topic Re: Go away Australian Border Force in Community Spirit

Go away Australian Border Force

bluecat*dancing — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 07:11:55 GMT

One of the many reasons that I love Melbourne. Your Blue Shirts are not welcome here, Mr Abbott.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australian-border-force-to-patrol-melbourne-cbd-as-part-of-antisocial-behaviour-operation-20150828-gj9qtd.html

Re: Go away Australian Border Force

jean2579 — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 07:22:29 GMT

Didn't any sensible person in any of these offices ask the question at the meeting where this was decided, "Does anyone else think that this is a dumb idea, or even legal".

It turns out that only the Vic Police had the authority.

How were the officers from the train, tram companies and the taxi council have any legal authority to stop anyone?

The border force authority on a public street was also apparently questionable.

The whole thing reeks of a Dads Army movie.

Re: Go away Australian Border Force

the_great_she_elephant — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 07:25:52 GMT

@jean2579 wrote:
Didn't any sensible person in any of these offices ask the question at the meeting where this was decided, "Does anyone else think that this is a dumb idea, or even legal".
It turns out that only the Vic Police had the authority.
How were the officers from the train, tram companies and the taxi council have any legal authority to stop anyone?
The border force authority on a public street was also apparently questionable.
The whole thing reeks of a Dads Army movie.

I suspect it was another "Captain's pick".

Re: Go away Australian Border Force

j*oono — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 07:27:02 GMT

I think it reeks of a whole lot worse than Dads Army Jean.

Re: Go away Australian Border Force

amber-eyed-girl — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 07:58:43 GMT

Does that mean I need my passport in the city now?

are your papers in order...

Re: Go away Australian Border Force

debra9275 — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:00:19 GMT

I don't think I've ever seen anything quite so ridiculous Blue, Melburnians have voiced their opinion about it loud and clear

Re: Go away Australian Border Force

tasfleur — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:18:59 GMT

The whole thing sends a cold shiver through me ... history shows the consequences of that kind of behaviour loud and clear; there is no place for it in a democracy (or anywhere else for that matter) in my opinion.

Re: Go away Australian Border Force

Anonymous — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:24:09 GMT

@amber-eyed-girl wrote:
Does that mean I need my passport in the city now?

are your papers in order...

i dont get it....why would you?

Earlier on Friday, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten questioned why Operation Fortitude was announced to the media ahead of the blitz, however he said Labor supports efforts to target crime.

"I do hope that any of these actions are done to try and protect Australian laws, to make sure that people are not overstaying their visas, to make sure that temporary guest workers are not being exploited," he said.

Asked if he thought the blitz would damage Melbourne's reputation internationally, he said "No".

28-08-2015 -

The Australian Border Force (ABF) will not be ‘stopping people at random’ in Melbourne to ‘check people’s papers’ as reported in media this morning regarding Operation Fortitude.

As stated in this morning’s press release, the ABF will be assisting in a joint operation led by Victoria Police in Melbourne this weekend.

To be clear:

This is a joint agency operation led by Victoria Police.
The ABF will assist other agencies in this operation by conducting background visa checks on individuals who are referred to us by Victoria Police and other agencies.
The ABF is but one of eight agencies assisting in this operation.
The ABF does not and will not stop people at random in the streets and does not target on the basis of race, religion, or ethnicity.
Joint operations of this type are common and were previously conducted by Departmental immigration officers.

ABF activity will occur at only two of the numerous locations where Operation Fortitude will be carried out in the Melbourne CBD this weekend.

Re: Go away Australian Border Force

Anonymous — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:26:59 GMT

@tasfleur wrote:
The whole thing sends a cold shiver through me ... history shows the consequences of that kind of behaviour loud and clear; there is no place for it in a democracy (or anywhere else for that matter) in my opinion.

what kind of behaviour ??

Re: Go away Australian Border Force

tasfleur — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:34:44 GMT

Behaviour that stops someone at random on the street to ask for identity "papers".

I would have no problem with a police officer asking me for my license etc under certain circumstances where they are looking for a suspect, or being pulled over for a breath test etc ... but a so called "border force" ... no!

Re: Go away Australian Border Force

Anonymous — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:36:49 GMT

@tasfleur wrote:
Behaviour that stops someone at random on the street to ask for identity "papers".

I would have no problem with a police officer asking me for my license etc under certain circumstances where they are looking for a suspect, or being pulled over for a breath test etc ... but a so called "border force" ... no!

but that has already been clarified.

it was never going to be the case.

Re: Go away Australian Border Force

tasfleur — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:38:23 GMT

Good! Then if that's the case, nothing to be concerned about in Australia ...

Re: Go away Australian Border Force

debra9275 — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:40:00 GMT

just to clarify.. this is the original statement from Border Force, the one you posted Julia was released later in the day

http://newsroom.border.gov.au/releases/abf-joining-inter-agency-outfit-to-target-crime-in-melbourne-cbd

“ABF officers will be positioned at various locations around the CBD speaking with any individual we cross paths with,” Mr Smith said.

“You need to be aware of the conditions of your visa; if you commit visa fraud you should know it’s only a matter of time before you’re caught out.

Re: Go away Australian Border Force

Anonymous — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:40:14 GMT

28-08-2015 -

Commissioner Quaedvlieg: I just want to make a quick statement and then I'll take a couple of questions and then I need to head off.

I'd like to clarify the Australian Border Force's misunderstood role in the conduct of a Victoria Police-led operation, Operation Fortitude. Operation Fortitude is an operation that was established by the Victorian Police in order to create a safe city environment within Melbourne.

The Australian Border Force is a secondary but supporting assist to that operation. Our role always was - and still is into the future - a supporting role in terms of immigration compliance. The Australian Border Force will stand by to receive the referrals from the Victorian Police where there are any immigration compliance issues to be enforced or dealt with.

There was never any intent for the Australian Border Force to proactively go out and seek immigration breaches out in Melbourne city. I'm happy to take questions.

Question: That's not what your statement said because of course you said that ABF officers will be positioned at various locations around the CBD, speaking with any individual we cross paths with. Now, that sounds rather menacing doesn't it?

Commissioner Quaedvlieg: It does. And that was a press release that was cleared at a low level in the organisation. It was, in my description, clumsily worded. It's portrayed a role which was not the agreed role between ourselves and Victorian police. Internal measures have been taken to remediate that issue.

Question: It's not just clumsily worded - it's actually not within the law, is that right?

Commissioner Quaedvlieg: No, well, I think it's misunderstood. Taken into context, it makes absolute, perfect, legitimate sense. But read through the layperson's eyes - which I absolutely openly acknowledge - it's clumsily worded and it's been misconstrued and it shouldn't have been worded that way.

Question: Given what you say was the actual intention for Border Force over the weekend, why would it make sense to tell everybody that you were going to be there? Because surely then people who had visa problems wouldn't go out in Melbourne on Saturday night, would they?

Commissioner Quaedvlieg: No, look, these operations are run all the time, all around the country, by the state and territory police jurisdictions. They're intended to create safe environments and if we can market that in advance in terms of the increased police presence and other authorities and that creates a safe environment then that's also part of the agenda.

Question: But you weren't the lead agency on this were you? Victoria Police were the lead agency?

Commissioner Quaedvlieg: That's absolutely correct.

Question: So why did the ABF feel the need to put out a statement when the Vic Police were [indistinct]?

Commissioner Quaedvlieg: Well, as I explained to you that was a press release that was released at the lower levels of the organisation. It incorrectly construed what our role was. I've mentioned a couple of times now we are a secondary referral agency with that operation.

Question: Did Mr Smith not see the quotes that were in his name?

Commissioner Quaedvlieg: Mr Smith did see the quotes that were put in his name.

Question: [Indistinct] that clumsily worded press release you've referred to was sent out a low level of the organisation. Who did it go to, who checked over the wording, and was the Minister's office at any stage involved in issuing press releases from Border Force?

Commissioner Quaedvlieg: On the latter point, no, the Minister's office is not involved. The press release was circulated at a regional level in the state of Victoria.

Question: But Mr Smith isn't low level, right? And he saw the quotes that were in his name?

Commissioner Quaedvlieg: The level is all relative. It's low level. I didn't see it. It's a low level in the organisation as far as I'm concerned.

Question: Commissioner, did Mr Smith say officers will be positioned at various locations around the CBD speaking with any individuals we cross paths with?

Commissioner Quaedvlieg: We've already covered that ground. I said yes, it's clumsily worded. Any other questions?

Question: So did he say that or did he not say that?

Commissioner Quaedvlieg: It's in the press release. We've covered that, it's clumsily worded.

Question: Will any action be taken against the person who wrote the press release?

Commissioner Quaedvlieg: That's an internal disciplinary matter; I'm not going to intend to canvas that here.

Question: Does Mr Smith still have his job today?

Commissioner Quaedvlieg: Yes, he does.

Question: How embarrassing is it for the Border Force that this has happened?

Commissioner Quaedvlieg: Oh, look, it's an unfortunate incident, and it shouldn't have occurred. Remediation will be put into place but, you know, it's not a fatal embarrassment.

Question: Have you apologised to the Victorian Police and the Victorian Police Minister because they've had to call off this whole…

Commissioner Quaedvlieg: I've had a conversation today with the Chief Commissioner of the Victorian Police Force. We're good colleagues, we have good institutional relationships. That's as far as I'm going to take that conversation.

Question: If Mr Smith is the head of Border Force in Victoria and Tasmania, and he saw those quotes, did he not understand what his own organisation was doing on Saturday night?

Commissioner Quaedvlieg: Look, I think we've covered that ground. My point is that…

Question: No, sorry, I don't understand the answer.

Commissioner Quaedvlieg: …no, no we have covered the ground. The point is that Mr Smith cleared that press release, it was released at the level, it was taken out of context, it should have been better explained, it was clumsy.

Question: Well, this raises the question, though, of whether or not Mr Smith understands the Act under which he works, if he would allow something like that to go ahead?

Commissioner Quaedvlieg: No, look, I can assure you he does. This was an unfortunate misconstruction of wording. It shouldn't have been the case and unfortunately it has been misunderstood.

Thank you.

Re: Go away Australian Border Force

Anonymous — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:43:48 GMT

@debra9275 wrote:
just to clarify.. this is the original statement from Border Force, the one you posted Julia was released later in the day

yes, i realise that but I am referring to the link

in the opening post in which the situation was

clarified.

Re: Go away Australian Border Force

Anonymous — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:44:35 GMT

@tasfleur wrote:
Good! Then if that's the case, nothing to be concerned about in Australia ...

Re: Go away Australian Border Force

tasfleur — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:45:45 GMT

"This was an unfortunate misconstruction of wording"

It would be better if these Government Agencies could make sure the left hand knew what the right hand was doing ... it would certainly make for more rational governance overall ...

Re: Go away Australian Border Force

amber-eyed-girl — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:49:28 GMT

What don't you get?

prior to this announcement there has been the requirement to carry ID for various reasons. Entry to bars, purchase of alcohol, if one is asked to produce it by the police or a transport official.

Part of this initiative is to check on visas. The easiest way to prove one's legality on that point, is to carry an Australian passport, surely?

checks may not be random, but with (as per your information) them to be (perhaps) conducted at two points in the CBD.

considering everywhere I can go in the course of a weekend, I will be carrying ID.

Re: Go away Australian Border Force

amber-eyed-girl — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:54:52 GMT

As Debra has pointed out, what was in the news first was a reference to random checks. Since clarified, but the press release was strongly indicating that is what would be happening. If it is branded a success, be interesting to see if the terms broaden back to what was stated in that initial release.

Re: Go away Australian Border Force

Anonymous — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 09:19:59 GMT

as i said, i was referring to what was posted

in the opening post's link which contained the

clarification.

be interesting to see if the terms broaden back to what was stated in that initial release.

hopefully not since it was supposed to be

incorrectly worded. someone obviously stuffed

up by releasing the wrong information. its a bit

of a worry in that regard. well, a big worry.

look what it caused.