Federal Police bust hire cars companies at airports!

[markis10]

As has been mentioned previously, the secure area is classed as private property (SACL owned at the time) so there are a lot of grey areas in regards to rules and regulations under federal law.

Its not private property in respect to the application of state laws, its crown land, this specifically is addressed in the following act:
AIRPORTS ACT 1996 - SECT 61


In terms of offences, this is covered specifically in a separate regulation

Airports (Control of On-Airport Activities) Regulations 1997



107 Offences against Australian Road Rules
(1) This regulation does not apply if:
(a) a person is a driver of an emergency vehicle; and
(b) the person is driving the vehicle in the course of his or her duties at the time the person contravenes a rule or subrule of the Australian Road Rules mentioned in Schedule 2, as applied by regulation 106E.
(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes a rule or subrule of the Australian Road Rules mentioned in Schedule 2, as applied by regulation 106E.

 

[file51]

Its not private property in respect to the application of state laws, its crown land, this specifically is addressed in the following act:
AIRPORTS ACT 1996 - SECT 61


In terms of offences, this is covered specifically in a separate regulation

Airports (Control of On-Airport Activities) Regulations 1997



107 Offences against Australian Road Rules
(1) This regulation does not apply if:
(a) a person is a driver of an emergency vehicle; and
(b) the person is driving the vehicle in the course of his or her duties at the time the person contravenes a rule or subrule of the Australian Road Rules mentioned in Schedule 2, as applied by regulation 106E.
(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes a rule or subrule of the Australian Road Rules mentioned in Schedule 2, as applied by regulation 106E.

Hence why I said 'Grey areas' as you will find most Federal Police/Protective Services personnel have no idea about the relevant state and commonwealth laws which may or may not apply to such areas.

 

[markis10]

Hence why I said 'Grey areas' as you will find most Federal Police/Protective Services personnel have no idea about the relevant state and commonwealth laws which may or may not apply to such areas.

Not any longer, note the Feds recently got back the primary policing authority for airports and they are very clear on what they can and cannot do, as they were created with that role in mind, as opposed to state police on federal land. Chances are you have been dealing with joint ops staff in the past or APS, not AFP (assuming it was not counter terrorist) which probably explains the events that started this topic!

The Australian Federal Police (AFP) will today be assuming full responsibility for policing and security at Sydney Airport as part of new arrangements to further enhance the safety and security of the Australian travelling public.
The AFP’s new ‘All-In’ policing and security model has now been implemented at Sydney Airport; the second of 10 airports, following the implementation at Melbourne in December last year. This model will be progressively rolled out to the remaining eight major airports, with full implementation anticipated by the end of 2013.
The Australian Government announced a new model for the policing of Australia’s major airports in December 2009, in response to the Federal Audit of Police Capabilities.
Under the previous operational model, Airport Uniform Policing capabilities were performed by State and Territory Police forces while Counter-Terrorist First Response capabilities were performed by AFP Protective Service Officers.

 

[file51]

Not any longer, note the Feds recently got back the primary policing authority for airports and they are very clear on what they can and cannot do, as they were created with that role in mind, as opposed to state police on federal land. Chances are you have been dealing with joint ops staff in the past or APS, not AFP (assuming it was not counter terrorist) which probably explains the events that started this topic!

My original reply, in regards to the theft of hire cars at airports, plus, other information is based on personal experience between 1995 and 2002.

Given that most of that time period pre-dated the events of 9/11 things were a lot different at SYD, and also every other airport in Australia (which I have worked at every one of them). These were the days where NSW Police had the Mascot sub-station located where DHL now is, and they did most of the 'Beat Police' work, in conjunction with what was then Protective Services. In a nutshell, not that it was meant to be how it worked, but anything land side was pretty much dealt with by NSW Police, anything airside.. Protective Services with NSW Police assistance (maybe best referred to as the Wild West days).

Maybe I should have pre-faced my original reply with more specific dates, but my point was mainly to clarify that during that time, the theft of vehicles with keys in the ignition really was not a major issue… it was more making sure staff did not screw up by leaving cars a non enclosed area with the keys in them

 

[markis10]

My original reply, in regards to the theft of hire cars at airports, plus, other information is based on personal experience between 1995 and 2002.

Given that most of that time period pre-dated the events of 9/11 things were a lot different at SYD, and also every other airport in Australia (which I have worked at every one of them). These were the days where NSW Police had the Mascot sub-station located where DHL now is.

No worries, in fact in 1995 the police station was located in the middle of what is now the taxi carpark for domestic on seventh street (staff carpark), its still listed as the location on some internet sites!

 

[simongr]

What a waste of time and resources. I see your point medhead that unsecured cars are more easily stolen and thus are a social issue but when did we start blaming the victims of crime for other people's crimes? There is a comic I read about a sort of totalitarian police regime where for example walking through a rough neighbourhood wearing diamond studded kneepads was classed as incitement and the victim got a bigger sentence than the perp. People read that and thought what an awful regime - this is not far off.

Is it a crime not to lock your doors? People might find it easier to break in, steal your TV and use the proceeds to buy drugs...

I wonder how the AFP feel about this sort of jobsworth police work - probably not what they signed up for...

 

[medhead]

What a waste of time and resources. I see your point medhead that unsecured cars are more easily stolen and thus are a social issue but when did we start blaming the victims of crime for other people's crimes?

My point was very much a general point about why such a law should be in the Australian Road Rules. I wasn't clear that my comment wasn't about specific situations like airports as in this case. Sorry for being confused and non specific.

Hence why I said 'Grey areas' as you will find most Federal Police/Protective Services personnel have no idea about the relevant state and commonwealth laws which may or may not apply to such areas.

Certainly not my experience in the cross over of other laws such as emergency response type things. A clear line is drawn around airports.


Sent from the Throne

 

[markis10]

Certainly not my experience in the cross over of other laws such as emergency response type things. A clear line is drawn around airports.

You would not have dealt with the APS in that context, who were given the prime responsibility then had it taken away, it was by no means a clear line when it came to airports, in fact this is the reason why AFP are now back in charge, I quote a 2005 report to the Government on the issue:

"It is a cause for concern that response arrangements for
potential significant incidents or crises at major airports, where
lives have been taken or could be at risk, lack lines of authority
of adequate clarity, certainty and efficiency. It is not always clear
who is in charge and in which circumstances, how that responsibility
is to be transferred from one body to another, and how
those bodies are to communicate in a crisis.

One glaring example is the failure to provide effective
arrangements to enable AFP, AFPPS and State and Territory
Police services to communicate with each other, and with other
airport security personnel, especially in time of emergency,
when perhaps mobile phone communication is unavailable. The
Review was told about this deficiency at a number of major
airports.

The Australian Federal Police Protective Service contingent at
major airports, with its Counter-Terrorism First Response role,
is meant to contain the crisis until the State or Territory Police
arrive. But exactly when that time might be is not clear.

Some of these command-and-control problems have their roots
in the splitting of policing functions at Australia’s major airports
and in the related gaps in acceptance of responsibility and
deployment of resources. At these 11 major airports, CTFR is
the task of that special contingent of AFPPS officers. But the
task of so-called ‘community policing’ at airports, which
involves handling disturbances of the peace and investigating
crimes, remains the responsibility of the local State or Territory
police. And at almost all major airports those police have no
established post, or even a permanent presence: Melbourne
Airport alone has a permanent presence, of two police officers

Any experience in an emergency response role cannot be translated/likened to what has been the airport policing experience up until recently after the AFP lost the role in the 80s, thats from a former SARMC experienced person/emergency operations control rated person! Now that the AFP are back and clearly empowered, I expect that will change quickly.

 

[medhead]

You would not have dealt with the APS in that context, who were given the prime responsibility then had it taken away, it was by no means a clear line when it came to airports, in fact this is the reason why AFP are now back in charge, I quote a 2005 report to the Government on the issue:



Any experience in an emergency response role cannot be translated/likened to what has been the airport policing experience up until recently after the AFP lost the role in the 80s, thats from a former SARMC experienced person/emergency operations control rated person! Now that the AFP are back and clearly empowered, I expect that will change quickly.

I can't really say to much but my experience relates to a situation where there was no "at airport" knowledge and so they called on state agencies. AFP in charge or not, I can't see that situation changing. You probably know what I do so can probably guess the type of "emergency" response required. It is always going to be much quicker to use state agencies than to get the AFP experts to fly in, for this particular stuff.

In such a situation there is a certain type of response from the state agencies. (sorry I'm being overly cryptic, but this is a public forum)


Sent from the Throne

 

[markis10]

AFP in charge or not, I can't see that situation changing.

I can see it changing because they are now resourced to do so and actually have more resources on hand than the locals, whether they should be using the resources to hassle rental car operators who pass on the already outrageous airport pickup surcharges is a completely different matter. The debacle with the T3 murders has probably been the catalyst.

 

[medhead]

I can see it changing because they are now resourced to do so and actually have more resources on hand than the locals, whether they should be using the resources to hassle rental car operators who pass on the already outrageous airport pickup surcharges is a completely different matter. The debacle with the T3 murders has probably been the catalyst.

Yeah I concede things like ordinary crime and murder the locals probably now have the resources. In my area the federal resources are all in one land locked capital and I would argue that, mostly, the states are better equipped in this one particular area. ( I won't say which states aren't ) Given the specialist situation that I'm talking about it probably had no bearing on this thread, so I'll shut up from now on.


Sent from the Throne

 

[oz_mark]

I can see it changing because they are now resourced to do so and actually have more resources on hand than the locals, whether they should be using the resources to hassle rental car operators who pass on the already outrageous airport pickup surcharges is a completely different matter. The debacle with the T3 murders has probably been the catalyst.

I thought that the Australian Road Rules talked about security of vehicle when they were left on roads. So I am not sure why they are picking on things in car parks.

 

[Shelf]

Car parks are 'road related areas' under the ARR's - basically they are treated the same as roads.

 

[medhead]

gotta say Hire cars in the thread title gives me the wrong impression. I think of actual cars that are for hire, like taxis and limos, not rental cars.