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

I agree, with the CO , Daniel Andrews (it was a Vic Pol  operation) approval,   endorsement by the CIC Shorten,   and the operational brief written by a not very bright  Vic ABF official.

"Good on Vicpol for deciding to cancel it."   They really had no option, as it was their operation, and it appears some facts have been politically overlooked in a frantic effort to blame the federal government/Abbott even though it was a Victorian government/police initiative.

The proposed operation was under the purview of (and approved by) the Victorian (ALP) government and was under the full operational control of the Victorian Police.  In fact when the operation was still going ahead, Mr Shorten told reporters in Perth Labor believed in targeting crime and hoped the "blitz" would protect Australian laws, ensure temporary workers weren't being exploited and make sure no-one was overstaying their visas.

Weekend "crackdowns" occur occasionally in Melbourne, and often with other agencies in attendance e.g Vic Roads and the Sheriffs Department are common.  This operation was intending to use:  "detection dogs, booze buses and automated number plate recognition vehicles as part of the Friday and Saturday night operation, plus Metro Trains, Yarra Trams, the sheriff's office and the Taxi Services would also be involved, and this time another agency,  ABF.

"A spokesman said it was a Victoria Police operation, and the cancellation was a matter for the police. He said the ABF was one of seven other agencies involved."

Vic Pol do not have the resources (approval)  to access other agencies databases to ascertain whether someone they have decided to check might be in breach in some way of that agencies regulations,  and thus it must be done by the relevant agency at the time using information available from the person questioned initially by the police.

Certainly nobody wishes for random on the spot interrogations by the ABF,  but this was never the intention, as has been firmly stated, nor the future intention.  But why let facts interfere with a political opportunity.

In the normal way of politics, too many broken promises can lead to an ousting from office either by one's colleagues or at the polls.

For any political party. If he breaks his word on this there will be plenty of disattisfaction.

I am not going to presuppose it will be broken, I don't worry about things that haven't happened yet. But if he does break it, then I'll be as outraged as anyone else.

"But why let facts interfere with a political opportunity."

Thank goodness politics has nothing to do with it. 

Shorten questions timing of announcement

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten praised the Government's plans to crack down on crime and visa fraud, but said he was sceptical of the Government's decision to broadcast the plans prior to the operation.

"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," Mr Shorten said.

"If you're going to do a blitz, I don't know why you'd necessarily telegraph it to the media first."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-28/border-force-to-check-visas-on-the-streets-of-melbourne/673208...

from everything I've read it sounds like the state govt and Vic Police did not have the same operation in mind as was announced in the original press release from the ABF

That's what it looks like Debra.

One thing I read was it was originally intended to be a check on taxi drivers.

I read that too Amber and it makes a lot more sense than " questioning anyone that crosses our path" lol

Yes it does 🙂

Certainly nobody wishes for random on the spot interrogations by the ABF,  but this was never the intention, as has been firmly stated, nor the future intention.  But why let facts interfere with a political opportunity

How can you tell if a politician's lying?

Watch his?her lips - if theyre moving he/she is lying.

but this was never the intention, as has been firmly stated, nor the future intention. Come on John, even if it did happen to be true, why on earth would they expect us to believe it? Or maybe they don't. Maybe they know that we know they are lying through their teeth, but it's all part of the game to pretend they don't.