bureaucratic coughry

[juddles]

I agree that process is important. And that ANAO report shows that the government is very carefully managing/reviewing the whole thing.

But I still feel you are not comparing apples with apples. In those "inappropriate" cases the officers were simply past their refresher training, in most cases by only weeks. The usage of the term "inappropriate" is an arbitrary word which was specifically used in a certain way by the ANAO within this exercise, but they were speaking in that, an internal way, within an administrative assesment. My point was that the term is, very understandably so, taken as something much more negatively when read by other people.

The official Border Force response goes further in this regard - they explicitly sought to express and clarify that the "breaches" as identified in the report were "in the category of inadvertent and administrative breaches as opposed to deliberate and intentional breaches".

For the record, I was an absolute stickler in the police. I only ever "lost" one case, where the star witness had a change of heart (literally - love is a powerful thing). I was proud of my reputation, not as an egoistical thing, but because of my internal total belief in fairness and justice. And I not only understood the need for best-possible integrity of the system, but I also devoted most of my career there to instill those same principles in new coppers.

It is perhaps because of that experience that I argue in threads like this. In the real world things are complicated, the pursuit of perfection is ideal but it is so very hard. So I like the focus to be on what I percieve as the true issues.

If the same sort of audit was conducted within, say, the Ambulance Service, the equivalent would be to find that a percentage of paramedics had performed CPR when they had missed their 2-yearly CPR requal by a couple of weeks. Thus their saving of the patient would have actually occurred during an "inappropriate attendance".

I am all for procedures, of never letting go on that drive for ever improved practices. Those protocols are there for good reasons. But please let us recognize the whole picture, and not taint people trying to do the best job they can.

 

[tgh]

J , It appears that you have nailed the nub and hopefully finally killed the thread ….

 

[juddles]

J , It appears that you have nailed the nub and hopefully finally killed the thread ….

tgh, the thread started with one person's upset. It then wandered off (as do the best threads) into the far more general area of the Border Force, searches, etc. As we all here travel, we all have experiences and thus opinions in relation to this greater topic. As usual, there tends to be a division between posters - and even if I "lose it" occasionally with personal frustration, I do think that debate is good. Some of us will always fight for one "side", others for the other "side". Can be seen as pointless, but it is not, for me anyway. I really do like to hear the opinions of posters such as Mel-T and JohnK. It keeps me real, and makes me constantly re-evaluate my own beliefs and opinions.

Obviously they are clearly wrong (joking), but I do love the debate.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Thanks Juddles. The distinction between what is lawful and what is not is important in the field of law enforcement (a category into which ambulance officers don’t fall).

If the outcomes of the ABF searches would not have been admissible for the purpose of enforcement, what’s the point of conducting them? The concern is that if officers continued to do searches which could not have produced a lawful outcome, what does that say about their understanding of their powers?

But I can understand your view from a front-line perspective in an enforcement field (similar to Ozduck).

 

[juddles]

.... The concern is that if officers continued to do searches which could not have produced a lawful outcome, what does that say about their understanding of their powers?....

Agreed. I have seen many a case get lost or dropped because some well-meaning police officer did not cross a "t", or dot an "i". Unfortunate, but not inexcusable - things can get missed. Unfortunately the effect of that is a bad person goes free, or a victim loses their justice. Yet I understand the need for a system that tries to err on the side of caution.

And with regards to the audit, I think that after that, Border Force would have been pretty active in tidying that area. Let's not miss that this audit was done by sampling some of the searches done in the first year after the united (Customs and Immigration) Border Force was born. It was checking on aspects of the implementation of that integration, and pro-actively trying to identify any issues. Which it did. I highly suspect that if the same audit was conducted today, the stats would be about zero. Just one small area that was cleaned up, and the struggle goes on.

 

[nutwood]

Agreed. I have seen many a case get lost or dropped because some well-meaning police officer did not cross a "t", or dot an "i". Unfortunate, but not inexcusable - things can get missed. Unfortunately the effect of that is a bad person goes free, or a victim loses their justice. Yet I understand the need for a system that tries to err on the side of caution.

And with regards to the audit, I think that after that, Border Force would have been pretty active in tidying that area. Let's not miss that this audit was done by sampling some of the searches done in the first year after the united (Customs and Immigration) Border Force was born. It was checking on aspects of the implementation of that integration, and pro-actively trying to identify any issues. Which it did. I highly suspect that if the same audit was conducted today, the stats would be about zero. Just one small area that was cleaned up, and the struggle goes on.

The question that comes to my mind is, as a police officer, would you have been in the habit of picking someone up on the street, taking them to an office, questioning them, searching their possessions, including their phone, then turning them loose with no more explanation than "just doing my job"
I appreciate airport security is a different scenario, but the question remains.

 

[Forg]

The question that comes to my mind is, as a police officer, would you have been in the habit of picking someone up on the street, taking them to an office, questioning them, searching their possessions, including their phone, then turning them loose with no more explanation than "just doing my job"

If the police had been used for security purposes for an event which involved queuing for entry, the answer would surely be "yes"?

 

[Pushka]

The question that comes to my mind is, as a police officer, would you have been in the habit of picking someone up on the street, taking them to an office, questioning them, searching their possessions, including their phone, then turning them loose with no more explanation than "just doing my job"
I appreciate airport security is a different scenario, but the question remains.

That scenario requires removal from the place of inception and constitutes an arrest. The same does not apply in the immigration area.

 

[drron]

And many news reports finish with-a person is helping the police with their inquiries.

 

[nutwood]

If the police had been used for security purposes for an event which involved queuing for entry, the answer would surely be "yes"?

I genuinely don't know the answer, hence the question. Certainly I've heard of scenarios where police have stopped people and searched their phones. The fact that I've heard of this, means there was much indignation. I'm not sure how far police can go without some form of legitimate justification?

 

[love_the_life]

I genuinely don't know the answer, hence the question. Certainly I've heard of scenarios where police have stopped people and searched their phones. The fact that I've heard of this, means there was much indignation. I'm not sure how far police can go without some form of legitimate justification?

Wasn’t there an issue about so called random visa checks in Melbourne a year or so ago? Got canned. Not the same thing as this thread but related to your question about stopping and questioning people.

 

[nutwood]

That scenario requires removal from the place of inception and constitutes an arrest. The same does not apply in the immigration area.

Very fair comment. I fully appreciate the situation in the immigration area.

 

[odysseus]

If the outcomes of the ABF searches would not have been admissible for the purpose of enforcement, what’s the point of conducting them? .

You appear to value the rules above their purpose.

To me, the rules are there to support. But they are not the defining reason - which is too often the failing, when people do something because of "the rules" rather than whatever the real end goal should be.

Breaking a rule where there is no other injury/consequence is insignificant. Conversely, impacting others "but it's okay cause there is no rule against it" is completely wrong.

 

[nutwood]

You appear to value the rules above their purpose.

To me, the rules are there to support. But they are not the defining reason - which is too often the failing, when people do something because of "the rules" rather than whatever the real end goal should be.

Breaking a rule where there is no other injury/consequence is insignificant. Conversely, impacting others "but it's okay cause there is no rule against it" is completely wrong.

"Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools" is a great sentiment but doesn't go down well in court....

 

[MEL_Traveller]

You appear to value the rules above their purpose.

To me, the rules are there to support. But they are not the defining reason - which is too often the failing, when people do something because of "the rules" rather than whatever the real end goal should be.

Breaking a rule where there is no other injury/consequence is insignificant. Conversely, impacting others "but it's okay cause there is no rule against it" is completely wrong.

When it comes to law enforcement, or safety, the rules are there for a reason - to protect people. If you don't follow the rules the risk that rights and protections can be compromised is high.

In other circumstances the underlying purpose may indeed be more important than the rules.

 

[wandering_fred]

Maybe I missed something. Wasn't the referenced "interview" on departure rather than arrival?
My question in that situation might be - If I elect not to travel, may I leave (ie return land-side)?

Not saying I wouldn't travel, but the issues relating to border "policy" would seem to very different - depending on the "direction" of travel....

Just wandering
Fred

 

[juddles]

Maybe I missed something. Wasn't the referenced "interview" on departure rather than arrival?
My question in that situation might be - If I elect not to travel, may I leave (ie return land-side)?

Not saying I wouldn't travel, but the issues relating to border "policy" would seem to very different - depending on the "direction" of travel....

Just wandering
Fred

wandering fred, if your question is if, upon being detained etc, you can just decide not to fly, and thus avoid further questioning/etc, I hope the real answer is no! I have never worked in customs, so others may be able to answer that specifically with experience. But if a "dodgy" person could just pull out and avoid further scrutiny that would be an impossible dynamic to "police".

 

[juddles]

The question that comes to my mind is, as a police officer, would you have been in the habit of picking someone up on the street, taking them to an office, questioning them, searching their possessions, including their phone, then turning them loose with no more explanation than "just doing my job"
I appreciate airport security is a different scenario, but the question remains.

nutwood, I like your question, but my answer may not really help you.

First up, all law-enforcement officers (whether it be police or customs or the local fisheries guy) operate within specific and strict legislation. Knowing the scope of your powers and duties and responsibilities is the greatest component of the training given.

Within the police, for example, there is no power to just "take someone to the office". Police coercive powers involve two distinct scenarios - in certain circumstances you can either "detain" or "arrest". These are actually two very different beasts. If a person did not wish to voluntarilly go to the station for whatever questioning, etc, and you did not have a power to detain or arrest, then no, you would not take them.

But having said that, there are many circumstances in which a police officer actually does have the power to detain and search someone. And under many acts (for example those related to transport) the officer has the power to require you to tell you certain things, including name, address, etc. If you fail to answer you are actually committing an offence, even if you had done nothing wrong whilst driving.

When you deal in law enforcement you soon realize that the wider public is, understandably, unaware of all the detail. Of course they are. In Queensland, for example, you can get arrested under two broad categories. The first (and less serious) is for what is known as a "simple" offence - this means it is something that will get dealt with by a Magistrate, not a full-blown judge and court. Stuff like being pissed and getting into a fight on the street ("disorderly"). Almost every drunken idiot that I arrested for this would demand his or her "right" to phone a lawyer. This is an idea they get from watching too much American TV. There is no such right. For a more serious "indictable" offence, yes they do have a right to contact someone. Try explaining that to someone who has just had 20 bundy and cokes

In relation to the searching of a phone, I do not believe that happened in this case. My understanding is that the person subject of the search was asked to surrender their phone, which would seem a perfectly reasonable thing to do for anyone being investigated. preventing anyone from alerting someone else to security proceedings seems valid to me. Again, I do not know customs procedures.

As far as the "turning them loose" only saying "we are just doing our job". I understand the desire of people to want to know why they were detained/searched/etc, and I suspect that communication skills are lacking in many staff in many agencies, but what really would you expect? That they tell the person that "we selected you because our selection criteria involves x, y, and z" That would just be destroying their intel system. I do really understand the frustration or anger this can impart, but there is no perfect way to manage this.

As a police officer I was very proactive. I cared for the community, and performed my duties with zeal. But I was also very aware of the power I held, and tried to blend both the need to be active, with the reality that most people I would encounter were honest, good, people. I strove to find that perfect blend where I could get the job done, but also not make good people feel violated. Basic humanity and compassion and friendliness goes a long way there - I am sure almost all people I did "random" late night intercepts and searches of actually came away from the experience feeling good, positive. But it is an art. And do not for a second forget the human factor - police, as all law enforcement types, are just individuals. Humans. When you get pulled over for a random breath test in the middle of the night, be aware that the person who so coldly comes up and shines a light in your face possibly feels fear. Every so often you pull over a car where the driver is out of his mind on drugs and tries to kill you. And the bad ones could be white or black, man or woman, teenagers or pensioners. Maybe different from the area of Border Force, but similar principles apply. They are actually "just doing their job". And their primary job is not to make people smile. If they went too far that way the actual needs of the position would suffer.

Just as an aside, but perhaps further enlightening to you to how hard enforcement is, I will share a story from yet another previous life, when I worked in "fraud control" for the Department of Social Security.

DSS, as it was called back then (is it still Centrelink, or has it changed name yet again?), is a very serious part of Australia. There are very few countries that have the finances or desire to provide the incredible safety net that we have here. There are immense sums of money involved, so the government obviously puts a great deal of emphasis on trying to manage that. And the powers we had, were, quite simply, incredible. Far more invasive than what I had as a mere copper.

A huge area of rort is people who claim to be single (sole parents, etc) and get a welfare payment, even though they really had a partner who worked, etc. Even if neither is working, payment rates were higher for singles, which many tried to get. So to combat this DSS had great powers. The principle thing one had to determine was whether the person was or was not in a relationship. The basis of investigating this was a specific questionnaire - set questions. These included (and the person HAD to answer these) was if you are having sex with person XYZ. You just cannot get more personal than this. JohnK would have a fit

But I worked in a suburb of a certain city that was predominantly ethnic - ie immigrants. Many to whom english was not yet even a second language. So we tried to get by with interpreters. The vietnamese community was especially difficult - almost no english skills, almost no real documentation (even dates of birth), etc etc. A fellow worker went out to conduct a "review" of living arrangements that had been triggered by a computer-driven data matching algorithm. So the poor bugger had to question an elderly woman and an elderly man to establish their living arrangements. He dutifully went through the form and the involved questions, until it all exploded. Through his interpreter he suddenly realized he was asking a woman and her father if they were having sex.

This is horrendous, but for the life of me, working in the industry, I realised there was no fault on anyone for this event. You can desire perfection, you can do your job in the best way you can, but things do happen. And you get leapt upon.

I am not saying that the Border Force staff are all angels. It is a cough job that will have a mix of great staff who have a genuine love of their work, and others who just need a job. Everywhere in society is the same.

But if you treat the good staff as idiots, you will get back the same. Karma.

Sorry - I have rambled on too long

 

[OZDUCK]

Maybe I missed something. Wasn't the referenced "interview" on departure rather than arrival?
My question in that situation might be - If I elect not to travel, may I leave (ie return land-side)?

Not saying I wouldn't travel, but the issues relating to border "policy" would seem to very different - depending on the "direction" of travel....

Just wandering
Fred

wandering fred, if your question is if, upon being detained etc, you can just decide not to fly, and thus avoid further questioning/etc, I hope the real answer is no! I have never worked in customs, so others may be able to answer that specifically with experience. But if a "dodgy" person could just pull out and avoid further scrutiny that would be an impossible dynamic to "police".

If you have been arrested under S.210 or arrested or detained under some other Act enforced by an Officer of Customs you of course cannot leave without approval. Otherwise, I don't believe that you can be stopped from leaving. Saying this I again have to point out that my experience was mainly in regard to Commercial activities and is 10 years out of date. I most certainly never ran across any instance of this happening. Really, I am only basing this on my re-reading the Customs Act for the first time in many years so I am bit out of my comfort zone.

I think you would still be obliged to answer certain questions under S. 195 - refusing to answer them is a strict liability offence. But it is not an arrestable offence.

 

[love_the_life]

nutwood, I like your question, but my answer may not really help you.

First up, all law-enforcement officers (whether it be police or customs or the local fisheries guy) operate within specific and strict legislation. Knowing the scope of your powers and duties and responsibilities is the greatest component of the training given.

Within the police, for example, there is no power to just "take someone to the office". Police coercive powers involve two distinct scenarios - in certain circumstances you can either "detain" or "arrest". These are actually two very different beasts. If a person did not wish to voluntarilly go to the station for whatever questioning, etc, and you did not have a power to detain or arrest, then no, you would not take them.

But having said that, there are many circumstances in which a police officer actually does have the power to detain and search someone. And under many acts (for example those related to transport) the officer has the power to require you to tell you certain things, including name, address, etc. If you fail to answer you are actually committing an offence, even if you had done nothing wrong whilst driving.

When you deal in law enforcement you soon realize that the wider public is, understandably, unaware of all the detail. Of course they are. In Queensland, for example, you can get arrested under two broad categories. The first (and less serious) is for what is known as a "simple" offence - this means it is something that will get dealt with by a Magistrate, not a full-blown judge and court. Stuff like being pissed and getting into a fight on the street ("disorderly"). Almost every drunken idiot that I arrested for this would demand his or her "right" to phone a lawyer. This is an idea they get from watching too much American TV. There is no such right. For a more serious "indictable" offence, yes they do have a right to contact someone. Try explaining that to someone who has just had 20 bundy and cokes

In relation to the searching of a phone, I do not believe that happened in this case. My understanding is that the person subject of the search was asked to surrender their phone, which would seem a perfectly reasonable thing to do for anyone being investigated. preventing anyone from alerting someone else to security proceedings seems valid to me. Again, I do not know customs procedures.

As far as the "turning them loose" only saying "we are just doing our job". I understand the desire of people to want to know why they were detained/searched/etc, and I suspect that communication skills are lacking in many staff in many agencies, but what really would you expect? That they tell the person that "we selected you because our selection criteria involves x, y, and z" That would just be destroying their intel system. I do really understand the frustration or anger this can impart, but there is no perfect way to manage this.

As a police officer I was very proactive. I cared for the community, and performed my duties with zeal. But I was also very aware of the power I held, and tried to blend both the need to be active, with the reality that most people I would encounter were honest, good, people. I strove to find that perfect blend where I could get the job done, but also not make good people feel violated. Basic humanity and compassion and friendliness goes a long way there - I am sure almost all people I did "random" late night intercepts and searches of actually came away from the experience feeling good, positive. But it is an art. And do not for a second forget the human factor - police, as all law enforcement types, are just individuals. Humans. When you get pulled over for a random breath test in the middle of the night, be aware that the person who so coldly comes up and shines a light in your face possibly feels fear. Every so often you pull over a car where the driver is out of his mind on drugs and tries to kill you. And the bad ones could be white or black, man or woman, teenagers or pensioners. Maybe different from the area of Border Force, but similar principles apply. They are actually "just doing their job". And their primary job is not to make people smile. If they went too far that way the actual needs of the position would suffer.

Just as an aside, but perhaps further enlightening to you to how hard enforcement is, I will share a story from yet another previous life, when I worked in "fraud control" for the Department of Social Security.

DSS, as it was called back then (is it still Centrelink, or has it changed name yet again?), is a very serious part of Australia. There are very few countries that have the finances or desire to provide the incredible safety net that we have here. There are immense sums of money involved, so the government obviously puts a great deal of emphasis on trying to manage that. And the powers we had, were, quite simply, incredible. Far more invasive than what I had as a mere copper.

A huge area of rort is people who claim to be single (sole parents, etc) and get a welfare payment, even though they really had a partner who worked, etc. Even if neither is working, payment rates were higher for singles, which many tried to get. So to combat this DSS had great powers. The principle thing one had to determine was whether the person was or was not in a relationship. The basis of investigating this was a specific questionnaire - set questions. These included (and the person HAD to answer these) was if you are having sex with person XYZ. You just cannot get more personal than this. JohnK would have a fit

But I worked in a suburb of a certain city that was predominantly ethnic - ie immigrants. Many to whom english was not yet even a second language. So we tried to get by with interpreters. The vietnamese community was especially difficult - almost no english skills, almost no real documentation (even dates of birth), etc etc. A fellow worker went out to conduct a "review" of living arrangements that had been triggered by a computer-driven data matching algorithm. So the poor bugger had to question an elderly woman and an elderly man to establish their living arrangements. He dutifully went through the form and the involved questions, until it all exploded. Through his interpreter he suddenly realized he was asking a woman and her father if they were having sex.

This is horrendous, but for the life of me, working in the industry, I realised there was no fault on anyone for this event. You can desire perfection, you can do your job in the best way you can, but things do happen. And you get leapt upon.

I am not saying that the Border Force staff are all angels. It is a cough job that will have a mix of great staff who have a genuine love of their work, and others who just need a job. Everywhere in society is the same.

But if you treat the good staff as idiots, you will get back the same. Karma.

Sorry - I have rambled on too long

Off topic. But I bet the colleague apologised profusely when he realised the situation and didn't pass it off as just doing his job.