Refusal to complete an IPC what is the penalty?

[GoldCanyon340]

I guess for an international perspective you could always try being stand offish with immigration people in the UAE and see how that goes? I am no fan of bureaucracy but in this example I think we have it easy in Aus.

 

[kpc]

Perhaps the OP can refuse to fill in the IPC, and can come back and tell us what the penalty is, if any

Next Q.....

 

[Deleted member 6404]

Perhaps the OP can refuse to fill in the IPC, and can come back and tell us what the penalty is, if any

Next Q.....

And that's exactly what I intend to do. Don't get me wrong now, I like law and order, But I will decide if I want to contract with anyone, I may answer the IPC questions but I won't sign that paper, so you see the honest answers will be there to their questions. I am not fearful of the BF people, I'm sure there are lots of good people there who know where I'm coming from. It's obvious from some of the sarcastic replies here where their true intentions are lol. If you feel warm and fussy, having big brother tuck you in bed then that's fine, just don't expect everyone else to be that easily conned.

 

[Milboo]

Gee some people have no sense of adventure.



They've been quoted the maximum penalty listed in the legislation. The actual penalty will depend on the level of authority that is imposing the penalty. If it is the case of an infringement notice issued by a border force operative (assuming they have the legislative ability to issue infringement notices) then the penalty is likely to be a lot lower. Proper judicial review is required to issue the maximum panalty, i.e. a court, not a jumped up public servant in a blackshirt.



Australian's cannot be refused entry. There is no suggestion of not proving their identity.

It is a strict liability offence which means it would be done by way of a infringement notice, with the penalty. And it would be the maximum penalty as there is no degrees of offending in strict liability offences. You either complied or you didn’t comply.

A court need not issue a penalty. It’s no different than a police officer issuing a ticket for speeding.

If you disagree then you simply elect to take the matter to court. There a magistrate will likely look at you with contempt for wasting the courts time, impose a fine equivalent to the penalty and slap you with court costs too.

 

[nutwood]

I'm actually quite in sympathy with the OP. Can't see myself in the position of making travelling more complicated than it is but I'm fully in support of people standing up for a principle; even if it's perceived to be minor and not worth the bother.
I think that most would agree that in the last forty years there's been a huge change in our basic rights but can anyone really say that "at this point it changed"? The OP has posed a genuine question. Cheap shots are easy but perhaps the underlying question is worthy of discussion?

 

[Pushka]

I'm actually quite in sympathy with the OP. Can't see myself in the position of making travelling more complicated than it is but I'm fully in support of people standing up for a principle; even if it's perceived to be minor and not worth the bother.
I think that most would agree that in the last forty years there's been a huge change in our basic rights but can anyone really say that "at this point it changed"? The OP has posed a genuine question. Cheap shots are easy but perhaps the underlying question is worthy of discussion?

Yes I hear that. And I do try make a statement about bureaucracy, over policing, nanny state, etc etc on occasions. But arriving into Australia after a long flight is not the time I choose to make that statement.

 

[opusman]

The OP has posed a genuine question.

Which was answered back on page 1 of this thread. It was when the OP declared that the law didn't apply to him that things went off the rails.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

And that's exactly what I intend to do. Don't get me wrong now, I like law and order, But I will decide if I want to contract with anyone, I may answer the IPC questions but I won't sign that paper, so you see the honest answers will be there to their questions. I am not fearful of the BF people, I'm sure there are lots of good people there who know where I'm coming from. It's obvious from some of the sarcastic replies here where their true intentions are lol. If you feel warm and fussy, having big brother tuck you in bed then that's fine, just don't expect everyone else to be that easily conned.

I suspect BF may argue that not signing the card is the same as not completing the card. So the penalty would still apply. Of course they may just think it's an oversight on your behalf, or may not even notice it.

The issue with BF staff you are likely to come into contact with is that they aren't operating at a 'strategic' level to engage in discussions about your rights. They have a job to do and your personal views probably won't stop them doing whatever they feel they need to do. If they decide to do a full search - which can take an hour or more - they'll do that first and allow you to take up your issue with management at a later stage.

It's a matter of risk v reward. In terms of reward, the time spent on this by delays at the airport (if they notice it's not signed) probably doesn't stack up that well.

 

[RooFlyer]

I'm actually quite in sympathy with the OP. Can't see myself in the position of making travelling more complicated than it is but I'm fully in support of people standing up for a principle; even if it's perceived to be minor and not worth the bother.
I think that most would agree that in the last forty years there's been a huge change in our basic rights but can anyone really say that "at this point it changed"? The OP has posed a genuine question. Cheap shots are easy but perhaps the underlying question is worthy of discussion?

Perhaps, but I'd venture NOT in the context of the IPC.

What does the IPC do? It obliges the incoming passenger to make a positive declaration, signed as to its accuracy, with legal effect, about whether they are bringing in certain prohibited goods such as (possibly diseased) foodstuffs, animals, firearms, dutiable goods etc. Contact details, origin of flight etc.

Hopefully its pretty obvious why the border people and 'Gov'mint' want to know there things. Contact details? If the day after someone arrives they find the pax sitting next to them had Ebola, hopefully they'd want the heath system to find them, right?

Details can be debated but the intent and benefit of the IPC I think can't be argued. Not rationally, anyway.

Shouldn't need to be signed? - Then it becomes meaningless, unenforceable and the benefits flushed.

So that just leaves those pax who think that they are so special that their situation over-rides the collective benefit of controlling what comes into the country wrt agriculture, prohibit goods etc.

Go ahead, Princess, OP - strut your stuff, demonstrate your rights, make a stand. Someone so special deserves to be treated differently. But remember, in the back-offices of BF at airports, no-one can hear you scream as you prepare for an internal examination.

 

[Major]

I really can't understand the rationale behind the OP not willing to sign his IPC.

If he intends to fill in the card truthfully then surely he is willing to acknowledge it's accuracy by his signature.

His intent is not logical

 

[serfty]

Perhaps the OP can refuse to fill in the IPC, and can come back and tell us what the penalty is, if any

Next Q.....

[moderation hat]

Since this thread appear to have run its course, it is being closed.

Perhaps @johnnyk can come back and advise what happens, we may re-open this thread for that.

Otherwise, it's time to put the popcorn away ...​

[moderation hat]