The people smuggler of the Gungahlin trolley queue

Jim Jones said :

chewy14 said :

Jim Jones said :

Although I agree that TPVs are the way to go, I fail to see how asking for asylum could in any way be seen as illegal?

Cause some populist arsehole politician started spouting nasty dogwhistling rhetoric about ‘illegal immigrants’ to win an election, that’s why.

Immigration in Australia (particularly boat arrivals) are almost a non-issue. It’s such a small amount of people that the sound and fury that gets whipped up about it is almost funny.

The politicisation of this issue by both major parties is absolutely disgusting and has led to a lot of racism. A pox on both their houses. Although, lets face it, some people clearing don’t need much inciting.

Yeah boat arrivals are a non issue. Well except for the fact that quite a number of people have died making the extremely dangerous journey.

Something those extra empathetic and compassionate (usually lefty) supporters just love to ignore.

Oh, so that’s why Howard and his ilk were always ranting ‘we’ll decide who comes to this country and the manner in which they come’, and why Ruddock compared boat people to terrrorists, and why Scott Morrisson is popularly known as the “minister for whipping up racist fears”, and why Siev X and all the other tragedies occurred. It isn’t dogwhistle politics t bogans in Western Sydney all. It’s actually because they really care about boat people.

It turns out that the whole thing is actually driven by compassion and a desire to help ones fellow man, rather than bigotry, distrust and fear.

Silly me.

Interestingly, the events which befell SIEV X have re-occurred 8 times since then, but the pro-fake-refugee mob don’t seem to be as upset about the 8 bots that have gone done under Labor’s waqtch as they are about the one they falsely accused the Libs of being responsible for.

These lefties are completely and utterly irrational on this issue.

Jim Jones said :

HenryBG said :

buzz819 said :

See that?

unlawful.

If they were not unlawful, there would be no cause or excuse for detaining them. They could avoid detention if they just chose to enter Australia lawfully instead of unlawfully.

That’s the most desperate example of clutching at straws I’ve seen for a while.

You’re so wrong that it hurts.

They enter unlawfully, they are put into detention. Very simple. You seem to be having trouble with it.

People falsely detained can sue the government. Like Vivienne Solon and Cornelia Rao which the pro-fake-refugee mob seem to get so excited about all the time.

So that’s 2 people who have sued the govenrment for illegally detaining them, and several tens of thousands detained but now happily living on benefits somewhere in a suburb in Australia.

chewy14 said :

Jim Jones said :

Although I agree that TPVs are the way to go, I fail to see how asking for asylum could in any way be seen as illegal?

Cause some populist arsehole politician started spouting nasty dogwhistling rhetoric about ‘illegal immigrants’ to win an election, that’s why.

Immigration in Australia (particularly boat arrivals) are almost a non-issue. It’s such a small amount of people that the sound and fury that gets whipped up about it is almost funny.

The politicisation of this issue by both major parties is absolutely disgusting and has led to a lot of racism. A pox on both their houses. Although, lets face it, some people clearing don’t need much inciting.

Yeah boat arrivals are a non issue. Well except for the fact that quite a number of people have died making the extremely dangerous journey.

Something those extra empathetic and compassionate (usually lefty) supporters just love to ignore.

Oh, so that’s why Howard and his ilk were always ranting ‘we’ll decide who comes to this country and the manner in which they come’, and why Ruddock compared boat people to terrrorists, and why Scott Morrisson is popularly known as the “minister for whipping up racist fears”, and why Siev X and all the other tragedies occurred. It isn’t dogwhistle politics t bogans in Western Sydney all. It’s actually because they really care about boat people.

It turns out that the whole thing is actually driven by compassion and a desire to help ones fellow man, rather than bigotry, distrust and fear.

Silly me.

Jim Jones said :

Although I agree that TPVs are the way to go, I fail to see how asking for asylum could in any way be seen as illegal?

Cause some populist arsehole politician started spouting nasty dogwhistling rhetoric about ‘illegal immigrants’ to win an election, that’s why.

Immigration in Australia (particularly boat arrivals) are almost a non-issue. It’s such a small amount of people that the sound and fury that gets whipped up about it is almost funny.

The politicisation of this issue by both major parties is absolutely disgusting and has led to a lot of racism. A pox on both their houses. Although, lets face it, some people clearing don’t need much inciting.

Yeah boat arrivals are a non issue. Well except for the fact that quite a number of people have died making the extremely dangerous journey.

Something those extra empathetic and compassionate (usually lefty) supporters just love to ignore.

If this guy is the one who organised one or more boats that have disappeared, surely there should be some laws he has broken and some deaths that he is responsible for. If P&O had a cruise ship that sank because it was unseaworthy and people died because there was not suitable safetly devices I;m sure there would be charges against them.

Jim Jones said :

Oh god, the stupid, please stop. It’s so bad it hurts.

I agree, let’s stop the stupid.

In the words of SBS news just earlier, “[trolley-guy] was given asylum in Australia after arriving by boat posing as a refugee”.
Apparently he’s facing deportation, now that a TV station has demonstrated he’s a scammer.
Assuming the AFP and Immigration pull their fingers out and start doing something about these scammers.

HenryBG said :

buzz819 said :

MIGRATION ACT 1958 – SECT 189
Detention of unlawful non-citizens
(1) If an officer knows or reasonably suspects that a person in the migration zone (other than an excised offshore place) is an unlawful non-citizen, the officer must detain the person.
.

See that?

unlawful.

If they were not unlawful, there would be no cause or excuse for detaining them. They could avoid detention if they just chose to enter Australia lawfully instead of unlawfully.

That’s the most desperate example of clutching at straws I’ve seen for a while.

You’re so wrong that it hurts.

Just go back to the Pacific Solution, it worked so well it has p*ssed off those regurgitating opinions from protest placards ever since.

– Did it stop people smuggling? Yes, it did.
– Did it maintain the integrity of our sea borders? Yes, it did.
– Did it prevent thousands of asylum seekers drowning? Yes, it did.
– Did it encourage asylum seekers to enter through the correct channels? Yes, it did.
– Did it achieve a shortening of detention periods? Yes, it did.

Labor dumping the Pacific Solution resulted in poorer outcomes to the ones above, and Greens policy is even worse.

buzz819 said :

MIGRATION ACT 1958 – SECT 189
Detention of unlawful non-citizens
(1) If an officer knows or reasonably suspects that a person in the migration zone (other than an excised offshore place) is an unlawful non-citizen, the officer must detain the person.
.

See that?

unlawful.

If they were not unlawful, there would be no cause or excuse for detaining them. They could avoid detention if they just chose to enter Australia lawfully instead of unlawfully.

p1 said :

Dilandach said :

So when did the current fad of needing a security clearance for every single department no matter how mundane or far from national security it is?

The lower levels of “security clearance” tend to be about confidential information rather then anything “security” related.

ie, when I worked at Immigration for a while, my job had zero to do with national security, but I could have looked up the entry and exit details (not to mention addresses) for pretty much anyone. Likewise a centrelink employee could look up addresses and bankdetails, etc.

Arguably more important to check such people are reliable then a lot of the people at defence.

Than, it’s THAN!

HenryBG said :

buzz819 said :

HenryBG said :

KIf it’s not illegal, how come they’re locked up?

WHich bit of the Migration Act says you can ignore the law if you feel like it?

Of course they’re breaking the law.
If they are doing it for genuine reasons, that’s fine, but flying to Malaysia and paying a criminal $10,000 to get you on a boat to Australia to make a false asylum claim is dishonest and it is unbelievable our government has been so pathetic in dealing with these scammers.

Wow show’s how astute you are, they aren’t locked up because they broke the law, they are detained to ascertain who they are, why they are here and to see if they have a legitimate claim of asylum..

Well, seeing as you’re so very astute, I’m going to type the following sentences very slowly for you:

The only way you can lock somebody up is if they have broken the law – in this case the Migration Act. Otherwise, locking them up would be illegal. They’re locked up because – contrary to the Migration Act – they have not travelled to Australia with the necessary documents and authorisations and they have thereby entered Australia illegally.

You can no doubt comfort yourself with the fact that fact-free rhetoric such as you are now displaying, by encouraging illegal immigrants, has resulted in 8 boatloads of them being lost at see since Kevin Rudd ditched the Libs’ immigration policies.
Proud of yourself?

Proud of myself? Generally yes, although at the moment I feel like I am playing a battle of wits with a house brick. You are confusing “imprisonment” with “detainment.” I copied something for you from the Migration Act 1958;

MIGRATION ACT 1958 – SECT 189
Detention of unlawful non-citizens
(1) If an officer knows or reasonably suspects that a person in the migration zone (other than an excised offshore place) is an unlawful non-citizen, the officer must detain the person.
(2) If an officer reasonably suspects that a person in Australia but outside the migration zone:
(a) is seeking to enter the migration zone (other than an excised offshore place); and
(b) would, if in the migration zone, be an unlawful non-citizen;
the officer must detain the person.
(3) If an officer knows or reasonably suspects that a person in an excised offshore place is an unlawful non-citizen, the officer may detain the person.
(4) If an officer reasonably suspects that a person in Australia but outside the migration zone:
(a) is seeking to enter an excised offshore place; and
(b) would, if in the migration zone, be an unlawful non-citizen;
the officer may detain the person.
(5) In subsections (3) and (4) and any other provisions of this Act that relate to those subsections, officer means an officer within the meaning of section 5, and includes a member of the Australian Defence Force.

MIGRATION ACT 1958 – SECT 14
Unlawful non-citizens
(1) A non-citizen in the migration zone who is not a lawful non-citizen is an unlawful non-citizen.
(2) To avoid doubt, a non-citizen in the migration zone who, immediately before 1 September 1994, was an illegal entrant within the meaning of the Migration Act as in force then became, on that date, an unlawful non-citizen.
(a lawful non-citizen is a migrant with a visa)

and finally who is designated to go to detention;

MIGRATION ACT 1958 – SECT 177
Interpretation
In this Division:
“boat” means a vessel of any description, but does not include an aircraft.
“commencement” means the commencement of this Division.
“designated person” means a non-citizen who:
(a) has been on a boat in the territorial sea of Australia after 19 November 1989 and before 1 September 1994; and
(b) has not presented a visa; and
(c) is in the migration zone; and
(d) has not been granted a visa; and
(e) is a person to whom the Department has given a designation by:
(i) determining and recording which boat he or she was on; and
(ii) giving him or her an identifier that is not the same as an identifier given to another non-citizen who was on that boat;
and includes a non-citizen born in Australia whose mother is a designated person.
“entry application” , in relation to a person, means an application for:
(a) a determination by the Minister that the person is a refugee; or
(b) a visa for the person.

Notice how there is no offences in any part of that legislation?

So yes the Migration Act allows people to be detained without breaking a law, the Intoxicated persons act also allows Police to take someone into protective custody with out breaking any law, so does the Road Transport Act for drink driving, there is also a Common Law provision for Police to take someone into custody for a breach of the peace, this is also when no laws have been broken, so yes, I think I am a little more astute then you.

HenryBG said :

Well, seeing as you’re so very astute, I’m going to type the following sentences very slowly for you:

The only way you can lock somebody up is if they have broken the law – in this case the Migration Act. Otherwise, locking them up would be illegal. They’re locked up because – contrary to the Migration Act – they have not travelled to Australia with the necessary documents and authorisations and they have thereby entered Australia illegally.

You can no doubt comfort yourself with the fact that fact-free rhetoric such as you are now displaying, by encouraging illegal immigrants, has resulted in 8 boatloads of them being lost at see since Kevin Rudd ditched the Libs’ immigration policies.
Proud of yourself?

You really have no idea do you?

If they had broken any law they would be charged and placed before a court (you know…that place you refuse to do your civic duty at)

They are held pending their asylum claim. If they are found to be refugees they are released. If they are found not to be refugees they cannot be released and must be returned to where they came from. The issue is that many countries refuse to take them back so its a catch-22 situation.

Of they may be refused a protection visa because of security concerns.

Not one asylum seeker has ever been charged with criminal offence relating to coming to Australia. None at all.

Why? Because there is no such offence.

There wasn’t an offence under Howard’s government

There wasn’t an offence under Rudd’s governement

There is no offence under Gillard’s government.

There is simply no offence for coming to Australia and attempting to claim asylum. For anyone. No matter how they get here or where they come from.

And there has not been an offence at any time that I can recall. Not in the last twenty years anyway.

Personally, I think Howards policies worked the best. TPV’s seemed to be an effective method.

All this time, I thought they were called Mandatory Detention Centres – turns out that was all a massive communist conspiracy to hide the fact that they’re actually prisons, and the government and the media and the law courts and the prison system itself and EVERYONE is in on the conspiracy.

Stop da boats derp.

HenryBG said :

buzz819 said :

HenryBG said :

KIf it’s not illegal, how come they’re locked up?

WHich bit of the Migration Act says you can ignore the law if you feel like it?

Of course they’re breaking the law.
If they are doing it for genuine reasons, that’s fine, but flying to Malaysia and paying a criminal $10,000 to get you on a boat to Australia to make a false asylum claim is dishonest and it is unbelievable our government has been so pathetic in dealing with these scammers.

Wow show’s how astute you are, they aren’t locked up because they broke the law, they are detained to ascertain who they are, why they are here and to see if they have a legitimate claim of asylum..

Well, seeing as you’re so very astute, I’m going to type the following sentences very slowly for you:

The only way you can lock somebody up is if they have broken the law – in this case the Migration Act. Otherwise, locking them up would be illegal. They’re locked up because – contrary to the Migration Act – they have not travelled to Australia with the necessary documents and authorisations and they have thereby entered Australia illegally.

You can no doubt comfort yourself with the fact that fact-free rhetoric such as you are now displaying, by encouraging illegal immigrants, has resulted in 8 boatloads of them being lost at see since Kevin Rudd ditched the Libs’ immigration policies.
Proud of yourself?

Oh god, the stupid, please stop. It’s so bad it hurts.

Although I agree that TPVs are the way to go, I fail to see how asking for asylum could in any way be seen as illegal?

Cause some populist arsehole politician started spouting nasty dogwhistling rhetoric about ‘illegal immigrants’ to win an election, that’s why.

Immigration in Australia (particularly boat arrivals) are almost a non-issue. It’s such a small amount of people that the sound and fury that gets whipped up about it is almost funny.

The politicisation of this issue by both major parties is absolutely disgusting and has led to a lot of racism. A pox on both their houses. Although, lets face it, some people clearing don’t need much inciting.

buzz819 said :

johnboy said :

welkin31 said :

#38 – johnboy – you said – “except that 8-9 out of ten arrivals (iirc) are making legitimate claims for asylum.”

Do you seriously have faith that our system is not being lied to and abused ?

None whatsoever. But I’d rather call someone who made the effort to come here on dangerous boats my countryman than the average bogan in the street who lucked out in the lottery of birth.

Lol… Here here…

They never release the figures of how many people arrive here at the airport seeking assylum, I’d be interested in seeing the difference in numbers between the two.

Yeah never… just every 3 months or so….

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/asylum/_files/asylum-stats-march-quarter-2012.pdf

buzz819 said :

HenryBG said :

KIf it’s not illegal, how come they’re locked up?

WHich bit of the Migration Act says you can ignore the law if you feel like it?

Of course they’re breaking the law.
If they are doing it for genuine reasons, that’s fine, but flying to Malaysia and paying a criminal $10,000 to get you on a boat to Australia to make a false asylum claim is dishonest and it is unbelievable our government has been so pathetic in dealing with these scammers.

Wow show’s how astute you are, they aren’t locked up because they broke the law, they are detained to ascertain who they are, why they are here and to see if they have a legitimate claim of asylum..

Well, seeing as you’re so very astute, I’m going to type the following sentences very slowly for you:

The only way you can lock somebody up is if they have broken the law – in this case the Migration Act. Otherwise, locking them up would be illegal. They’re locked up because – contrary to the Migration Act – they have not travelled to Australia with the necessary documents and authorisations and they have thereby entered Australia illegally.

You can no doubt comfort yourself with the fact that fact-free rhetoric such as you are now displaying, by encouraging illegal immigrants, has resulted in 8 boatloads of them being lost at see since Kevin Rudd ditched the Libs’ immigration policies.
Proud of yourself?

johnboy said :

except that 8-9 out of ten arrivals (iirc) are making legitimate claims for asylum.

We can hardly trust that statistic now – considering that a bulk lot of 6 people smugglers got through in one hit – what does that say for the vetting process?

johnboy said :

welkin31 said :

#38 – johnboy – you said – “except that 8-9 out of ten arrivals (iirc) are making legitimate claims for asylum.”

Do you seriously have faith that our system is not being lied to and abused ?

None whatsoever. But I’d rather call someone who made the effort to come here on dangerous boats my countryman than the average bogan in the street who lucked out in the lottery of birth.

Lol… Here here…

They never release the figures of how many people arrive here at the airport seeking assylum, I’d be interested in seeing the difference in numbers between the two.

Nifty said :

Actually, the trolley guy whom Four Corners claim is people smuggling kingpin “Captain Emad” clearly has a tremendous work ethic. Surely he’s just the kind of migrant Australia needs!

Almost, but not quite. If the story on the ABC is true, then I want my people smugglers to be smarter than to tell their business plan on national TV. As Sir Humphrey said, “If you want to keep a secret, you have to keep secret that you have a secret to keep”.

welkin31 said :

#38 – johnboy – you said – “except that 8-9 out of ten arrivals (iirc) are making legitimate claims for asylum.”

Do you seriously have faith that our system is not being lied to and abused ?

None whatsoever. But I’d rather call someone who made the effort to come here on dangerous boats my countryman than the average bogan in the street who lucked out in the lottery of birth.

#38 – johnboy – you said – “except that 8-9 out of ten arrivals (iirc) are making legitimate claims for asylum.”

Do you seriously have faith that our system is not being lied to and abused ?

HenryBG said :

CrocodileGandhi said :

HenryBG said :

EvanJames said :

koro said :

i may well pay the abc 5 cents a day now-there reporters are getting attention.well done abc.t.v

Kerry O’Brien asked the question at the end of the report. All our numerous and expensvie law enforcement, government admin, intelligence services, and a shoe-string news team from an underfunded network discovers all this? What a joke.

Time to stop tolerating illegal immigration. Let’s ignore the pro-people-drowners..sorry..”smugglers”…and cut it out altogether.
Howard’s policies stopped them dead – why not do something novel and progressive, admit the Liberals showed they can manage illegal immigration, and hand over the portfolio to the libs to sort out?

Yes, we should stop illegal immigration. Fortunately for asylum seekers, what they are doing is not illegal.

KIf it’s not illegal, how come they’re locked up?

WHich bit of the Migration Act says you can ignore the law if you feel like it?

Of course they’re breaking the law.
If they are doing it for genuine reasons, that’s fine, but flying to Malaysia and paying a criminal $10,000 to get you on a boat to Australia to make a false asylum claim is dishonest and it is unbelievable our government has been so pathetic in dealing with these scammers.

Wow show’s how astute you are, they aren’t locked up because they broke the law, they are detained to ascertain who they are, why they are here and to see if they have a legitimate claim of asylum.

It amazes me that you want these laws enforced, they have no direct bearing on your life, in any way shape or form, yet drug laws you get your knickers in a twist, when drug users are the ones who are breaking into houses, stealing cars and running over people etc. Then on top of that you wont sit on a jury.

HenryBG said :

johnboy said :

except that 8-9 out of ten arrivals (iirc) are making legitimate claims for asylum.

If they’re coming from Indonesia, but they aren’t fleeing Indonesia, then they fail the basic test of being a refugee, as agreed by Australia 60 years ago in the Convention on Refugees.

As lawyers have successfully introduced revisionist ambiguity into the determination of refugee status, we need a new law which unequivocally states that fake refugees are not entitled to asylum – a fake refugee being a person entering AUstralia for the purpose of claiming asylum where they were not subject to any persecution at the point of departure.

The Australian taxpayer needs to be protected from scammers and criminals, especially foreign criminals and scammers, and this government is doing a poor job of it.

The problem is that many people believe (rightly or wrongly) that if you don’t claim refugee status in countries you transit (e.g. Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Burma, Malaysia, Indonesia) then you can legitimately claim asylum in Australia.

I’m torn on the issue. On one hand it’s pretty obvious that many of these people are economic refugees, but on the other hand if I were in their shoes (or lack thereof) I’d possibly do the same thing myself.

HenryBG said :

WHich bit of the Migration Act says you can ignore the law if you feel like it?

Of course they’re breaking the law.
If they are doing it for genuine reasons, that’s fine, but flying to Malaysia and paying a criminal $10,000 to get you on a boat to Australia to make a false asylum claim is dishonest and it is unbelievable our government has been so pathetic in dealing with these scammers.

The simple fact is it not illegal. Any person, from anywhere can come to Australia by any means and claim asylum and their case must be examined.

The same way you could fly to the UK, first class, stopping off in twelve countries along the way. You are still entitled to claim asylum if you want and your case must be examined.

Doesn’t mean we have to accept them, or they have to accept you, but there is nothing illegal about trying.

johnboy said :

except that 8-9 out of ten arrivals (iirc) are making legitimate claims for asylum.

If they’re coming from Indonesia, but they aren’t fleeing Indonesia, then they fail the basic test of being a refugee, as agreed by Australia 60 years ago in the Convention on Refugees.

As lawyers have successfully introduced revisionist ambiguity into the determination of refugee status, we need a new law which unequivocally states that fake refugees are not entitled to asylum – a fake refugee being a person entering AUstralia for the purpose of claiming asylum where they were not subject to any persecution at the point of departure.

The Australian taxpayer needs to be protected from scammers and criminals, especially foreign criminals and scammers, and this government is doing a poor job of it.

SnapperJack said :

But don’t you know it is all Tony Abbott’s fault according to Gillard and her ministers? They keep trotting out that tripe when everybody knows the problem began when Labor caved into the bleeding heart refugee lobby and threw out Howard and Ruddock’s laws which stopped the boats stone dead and put the people smugglers out of business.

In the year following the implementation of Temporary Protection Visas (what more would a genuine refugee want?) the number of boats full of scammers arriving in Australia vfell to one.

Labor policy resulted in hundreds of boats arriving, and, at last count, 8 boatloads being drowned or disappeared completely at sea. That’s several hundred of the scammers drowned at sea as a direct result of the pro-people-smugglers.

CrocodileGandhi said :

HenryBG said :

EvanJames said :

koro said :

i may well pay the abc 5 cents a day now-there reporters are getting attention.well done abc.t.v

Kerry O’Brien asked the question at the end of the report. All our numerous and expensvie law enforcement, government admin, intelligence services, and a shoe-string news team from an underfunded network discovers all this? What a joke.

Time to stop tolerating illegal immigration. Let’s ignore the pro-people-drowners..sorry..”smugglers”…and cut it out altogether.
Howard’s policies stopped them dead – why not do something novel and progressive, admit the Liberals showed they can manage illegal immigration, and hand over the portfolio to the libs to sort out?

Yes, we should stop illegal immigration. Fortunately for asylum seekers, what they are doing is not illegal.

KIf it’s not illegal, how come they’re locked up?

WHich bit of the Migration Act says you can ignore the law if you feel like it?

Of course they’re breaking the law.
If they are doing it for genuine reasons, that’s fine, but flying to Malaysia and paying a criminal $10,000 to get you on a boat to Australia to make a false asylum claim is dishonest and it is unbelievable our government has been so pathetic in dealing with these scammers.

rosscoact said :

So, let me get this straight.

Why is this guy smuggling trolleys?

No, he was smuggling people IN trolleys.

So, let me get this straight.

Why is this guy smuggling trolleys?

My point being that ‘criminal associations’ and ‘fit and proper person’ seem to be devoid of the current process. They should be.

HenryBG said :

EvanJames said :

koro said :

i may well pay the abc 5 cents a day now-there reporters are getting attention.well done abc.t.v

Kerry O’Brien asked the question at the end of the report. All our numerous and expensvie law enforcement, government admin, intelligence services, and a shoe-string news team from an underfunded network discovers all this? What a joke.

Time to stop tolerating illegal immigration. Let’s ignore the pro-people-drowners..sorry..”smugglers”…and cut it out altogether.
Howard’s policies stopped them dead – why not do something novel and progressive, admit the Liberals showed they can manage illegal immigration, and hand over the portfolio to the libs to sort out?

But don’t you know it is all Tony Abbott’s fault according to Gillard and her ministers? They keep trotting out that tripe when everybody knows the problem began when Labor caved into the bleeding heart refugee lobby and threw out Howard and Ruddock’s laws which stopped the boats stone dead and put the people smugglers out of business.

buzz819 said :

johnboy said :

The point being that working the trolley lines is a useful way to conduct a business needing a transactions in plain sight.

That and squeegee guys.

It also gives you a genuine income so you can quite truthfully say to ACT Housing that you earn X amount of money from trolley collecting

Bingo, poor refugee, pushing trolleys, low income earner, government house.

This should really prompt a hard look at our immigration and border protection policies, but somehow I doubt that anything will happen.

As Kerry O’Brien stated:

How is it that one small team from a television program with limited resources can expose the facts and the people revealed tonight, yet governments, with all the resources and expertise at their disposal, seemingly cannot?

Big questions need to be asked.

I think it is more about, more people are willing to talk to a journalist then a public servant or member of law enforcement. The other reason would be that journalists aren’t bout by laws of evidence and illegal searches etc. They don’t have to sit in a court of law and explain their actions in gathering the evidence, so it is easier for them to gain the information.

It’s easier for people to just complain about “the government” than consider your points.

Dilandach said :

So when did the current fad of needing a security clearance for every single department no matter how mundane or far from national security it is?

About the same time the rather widespread practice of overclassifying information became normal.

Dilandach said :

So when did the current fad of needing a security clearance for every single department no matter how mundane or far from national security it is?

The lower levels of “security clearance” tend to be about confidential information rather then anything “security” related.

ie, when I worked at Immigration for a while, my job had zero to do with national security, but I could have looked up the entry and exit details (not to mention addresses) for pretty much anyone. Likewise a centrelink employee could look up addresses and bankdetails, etc.

Arguably more important to check such people are reliable then a lot of the people at defence.

steveu said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Dilandach said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

On ABC radio last night there was a discussion about a people smuggler boasting that his wife worked for Immigration.

I’d say some investigating is called for here. At this stage it would be hard to know the truth of these matters.

The common sense thing would be to strip the security clearance of anyone found with an association such as that working for the department.

…of course the reality is that it’d never happen. It seems that short of murdering someone, there are very little repercussions for corruption in the public service.

You’re absolutely right. Having a family member known to be involved in people smuggling should result in any security clearance being immediately revoked. The fact that the person in question allegedly works at Immigration makes it even worse.

I thin the concept of ‘criminal associations’ and ‘fit and proper person’ seem to be concepts the APS and the AGSVA have no idea about.

About time they did more than tick boxes on forms and put these concepts into practice. If the statement b y the person is ture, then this is a big big fail on the part of the AGSVA.

So when did the current fad of needing a security clearance for every single department no matter how mundane or far from national security it is?

AGSVA = Australian Government Security Vetting Agency
APS = Australian Public Service

What I want to know is whether Tony Abbott is now going to stop the boats AND the shopping trollies?

Actually, the trolley guy whom Four Corners claim is people smuggling kingpin “Captain Emad” clearly has a tremendous work ethic. Surely he’s just the kind of migrant Australia needs!

steveu said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Dilandach said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

On ABC radio last night there was a discussion about a people smuggler boasting that his wife worked for Immigration.

I’d say some investigating is called for here. At this stage it would be hard to know the truth of these matters.

The common sense thing would be to strip the security clearance of anyone found with an association such as that working for the department.

…of course the reality is that it’d never happen. It seems that short of murdering someone, there are very little repercussions for corruption in the public service.

You’re absolutely right. Having a family member known to be involved in people smuggling should result in any security clearance being immediately revoked. The fact that the person in question allegedly works at Immigration makes it even worse.

I thin the concept of ‘criminal associations’ and ‘fit and proper person’ seem to be concepts the APS and the AGSVA have no idea about.

About time they did more than tick boxes on forms and put these concepts into practice. If the statement b y the person is ture, then this is a big big fail on the part of the AGSVA.

RiotACT could do with a “Glossary of Public Service Acronyms” at times.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Dilandach said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

On ABC radio last night there was a discussion about a people smuggler boasting that his wife worked for Immigration.

I’d say some investigating is called for here. At this stage it would be hard to know the truth of these matters.

The common sense thing would be to strip the security clearance of anyone found with an association such as that working for the department.

…of course the reality is that it’d never happen. It seems that short of murdering someone, there are very little repercussions for corruption in the public service.

You’re absolutely right. Having a family member known to be involved in people smuggling should result in any security clearance being immediately revoked. The fact that the person in question allegedly works at Immigration makes it even worse.

I thin the concept of ‘criminal associations’ and ‘fit and proper person’ seem to be concepts the APS and the AGSVA have no idea about. About time they did more than tick boxes on forms and put these concepts into practice. If the statement b y the person is ture, then this is a big big fail on the part of the AGSVA.

johnboy said :

The point being that working the trolley lines is a useful way to conduct a business needing a transactions in plain sight.

That and squeegee guys.

It also gives you a genuine income so you can quite truthfully say to ACT Housing that you earn X amount of money from trolley collecting

Bingo, poor refugee, pushing trolleys, low income earner, government house.

This should really prompt a hard look at our immigration and border protection policies, but somehow I doubt that anything will happen.

As Kerry O’Brien stated:

How is it that one small team from a television program with limited resources can expose the facts and the people revealed tonight, yet governments, with all the resources and expertise at their disposal, seemingly cannot?

Big questions need to be asked.

I think it is more about, more people are willing to talk to a journalist then a public servant or member of law enforcement. The other reason would be that journalists aren’t bout by laws of evidence and illegal searches etc. They don’t have to sit in a court of law and explain their actions in gathering the evidence, so it is easier for them to gain the information.

johnboy said :

A big part of it is what you want to believe.

Government agencies want to believe that everything is OK.

No, Government Agencies want everyone else to believe that everything is OK.

johnboy said :

The point being that working the trolley lines is a useful way to conduct a business needing a transactions in plain sight.

That and squeegee guys.

If you watch the trolley guys, they’ve nearly always got a bluetooth earpiece chattering away while they push trolleys. Not just your average conversation length, seems to be for their entire shift they’re either taking calls or on one long call.

HenryBG said :

EvanJames said :

koro said :

i may well pay the abc 5 cents a day now-there reporters are getting attention.well done abc.t.v

Kerry O’Brien asked the question at the end of the report. All our numerous and expensvie law enforcement, government admin, intelligence services, and a shoe-string news team from an underfunded network discovers all this? What a joke.

Time to stop tolerating illegal immigration. Let’s ignore the pro-people-drowners..sorry..”smugglers”…and cut it out altogether.
Howard’s policies stopped them dead – why not do something novel and progressive, admit the Liberals showed they can manage illegal immigration, and hand over the portfolio to the libs to sort out?

Yes, we should stop illegal immigration. Fortunately for asylum seekers, what they are doing is not illegal.

Duffbowl said :

Are you going to look twice at someone collecting trolleys and having a conversation on a mobile phone? Nothing like hiding and operating in plain sight.

I would just assume they area either buying or selling drugs, like all the other trolley boys.

Diggety said :

p1 said :

Ummmm, being the boss of a people smuggling ring obviously isn’t the money spinner everyone keeps suggesting if he is working as a trolley boy.

Or… With all the extra $$$ from people smuggling, perhaps there is no financial incentive to improve his income?

If it isn’t banked, and it’s transferred in small enough amounts, spread through the family (maybe 5 accounts), most of it will go unflagged. Sure as shite they won’t declare it, which means that Housing ACT believes that the person/s is/are poor, struggling members of society that deserve the same treatment as any other client in the circumstances.

Are you going to look twice at someone collecting trolleys and having a conversation on a mobile phone? Nothing like hiding and operating in plain sight.

EvanJames said :

koro said :

i may well pay the abc 5 cents a day now-there reporters are getting attention.well done abc.t.v

Kerry O’Brien asked the question at the end of the report. All our numerous and expensvie law enforcement, government admin, intelligence services, and a shoe-string news team from an underfunded network discovers all this? What a joke.

Time to stop tolerating illegal immigration. Let’s ignore the pro-people-drowners..sorry..”smugglers”…and cut it out altogether.
Howard’s policies stopped them dead – why not do something novel and progressive, admit the Liberals showed they can manage illegal immigration, and hand over the portfolio to the libs to sort out?

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

You’re absolutely right. Having a family member known to be involved in people smuggling should result in any security clearance being immediately revoked. The fact that the person in question allegedly works at Immigration makes it even worse.

What is worst is his association with shopping trolleys. Shopping trolleys are every where, we all use them. This have the potential to being down the country. Anyone who has used a trolley in the last year needs to be detained immediately, and Gungahlin needs to be nuked from orbit.

Apparently it pays in many ways to be protected from the real world by HousingACT…

p1 said :

Ummmm, being the boss of a people smuggling ring obviously isn’t the money spinner everyone keeps suggesting if he is working as a trolley boy.

Or… With all the extra $$$ from people smuggling, perhaps there is no financial incentive to improve his income?

koro said :

i may well pay the abc 5 cents a day now-there reporters are getting attention.well done abc.t.v

Kerry O’Brien asked the question at the end of the report. All our numerous and expensvie law enforcement, government admin, intelligence services, and a shoe-string news team from an underfunded network discovers all this? What a joke.

I nominate Captain Trolley for Australian of The Year.

Dilandach said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

On ABC radio last night there was a discussion about a people smuggler boasting that his wife worked for Immigration.

I’d say some investigating is called for here. At this stage it would be hard to know the truth of these matters.

The common sense thing would be to strip the security clearance of anyone found with an association such as that working for the department.

…of course the reality is that it’d never happen. It seems that short of murdering someone, there are very little repercussions for corruption in the public service.

You’re absolutely right. Having a family member known to be involved in people smuggling should result in any security clearance being immediately revoked. The fact that the person in question allegedly works at Immigration makes it even worse.

Ummmm, being the boos of a people smuggling ring obviously isn’t the money spinner everyone keeps suggesting if he is working as a trolley boy.

On the other hand – “Dey tuk ar jerbs!” [if your jobs were moving trolleys]

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

On ABC radio last night there was a discussion about a people smuggler boasting that his wife worked for Immigration.

I’d say some investigating is called for here. At this stage it would be hard to know the truth of these matters.

The common sense thing would be to strip the security clearance of anyone found with an association such as that working for the department.

…of course the reality is that it’d never happen. It seems that short of murdering someone, there are very little repercussions for corruption in the public service.

On ABC radio last night there was a discussion about a people smuggler boasting that his wife worked for Immigration.

I’d say some investigating is called for here. At this stage it would be hard to know the truth of these matters.

but why do the afp jail indonesian crew for 5 years-at a cost of many thousands of $$$
and then let the snakehead bosses live in canberra with public houseing for there familys
the real story is the 100s of drowned people who payed 8-12 K to these smugglers
and the insiders in dept of immigration and afp who are giving the green light to these
smugglers-and there not hard to find
i may well pay the abc 5 cents a day now-there reporters are getting attention.well
done abc.t.v

Duffbowl said :

Listening to Triple J this morning, it sounds like DIAC have put up the defences, with a comment that people smuggling is a matter for the AFP. Nothing in their newsroom as yet.

The AFP (and ASIO) jump in and demand control of people smuggling and security assessments and DIAC is fairly helpless to do anything about it (eg: when there are adverse security assessments by ASIO and then ASIO tells DIAC its up to DIAC to deal with the person in detention for ever). So I think its fair enough for DIAC to say that when things go bad its the AFP that is responsible. If the AFP want to control things when they are ‘fun’, then they get to be blamed when things go bad.

Here’s a release from the AFP, issued just before 4Corners went to air…
http://www.afp.gov.au/media-centre/news/afp/2012/june/AFP-response-to-reporting-on-people-smuggling-matters.aspx

Listening to Triple J this morning, it sounds like DIAC have put up the defences, with a comment that people smuggling is a matter for the AFP. Nothing in their newsroom as yet.

and you just know it’ll take beyond an act of god/fsm to remove anyone doing the wrong thing in the public housing system.