why shouldn’t Customs investigate the offence, rather than the Police?
You raise an interesting point.
'Turf Wars' between government agencies aren't new. But, reading through the posts on this thread, it sems to me that the underlying issue here is the competence of those actually employed on law enforcement work, and the 'reasonableness' of the belief held by an individual constable or customs official that preceeds a decision to search property.
The recent track record of the AFP and the Commonwealth DPP in the Dr Haneef matter demonstrates that law enforcement operatives and prosecutors aren't infallible.
But it's not only the Haneef case that highlights the incompetence of those concerned. In the recent case of Sydney doctor Izhar ul- Haque, Justice Michael Adams of the NSW Supreme Court delivered a scathing judgement that found ASIO agents had kidnapped and falsely imprisoned the then medical student on questionable terrorism charges.
Under the Howard Government, law enforcement agencies like the AFP were encouraged both by sweeping anti-terrorism legislation, and the enthousiastic and uncritical support of the previous Attorney-General, to use their authority and resources inappropriately in a 'win at all costs' way.
Little consideration seems to have been given to ensuring that those charged with enforcing the law, do so in accordance with the law actually says, and not what they think it says.
Notwithstanding Phillip Ruddock's best endeavours, there is still a general right to silence in Oz and a court cannot draw an adverse inference if a defendant elects not to talk to law enforcement people, however described.
The Rudd Government has promised a judicial inquiry into the Haneef case. Such an inquiry (which should be expanded to include the ul-Haque matter) would provide not only a valuable opportunity to review the recently introduced anti-terror laws, but also to conduct an independent, transparent and broad ranging review of federal law enforcement culture. It would also go some way towards restoring equilibrium between individual rights and general community safety.