bureaucratic coughry

[OATEK]

The underlying issue is exactly that our rights shouldn't be different just because of a different setting.

I understand your position, they shouldn't be different, but they are. It would be no point arguing your rights with the pilot in charge of your aircraft, as that setting is different as we have heard on AFF from time to time. My family members tell some very amusing stories, and generally seem to find that notwithstanding people often present after 24hrs or so of travel, on the whole seem happy to cooperate. I know I have never found more officious Border agents than those in HEL, but I know what to expect and am happy to cooperate.

My issue is that you imply that in this case the Border Force personnel may have infringed perceived rights, while I believe that the officials in the OP's situation acted to fulfill their duties as directed. I know you will feel it necessary to have the last word, and I will leave that to you as I follow Swanning_it out of the thread.

 

[OZDUCK]

I have so far refrained from commenting on this matter because of my obvious bias from working for so many years in Customs. Three responses have been written and discarded. Equally, I am not a strong supporter of many of the Border Force changes bought in by politicians mostly, as far as I can see, for their own self aggrandisement.

As regards the specifics of the baggage examination etc I am not going to comment because I have not got enough information to make a sensible contribution. The only things I will say is, the same as others had said, once you enter a Customs Controlled Area you are subject to the Customs Act and associated legislation as passed by Federal Parliament. There are signs advising you of exactly that as you enter the area so you are given the chance to decide what you wish to carry on your person. As on previous occasions I again make the point that any body searches are done according to a strict protocol including opportunities for appeals to a JP etc. There are special rules for minors.

However, I am not able to accept that stating that they are "just doing our job" is seen as some sort of malfeasance by Border Force officers. I have done that job and done things that I didn't like doing because it actually was my job. It is what you are paid to do and you do it to the best of your abilities and in as impartial as manner as possible. And you do it according to the laws of the country and not your own views. You are often not able to tell the person involved in the matter exactly why they are being questioned/examined etc because it is actually illegal to do so. That has happened to me. Officers are subject to strict legislative rules about what can and cannot be revealed. If charges or fines are being laid then natural justice comes into play and they must be told why it is happening and given a chance of appeal etc.

If you can develop a Risk Assessment Strategy that gets results 100% all of the time you will be a multi-millionaire in a matter of days. I spent years working in the Risk Assessment area for commercial transactions and it is definitely not an exact science. If you decided to stop using risk assessment then you are reduced to either checking people on a random basis with no regard to efficacy, or checking all travelers. And without any risk assessment based on results then the number of people checked will have to be much higher than the very small percentage checked these days. I worked at Perth Airport in the 1970's and I can tell you that from looking at Perth Airport as I pass through it these days the number of people subject to baggage examination by Customs appears to be something less than 10% of what it was then. Quarantine examination is an entirely different matter and not related to this discussion.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The 2017 Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) review of Border Force makes the following observations:

• The department’s enterprise risk management framework does not adequately address the risk of officers exercising coercive powers unlawfully or inappropriately.
• The ANAO found instances of potentially unlawful searches and failure to comply with instructions under both the Customs Act and Migration Act, which indicate current internal controls for mitigating the risk of unlawful or inappropriate use of coercive powers are inadequate.
• The department has not provided adequate instructions and guidance for officers exercising coercive powers. There is currently no single source of instructions and guidance material for Border Force officers, and much of the guidance material available is out of date and inaccurate.
• Some personal searches of passengers at international airports examined by the ANAO were unlawful or inappropriate, indicating weaknesses in the control framework.

The one page summary and full report here: The Australian Border Force’s Use of Statutory Powers | Australian National Audit Office

Under section 3.5 of the report is the following:

• The ANAO examined internal records relating to 69 personal searches undertaken at Australian airports during 2015–16. The test results in Table 3.2 demonstrate the detention officer was unauthorised for five (12 per cent) of the 42 external, internal medical or body scan searches in the sample, which means these searches were unlawful. With regard to certification, 20 (29 per cent) of the 69 searches sampled involved at least one uncertified officer, meaning these were inappropriate searches. All body scan operators in the sample were authorised.

Between 12 and 29 per cent of the searches were unlawful.

 

[UP4014]

Confirms what many of us think on the skills of these people.

In the rail industry we don't say incompetent but we politely say 'not yet competent' and these people are dealt with appropriately. It would seem these Boarder Force people have not been assessed in their rolls, let's hope for improvement.

The 2017 Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) review of Border Force makes the following observations:

• The department’s enterprise risk management framework does not adequately address the risk of officers exercising coercive powers unlawfully or inappropriately.
• The ANAO found instances of potentially unlawful searches and failure to comply with instructions under both the Customs Act and Migration Act, which indicate current internal controls for mitigating the risk of unlawful or inappropriate use of coercive powers are inadequate.
• The department has not provided adequate instructions and guidance for officers exercising coercive powers. There is currently no single source of instructions and guidance material for Border Force officers, and much of the guidance material available is out of date and inaccurate.
• Some personal searches of passengers at international airports examined by the ANAO were unlawful or inappropriate, indicating weaknesses in the control framework.

The one page summary and full report here: The Australian Border Force’s Use of Statutory Powers | Australian National Audit Office

Under section 3.5 of the report is the following:

• The ANAO examined internal records relating to 69 personal searches undertaken at Australian airports during 2015–16. The test results in Table 3.2 demonstrate the detention officer was unauthorised for five (12 per cent) of the 42 external, internal medical or body scan searches in the sample, which means these searches were unlawful. With regard to certification, 20 (29 per cent) of the 69 searches sampled involved at least one uncertified officer, meaning these were inappropriate searches. All body scan operators in the sample were authorised.

Between 12 and 29 per cent of the searches were unlawful.

 

[Hvr]

And yet another suicide in Border Force:

Former colleagues of an Australian Border Force officer who took his life say he was deeply distressed by his treatment at work and his superiors have "blood on their hands", in the second suicide linked to the toxic culture pervading the federal agency.

 

[DC3]

The OP says his sister was a frequent flyer.Not hard to imagine US authorities being interested in why an Australian citizen was leaving the US frequently.Not hard to imagine them asking Australian authorities to intervene before she landed in the US.
Border Force don''t have to divulge the exact reason why you are being questioned.

Yes. And plenty on here who are FFs as well. Although the BF can interrogate without showing any empathy, I hope that some are reasonable in their approach. It's traumatic enough as it is, especially as you get on in years.

 

[Airbumps]

MEL_Travller I have been watching this thread and like OZDUCK, resisted the temptation to get involved out of respect for every bodies right to a peaceful voicing of their opinion. However you lost me.

I have never seen a thread where somebody has climbed so high upon their soap box and shouted so loudly about something based on such little information and detail as you have done here Sir.

The original email from the OP;

"got through to customs and after the eGate was stopped by two customs officers and escorted to an area by myself in front of hundreds of people, asked to surrender my passport and phone and told to wait. No explanation."

So whats the issue here?

Is it that there were 2 customs officers? I would imagine they work in pairs for corroboration and safety. Not everybody is a 60 year old woman.
Is it that the lady was by herself? Who else would you presume would be there? Other travellers? I'd expect that would be worse.
Or is it that it was "in front of hundreds of people"? Dare I say anytime you taken out of line at any border crossing point its going to be in front of a few people...they're busy places.

So the issue here might be "No explanation". I'll take on face value that ABF offered no explanation - perhaps a legitimate grievance but hardly something I'd expect 5 pages of vitriol relating to civil rights and liberties about. Then again perhaps there isn't anything that requires them to disclose at the initial point the reason for being 'stopped'...I don't know the inner workings of the relevant legislation or their SOPs.

Then another two officers escorted me through several back hallways and through 2 locked doors into an inspection room.

Whats the issue here? Are you upset that there were two locked doors and a hallway? Or is it the mention of an inspection room which, heaven forbid, is probably used for inspections.

They proceeded to interrogate me, and search every single item in my bag - every scrap of paper. Looking for money laundering I guess.

So we need to understand the vastness of the word interrogate. Websters defines it as "to question formally or systematically". This thread has given the word a little bit more nastiness - from some of the posts here one would assume the lady was strapped to a chair and had a white light shone in her face. Is the issue the search? There would have been a reason. Be it money laundering, drugs or something else completely. I'm of no doubt they didn't do it because they were bored and looking to exercise what you perceive an abuse of power.

It was the limit and I did cry. but they kept going and left all my belongings in a huge pile and said they were just doing their job.

I genuinely feel sorry for the lady in question as I would imagine she was under a bit of stress and this didn't help, but again what are we drawing from this? They kept going with what? Asking questions? That is actually their job. They left her belongings in a huge pile? Yes - I guess when you take somebodies belongings out of one place (presumably a bag) and put them in another place (perhaps a table) they often end up in a pile.

Apparently a disrupted trip sends up a red flag

So the lady in question has assumed or been told that this was the reason for the selection?

For the record, here is where you lost me;

"There should be just cause. And accountability. The fact they found nothing is evidence in itself that their risk assessment was wrong."

Your first two sentences are fine. I'm confident there was cause. There would also be accountability - I've no doubt their actions are documented (although probably not on a database accessible at a public library). Your third highlights an apparent lack of understanding about any law enforcement methodology or appreciation for who such processes are derived. Essential you're saying "if nothing is found then the grounds for the search were wrong". I'm not going to attempt to explain why such comment is absurd as I've no doubt my voice won't carry to atop the pulpit from whence you stand.

I understand it wasn't a pleasant trip for this lady and no doubt an unwanted experience at the border. I genuinely feel sorry for her and she has my sympathy as does the OP. The issue here is that such a detail light OP has caused some people to launch into a tirade of holier than thou preaching about the actions of ABF as a whole which, in my opinion, has gone a little bit too far. No organisation is perfect, certainly not one of that size and ABF no doubt have internal challenges that need to be dealt with but what has flowed from this thread is quite remarkable.

I'll now go and hide behind a rock for fear of the retribution from on high. Hat, coat...door.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Kaelo - you just need to see the findings of the National Audit office to see the number of searches that were either unlawful (10 per cent) or inappropriate (almost one third).

Those are significant numbers. Not just 'collateral', or 'no system is perfect'.

Going down a hallway through locked doors, especially in a situation where you have no choice but to comply, can add to the feeling of being isolated and taken away from the safety of other people. No one is saying that is the intention of the officers, but that can certainly be the outcome for the person about to be searched.

As for the risk framework - the officers applied it and got a false positive. That would be grounds to suggest that either the framework, the information entered into the framework, or the interpretation of the framework were potentially incorrect. Certainly worth investigation.

 

[mrsterryn]

Not having any ideas about the relevant acts involved not sure about anything
However son ended up with SSSS on his boarding passes when he was travelling the world for a year. Also on occasions would be in premium cabins
He would be interviewed and luggage checked each time
However after about the 4th or 5th interview prior to boarding he worked out what the triggers were
He was travelling often between Europe USA and Australia and was unemployed
He wasn't happy he had a trigger but could understand it
So he eventually he would explain almost as soon as he entered the rooms he had received an
inheritance and would show his online bank accounts.
Apparently that would solve the problem
Mind you mum aka me only found this out when he and I did a mum son trip together to USA

 

[odysseus]

As for the risk framework - the officers applied it and got a false positive. That would be grounds to suggest that either the framework, the information entered into the framework, or the interpretation of the framework were potentially incorrect. Certainly worth investigation.

Actually, as kaelo said, it's not grounds to suggest that at all. It's grounds to say they're doing their job.

There's an indicator, they investigate, and conclusion is no further action required.

Saying they can only investigate when they already have all the evidence is absurd. You're confusing laying charges and going to court with an investigation.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Actually, as kaelo said, it's not grounds to suggest that at all. It's grounds to say they're doing their job.

There's an indicator, they investigate, and conclusion is no further action required.

Saying they can only investigate when they already have all the evidence is absurd. You're confusing laying charges and going to court with an investigation.

At a granular (operational) level - perhaps you could see it that way. But that doesn't mean that at a strategic level, the risk framework the officers are working with isn't flawed if it is returning a false positives. And with little or no guidance for officers on the ground, it's quite possible they are using the framework in an unintended way.

No one has said you need to have 'all the evidence'. But at the same time we shouldn't accept that officers can go on a phishing exercise. That can open the process to abuse, as has demonstrated by the National Audit office.

 

[drron]

If the ABF were using a risk assessment tool where there were no false positives I would suggest that tool was ineffective.

At a granular (operational) level - perhaps you could see it that way. But that doesn't mean that at a strategic level, the risk framework the officers are working with isn't flawed if it is returning a false positives. And with little or no guidance for officers on the ground, it's quite possible they are using the framework in an unintended way.

No one has said you need to have 'all the evidence'. But at the same time we shouldn't accept that officers can go on a phishing exercise. That can open the process to abuse, as has demonstrated by the National Audit office.

Absolute rubbish.I said it before if a framework causes no false positives it is rubbish.This matter is not rocket science,not even science so some investigations will turn out not to show a positive result.
Even science is not absolute.Every day in medicine I use tests that have false positives.Are you saying I shouldn't use them.Absolute tosh.
Added to the fact you have absolutely no knowledge of why this particular investigation was done.Either do I but I am pretty sure it wasn't done because of a single changed flight.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

If the ABF were using a risk assessment tool where there were no false positives I would suggest that tool was ineffective.


Absolute rubbish.I said it before if a framework causes no false positives it is rubbish.This matter is not rocket science,not even science so some investigations will turn out not to show a positive result.
Even science is not absolute.Every day in medicine I use tests that have false positives.Are you saying I shouldn't use them.Absolute tosh.
Added to the fact you have absolutely no knowledge of why this particular investigation was done.Either do I but I am pretty sure it wasn't done because of a single changed flight.

The findings of the National Audit office speak for themselves. Almost a third of searches were inappropriate. More than 10 per cent were unlawful. In the specific airport setting, a framework of indicators may not be sufficient to identify a risk and protect an individual.

Your 18 year old daughter coming back from schoolies in Bali may tick a bunch of indicators. But are those enough, in themselves, to permit an officer to examine the phone (and its personal content)?

When you are running a test as a doctor you aren't doing anything unlawful, you are trying to diagnose a problem of a patient who has presented themselves (in most cases voluntarily).

If you told me that as a doctor you forced patients to a strip search based on tests which knew could return false positives, I would be asking for secondary and tertiary tests to confirm your actions.

 

[opusman]

If the framework has a 100% success rate then it's not risk assessment, it's magic.

 

[drron]

The findings of the National Audit office speak for themselves. Almost a third of searches were inappropriate. More than 10 per cent were unlawful. In the specific airport setting, a framework of indicators may not be sufficient to identify a risk and protect an individual.

Your 18 year old daughter coming back from schoolies in Bali may tick a bunch of indicators. But are those enough, in themselves, to permit an officer to examine the phone (and its personal content)?

When you are running a test as a doctor you aren't doing anything unlawful, you are trying to diagnose a problem of a patient who has presented themselves (in most cases voluntarily).

If you told me that as a doctor you forced patients to a strip search based on tests which knew could return false positives, I would be asking for secondary and tertiary tests to confirm your actions.

And you have absolutely no evidence that this interview was either inappropriate or unlawful.So the Audit results are meaningless in this thread.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

And you have absolutely no evidence that this interview was either inappropriate or unlawful.So the Audit results are meaningless in this thread.

The point is that without apparent evidence, the results may be meaningful. We cannot difinitively say that in 90 or 95 per cent of cases ABF have it right and the OP's sister may have been collateral damage.

If the authorities in the USA didn't have grounds to detain her while she is living there, Australian Border Force shouldn't be used to conduct a phising exercise. If this motion was initiated by ABF, what were the grounds? If the framework suggests a 60 year old woman, having cleared security, and returning a day early from her father's funeral presents risk, the framework may need updating.

All things considered I'd say there are grounds to advocate on behalf of the OP's sister.

 

[tgh]

The horse has deceased on and is now coffinated (new word) ; we can all hear you flogging the coffin..melt_raveller

While I think there are some interesting philosophical considerations around truncating our hard earned rights just to fly ; the OP was likely not a neophyte in these activities and the search processes arguably less intrusive than commonly occur elsewhere.

I opine that it's time to move on…

 

[mannej]

All things considered I'd say there are grounds to advocate on behalf of the OP's sister.

Considering the limited information available from the OP, I’d suggest this view is formed by a situational bias.

 

[nutwood]

Interesting discussion. It appears to have devolved down to subjective opinion. The question as to whether or not it is appropriate for the ABF to have rights over and above those possessed by police appears the critical point. My personal opinion is that it appears there was a lack of courtesy and basic empathy shown to an innocent person. There's ways to do these things that minimise distress. I see it even with the explosive scan people. There's some out there whom it's almost a pleasure to be delayed by, whilst others manage to make a simple procedure as unpleasant as possible.
What is revealed, is a lack of appropriate training and officer selection for a front line activity. Obviously it's necessary to conduct searches on totally innocent people; the above comments on the necessity for false positives are well made, however such searches should be conducted with the utmost sensitivity. No explanation and left with your possessions in a pile would be deemed offensive by most people.

 

[harvyk]

Just on the comment of false positives. Whilst no system is ever going to stamp them out completely, reducing false positives should be a goal of any risk manager or risk management framework. They should not simply be an accepted part of the framework.

Regardless of what the test is for, a false positive at best wastes everyone's time, at worst it can cause false negatives.