Customs Amendment (Australian Border Force Protective Equipment) Regulations 2025

Administered by Department of Home Affairs

Legislation au F2025L01542 Regulations Not in force Legislative Instrument

Legislation content

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Issued by authority of the Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs

Customs Act 1901

Customs Amendment (Australian Border Force Protective Equipment) Regulations 2025

Legislative authority

The Customs Act 1901 (the Customs Act) concerns customs-related functions and is the legislative authority that sets out the customs requirements for the importation, and exportation, of goods to and from Australia.

Subsection 270(1) of the Customs Act gives the Governor-General the power to make regulations consistent with the Act prescribing all matters, which by the Act are required or permitted to be prescribed or as may be necessary or convenient to be prescribed for giving effect to the Act.

Subsection 189A(1) of the Customs Act gives an authorised arms issuing officer the power, subject to any direction from the Comptroller-General of Customs, to issue approved firearms and approved personal defence equipment items to an officer authorised to carry arms for the purpose of enabling safe exercise of powers conferred on them under the Customs Act or any other Act.

Subsection 189A(2) provides the Comptroller-General of Customs authority to make directions that relate to how an approved firearm and other approved items of personal defence equipment are issued, deployed, used and recalled.

Subsection 189A(5) defines ‘approved firearm’ to mean a firearm of a kind declared by the regulations to be an approved firearm for the purposes of section 189A of the Customs Act. It also defines ‘approved item of personal defence equipment’ as an extendable baton, an oleoresin capsicum spray or anti-ballistic clothing, and includes any other item that is declared by the regulations to be an approved item of personal defence equipment for the purposes of section 189A.

Purpose

The purpose of the Customs Amendment (Australian Border Force Protective Equipment) Regulations 2025 (the Amendment Regulations) is to amend the Customs Regulation 2015 (the Customs Regulation) to replace the list of approved firearms in section 119 of the Customs Regulation, as well as insert a new section declaring handcuffs to be an approved item of personal defence equipment for the purposes of subsection 189A(5) of the Customs Act.

Background

The Australian Border Force (ABF) operates in several distinct environments, including enforcement operations, maritime operations and remote area patrolling, all of which present their own unique risks. Such operations can present serious risk to the safety of ABF officers from wildlife, and the use of firearms that are situationally appropriate and effective is required to mitigate the risk. For example, remote area patrols operate in the north of Australia, where the threat of attack from wildlife, including crocodiles and wild boar, is a recognised risk. The use of firearms that are situationally appropriate and effective is required to mitigate this risk.

The ABF is subject to unique and highly prescriptive legislative requirements regarding the authorised use of firearms. The firearms that can be issued under section 189A of the Customs Act are approved firearms, which are firearms of a kind declared in section 119 of the Customs Regulation. Prior to the commencement of the Amendment Regulations, the kinds of firearms in the Customs Regulation, from paragraphs 119(a) to (g), were declared as seven highly specific firearms, including the model, calibre, type and brand of firearm. Some of the firearms that were expressly listed in the Regulation prior to the Amendment Regulations were redundant, outdated or no longer available.

The Amendment Regulations are consistent with the approach adopted in relation to other Commonwealth and State law enforcement agencies where regulations specify the appropriate and authorised classes of firearms, rather than specific makes and models. The ABF is bound by extensive controls to ensure that officers are only issued with a firearm or items of personal defence equipment where they are authorised to use approved firearms under subsection 189A(7) of the Act and are appropriately qualified.

Authorised ABF officers use handcuffs in certain circumstances, such as the arrest or detention of a person during the execution of a search warrant or seizure warrant, or transportation of a person. Handcuffs are not a specified item of person defence equipment in subsection 189A(5) of the Act and, before the Amendment Regulations commenced, the Customs Regulation did not prescribe any specified items of personal defence equipment. Instead, the ABF relied on state-based exemptions in New South Wales and Queensland to issue and use handcuffs in those states. In all other states and territories, the issue and use of handcuffs is not restricted.

The Amendment Regulations enable the ABF to source operationally appropriate firearms by declaring the ‘kinds of firearms’ instead of specific models. The Amendment Regulations also give the ABF the express legal power to use handcuffs as approved personal defence equipment, without reference to various state and territory requirements, and ensure the ABF is best equipped to manage and mitigate the risks posed by their areas of operation. These amendments increase the ABF’s ability to achieve operational objectives and effectively carry out its mission, while enhancing public trust, efficiency in service delivery and ability to respond effectively to emerging challenges and threats.

Details and Effect

The Amendment Regulations are a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislation Act 2003 (the Legislation Act).

The Amendment Regulations commence on 15 December 2025.

Details of the Amendment Regulations are set out in Attachment A.

Consultation

Public consultation was not undertaken, as the amendments are ABF-specific internal requirements that support ABF officers in the performance of their duties.

Parliamentary scrutiny and other matters

Division 1 of Part 3 of Chapter 3 of the Legislation Act operates to automatically repeal a legislative instrument that has the sole purpose of amending or repealing another instrument. That Division applies to automatically repeal the Amendment Regulations. As the Amendment Regulations will be automatically repealed, the sunsetting framework under Part 4 of the Legislation Act is not engaged.

A Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights has been prepared in accordance with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, and is set out in Attachment B.


ATTACHMENT A

Details of the Customs Amendment (Australian Border Force Protective Equipment) Regulations 2025

Section 1 – Name

This section provides that the title of the Regulations is the Customs Amendment (Australian Border Force Protective Equipment) Regulations 2025 (the Amendment Regulations).

Section 2 – Commencement

This section sets out, in a table, the date on which each of the provisions contained in the Amendment Regulations commence.

Table item 1 provides that the whole of the instrument commences on the 15 December 2025.

Section 3 – Authority

Section 3 provides that the authority under which the Amendment Regulations are made is the Customs Act 1901.

Subsection 270(1) of the Customs Act provides that the Governor-General may make regulations consistent with the Act prescribing all matters, which by the Act are required or permitted to be prescribed or as may be necessary or convenient to be prescribed for giving effect to the Act.

Section 4 – Schedules

This section provides that each instrument that is specified in a Schedule to this instrument would be amended or repealed as set out in the applicable items in the Schedule concerned, and any other item in a Schedule to this instrument would have effect according to its terms.

The instrument that is amended is the Customs Regulation 2015 (the Customs Regulation).


Schedule 1—Amendments

Item [1] - section 119

The amendment in item 1:

• repeals section 119 of the Customs Regulation; and

• substitutes new section 119, which provides a list of the kinds of firearms that are declared to be an approved firearm for the definition of ‘approved firearm’ in subsection 189A(5) of the Customs Act.

New section 119 operates to declare ‘kinds of firearms’ that the ABF can use instead of prescribing specific models. This provides the ABF the authority and flexibility to source operationally appropriate firearms. This increases the ABF’s ability to achieve operational objectives and effectively carry out its mission, while enhancing public trust, efficiency in service delivery and ability to respond effectively to emerging challenges and threats.

The ‘kinds of firearms’ declared to be an approved firearm, as listed in paragraphs 119(a) to (j), are:

 (a) an automatic rifle with a calibre not greater than .45 inches;

 (b) a semi-automatic rifle with a calibre not greater than .45 inches;

 (c) a semi-automatic pistol;

 (d) a revolver;

 (e) a manually operated shotgun with a bore diameter no larger than 12 gauge;

 (f) a semi-automatic shotgun with a bore diameter no larger than 12 gauge;

 (g) a manually operated repeating rifle with a calibre not greater than .45 inches;

 (h) a manually operated less than lethal munitions launcher with a calibre not greater than 40mm;

 (i) a semi-automatic less than lethal munitions launcher with a calibre not greater than 40mm;

 (j) a machine gun with a calibre not greater than .50 inches.

In 2022, the ABF conducted a review into the long arm firearms used by officers conducting remote area patrols. The review found that the list of firearms had limitations, such as the limited calibres, models being superseded, lack of options for semi-automatic deployment, lack of purchasing options and lack of options for less than lethal signalling munitions. For example, it was found that the Remington 870 pump-action shotgun was not fit for purpose for protection against the threat of attack or injury to ABF officers from wild animals including crocodiles and wild boar.

Prior to the Amendment Regulations, the Customs Regulation did not allow other suitable firearms to be issued, and this led to a more general review of the firearm capability within the ABF. The lack of flexibility in former section 119 of the Customs Regulation inhibited appropriate and cost-effective deployment of suitable firearms to mitigate risks, resulting in the potential exposure of officers to elevated occupational risk and undermining operational readiness.

The ABF’s review also found the need to include a less than lethal signalling munitions launcher in the Amendment Regulations. The ABF regularly undertakes compliance and enforcement activity where they are required to board vessels. The verbal commands and visual instruction for the vessel to stop may be ignored or fail to be complied with and additional signalling capability may be required such as the use of an illumination flare or the use of a sound and flash round which provides both a visual and audio cue to the ship and crew.

Prior to the Amendment Regulations, no device of this type was listed in the Customs Regulation and it is safer to use a less than lethal device designed specifically for signalling purposes. This device will be used by the ABF Marine Unit, who previously relied on the Browning 0.50 Calibre Infantry Machinegun and FN Herstal General Support Machine Gun MAG 58 (7.62mm) for signalling purposes. These were not designed for signalling and have lethal capability.

Item [1] - section 119AA

Item 1 provides an express authorisation for ABF officers to issue and use handcuffs as personal defence equipment in subsection 189A(5) of the Customs Act. The effect of this amendment is to ensure the ABF is best equipped to manage and mitigate the risks posed by their areas of operation.

For the purposes of this item, handcuffs are intended to include their ordinary meaning as well as restraints made from any material designed for temporary physical restraint of an individual by securing the individual’s wrists or ankles (or both). The definition in paragraph (b) matches the physical attributes and operational intention for flexi cuffs used by the ABF and accounts for slight variations in the brand and make of ‘flexi cuffs’.

Authorised ABF officers use handcuffs in certain circumstances, such as the arrest or detention of a person during the execution of a search or seizure warrant, or in the transportation of a person. Prior to this amendment, the Customs Regulation did not prescribe any approved items of PDE.  Instead, the ABF relied on state-based exemptions in New South Wales and Queensland to issue and use handcuffs in those states. In all other states and territories, the issue and use of handcuffs is not restricted.


ATTACHMENT B

Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights

Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011


Customs Amendment (Australian Border Force Protective Equipment) Regulations 2025

 

This Disallowable Legislative Instrument is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.


Overview of the Disallowable Legislative Instrument

The Customs Amendment (Australian Border Force Protective Equipment) Regulations 2025 (the Amendment Regulations) amend the Customs Regulation 2015 (the Regulation) to replace the list of approved firearms in section 119 of the Regulation as well as insert a new section declaring handcuffs to be an ‘approved item of personal defence equipment’ for the purposes of subsection 189A(5) of the Customs Act 1901 (Customs Act).

Subsection 189A(1) of the Customs Act gives an authorised arms issuing officer the power, subject to any direction from the Comptroller-General of Customs, to issue approved firearms and approved personal defence equipment (PDE) items to an officer authorised to carry arms for the purpose of enabling safe exercise of powers conferred on them under the Customs Act or any other Act.

Subsection 189A(2) of the Customs Act provides the Comptroller-General of Customs authority to make directions that relate to how an approved firearm, and other approved items of PDE are issued, deployed, used and recalled.

Subsection 189A(5) of the Customs Act defines ‘approved firearms’ as a firearm of a kind declared by the regulations to be an approved firearm for the purposes of section 189A. It also defines ‘approved item of personal defence equipment’ as an extendable baton, an oleoresin capsicum spray or anti-ballistic clothing, and includes any other item that is declared by the regulations to be an approved item of PDE for the purposes of this section. The Amendment Regulations give the Australian Border Force (ABF) the authority and flexibility to source operationally appropriate firearms by declaring ‘kinds of firearms’ instead of specific models. This ensures the safety of the public and ABF officers in undertaking their operational duties. No additional powers are delegated to ABF officers through the Amendment Regulations.

In 2022, the ABF conducted a review into the long arm firearms used by officers conducting remote area patrols. The review found that the approved list of firearms has limitations, such as the limited calibres, models being superseded, lack of options for semi-automatic deployment, lack of purchasing options and lack of options for less than lethal signalling munitions. For example, it was found that the Remington 870 pump-action shotgun was not fit for purpose for protection against the threat of attack or injury to ABF officers from wild animals, including crocodiles and wild boar.

The list of approved firearms in the Regulation did not allow for suitable firearms to be issued, led to a more general review of the firearm capability within the ABF. The lack of flexibility in the list of approved firearms under section 119 of the Regulation inhibits the appropriate and cost-effective deployment of suitable firearms to mitigate risks, resulting in the potential exposure of officers to elevated occupational risk and undermining operational readiness.

The ABF’s review also found that there was an operational need to include a less than lethal signalling munitions launcher in the Regulation. The ABF regularly undertakes compliance and enforcement activity where they are required to board vessels. The verbal commands and visual instruction for the vessel to stop may be ignored or fail to be complied with and additional signalling capability may be required such as the use of an illumination flare or the use of a sound and flash round which provides both a visual and audio cue to the ship and crew.

Prior to the Amendment Regulations, no device of this type was listed in the Regulation and it is safer to use a less than lethal device designed specifically for signalling purposes. This device will be used by the ABF Marine Unit who previously relied on the Browning 0.50 Calibre Infantry Machinegun and FN Herstal General Support Machine Gun MAG 58 (7.62mm) for signalling purposes. These were not designed for signalling and have lethal capability. The Amendment Regulations also provide an express authorisation for ABF officers to issue and use handcuffs as personal defence equipment (PDE) under subsection 189A(5) of the Customs Act. The effect of this amendment is to ensure the ABF is best equipped to manage and mitigate the risks posed by their areas of operation.

Authorised ABF officers use handcuffs in certain circumstances, such as the arrest or detention of a person during the execution of a search or seizure warrant, or in the transportation of a person. Prior to this amendment the Regulation did not prescribe any approved items of PDE.  Instead, the ABF relied on state-based exemptions in New South Wales and Queensland to issue and use handcuffs in those states. In all other states and territories, the issue and use of handcuffs is not restricted.

Human rights implications

This Disallowable Legislative Instrument engages the following rights:

  • the right to safe and healthy working conditions in Article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR);
  • the prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment in Articles 2 and 16 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and Article 7 of the ICCPR;
  • the right to humane treatment in detention in Article 10 of the ICCPR;
  • the right to protection of a child’s status as a minor in Article 24(1) of the ICCPR;
  • the best interests of the child in Article 3(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC);
  • the right to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child’s sense of dignity and worth in Article 40 of the CRC.

Right to safe and healthy working conditions

Article 7 of the ICESCR states:

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure, in particular:

…

(b) Safe and healthy working conditions;

The ABF operates in several environments including enforcement operations, maritime operations and remote area patrolling, all of which present their own unique risks. The Amendment Regulations promote the right of ABF officers to safe and healthy working conditions by ensuring that officers are equipped with appropriate PDE and approved firearms, in order to effectively manage and mitigate risks posed by their areas of operation.  For example, remote area patrols operate in the north of Australia where the threat of attack from wildlife, including crocodiles and wild boar, is a recognised risk.

Prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

Article 2 of the CAT states:

Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Article 16 of the CAT states:

Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity…

Article 7 of the ICCPR states:

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment…

The Amendment Regulations may engage the prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by authorising the issue and use of handcuffs by ABF officers as an ‘approved item of personal defence equipment’, and by declaring ‘kinds of firearms’ for use by ABF officers.

The Amendment Regulations are consistent with this prohibition because there are parameters and limitations on the use of approved firearms and PDE set out in the Operational Safety Order (2021) (the Order), and the Comptroller (Operational Safety) Directions 2021 (the Directions). These safeguards are directed towards ensuring that use of force deployed by the ABF do not amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Relevantly, safeguards include:

  • directing officers of customs to use the minimum amount of force reasonable and appropriate for the effective exercise of statutory powers and only in the exercise of those powers
  • requiring that only those officers who hold a valid and current qualification in accordance with the Order may be issued items of PDE and firearms
  • requiring that only those officers who have completed operational safety training are approved to use and are issued with a valid and current qualification to hold items of PDE and firearms
  • providing additional controls to restrict, suspend and / or revoke an officer’s qualification to carry firearms and PDE if:
    • the officer is served with an interim domestic violence protection order, a domestic violence protection order, a restraining order, or any court order relating to the possession of an official or private firearm or PDE in relation to the circumstances described in paragraph (i) above, the case is still pending but an order has not been served
    • the officer is subject to any court order relating to use of violence or assault;
    • the officer is suspended from duty
    • the decision maker reasonably considers that the officer is unfit to carry, access or use approved firearms and approved items of PDE
    • there is a medical recommendation to do so (physical or psychological)
    • the officer has an inability to demonstrate competence in the operational safety assessment
    • the officer is absent from duty for a period of more than 30 consecutive days;
    • the officer separates or resigns from the ABF
    • the officer has discharged an approved firearm without authorisation.

Further, principles of negotiation and conflict de-escalation are emphasised as the first consideration prior to using physical force. Where an ABF officer uses force against another person, they must ensure that any person injured or affected by the use of force receives appropriate medical attention.

 

The Amendment Regulations are consistent with the prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as prescribing for the use of PDE, declaring ‘kinds of firearms’ for use, is reasonable, necessary and proportionate to achieving the legitimate objective of protecting the ABF officers, the public and the rights and freedoms of others, and there are specified limits and safeguards on the use of force, which is only employed in the safe exercise of statutory powers.

Right to humane treatment in detention

Article 10 of the ICCPR states that:

All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.

The Amendment Regulations may engage the right to humane treatment in detention, through authorising the issuance and use of handcuffs by ABF officers as PDE.

As discussed above, there are safeguards and limitations on the carrying and use of PDE which are set out in the Order and the Directions, including specification that where use of force is required, only the minimum amount that is reasonable and appropriate for the safe effective exercise of statutory powers should be used. 

As such, to the extent the Amendment Regulations may limit Article 10(1), any limitation is reasonable, necessary and proportionate to achieving the legitimate objective of protecting the ABF officers, the public and the rights and freedoms of others.

Children’s rights

Article 24(1) of the ICCPR states:

Every child shall have, without any discrimination as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, national or social origin, property or birth, the right to such measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor, on the part of his family, society and the State.

Article 3(1) of the CRC states:

In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

Article 40 of the CRC states:

 States Parties recognize the right of every child alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child's sense of dignity and worth, which reinforces the child's respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child's age and the desirability of promoting the child's reintegration and the child's assuming a constructive role in society.

The Amendment Regulations may engage the above rights as they authorise the issue and use of handcuffs and declare ‘kinds of firearms’ for use. Handcuffs have the potential to be used to restrain children and the use of approved firearms has the potential to impact children.

As identified above, the Order and the Directions provide limitations and safeguards in relation to the use of approved firearms and PDE by ABF officers. The Order, with which officers must comply, also contains specific directions on situations where children and young people may be handcuffed.

In particular, the Order specifies that an ABF officer must try to avoid the use of handcuffs or other approved restraints on a child or young person. However, when deciding whether to use handcuffs or other approved restraints on a person, an ABF officer must consider whether the use of handcuffs is lawful and in the circumstances, is necessary and reasonable for the safe transportation, the welfare and/or security of the person or ABF officer or another person.

Further, the Order specifies, consistently with the use of handcuffs on adults, that an officer may consider the following before deciding whether or not to handcuff a child or young person:

  • whether the person in custody is violent, or believed to be violent, or his or her demeanour gives rise to the apprehension of violence
  • whether the person in custody has attempted, or is likely to attempt to escape
  • whether the person in custody is required to be escorted with other detainees
  • the necessity to prevent the person in custody from injuring him or herself, or any other person
  • the necessity to restrain the person in custody to prevent the loss, concealment or destruction of evidence, or
  • whether the person threatens to expel a bodily fluid or has done so.

Additionally, the Order specifies in respect of vulnerable persons:

  • a vulnerable person is an individual who, because of any condition or circumstances, has reduced capacity to look after or manage their own interests
  • an ABF officer will interact with a diverse range of people while they perform duties across different operational domains. It is important that ABF officers are aware that as part of this interaction they may encounter vulnerable person/s including children. Any use of force against a vulnerable person must be necessary and reasonable and in accordance with relevant statutory provisions, this Order and Departmental policy.


Any situation that would necessitate the handcuffing of a child or young person, or the use of force more broadly against a child, would only ever be done so in order to achieve a legitimate objective (i.e. the carrying out of statutory powers), and only when reasonable and proportionate to the achievement of that objective, and in accordance with the exercise of statutory powers.

As such, consistently with Article 24(1) of the ICCPR and Articles 3(1) and 40 of the CRC, protections are set out with regard to the use of handcuffs on children, namely that child-centred considerations, are to be made prior to any decision to handcuff a child. These are in addition to overarching limitations placed on the use of force by officers. 

Accordingly, to the extent that the Amendment Regulations may limit these rights, any such limitation is reasonable, necessary and proportionate to achieving the legitimate objective of protecting ABF officers, the public and the rights and freedoms of others.

Conclusion

This Disallowable Instrument is compatible with human rights because it promotes the protection of human rights, and to the extent that it may limit human rights, those limitations are reasonable, necessary and proportionate.

 

The Hon Julian Hill MP

Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs

Interactions

Authorises

All Versions

Sourced from the Federal Register of Legislation at 26 August 2026. For the latest information on Australian Government law please go to https://www.legislation.gov.au.