changes to the officers with whom engagement takes place with ABF may not assist in the knowledge by government and its agencies as to the commentary and engagement by industry. While acknowledging the reality of change, this certainly does not always assist with continuity of the process. It may well be that the AC has yet to be fully briefed on the active role which industry takes in its engagement with authorities but I am sure that industry looks forward to the opportunity to advise the AC of the work which has taken place to date and its willingness to co - operate both on security and facilitation measures which are equally at the heart of the interests of industry as much as for government.

We look forward to the next opportunity for direct engagement with the AC, the ABF, the DIBP, other government agencies and the government itself. After all, it is industry which has been dealing with these issues for many years and has significant expertise which it is more than happy to share.

HACTL
Cathay Cargo
United

Creation of the DHA more like an evolutionary step

News Feed
Wednesday, 23 August 2017

The recent announcement of the creation of the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) led to extensive commentary in the media. However, for those working in and around the supply chain, the announcement was not, of itself, a surprise as it had been a rumoured outcome for some time and seemed to be a natural evolution given similar structures in the US and the UK,  writes Andrew Hudson, Rigby Cooke Lawyers.

To those in industry, the announcement drew two main responses. First, how would it be established and operate? Second, what effect would it have on the 'trade facilitation' agenda which has been at the heart of the engagement between industry and its regulators?

The answer to the first question became clear on a careful reading of the material issued at the time of the announcement of the DHA. The model would not include the ABF being subsumed into the DHA along with other agencies affected by the creation of the DHA, but would result in the DHA acting to co-ordinate the agencies within its jurisdiction with those agencies retaining their current roles and statutory independence. That still left open the issue of whether that role would change to one focused on security at the expense of the traditional Customs roles of collecting duties and dealing with regulation such as anti-dumping and countervailing measures and how that would interact with its position as part of the DIBP.

Industry remained unsure on that issue and the answer to the trade facilitation question. 

The annual Industry Summit convened by the DIBP shortly after the announcement of the creation of the DHA afforded an ideal opportunity for Government to clarify the ongoing role of the ABF and also its position on trade facilitation. In speeches by the minister of the DHA and the acting commissioner (AC) of the ABF it was made clear that the ABF would continue its existing role as the Australian Customs service and with it all of its existing obligations.

Further, it was made clear that trade facilitation was still a priority and that the closer engagement through the DHA would actually assist that outcome. The immediate access to additional information on the parties and goods in the supply chain from other agencies in the DHA would assist in securing the safety of the supply chain.

The ABF has subsequently gone to some length in public to allay fears that the trade facilitation role would suffer in light of the creation of the DHA, with media interviews directly addressing some commentary by industry seeking to emphasise the ongoing importance of trade facilitation and engagement with industry. In doing so, the AC referred to a number of the forums in which engagement took place and while saying that the ABF could always improve that engagement, he said he believed that industry could better make its views heard in public, including its views on a more heavy-handed approach at the border.

The ABF subsequently issued a notice in DIBPN 2017/24 entitled 'Increased security at Australian cargo facilities' which referred to work with law enforcement partners and the OTS to 'further enhance ABF's capability to detect and intercept high-risk goods', but also commented that 'Facilitating trade remains a priority for the ABF as we focus on protecting the safety of our community'. Again, this continued the theme that trade facilitation would not be left behind.

However, I believe that many in industry (including myself) were surprised by some of the comments of the AC. I hardly think that industry could be accused of not making its views public on the role of the ABF.  From my own experience and that arising from working with industry associations, there has been a regular and active commentary on these issues for many years. That commentary has been in the media, at industry events and in the formal engagement through the National Committee on Trade Facilitation (NCTF), the International Trade Remedies Forum (ITRF), other engagement forums and their many sub-committees. In recent times the topics have ranged from concerns on the focus on the role of licensed Customs brokers (LCB) in the intervention against illegal asbestos and tobacco imports, to continued submissions on the importance of streamlining cargo reporting, to seeking support for rulings on the application of trade remedies on imports and seeking parity in regulation between LCBs and other service providers within the supply chain. Review of the minutes of the various sub-committees of the NCTF, the ITRF and other bodies would disclose regular commentary on trade facilitation issues and on increased intervention by the ABF in the supply chain.

Industry actively engages with the ABF and other agencies at every opportunity provided by Government. It should be noted that industry can only engage when Government affords the opportunity and even then Government closely dictates the nature of the engagement, which often only happens after regulation or legislation has been announced and put into place, as opposed to before or during the development of those items.

This type of engagement may sometimes limit its effect. The AC referred to the importance of the Trusted Trader Programme but that only affects a small sector of industry. Further, the regular changes to the officers with whom engagement takes place with ABF may not assist in the knowledge by government and its agencies as to the commentary and engagement by industry. While acknowledging the reality of change, this certainly does not always assist with continuity of the process. It may well be that the AC has yet to be fully briefed on the active role which industry takes in its engagement with authorities but I am sure that industry looks forward to the opportunity to advise the AC of the work which has taken place to date and its willingness to co - operate both on security and facilitation measures which are equally at the heart of the interests of industry as much as for government.

We look forward to the next opportunity for direct engagement with the AC, the ABF, the DIBP, other government agencies and the government itself. After all, it is industry which has been dealing with these issues for many years and has significant expertise which it is more than happy to share.

HACTL
Cathay Cargo
HACTL
Cathay Cargo