bureaucratic coughry

[drron]

Because the following two statements cannot both be true:

• 10% of searches are unlawful and 30% for searches are inappropriate, and
• border force officers are doing a good job

Those arguing in favour of the OP's sister's search have not addressed the issue presented by the first statement.

Because I don't have the evidence but neither do you.
Can you tell me why she was selected for further investigation?Unless you can your statements are irrelevant.

 

[DC3]

Because the following two statements cannot both be true:

• 10% of searches are unlawful and 30% for searches are inappropriate, and

So, it's that bad? 30% of searches are inappropriate. Sad.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

So, it's that bad? 30% of searches are inappropriate. Sad.

Unfortunately. The National Audit Office published their report in 2017 on the use of coersive powers by border force staff (I provided a link fairly early on up thread). They found a lack of training and guidance for staff, and they audited a sample of searches with the above results.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Because I don't have the evidence but neither do you.
Can you tell me why she was selected for further investigation?Unless you can your statements are irrelevant.

The reason we don't have the evidence is because there is secrecy and a lack of accountability. And with the figures being so high, the presumption should be the search was quote possibly inappropriate unless proven otherwise.

If the NAO had found 99% of searches were valid, this thread would have had a completely different course.

 

[nutwood]

Because I don't have the evidence but neither do you.
Can you tell me why she was selected for further investigation?Unless you can your statements are irrelevant.

Surely the fact that no-one knows, and no-one is likely to know, is the question? If I were stopped by police, had my phone confiscated, my possessions searched and were questioned in detail as to my movements, I would have recourse. I would be able to request and obtain an explanation. If it wasn't forthcoming, there would be legal paths I could follow.
When JohnK is asked to explain his holiday, what recourse does he have?

 

[drron]

So you both agree you really don't know what happened in this case.
As to the Audit report are they authorised persons under the act.
The audit was a sample-a different sample may have produced a different result.
And since 2017 it's presumed there has been no change in ABF procedures or training.

 

[DC3]

The reason we don't have the evidence is because there is secrecy and a lack of accountability.

So, where (i.e., with whom) does the buck stop as far as the accountability goes? It seems like there is none? Is Border Force not accountable for their actions?

 

[nutwood]

So, where (i.e., with whom) does the buck stop as far as the accountability goes? It seems like there is none? Is Border Force not accountable for their actions?

That's precisely my concern DC3. I fully appreciate that bad people do bad things, and there's lot's of them out there. I'm also aware that there's potential for the cure to become the disease.

 

[OZDUCK]

So you both agree you really don't know what happened in this case.
As to the Audit report are they authorised persons under the act.
The audit was a sample-a different sample may have produced a different result.
And since 2017 it's presumed there has been no change in ABF procedures or training.

Just to clarify that the ANAO report was in regard to "personal searches" i.e. body or frisk etc under S. 219L–219ZJ of The Customs Act (para 1.21 of the report) which require specific procedures and processes and it did not cover searches of baggage under S.186. I believe that this was a baggage search and therefore no authorised person, detaining person etc is involved. Any officer of Customs has the power to search baggage in a Customs Controlled Area.

 

[drron]

Thanks OZDUCK.So the audit report probably is irrelevent in this case.

 

[DC3]

That's precisely my concern DC3. I fully appreciate that bad people do bad things, and there's lot's of them out there. I'm also aware that there's potential for the cure to become the disease.

So, I take it that there was never provision for an Ombudsman, or an independent review authority, to oversee the system or deal with Border Force complaints?

 

[straitman]

Having now actually read the report makes me disagree even more with MEL_Traveller.
I believe that the stats quoted are only a small part of the story and quoted out of context with the complete report.

Maybe I’m wrong but I invite people to read more of the report.

ABF has a long way to go but continuous improvement is the name of the game.

I’ll say more when I get a chance, but not tonight.

 

[tgh]

. I believe that this was a baggage search and therefore no authorised person, detaining person etc is involved. Any officer of Customs has the power to search baggage in a Customs Controlled Area

OzD.. can you tell me if taking the phone would be a part of a baggage search ?

 

[OZDUCK]

. I believe that this was a baggage search and therefore no authorised person, detaining person etc is involved. Any officer of Customs has the power to search baggage in a Customs Controlled Area

OzD.. can you tell me if taking the phone would be a part of a baggage search ?

Mobile phones didn't exist the last time I looked at a passengers baggage. However, as per the S. 4 Definitions in The Customs Act mobile phones are goods under S.186 and such can be subject to examination.

 

[tgh]

goods under S.186 and such can be subject to examination.

thanks…

 

[JohnK]

You have a very valid point. Is how you spent your holiday any business of the ABF? If you spent your time engaged in illegal activities, surely that's a question for the police? If the police question you, you have clear cut rights.

Only if they believe I have engaged in illegal activities. How much I eat, drink, how many games of golf and with whom are my business.

In my experience they get away with a lot. Next time I won't let it go.

 

[drron]

John those questions were not personal.Unfortunately you like me fit a profile.White male over 50.I certainly don't indulge in what they are looking for but if leaving Australia for Thailand especially if I was by myself I wouldn't be surprised if I was asked those questions.Having a go at them might not end up well.

 

[JohnK]

John those questions were not personal.Unfortunately you like me fit a profile.White male over 50.I certainly don't indulge in what they are looking for but if leaving Australia for Thailand especially if I was by myself I wouldn't be surprised if I was asked those questions.Having a go at them might not end up well.

Sorry @drron. I was in my 40's and those questions are personal. But we are going around in circles. They wouldn't dare ask those questions now.

 

[juddles]

The 2017 Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) review of Border Force .......

• Some personal searches of passengers at international airports examined by the ANAO were unlawful or inappropriate, indicating weaknesses in the control framework.........

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.

MelT, you posted about that ANAO report and have consistently used it in this thread to support whatever arguments. And as per the below excerpts from some of your posts, you consistently carried on with the statistics from that report.

I found it difficult to believe what was being alleged, and so I actually read the report, which I am sure not many others have time to do. And lo and behold, it made sense, but it was a vastly different picture to what you are portraying here.

That ANAO audit was NOT examining anything to do with the actual way or reason that the searches were conducted. It had NOTHING to do with the accuracy of intel or selection of targets, or anything like that. Nor anything to do with how the actual searches were conducted. It only looked at internal training and certification/authorization requirements of the officers involved each time - administrative stuff. And it was doing so reviewing stuff from the first year of operation of the new Border Force combined departments.

When you started quoting that report, you kept using the term "inappropriate searches", without ever disclosing what that term meant, in the true context of the ANAO report. And quite understandably, other readers of your post seem to have taken that term in common usage. So for the record, I will explain it. The searches that were termed "inappropriate" were ones where there had been any officer present who whose training was not "up to date". Specifically they have to have their training certification current, which requires refresher training every two years. And even though this is a breach of internal training policies, the ANAO states in it's footnotes:

" 4.33 In most cases, uncertified officers had previously undertaken the s219 Detention and Search training but their certification had lapsed, usually only by a few weeks or months. While it is unlikely that the knowledge and skills of an officer who undertook training one year and eleven months ago differ significantly from an officer who undertook training two years and one month ago, the level of non-compliance with this policy requirement indicates internal controls are currently inadequate."

Hardly breath-taking stuff! And IMHO a very different story to the one you have painted. And the "unlawful" searches were deemed that in the sense that the Department had not made the broad authorisations to the individual staff members involved - nothing to do with the actual circumstances of the specific searches - so because of that they could be deemed "potentially unlawful".

Yet you have used that report to make such claims as it showing officers go on phishing exercises and abuse their powers?? And that they suggest that the rate of "false positives" is too high?? That there is a strong possibility that the search that started this thread was unnecessary or not conducted properly?? (quotes below)

I will give you the benefit of doubt and assume you only skim-read that report, or just saw the stats and made an assumption of what the terms "innappropriate" and "unlawful" meant. But you need to be careful - as per the last quote below, you have people now believing something that they misunderstand.

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'..........

.......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.

The findings of the National Audit office speak for themselves. Almost a third of searches were inappropriate. More than 10 per cent were unlawful. I.......

.. ....
This is where the results of the National Audit Office come in. .... we know that 12% of searches were unlawful and almost 1 in 3 were inappropriate. These are important because it may suggest the 'margin of error' - false positives if you like - are far too high......

........ The bottom line is that with up to one third of searches being innappropriate and ten percent being unlawful, there is a strong possibility that this search either wasn't necessary, or was not conducted properly. ......

So, it's that bad? 30% of searches are inappropriate. Sad.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Juddles, I appreciate your response. But the bottom line is that the searches - whatever justification is applied - were still unlawful, or inappropriate.

If a person is not certified or authorised to do the search, it doesn't matter if that was a technicality. And the same applis from your time in the police force. If you gathered evidence unlawfully, or did something without a warrant when you were required to have one - what would have been the outcome of the case in court? Evidence can only be admitted if it was gathered lawfully as set by the rules.

Process, which is part of accountability, is just as important as the overall outcome.