Airport security worker reprimanded for screening Julie Bishop

An airport security worker lost her job after conducting a security check on Julie Bishop.

Airport security worker reprimanded for screening Julie Bishop

A security worker at Melbourne Airport lost her job after conducting a security screening on Foreign Minister Julie Bishop. She was later reinstated after a reprimand and further training.

The incident occurred as Ms Bishop was heading to New York for the United Nations Leaders Summit on 22 September.

According to a statement from Melbourne Airport, the ISS worker was fired for "not adhering to standard security screening procedures", after it was revealed that the random screening was not so random. The security check was believed to have been ‘prompted’ by a fellow worker, who recognised the Deputy Leader.

The security worker was suspended from work and has since been reinstated after she underwent additional "process and customer service training". Another two workers were also suspended as a result of the incident.

And whilst a spokesman for Ms Bishop said she made no "official complaint", however, the Herald Sun reported that Deputy PM Warren Truss’s office put in the complaint to the airport questioning the indignity Ms Bishop had to endure.

"The Foreign Minister passes through hundreds of airport security checkpoints each year and is more than happy to be treated on the same basis as other travellers," said a spokesperson for Ms Bishop. "Neither the Minister nor anyone from her office has made any official complaint regarding her transit through Melbourne Airport at any time."

According to a union source, the woman acknowledged her error in singling out Ms Bishop for scanning.

James Campbell, the Herald Sun's State Political Editor, had an interesting take on the situation.

So as I understand it from this incident the situation at our airports is now this: if you are an anonymous nobody you can be pulled aside and screened at the whim a security guard and if you don’t like it, well, tough luck.

If, however, you are a politician famous enough to be recognised by the person with the metal detector you are to be waved through.

The real argument for why Bishop should have been subjected to security screening is, of course, because everyone else is — grandmothers in their orthopaedic shoes, parents carrying children, anyone who catches the authorities’ eye no matter how implausible a Jihadi they might look. 

What do you think of this situation? Is Ms Bishop right to be ‘put out’ by this security screening? Was it fair that she was pulled aside for screening, or does her position exempt her from such treatment?

Read more at The Sydney Morning Herald
Read more at Herald Sun





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Patriot
    23rd Dec 2015
    9:33am
    ONE Law for ALL!!!
    No matter weather you're an "Arrogant Politician" who thinks him/herself to be better than the rest of us.
    BE subjected to the same indignities as US - "the Mere Mortals".
    Anonymous
    23rd Dec 2015
    10:47am
    Definitely, I agree. Hiring a private jet for herself and boyfriend to attend a non work related proves it. Us commoners should be demanding a refund from her.
    particolor
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:35am
    Your Money Cheerfully Refunded if not Completely Satisfied :-)
    bobby
    23rd Dec 2015
    12:01pm
    I agree with you Patriot!
    Luchar
    23rd Dec 2015
    1:55pm
    I wish you people would read AND COMPREHEND the article before allowing you left-leaning hatreds take over. The article clearly states that there was no concern with a "random selection" for screening. The entire cause of the problem was that Julie Bishop's screening was not random. Again, as the article clearly states, the security worker was fired for "not adhering to standard security screening procedures".

    Perhaps your real problem is that the article contains words of more than one syllable.
    Patriot
    23rd Dec 2015
    1:58pm
    Luchar
    This MUST have been on the TV so there is NO CHANCE of it being "Pure Propaganda" like the rest of the "Utter Crap" that they're feeding us!
    Perthite
    23rd Dec 2015
    2:54pm
    Too true, Patriot. Just because she earns a fortune paid by us taxpayers, does not mean that she does not deserve to go through security the same as the rest of us. There is no guarantee that a terrorist sympathiser might dupe people and get elected to parliament so everyone must be screened.
    Luchar
    23rd Dec 2015
    3:45pm
    Perthite,
    Do you not understand that the whole concern is because she was NOT treated "the same as the rest of us." James Campbell of the "Herald Sun" also puts his own totally inaccurate interpretation on the issue claiming he understands it is all right for "an anonymous nobody" to be pulled aside and screened but if you are "famous enough to be recognised ....you are waved through."

    Both Perthite and James Campbell totally miss the point. Had Julie Bishop been screened as a normal random selection there would have been no problem. It only became as issue because she is not an "anonymous nobody", but was pulled aside for screening because she was well known and not simply as a random screening as per "standard security screening procedures."
    Patriot
    23rd Dec 2015
    3:50pm
    Perthite
    My only criticism that makes "Shivers of discomfort run down my spine" is when you used the word "earns" rather than "Gets Paid".
    Otherwise, 100% agreement!
    Patriot
    23rd Dec 2015
    3:53pm
    Luchar
    Sounds "You were there" and saw it all unfold!
    Thanks for the enlightenment and the "On-the-Spot" reporting!
    Paddles
    23rd Dec 2015
    4:20pm
    jackie

    WTF has your post above got to do with this particular thread???
    Patriot
    23rd Dec 2015
    4:36pm
    Paddles
    Shows "General Tendencies" of the individual and therefore adds to the "Background Canvas" I suppose.
    Luchar
    23rd Dec 2015
    4:37pm
    No Patriot,
    I simply read the article as it was presented and didn't try putting some "Let's-put-the-blame-on-Julie-Bishop" spin on what is a straight forward case of a security officer overstepping the mark.

    Or perhaps I should just be thankful that my school teachers made sure that Reading Comprehension was an important part of my education.
    Patriot
    23rd Dec 2015
    4:41pm
    Luchar
    I"m certain the LNP will "Love-You" for all your hard work
    Wstaton
    23rd Dec 2015
    4:56pm
    I think the main thing here is that people were sacked because it was a person of so called consequence.

    Now if the same had happened to a person of so called no consequence and it was picked up I dare say nothing would have happened.
    Patriot
    23rd Dec 2015
    5:14pm
    Wstaton
    I "Dare Say" that you're soo ooo oooo right
    maxchugg
    31st Dec 2015
    6:48pm
    This is does not appear to be a situation situation where Ms Bishop was placed above the law. If there is random selection, such as selecting every fifth person and Julie Bishop was only selected by departing from the selection process, then the person who did this should not only have lost their employment, there should have been no reinstatement.
    The reverse situation should also apply. If a prominent person is selected by a random process and not checked the responsible person should also be fired.
    Sadly, one law for all is a principle that was abandoned around the time of Gough Whitlam.
    Rosscoe
    23rd Dec 2015
    9:34am
    Absolute disgrace! Julie Bishop can spend $30,000 of taxpayers' money flying back to Australia from the UK, but can't be treated like everybody else in Australia! Wake up, taxpayers!
    MICK
    23rd Dec 2015
    4:35pm
    Same deal as Bronwyn Bishop......"don't you know who I am?"
    Australians are conned by the media and vote for the same donkeys as they always have. And nothing changes. And then voters want to know why things do not change.
    Dare I say 'vote for an Independent' and send the bastards on their merry way?????? And pigs will fly. Which is why I often say that we have the government we deserve.
    sirrom
    23rd Dec 2015
    9:37am
    Was Julie Bishop put out by the screening?- your words
    She didn't make an official complaint - so how would you know - stop puttingwords in peoples minds unecessarily.

    Just report the facts.
    LeonYLC
    23rd Dec 2015
    9:44am
    Yes, they are my words, but I hazard that Mr Truss wouldn't have put in the complaint if Ms Bishop was not 'put out' by the screening.
    Patriot
    23rd Dec 2015
    9:58am
    leonYLC
    Totally agree!
    After all: "Birds of a Feather always Fly together".
    Troubadour
    23rd Dec 2015
    10:09am
    My thoughts exactly sirrom - nowhere did it say Ms. Bishop was 'put out' by this - another case of reporting inaccurately and making things seem worse. I am sure she feels ALL should be treated equally, she is no different from all others going through Airports.
    Saalbach
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:34am
    Surely the issue isn't whether Ms Bishop was put out or not - it is whether she or other pollies should be exempt from screening, and whether the worker should have been fired/reprimanded. What if I am indignant about being screened (and I could be, I seem to be pilled aside for the bomb test every time I go to the airport) - should whoever screens me then be fired because I am upset? If you read the report properly, you will see that the author did not say that Ms Bishop was put out - merely asked if she was right to be put out. There is a subtle difference in what you thought and what was said. Seems your political leanings have perhaps affected your interpretation.
    As an aside, would you be happy for Idi Amin to be allowed through without screening? - after all, he is a famous political identity. How about Assad, or Saddam Hussein. What about their security people, or their PAs?
    Sceptic
    23rd Dec 2015
    4:34pm
    So you hazard a guess LeonYLC and state is as a fact???????
    Simo
    23rd Dec 2015
    9:38am
    No I agree withthe Se curity Guard everyone boarding or exiting a commercial Aircraft should go through nthe metal, detaection and Baggage Screening especially with what oges on in nthe worlkd today, even to the extent of a Strp Search if the necessity arrived.
    maelcolium
    23rd Dec 2015
    9:56am
    The thought of a strip search for Bishop has sent uncomfortable feelings to my intestines Simo.
    But I don't understand what "non random search" means. I can understand anyone selected as the third or fourth person in the line, but if she was picked out because of her appearance I'm surprised.
    Maybe the ISS worker was a 457 visa holder who doesn't watch much TV?

    Anyway, don't we love the language - "process and customer service training". Hell's teeth, I don't feel like a cusomer when I'm forced to divest the contents of my pockets into a bucket and subjected to a body screen! I don't feel like a cusomer at all.
    Rae
    23rd Dec 2015
    2:01pm
    I travel a lot maelcolium and it is usually just being pulled aside and having a wand run up and over your body. Sometimes they check your shoes and handbag for traces of explosives too.

    Once in Bankok I was stripped down as my hair clip kept setting off the detector and it was the last thing I thought of. Just managed to avoid an unpleasant internal search.

    No complaints though as I'd rather the authorities be thorough and be safe than sorry.

    The problem with politicians seems to be the attitude of preciousness although to give Ms Bishop the benefit of a doubt she was not the one complaining.

    As more people travel the security get's trickier. I find I have to allow a good three and a half hours for some airports just to get through check in and security. In America they photo and finger print as you go in. Some Middle East and Asian countries issue cards which you had best not lose if you don't want angst getting back out again.

    Ms Bishop would have people dealing with this and diplomatic immunity although not in her own country I suspect.

    23rd Dec 2015
    9:50am
    This is just another example of the disgraceful manner in which politicians claim privileges to which they have no entitlement, putting themselves above the rest of us and serving their own interests rather than those of the nation.
    We urgently need to find a way to remind them that they are elected to SERVE US, not to self-serve. Sadly, the ballot box isn't working as it should to send this message.
    Politicians today, as a breed, are dishonest, corrupt, elitist, selfish, self-serving, lacking empathy, lacking any sense of fairness or justice, arrogant, disrespectful, contemptuous, and a thorough disgrace.
    Patriot
    23rd Dec 2015
    10:04am
    Rainey
    I gather that your trying to express that they're not much better (behaved) than Common Criminals and/or extremely "Spoiled & Inconsiderate Brats"!
    The problem is that they don't just "Break & Enter" they do it with "White Collar Crime" and have the Justice System to defend them!
    With FEW Exceptions, agree 100% !

    SHAME!
    Dave V
    23rd Dec 2015
    9:54am
    "Is Ms Bishop right to be ‘put out’ by this security screening?"

    Pretty average reporting Leon. Your article says that Ms Bishop didn't make a complaint. Why do you say she was "put out".
    Anonymous
    23rd Dec 2015
    10:26am
    Truss' office made the complaint. But how did they learn of the incident? Did she complain there?

    Truss' office also referred to "the indignity Ms Bishop had to endure". Indignity? That's a bit over the top.
    LeonYLC
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:55am
    I've not said that she said she was put out, I'm asking if you think she has a right to feel put out...
    Wstaton
    23rd Dec 2015
    5:06pm
    Ha, politicians suffer indignities while the common us don't for the same thing.
    student
    23rd Dec 2015
    10:08am
    is someone trying to tell us that politicians are honest and would never break the laws?? For mine they travel a lot o/s so therefore maybe should be screened more often. What makes me more of a threat than a politician?? Being old and a granny doesn't mean I am more of a threat to national security ... unless I am put out then beware!!
    Happy traveller
    23rd Dec 2015
    10:11am
    Everyone should go through the same process regardless of who they are. One would think Ms Bishop would be pleased to see airport security working so well. What was the indignity in it anyway? A bit of a patting down to check for concealed items, a wave of the metal detector? I go thru this every time I travel as the metal detectors always go off for me. It's no indignity for me to be checked so I am sure its not for her. If she didn't complain someone else has been stirring up trouble unnecessarily! Good on the airport workers for doing their job .
    Patriot
    23rd Dec 2015
    10:13am
    Happy traveller
    Well spoken!
    Cookiegirl
    23rd Dec 2015
    10:11am
    It seems that politicians ARE above the law! Who doesn't know this fact?
    Absolutely borne out by this 'upset'
    I can just hear them now " don't you know who I AM?"
    Yep, one law for them and another for us poor suckers who voted you lot in!
    heyyybob
    23rd Dec 2015
    10:14am
    Of COURSE Ministers and ALL politicians should NOT be screened at all and certainly their progress through airport terminals should NOT be impeded in anyway :( These people are our living Icons, having been plucked from lofty heights in industry, the leadership of so many worthy institutions, come from the highest levels of medicine, education and our vital armed forces and many have spent their lifetimes climbing, through hard work and earnest endeavour to be the most knowledgeable of our public servants. These peerless people are our POLITICIANS !! Oh wait, they are for the most, just party hacks, self serving individuals or plain nutters who want a quite well paid job with perks and dearly want it for two terms if possible and some act illegally, ill advisedly and even illogically to achieve that aim at any cost to the citizens who foolishly elected them :( "Carry on through, enjoy your flight".
    Graeme
    23rd Dec 2015
    10:18am
    If random screening is part of the security strategy at Australia's airports then everyone,no matter their status, should be available for screening as Julie Bishop was in this case. Apart from random screening however there is selective screening based I would imagine on criteria related to perceived risk.
    Luchar
    23rd Dec 2015
    3:59pm
    Graeme,
    You are correct that everyone goes through screening at the airport, but the "random screening" in this case actually refers to what you have called "selective screening". There are obviously procedures in place for this additional selection for "random screening" but those procedures were not followed. Julie Bishop was singled out for "random screening" because of who she was rather than as part of the normal random selection procedures. The officer was fired because she did not follow standard security screening procedures.
    Gra
    23rd Dec 2015
    9:05pm
    What Luchar is saying Julie Bishop should not have been selected for random screening because - wait for it, she is Julie Bishop. How dare that mere public servant dare to subject her highness to screening that other mere mortals are subjected to on a regular basis without recourse to complaint.
    Hairy
    23rd Dec 2015
    10:24am
    Same shit,law for them law for us.maggots on the pork chop of society and that goes for all party's .
    Patriot
    23rd Dec 2015
    10:37am
    Hairy
    Enjoy that description.
    Very descriptive & accurate to!
    Peterrj
    23rd Dec 2015
    10:25am
    Ah, that reminds me of when I was in 1MCE (anyone knows what that was) back in the 1970,'s during my Army days. A very high ranking officer of the establishment went to drive out of the Establishment through the high locked gates and the sentry, being a Natio, stopped the car and wouldn't open the gates till he inspected the boot of the car!!!!!

    Needless to say that the high ranking officer wouldn't open the car boot ... Why??? Clearly he had something in the boot that he shouldn't. The sentry stated that is was his job to ensure no prisoners escaped and he demand to inspect the car boot as there may have been a prisoner hiding in there???

    Well the you know what hit the fan BUT the sentry was carrying out 'his duty' and being a smartie Natio with nothing to lose held his ground!

    I will never forget the day as it was pretty exciting to watch from inside the barbwire! Not much happens inside 1MCE except the passing of time.

    The matter only resolved itself when the RSM quickly appeared, stood down the sentry and put in a new guard who then allowed the car to pass unsearched through the gates.

    To this very day I still wonder what was in the boot of that car that should not have been there???.

    Your duty is your duty and it should be carried out regardless!!!!
    Patriot
    23rd Dec 2015
    10:39am
    Peterrj
    Enjoyed that annecdote & the message it contains!
    Luchar
    23rd Dec 2015
    4:19pm
    Peterrj,
    An interesting story, and one to which I can relate as an ex-Natio who had his turns on sentry duty.

    But the story doesn't really relate to the issue at stake here, because the sentry (or, in this case the airport security officer) was not simply doing her duty. While your sentry was doing his duty in insisting that he be allowed to inspect the boot of the car, I am sure that same sentry would not then have chipped the officer had he felt the officer's shoes not been adequately polished or his face unshaven. In other words, the sentry would not have overstepped the mark.

    At issue here is a security officer who had a duty to perform but took it upon herself to move outside the guidelines of standard security screening procedures.
    Patriot
    23rd Dec 2015
    4:38pm
    Luchar
    Once again: "You must have been an Eyewitness"!
    Luchar
    23rd Dec 2015
    6:51pm
    Patriot,
    One does not have to be an eyewitness to understand the written word.
    Peterrj
    26th Dec 2015
    8:28am
    Luchar, I take on board what you say and perhaps my remarks were being a bit too kind to the Natio sentry but they do have a striking similarity to me:

    Both demonstrated poor judgement, both lacked common sense, both flexed inappropriate muscles, both were out of order, both thought it was a good idea at the time, both were being a smartarse to the extreme, both did it under a false claim of exercising their respective duty, both regretted their respective actions both were 'paraded' and both had compulsory retraining

    Trouble is, how do you retrain someone who is naturally a 'goose'!!!!

    These screeners do an important role and this story makes you wonder if they really know what they are doing. When I recently tested positive for heroin at Mascot Dometic terminal I can tell you that none on duty had the first idea what to do next. I must have been their first 'positive' scan for drugs! I thought it as a bit funny at first with them all running around in circles till I realised that 'this could be serious for me' ... I had thoughts of Bangkok Hilton .... No not of that lass in Bali as she was guilty!
    ekbg2002
    23rd Dec 2015
    10:30am
    All for it. She ought to try being disabled, in airport wheelchair, always a target
    mangomick
    23rd Dec 2015
    10:35am
    We all suffer indignity from screening. politicians should be on different.I remember reading a list once of a group of people and their various crimes and misdemeanors, bankruptcies etc and at the end it identified the group as Members of the British parliament. But are our Pollies any different?
    http://aussiecriminals.com.au/convicted-australian-politicians/
    http://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/australian-politicians-who-commit-crimes/
    JAID
    23rd Dec 2015
    10:37am
    One rule for all. However, this was said to be a not so random incident. If random screening is the standard then to deliberately pick out a politician for screening is not concionable and a reprimand appropriate.
    Luchar
    23rd Dec 2015
    4:24pm
    JAID,
    Thankfully, someone else who actually understood what the article said.
    Gra
    24th Dec 2015
    4:32pm
    But if they had deliberately picked you or I for security screening that would have been OK? What this boils down to is politicians are the untouchables when it comes to security screening, therefore any politician, with no regard to their political or religious leanings can just slide on through unchecked.
    JAID
    26th Dec 2015
    5:01am
    Gra, the assumption is that the random sampling directive does not preclude selection of people who give cause for concern. If there was no cause for concern then, with rare exceptions which for what it may matter and contrary to my generalisation, I completely support (such as for the Queen) then, random is random.

    If you or I or a known politician are selected non-randomly where there is no reason to suspect risk exists then that is not OK.
    mogo51
    23rd Dec 2015
    10:39am
    Just who do these politicians think they are. What an egotistical bunch they have become, overpaid, ill informed and out of touch with reality. It does not matter whether the security worker recognised her or not, she is just another passenger and is subject to the same rules as all of us - the only ones that don't realise it is the politicians themselves
    Robertj
    23rd Dec 2015
    1:33pm
    As I read the report it was not a random check going by what ever protocols they use but some one else got this security person to do the check as 3 people seem to be involved/ get counselling. Some people are reading a lot more into this because of their political background?
    Are those airport checks random?? Recently I was flying out from a small airport which takes international flights. At the initial screening before I could enter the passenger area, the guy with the detector (for explosives is it?) waited watching me as I put my computer back in the bag, put my belt back on etc etc then he scanned me. In the time I was doing all this many other people passed through. Then half an hour later in the international departure line he was waiting there also (the airport probably only has one detector). He let some 20 people in front of me pass through then he went through the same checking as before. Then he just waited not seeming to do any more. As a 70+ year old, clean shaven, white Caucasian male I didn't think I met the criteria for possible terrorist.
    Peterrj
    23rd Dec 2015
    2:41pm
    Robertj, being clean shaved is consistent with the final preparation for suicide operations by so called terrorists ..... They need to be clean before entering into heaven and will probably wear aftershave. You exhibited one of the deadly tell tale signs of a mad bomber!!!!

    And no, we are not related!
    Patriot
    23rd Dec 2015
    3:42pm
    Peterrj
    They'd have to be as the GIRLS are awaiting to provide them with their "Heavenly Rewards".
    Sweatshop Greed
    23rd Dec 2015
    10:41am
    Unfortunately, politicians don't want to be average, 'dinky-die' Aussies. They want special treatment, and even special laws covering their pension payments.
    Glen48
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:12am
    And Child support.
    particolor
    23rd Dec 2015
    10:44am
    Well I'll be Strip Searched !! :-) What Next ?? :-)
    Hunter
    23rd Dec 2015
    10:48am
    Absolutely correct Patriot - more so when it is a muslim appeasing politician heavily infected with the dreaded "progressive" Merkle virus . Don't forget this cretin also signed us up for more misery in Paris (A 2130). http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/has-the-australian-government-decided-to-sign-the-paris-agreement-whatever-it-is/
    Patriot
    23rd Dec 2015
    10:50am
    Hunter
    Agree!
    And then: "there's much more"!
    particolor
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:33am
    The Pen is Mightier than the Sward !!! :-(
    Glen48
    23rd Dec 2015
    10:56am
    This is the same person who spent 30K on a flight with her hand bag...say no more
    Anonymous
    23rd Dec 2015
    5:48pm
    glen 48, you are only jealous you were not the handbag
    westy50
    23rd Dec 2015
    10:58am
    As is stated in the report Ms Bishop did not complain so why the big uproar. Congrats to the security person for doing their job properly.
    particolor
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:22am
    If Tony was back in Command He would Knight the Security Person for Christmas !! :-) :-)
    Tin
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:00am
    "...it was revealed that the random screening was not so random." "Neither the Minister nor anyone from her office has made any official complaint regarding her transit through Melbourne Airport at any time."

    What's wrong with that?

    The article clearly says that she is "happy to be treated on the same basis as other travellers." There has to be reasonable rebuttal of this before we jump to the conclusion that she is arrogant, etc.

    Also, I am assuming when a "random" selection system is put in place, it has to be totally random. Any bias, for whatever reason, causes the selection system to be less effective and has to be compensated by alternative procedures. Therefore, if the selection was biased, it has the potential to increase risks.
    Patriot
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:06am
    Tin
    Disregarding this incident!
    Julie Bishop IS ARROGANT - In my opinion
    particolor
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:39am
    Yeah ! So She got patted Down for Christmas !! :-) So What ? :-)
    PlanB
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:43am
    I agree with you there Patriot Arrogant, hard as hell with no empathy at all and a total BITCH
    PlanB
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:01am
    All should be treated the very same.

    Why should any Politician be treated any different, even though they THINK they are above the law.
    PlanB
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:06am
    Maybe the person that reprimanded the security worker should be the one to be reprimanded and told to wake up to themselves !
    Mygasheater
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:07am
    Gee, how dare a lowly airport employee have the audacity to subject a Ministrr of the State to a random security check. Did that person think Our Jools might be smuggling an AK47 in her bra?

    Our Jools don't need no AK47 to mow you down, just one look from her baby blues will turn you to stone.

    People, please remember our illustrious Ministers of State, such as Our Jools, have evolved and are above and beyond the odious tedium of everyday bodily functions and should not be subject to the same laws as the rest of us lowly human beings.
    Juris
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:07am
    Doesn't matter who you are, whether you are the Pope or the dunny man, one rule for all - no exceptions. Why should the "lesser" people of this world be the only ones to bear the neccessary brunt of our safety. No big inconvenience.
    Juris
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:26am
    OMG – has Australia gone back to the era of “Lords of the Manor” and we the common people are now called “Serfs”? Have we gone the full circle?
    particolor
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:42am
    "Silence SERFS !" :-(
    Patriot
    23rd Dec 2015
    12:00pm
    Juris
    Yes we have!
    Tin
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:17am
    >Disregarding this incident!
    >Julie Bishop IS ARROGANT - In my opinion

    Hi Patriot, it is your absolute right to your opinion and i am no apologist for Ms Bishop. I don't know her and your may be right. Perhaps, you know her better than I do.

    I just didn't want us all to miss the point that it is not in our interest for anyone to not follow proper procedures.
    Patriot
    23rd Dec 2015
    12:02pm
    Tin,
    Point "Well made & Valid".
    Peterrj
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:21am
    It's a storm in a tea cup. Ms Bishop was single out contrary to standing operational procedures and the officer was 'retrained' .... Move on!
    particolor
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:25am
    Nothing like a GOOD REPROGRAMING ! :-) Respect our ROYALTY ! :-)
    Tom Tank
    23rd Dec 2015
    12:17pm
    What made her think it was not random?
    How did Warren Truss know about it if she didn't say something?
    The term random surely means that someone will be picked out to be searched without any pattern to it.
    The whole thing smacks of an affront to the privileges expected by politicians.
    I can remember two Cabinet Ministers getting the sack because they failed to declare items to customs on arrival back into Australia.
    One was under Hawke and the other Fraser and one item was a Paddington Bear.
    How standards of propriety have slipped.
    Happy Jack
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:22am
    Well here we go again- who do these people think they are- she didn't lay a complaint!!!!!??? how on earth did Warren Truss find out about it? hardly newsworthy, I'd say. Of course she's felt offended, probably just got off another flight costing thirty grand and has had to suffer the indignation of being treated as a normal person which, by her attitude and actions she considers herself not to be. Must run in the Bishop genes, this belief in entitlement which prevails. And funny how germjerk69, fancy franky and circumspect are not coming out in defence of it all. The LIEberal party offices closed for the holidays , are they boys?
    Tin
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:43am
    Why do we think she didn't lay a complaint? Well, because the article said so, maybe? You may want to ask Warren Truss your question before you conclude otherwise. Until then, you're speculating.

    Several of my friends (yes, common people) have also expressed displeasure at undergoing some extra check. But that's life nowadays.

    The rest of your comments are rather personal and probably indicates where your other comments come from. So, at best, they can be considered as subjective.
    Jono
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:28am
    What a grubby piece of reporting. Maybe the article shown here had more context when included in the newspaper. The question asking for comment is of course "come in spinner" for the sensationalists. We should be thankful that our senior pollies (of whatever persuasion) are mostly ordinary people trying to do a job. I was once in the security line behind Peter Garett in Melbourne and as we were about to go through the screen the officer said please come through Mr Garett.....I walked through next and said to him (Garett)...that was rich ..why didn't he know my name as well ....we had a laugh which is what should have happened on this occasion.
    Juris
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:32am
    Nothing like namedropping Jono - but Peter's surname is spelt Garrett
    PlanB
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:36am
    Juris I think that was uncalled for because Jono typed Garett instead of Garrett, I am also sure he was NOT name dropping, he was stating who was the person in front of him.
    Juris
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:41am
    Your displeasure is noted PlanB
    Ladybug
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:33am
    Politicians are the most dishonest lying thieving creatures on earth and should always be thoroughly searched.

    23rd Dec 2015
    11:50am
    Geez I hope they never strip search Penny Wong you"d never know what you might come up with.
    Scrivener
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:52am
    I dunno! Yer can't go feelin' up Royalty and someone not notice.
    particolor
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:58am
    Imagine the RUCKUS if it was a Visiting Sheik !! :-) :-)
    LiveItUp
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:56am
    I have no problem with Julie Bishop or anyone being randomly screened. However I do have a problem with what looks like it may have been some sort of prank or dare between staff. That to me is intimidation and should not be tolerated.
    particolor
    23rd Dec 2015
    12:00pm
    We have learned to Tolerate the Intolerable !! :-)
    Rosret
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:59am
    Would she have minded? Every dark haired man with a beard seems to get scanned. If I knew a politician was exempt guess where the weakest link is!
    Polly Esther
    23rd Dec 2015
    12:00pm
    What is a random screening? Thought everyone was 'screened' these days no matter who they are, and it seems to me that anyone who's flying ruddy well should be, 'screened' that is, and it done thoroughly. It also seems to me that if a weapon is pulled out and waved around at say 30000 feet or so because of a lack of screening it is a little bit too late. I'd hate to be on the flight. Am I barking up the wrong tree here, if so then call me a silly old biddy if you like.
    particolor
    23rd Dec 2015
    12:05pm
    Id make EVERYONE travel NUDE Nowadays !!
    Scrivener
    23rd Dec 2015
    12:07pm
    particolor - what flight, what flight? I would buy a ticket on that plane.
    Patriot
    23rd Dec 2015
    12:08pm
    particolor
    That only would "Clogg Up" the waste System because of all the "Puke Bags" that would be used with all of us "old Farts in the RAW" on board.
    particolor
    23rd Dec 2015
    12:13pm
    Schrivener Your Free ticket is on the way ! You will be seated next to some bloke named Clive something ? :-)
    Polly Esther
    23rd Dec 2015
    1:03pm
    Oh my goodness I didn't realise at the time my comment maybe contained a double meaning, I am sitting here laughing away and thinking perhaps I wouldn't mind being on the flight after all, it would depend on the size of the weapon. LOL Please forgive, I may be having a breakdown.
    Peterrj
    24th Dec 2015
    8:09am
    I enjoy the above banter and if anyone, well almost any one, were to travel naked then I'd be catching the next flight!

    On a slightly more serious note: numerous persons are except from airport screening to enter a 'clear' area which includes the Queen of Australia, Heads of State and their immediate families. And when you think about it, most persons who land at an Australian airport enter a 'cleared area' without going through scanners etc!

    Every now and then an unrecognized Head of State is stopped and subject to a random screen. That's when things get exciting, the Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands was randomly plucked for a drug screen some time ago and he put up a performance ... he was exempt. Ditto re Papua and New Guinea and even New Zealand. Live with it, there are many lawful exemptions!

    Now which flight is Mirandra Kerr catching????
    Scrivener
    23rd Dec 2015
    12:05pm
    Has it crossed anyone's mind that these are exactly the reactions Trussed-up wanted to evoke. He would give anything to besmirch Julie Bishop's name. It's a bit grubby that it gets so personal so quickly.
    particolor
    23rd Dec 2015
    12:07pm
    It would be a Dull Life without our Present Polly Pantomime ! :-) :-)
    Patriot
    23rd Dec 2015
    12:10pm
    Scrivener
    You - of course - could be right there!

    However, Politics is a "Dirty Game" for us and so it should be for them!

    If your suggestion is correct, I certainly do not feel any compassion!

    23rd Dec 2015
    12:16pm
    What is it about politicians who believe they are not like the people who elected them? We are their best friends from 3 months out from an election until the polling booths close. They are so far up themselves that they cannot even share a Comcar to go to the airport to travel home after parliament sits. Who has seen the line-up of Comcars waiting to pick up 1 minister to take them to Canberra airport. Now they want to be so unlike the voters they bristle when asked to do as any other Australian is required to do. Sorry Ms Bishop or Mr Truss, you don't deserve anything special when it comes to the security of our nation.
    Peterrj
    24th Dec 2015
    8:34am
    Old Man, you are exactly right, Ms Bishop should have been treated like everyone else entering a cleared area of an airport ... And be subject to a random scan. But that's the point, she wasn't, she was singled out against screening policy and the law! She was not selected randomly and there was no other justification to carry out an additional screening of her!

    The extra level of screening is done either targeted or at random and you never know what you may randomly find. I was randomly screened for drugs and came up positive for heroin! I was in a state of utter disbelief till I realized that the positive swab could have come from a man bag I was carrying. I had just been given that bag as a present not an hour before when I greeted a friend who had just arrived on a flight from Viet Nam. Can you imagine how credible that 'story' sounded during a subsequent Q and A??? Apart from a trace element no other quantity of heroin was detected and I was eventually released. I subsequently did some reading on the subject.

    It appears that the screening officer needs to have a reasonable excuse to do a higher level of screen. There was no 'excuse' to single out Ms Bishop and it was done intentionally. The security officer was sacked but reinstated. Why reinstated?

    The answer is obvious, a request was made and Ms Bishop did not object and consented to the screen. There is 'offence' to ask, it just gets a bit exciting if the person requested objects. Anyone can consent to the screen ... hence no offence by the security screener ... here, have your job back, sorry!
    Anonymous
    26th Dec 2015
    3:52pm
    My apologies Peterrj, I stupidly thought that random scans were not carried out to a prescribed pattern but could be done on anyone at any time as the word 'random' suggests. Thank you for correcting my error.
    Peterrj
    28th Dec 2015
    10:15pm
    Sorry, I originally put this below in the wrong post:


    Hi Old Man, no I did not mean to infer that random screens were done with any mathematical certainty ie say every 10th person. Like when I was detained for a position swab for heroin then that virtually closed down any further screenings on that machine while they tried to figure what to do next!!! It was a long wait!!!! Random means random ... Deliberately picking on someone because they are a Politician can't be said to be a random screen nor a target screen based upon some reasonable suspicion!

    In fact, what happens in the real world, is that these screens are done under the Old Pals Act ..... People go through the scanners, take off their belts and shoes and also submit to swabbing of their clothing and do so, perhaps not totally willingly BUT by consent. By consent you are then not complying with any legal requirement to do so but comply, as I said, under the Old Pals Act! And while no one objects everyone goes through the motions blindly thinking that they are doing their job?

    It's like when the police signal you to pull over to be given a speeding ticket. Who in their right mind your not obey the signal to pull over???? If you didn't pullover then I guess that you may have your back tyre shot out or you could be run off the road! If you don't pull over to collect your speeding ticket then nasty things may happen to you. HOWEVER, I don't know of any law that requires you to pull over in these circumstances???? In reality, You pull over and stop under the Old Pals Act and life goes on. If any reader thinks that I am wrong then please cite Act and Section that gives the Police the power to stop a motorist just to give the driver a traffic ticket???? I am not saying that they don't have the 'power' it's just that I don't know what that power is exactly???? NOTE: if signalled to pull over by the police then please do so as the police don't understand the Old Pals Act, they think that they are doing their duty! If you don't cite Act and Section then please don't add to this thread! NB, I always pull over by consent!!!!
    particolor
    29th Dec 2015
    12:55pm
    Its a weird World now, and I've heard of Fake Cops !! :-( If I was being pulled over for no apparent reason, Id drive Straight to the nearest Police Station and if they didn't Buzz Off I'd explain it there !! :-)
    Supernan
    23rd Dec 2015
    12:20pm
    Says a lot about Politicians attitudes

    23rd Dec 2015
    12:23pm
    Does anyone know where mick is? Is he well? I miss his multiple comments.
    particolor
    23rd Dec 2015
    12:38pm
    He might be Playing Santa Clause this year ? :-)
    Anonymous
    23rd Dec 2015
    6:00pm
    old man, even labor mick has given up on these lunatics, can you blame him?
    particolor
    24th Dec 2015
    10:04am
    They are giving it to the Space Invaders this morning on the talk back radio ! :-) :-) For telling us to Shut Up at Christmas !!

    Wait till they have their next Funny Thing !! :-) :-)
    particolor
    24th Dec 2015
    10:07am
    PS.. Our ILL Mannered government is bad enough without them joining in !!
    Have a Nice Day :-)
    Peterrj
    26th Dec 2015
    11:57pm
    Hi Old Man, no I did not mean to infer that random screens were done with any mathematical certainty ie say every 10th person. Like when I was detained for a position swab for heroin then that virtually closed down any further screenings on that machine while they tried to figure what to do next!!! It was a long wait!!!! Random means random ... Deliberately picking on someone because they are a Politician can't be said to be a random screen nor a target screen based upon some reasonable suspicion!

    In fact, what happens in the real world, is that these screens are done under the Old Pals Act ..... People go through the scanners, take off their belts and shoes and also submit to swabbing of their clothing and do so, perhaps not totally willingly BUT by consent. By consent you are then not complying with any legal requirement to do so but comply, as I said, under the Old Pals Act! And while no one objects everyone goes through the motions blindly thinking that they are doing their job?

    It's like when the police signal you to pull over to be given a speeding ticket. Who in their right mind your not obey the signal to pull over???? If you didn't pullover then I guess that you may have your back tyre shot out or you could be run off the road! If you don't pull over to collect your speeding ticket then nasty things may happen to you. HOWEVER, I don't know of any law that requires you to pull over in these circumstances???? In reality, You pull over and stop under the Old Pals Act and life goes on. If any reader thinks that I am wrong then please cite Act and Section that gives the Police the power to stop a motorist just to give the driver a traffic ticket???? I am not saying that they don't have the 'power' it's just that I don't know what that power is exactly???? NOTE: if signalled to pull over by the police then please do so as the police don't understand the Old Pals Act, they think that they are doing their duty! If you don't cite Act and Section then please don't add to this thread! NB, I always pull over by consent!!!!
    cockyhockey
    23rd Dec 2015
    12:31pm
    The ridiculous hypocrisy by these parliamentarians, they like to think they above the law. They rip of tax payers, perhaps now she will want a private jet and a helicopter for her travel and with her man at the expense of us tax payers.
    Julian
    23rd Dec 2015
    12:35pm
    It all to do with self importance. The higher this level, the more you'd be inclined to object to screening. I'd be more than happy if they screened every single boarding passenger. If they could only screen for some of the politicians' negative attributes suggested in other comments then they'd have to walk everywhere.
    Pamiea
    23rd Dec 2015
    1:02pm
    I remember many years ago working in the same law firm as Ms Bishop. I also remember talking to her long time secretary who was heading towards long service leave. I also recall how Ms Bishop played her part in trying to make life very uncomfortable for her long time secretary so she would leave and not get her long service payment ie three months pay after 15 years of dedicated service! Say no more except to say I dont trust any politician so screen em all. They are not holier than thou!!
    PlanB
    23rd Dec 2015
    2:03pm
    Pamiea, sounds what Julie Bishop did to the poor souls awaiting their pay out from Hardies for Asbestois she out waited them till they died, like I said she is a hard hearted total BITCH
    Patriot
    23rd Dec 2015
    2:05pm
    Guys,
    Just Looking at her "Standard Facial Expression" reveals the stories you're relating.
    Anonymous
    24th Dec 2015
    10:22pm
    hope you got enough in the bank to defend your defamatory remarks!
    taxpayer
    23rd Dec 2015
    1:06pm
    As I understand she is a normal human being with all the normal bodily functions. So why should she be treated any differently from the mob. Heads uot of backside and all that!
    robmur
    23rd Dec 2015
    1:14pm
    Should be standard procedure for all airline travelers. Just because a person is a politician, doesn't exempt them from full airport secuity.
    KSS
    23rd Dec 2015
    1:16pm
    Apart from the fact that this article is OLD NEWS and therefore not news at all, it yet again shows that this site is hell bent on trying to find fault with this current Government and the people in it. It has already been well reported that Ms Bishop had no issue with her 'treatment'; and did not make a complaint nor did anyone from her office on her behalf. It turns out that Mr Truss took it upon himself to make a complaint yet no-one here is complaining about him sticking his nose in to a situation that did not concern him or anyone in his 'Party'. Given there is no evidence of Ms Bishop being 'put out' it is a simply an emotion being ascribed to her by the author. No answer required. As for the other question of whether politicians should be treated the same as other travellers, well of course, and clearly Ms Bishop has been. So no answer required there either. All this re-hashed 'story' has done is given yet another opportunity for al the haters out there to have more cheap pot-shots at politicians in general and Ms Bishop in particular.
    Patriot
    23rd Dec 2015
    1:28pm
    KSS
    You mean to say that"
    1 For everyone being searched an employee is sacked & re-employed?
    2 For everyone searched and employee is "Retrained"?

    Come-On KSS - Wake UP!
    KSS
    23rd Dec 2015
    1:37pm
    Oh Patriot, Patriot. The questions were not about the employee, they were about Ms Bishop and what she may or may not have been subjected to or what she may have felt about it.

    It seems to me the employee was reprimanded for NOT following process and procedures, and that Ms Bishop being 'singled out' was more a prank than any real execution of the security role the employee had. The fact is Ms Bishop did not complain about it nor did her office on her behalf. One reads she was subjected to the same practices as anyone else may be subjected to and that is right and proper as I have already said. The only problem here is whether the employee actually followed the rules. It seems they did not and so collected a reprimand for their efforts, re-training and return to their job. I haven't seen any complaint as yet from that employee about their 'treatment' either. Nor from a union on their behalf. So please put away your hubris, take a deep breath and move on. This is a non-event.
    JAID
    23rd Dec 2015
    2:20pm
    Exactly KSS. A beat up over an employee misdemeanour which should have and was handled internally.
    Bigfoot
    23rd Dec 2015
    1:18pm
    Relax people! It's just another media beat-up about nothing.
    particolor
    23rd Dec 2015
    1:50pm
    Yes I'm experiencing difficulty in staying awake with this enthralling subject ! :-)
    Pamiea
    23rd Dec 2015
    1:29pm
    Was Mr Truss with Ms Bishop or did she simply feed him the bullets and he fired the gun ie the cowards way of going about things to make oneself look squeaky clean!!
    Patriot
    23rd Dec 2015
    1:47pm
    Pamiea
    Sounds like: "That could be it"!
    Rose
    23rd Dec 2015
    2:05pm
    The screenings at airports are for everybody's safety,Julie 's inclusive. She might be unaware of carrying something dangerous . Why should she be exempted , is not she a human being subject to make mistakes? It is my opinion that in this case is Deputy PM Warren Truss the only person who made a mistake.People will not feel secure knowing that security cannot screen everybody. Public figures should give the good example.Security offices should not be punished for carrying on their duties on everybody. "Indignity" indeed!!! Re-training indeed! Give her/him a medal, instead.
    Mags
    23rd Dec 2015
    2:10pm
    Honestly....she was signalled out because of the party she represents...no other reason....and as Ms Bishop didn't have a bitch about why are we commenting
    particolor
    23rd Dec 2015
    2:12pm
    AHH ! Something to do while waiting for their next Bungle !! :-) :-)
    devuman
    23rd Dec 2015
    2:17pm
    Della Bosca - what a pathetic effort to stir up controversy! Just giving licence to the anti-coalition mob to vent their collective spleen. Go to the naughty corner with three demerit points.
    Patriot
    23rd Dec 2015
    3:40pm
    devuman
    That remark "truely hurts" as it suggests that I'm a labour supporter.
    Both sides of politics are POISON & are run by the CRIMINAL ELITE!
    andromeda143
    23rd Dec 2015
    2:49pm
    WHAT A FUSS ABOUT NOTHING!
    1. JB probably spoke to WT saying 'What a cheek they selected me deliberately'. It should have ended there. JB did not think it worth complaining about.
    2. WT, trying to act the knight gallant, complained. He should have pulled his head in. It was not his business.
    3. The overzealous security authorities should not have fired the employee. Maybe a reprimand, but she was just being a bit overeager.
    4. The media should have something more important and newsworthy than this to report. It should not have rated a mention.
    5. When are we going to get press that report only the important and relevant stuff and politicians who are not so precious about their dignity and self-worth?
    particolor
    23rd Dec 2015
    2:58pm
    Have You heard of the Never Never for both of those Questions ? :-)
    ex PS
    24th Dec 2015
    12:16pm
    andromeda143, I think you are a little confused, understandable if you have any notion that Australia has a free press system. Unfortunatley most of our news is filtered through a media baron, who is not Australian but insists on trying to influence Australian politics through his media conglomerate. I still can't come to grips with the idea of a random selection process that can be predicted, surely the more fleability with the selection process the better. I don't' particularly care if a percentage of officers is biased against LNP politicians, as long as a percentage is biased against Labor, Green, Independant, Muslim, Christian, Short people etc. If people are intent on harm they will present themselves in a manner that will allow them to get through security, suspect all, treat them with respect but make no apoligies for not regarding self importance.

    23rd Dec 2015
    2:59pm
    Anyone ever Check out the Queen who knows what she could be carrying.
    Or any other Queens for that matter
    jimbojnr1
    23rd Dec 2015
    3:01pm
    Again ONE LAW for all.
    Alexia_x
    23rd Dec 2015
    3:03pm
    WE are getting more and more ridiculous in this country every day.
    Is Ms. Bishop a superhuman of some kind? I don't think so and therefore if she is suffered "the indignity Ms Bishop had to endure" so does everyone else and nobody complaints about it because it would be no use in complaining, it is the law! The law according to our country legislation. And where is the indignity? in showing your underwear perhaps?
    Politicians are getting on their high horses too often and they forget that it is the public that pays their huge salaries and therefore have the right to treat them the way they choose, in this case like everyone else is treated, with suspicion and doubt when travelling, a disgrace but needed in these days of terrorism and crime.
    If Ms Bishop had nothing to worry about in her luggage, she should not have even mentioned the incident to anyone and just go on to her flight like everyone else.
    The fact they have dismissed or suspend some workers due to this incident is a show of the horrible attitude of companies and individuals in power that care only to protect their side by adulating politicians and exploiting the people under them.
    I an disgusted, Ms Bishop should perhaps get her own jet and travel in comfort in the company of her boyfriend or whoever she chooses, without spending the taxpayers money on the useless treks she takes around the world.
    Paulodapotter
    23rd Dec 2015
    3:23pm
    Congratulations to the security officer for doing her job properly. She obviously has a great sense of humour as well. I love it!
    particolor
    23rd Dec 2015
    3:33pm
    Hear ! Hear !! :-)
    ex PS
    24th Dec 2015
    10:27am
    Far more indignity was dished out to the security officer involved, especially if she was just trying to do her job. The big question now is will this make other officers think twice before they process politicians or celebrities in the future? Will be be inundated with hundreds of rabid yorkies for instance?
    Barnaby Joyce should be called in to read the riot act to the offending poly.
    particolor
    24th Dec 2015
    11:05am
    They're too busy Flogging Off Coal to bother with Airport Procedures !! :-( :-(
    cockyhockey
    23rd Dec 2015
    4:17pm
    This politician has blood on her hands and is heartless when you go back to her behavior when representing James Hardie. What goes around will come around. She was Judas to Turnbull then Abbott, she will do what ever it takes.
    Patriot
    23rd Dec 2015
    4:35pm
    cockyhockey
    In my opinion this "Sums it Up".
    Sceptic
    23rd Dec 2015
    4:37pm
    Typical responses from the perpetually outraged. Never mind the true issue being that the random search was not random. How outraged would you be when the security are profiling on race and appearance, or is it just because the recipient was an LNP politician, who, incidentally, was not outraged.?
    ex PS
    23rd Dec 2015
    5:07pm
    I am not a fan of the current governemnt, but must admit that Julie Bishop seems to be one of their best. This looks like a case of a junior minion trying to curry favour by making an issue out of something that they thought might upset their boss. If the worker involved acted against procedure or policy for personal reasons they should be disciplined, if it was a genuine mistake they should receive extra training. It seems to be a bit of a mountain/molehill situation.
    Glen48
    23rd Dec 2015
    10:54pm
    You approve of the 30K she spent taking her handbag to a function???
    ex PS
    24th Dec 2015
    10:16am
    Glen48, certainly not, but after 20 years in the public service in a position where I saw first hand the abuse of public funds by mostly public servant managers and some politicians, I guess I am a little jaded. It has been my experiance that people who abuse the system have an uncanny ability to justify their decision in their own minds, and they also know who to go to in order to find a sympathetic opinion to that back them up. This is called advise shopping and is rife a lot of government departments as it allows so called managers to shift blame to lessor minions.
    I have also spent the same amount of time in private enterprise and have witnessed the same degree of excess. The prime differance being that in private enterprise you are not using someone elses money.
    It has been my experiance that in most cases where a minister or high ranking public service manager makes a glaring error of judgement, it is because the staff hired to advise them is afraid to advise them not to proceed with the course of action they want to take. This reflects more on the boss than the employee.
    retroy
    23rd Dec 2015
    5:20pm
    The lefty person did not follow random procedure and deliberately inconvenienced Julie when she was minding her own business. Had Julie's number came up as a random selection it would have been fine, and all the rest of the lefties on this site would not have got excited.
    The discipline was handed out because correct procedure was not followed, but I suppose most people on this site know nothing about random number generation.
    I'll bet with the travelling that Julie Bishop does she would expect to be subject to the normal random tests, just as my wife was last week.
    Yes, Patriot one law for all, just don't single out the libs for additional treatment they are equal I agree.
    Mike Butler
    23rd Dec 2015
    5:24pm
    This is such a monumental beat-up, it is defies intellectual thought! The security person was fired or reprimanded (or whatever) because her mate in the airport security service said something like the following, "Hey, that is that Liberal witch Julie Bishop ever there! Let's put her through the wringer because the badges on our arms say we can!" That is NOT the way airport security (such as it is --- fingernail clippers anybody?) is supposed to operate! Random is random, but I guess if a dark skinned gentleman with a beard, and wearing a very bulky jacket which he was trying to disguise as his weight loss program, presented himself at security --- well, I might make an exception to "random"!
    As I said, this is a beat-up! Get on to something that is actually newsworthy!
    fish head
    23rd Dec 2015
    6:37pm
    JB apparently took it face on without a whimper- good on her! If you want to go hunting, take a look at the idiot in Truss's office who composed the letter. 'Indignity' my fat aunt!Someone has been working in Canberra in a politician's office too long. methinks.

    23rd Dec 2015
    7:03pm
    reading the comments on the question posed," was the search random or selected", seeing that by law it has to be random, did she take a selfie when doing the search, reading those comments of patriot, emfeu rep, I can understand that even labor mick seems to have given up on them, comments by the likes of jackass, jacky, does not even know what the question was, bobby, would agree with a flea if it bit him, roscoe, just read his comments, same in every forum, the old student, still on the government tits, cookiegirl, my advise to her, keep on baking, someday you may come up with something that is worth eating, that I doubt, how many terrorists went through while this security officer? gloated, see her face-book page, the likes of hunter who just described himself as a cretin, plan b, what an imbecile, calling the foreighn minister a bitch, mygasheater, time to put your head in it as for ladybug, have a good scratch.
    however the dummest title has to go to pamiea, plan b and cockehockey, defaming people is easy till such time as the knock on the door and being asked what did you mean by that comment. you might not like people but that does not give you the right to defame them.
    Tassie
    23rd Dec 2015
    7:43pm
    We should be all equally checked no matter who we are..it's the security guards job and if you don't want to be checked..that's fine..go home..you certainly don't ket other people complain on your behalf...shame on you Julie...you represent us....
    Anonymous
    23rd Dec 2015
    7:59pm
    another dumb comment from tasmania, just answer the question asked, forget for once your hatred anti female thoughts
    Peterrj
    24th Dec 2015
    10:07am
    heenskirt99' Tassie has anti thoughts??? Is Tassie a male?? You sure go out with strange looking blokes!!!!!
    jamesmn
    23rd Dec 2015
    8:03pm
    anyone is liable for a random check or any other sort of check politicians are not exempt I'll bet you nothing would have happened if it was a member of the public but because it was bishop she seems to think she is above the law well she is not neither are any politicans or judges or whoever.
    cockyhockey
    23rd Dec 2015
    8:16pm
    heemskerk99, you got to be kidding there is ample evidence and my comments are accurate.
    Anonymous
    23rd Dec 2015
    9:16pm
    just make sure you got the money to defend yourself
    Gra
    23rd Dec 2015
    9:01pm
    Poor woman, "The indignity she had to endure" according to Warren Truss. These people most certainly live in a world of entitlement. The sooner the lot of them get the boot the better. If it is good enough for an average Australian to be subjected to these procedures when leaving or coming back into the country why should someone who just happens to be an overpaid politician be exempted?
    Anonymous
    23rd Dec 2015
    9:25pm
    gra do you ever read the question asked on this forum or are you just one of them blinded by their hatred of anything called liberal government, don't forget, governments are voted out by the majority of the people but also voted in by the majority of those people, you must agree rudd, gillard, rudd, you would not wish them on your worst enemy.
    Dollars over Respect?
    23rd Dec 2015
    9:43pm
    No one is above the law - especially politicians. Bishop should have been happy to show she does not believe she is above the law that every other reasonable Australian is content to abide by. When will politicians get it - "You are not so 'special' and you should not expect to be treated any differently to any other Australian citizen". You work for the people - we elect you to do a job.
    SKRAPI
    23rd Dec 2015
    10:27pm
    But she didn'tcomplain she said .Apparently it was Warren Truss. Although it seems a bit over the top, if we don't know Our Pollies maybe the worker shouldn't B there or
    maybe Julie or all of them need tocarry identity passes
    particolor
    24th Dec 2015
    10:09am
    A Flashing Santa Hat might have saved her ? :-) :-)
    Reeper
    23rd Dec 2015
    10:42pm
    Here we go again, 'Your Life Choices' using pages to discuss retirement to rattle a Fairfax wiffle bat. Try reading a little beyond the pooh stirring of this media organisation. Airport searches are lawfully RANDOM and this bolshie 'security guard'(I have put quotes around the title because it is demeaning to real security guards) decided to have ago at a politician.
    You can see why this was given so much space on this website because it brings out the numbskulls and other left wing ignoramuses rabbiting on about nothing related to the story.
    First comment - 'PATRIOT' who clearly didn't get educated in this country sets the standard for series of comment Homer Simpson would be proud of....
    Rob
    23rd Dec 2015
    11:55pm
    Unfortunately so very true Reeper. This site brings out a lot of very sad people.
    Peterrj
    26th Dec 2015
    1:47am
    Reeper, you have painted a rather grim picture of many YLC posters but it is an accurate one!
    gonebush
    24th Dec 2015
    9:21am
    Well tell someone who cares so what big deal more important problem in this world than getting a knickers in a knot over bloody politicians comings and goings
    particolor
    24th Dec 2015
    9:54am
    You said EXACTLY what I wanted to say !! But Your not as Vulgar as I might have been ! :-) :-)
    MERRY CHRISTMAS ALL !! :-)
    PIXAPD
    24th Dec 2015
    11:12am
    NO person should be exempt from such 'screening'...Bishop or others might turn feral and be a danger..... I am prepared to say this though some may not like it. There is a fifth column at work in Australia, I do not need say who or what they are for that is obvious to any thinking person. I am just making the point that in all probability what we see happening overseas will in time happen here because of the work of that fifth column. Our police are doing a fine job digging out these enemies of Australia.

    If anyone does not understand what a fifth column is, 'A fifth column is any group of people who undermine a larger group—such as a nation or a besieged city—from within, usually in favor of an enemy group or nation', also attacking from within a nation.
    Peterrj
    25th Dec 2015
    8:52am
    Are you kidding??? NO person should be exempt from screening when they enter the secure area of an airport???? Sounds good but it's a rubbish statement made without any thought!

    As a plane arrives from OS, passengers get out of the plane and enter the airport secure area ... Are you seriously suggesting that such passengers should not be exempt from screening as thy they enter the secure area of the airport????

    About 50% of those entering the secure airport area are not screened are they?

    And before you jump in they do screen passengers In Abu Dhabi on some flights landing there. They even screen some passengers landing in Australia on rare occasions. So it does happen and you want it to be made compulsory?

    The law in Australia is that the Queen of Australia and the President of Americia are exempt from airport screening. .. I bet you also want them also screened don't you? What a joke you want to make of Australia in the eyes of the world!

    "NO person should be exempt from screening' ... Yeah right!!!!
    Tin
    24th Dec 2015
    12:02pm
    I'm new here. Looking through this thread, there are many conclusions that one can draw. One glaring one is that a lot of people do not read beyond the headlines and are easily manipulated by sub-editors.
    Peterrj
    24th Dec 2015
    4:12pm
    You are not made out of Tin, "Was it fair that she was pulled aside for screening, or does her position exempt her from such treatment?"

    What a loaded question ... which produced the expected result!!!!
    ex PS
    24th Dec 2015
    4:42pm
    Peterrj, I think the real question should be, do we want security staff to a adhere to a stringent procedure based on policy that may not have changed in years, or do we expect them to show initiative under certain conditions?
    Admittedly on this occasion the certain conditions may have been personally motivated, but is coming down on employees in an excessive disproportionate manner going to discourage securlty staff in the future from using innitiative to bring about posative outcomes.
    For example, a security person sees a passenger acting in a slightly suspicious manner, do they depart from the standard protocol and do a scan, or do they ignore the situation so that they don't end up with the sack?
    Peterrj
    26th Dec 2015
    1:42am
    I can see why you are an 'ex', for rather obvious reasons security concerning airports is high and the same time our collective liberty is also highly important. Screening is an attempt to balance these competing issues.

    Screeners are lawfully entitled to make persons go through a higher screening test after they walk through the metal detctor. One such occasion is as you suggest should be if a person acts suspicious then they may be selected! Plus, they are instructed to also conduct random higher screening tests on other persons entering the cleared area. This second screen comes with a lawfull requirement that they may do so with a reasonable excuse. A reasonable excuse is either targeted due to a reasonable reason to target the person or, because of their orders, to conduct a random screen.

    Screeners are not allowed to victimise persons and target them for no good reason. One would doubt if Ms Bishop was 'acting suspiciously' and she was not stopped at random ... Hence the screener acted out side of their training and the law!

    When I was recently selected for a higher screen and tested positive to heroin that was all by random chance! The odds were not in my favour that day! It was after this delay that I went away and did some reading on the powers of screeners. Has any poster critical of Ms Bishop actually read the relevant legislation??? I doubt it. I know that 'ex' ain't done so!
    ex PS
    26th Dec 2015
    3:45pm
    Peterrj, the ex in my tag refers to the fact that I am an ex Public Servant. You may think that by studying the legislation it makes you an expert. Unfortunatley the legislation is only part of the puzzle. To fully understand how an operational officer is expected to act under real conditions you need to also look at the policy related to the legislation and the written procedures. The point Iwas attempting to make is merely that I do not want someone connected to security to act as an automat, and I don't want decisions to be made on whether to search or follow up on a suspicion to be ma soley on the fear of being punished if an error is made. If you reread my coment you will find that I have stated that I feel that the decision made to search Julie was probably personal rather than operational.
    Feel free to contact me if you need further clarification of government procedure and policy procedures. Have a Happy Xmas.
    Peterrj
    27th Dec 2015
    1:26am
    Ex, I note your concern and I suspect that you may now want to write to the Cth Attorney General asking for the legislation to be amended as screeners not only face the sack for breaches of screening powers but also face a bigger penalty ... they may commit a criminal offence multiple times a day when doing screening duty! Don't believe me then read this mind bender:

    AVIATION TRANSPORT SECURITY ACT 2004 - SECT 95

    Screening powers
    (1) If a screening officer considers it necessary in order to screen a person properly, the screening officer may request the person to remove any item of the person's clothing.

    (2) The screening officer must not:

    (a) require the person to remove any clothing; or

    (b) remove or cause the removal of any of the person's clothing.

    Penalty: 50 penalty units.

    (3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the officer has a reasonable excuse.



    Ever been asked to remove your coat, belt, hat and/or shoes before going through a scanner at an airport? If screeners don't have a 'reasonable excuse' when making such a request then they commit a criminal offence!!!!

    Do you really think that they have this 'reasonable excuse' when you are asked to comply with their rote mindless screening directions? Do they make this value judgement every time that they make these requests or do they say it without thinking??? Who has not been in a long airport queue and heard the order to the mob 'place coats, hats, belts and shoes in the baskets for scanning'??? Next time you hear that ask yourself has that screener just committed a criminal offence????

    Their 'get out of jail card', they think, is in their written procedures that say, 'Just do it'. Now tell me that a written procedure by a policy officer can over ride the strict terms of offence creating legislation???

    Screening works at airports because everyone plays 'blind man's bluff'!!!!

    No one (?) objects to proper targeting or random screening. There is the first walk through screen. (I did, I didn't remove my belt or shoes and was immediately pulled aside for a more detailed screen!!!) I am sure that Ms Bishop was subjected to a higher level of screening which was done outside of the terms of the screeners Standing Operational Procedures.

    I don't profess to be an expert as I have lost every argument I have had with airport security! I now meekly comply with all requests made by security officers like the rest of the sheep when entering an airport.

    I went to pick up two friends at the Gerona International Airport, Spain, at 1am. They had just flown in from Morocco. One was arrested for a visa breach and one 'got through'. That is until she and I went back and argued with the immigration officials. LOL ( but not at the time) she was also arrested!!!! I learn't from first hand experience never to say to an immigration official, 'Well, what are you going to do about it!' ( She also had the same visa defect!)

    I also lost badly stating that a tube of lipstick (no, not mine) was NOT a liquid! And I still don't think it is a liquid. But my view did not count!!!!

    I also lost the argument to re-enter an international airport to find my lost bags as I did not have a valid boarding pass. I got absolutely no satisfaction from the lost baggage section. Two days later I breached international security, by passed the scanner and security, found my bags and then stole them from a 'secure room'. LOL, I could not report that I found my own bags as I would have then admitted to a rather serious breach of airport security! I don't like being arrested especially when you know you are in the wrong.

    So Ex, you can see that I don't profess to be an expert in airport security!

    Enjoy the celebrations .......
    ex PS
    27th Dec 2015
    3:56pm
    Peterrj, can't say that my thought patterns are much different than yours under the circumsatnces that you have related. I will leave just one point for everyone to think about before moving on. I have worked in four state government departments and the common thing about all of them , is you will always find procedures that are ambiguos. I suspect that sometimes this is deliberate. I do, and always will, feel sorry for the frontline staff who have to follow these procedures knowing that there is a 50% possability that their own managers will not back them up if a customer pushes the issue. For the record I have never had anything to do with security of any kind and am only commenting from a general knowledge background.
    I have enjoyed raeding your contributions to the subject and hope to see you in future discussions.
    Peterrj
    28th Dec 2015
    12:27am
    Hi Ex, I read over some of your other postings and we are almost on the same page. Plus I totally agree with you, don't give staff impossible instructions to follow!!!! Did you see my Old Man posting above. I should, but I won't, get a 'bite' on my outrageous assertion about the police. But if I said that all Politicians don't get enough money then there would be 1000 postings disagreeing with me. Frankly I have not read the relevant legislation re airport security because I could not follow it! It is most confusing.

    As a rough rule of thumb: for every legislative power to do some thing there is always a 'penalty' for non compliance. Screening is such an example. And I am pretty sure you won't find a legislative reference to 'random screening'. Instead you get the law saying, 'Screen but if you remove clothing to screen you commit a criminal offence if you did not have a reasonable excuse to do so'! The Act is silent re what is a reasonable excuse (well it could be hidden there but a could not find it) so policy officers write instructions what is considered 'by them which has not been tested by a court' to be a reasonable excuse ie Target those with suspicion and do random screening.

    If you step out side of those policy guidelines then arguably you do not have a reasonable excuse. Let's assume the guidelines are wrong and screeners follow their incorrect training screening procedures and are guilty of not having a 'reasonable excuse'. What court would penalise them for such a technical and innocent breach??? However, screeners need to be aware, and I am sure they do, that if they step outside of the policy guidelines then they may be in deep trouble. I think that is a fair deal?

    Of course, in the real world at a crowded airport, screeners need to quickly process people .... hence their general announcements, 'remove outer clothing and place on conveyor belt'. These announcements are not done on an individual assessment are they? Re-read the section cited above. So next time you hear such a blanket and general order think how unlawful the direction is ... and you will do what? Obey the order would be my suggestion. And if the police signal you to pull over, it would be best do so!!!!

    Actually, this is a silly topic for this site and I wonder why I has been raised by YLC? I am guessing it was a free kick to criticise Ms Bishop???

    Now back to my cleanskin!!!!
    Mike Butler
    24th Dec 2015
    6:04pm
    I cannot believe that this thread is still going, and I further cannot believe the ignorance of the law that many contributors are exhibiting! At the moment I am writing this, the post immediately below me comes from someone whose name is Patriot! Patriot's post is a classic case of changing the topic to one he (I assume it is "he") feels more comfortable with --- rather than the subject he is supposed to be commenting on! The question is not about Bishop's use or misuse of a government jet --- it is about her being subjected to an airport security check in breach of the airport security rules! Sadly, I have read some of the most un-intellectual drivel in the comments below, that I really wonder about the mental capabilities of some of the contributors to this site!

    When I signed up, I was attracted to the headline, "Your Life Choices - simplifying retirement".

    Had I known that many of the subscribers and commentators on this site were seemingly uneducated and ideologically disposed (in spite of evidence to the contrary) to a particular left wing view of their lives and the world, I probably would not have bothered.
    Mike Butler
    24th Dec 2015
    6:46pm
    What a laugh! One law for all says Patriot. I have just posted a rebuttal to Patriot and his friends, but it appears it has been censored! So much for free speech!
    Mike Butler
    24th Dec 2015
    6:48pm
    I humbly apologise! I accused the site of censoring a comment of mine and I was incorrect! Please accept my abject apology!
    particolor
    24th Dec 2015
    7:21pm
    OK ! I'll let You off this time !! :-)
    MERRY CHRISTMAS !!
    Peterrj
    28th Dec 2015
    9:46am
    It seems that screening officers have a truck load of training and it is difficult to imagine that this could have been an innocent 'screening' mistake:

    AVIATION TRANSPORT SECURITY REGULATIONS 2005 - REG 5.06

    Training and qualifications of screening officers

    For paragraph 94(2)(a) of the Act, the training and qualification requirements for a screening officer are:

    (a) that he or she:

    (i) holds at least a Certificate II in Security Operations; or

    (ii) holds another qualification that, in the Secretary's opinion, is equivalent to a Certificate II in Security Operations; and

    (c) that, until a supervisor is satisfied that he or she is competent as a screening officer, while on duty as a screening officer:

    (i) he or she is supervised by a qualified screener; and

    (ii) he or she does not make any independent screening decisions; and

    (d) that he or she has completed training, approved by the Secretary, that is designed to ensure competency in:

    (i) maintaining the integrity of a sterile area; and

    (ii) using screening equipment; and

    (iii) the methods and techniques to be used for screening persons, baggage and other goods; and

    (iv) dealing with weapons and prohibited items that are detected or surrendered; and

    (e) that he or she has completed training approved by the Secretary, that is designed to ensure familiarity with the Act (in particular, the power of a screening officer under Division 5 of Part 5) and these Regulations.
    particolor
    28th Dec 2015
    1:13pm
    AH ! Forget it !
    She's Retired by now with any Luck ! :-) :-)

    HAPPY NEW YEAR ! :-)
    jamesmn
    31st Dec 2015
    10:21am
    IT SHOULD NOT MATTER WHO YOU ARE YOU SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR SCREENING NO EXCEPTIONS SHE SHOULD ALSO BE CHARGED WITH HER PARTNER OVER THE PRIVATE JET SAGA SHE IS NOT EXCEMT FROM BEING CHARGED OVER THIS AND SHOULD FEEL THE FULL FORCE OF THE LAW AND KICKED OUT OF PARLIAMENT THE SAME AS THE OTHER SPEAKER WAS DO THE CRIME DO THE TIME THERE SHOULD BE A FULL INQUIRY INTO THIS PRIVATE JET SAGA AND SHE SHOULD BE CHARGED BY THE FEDERAL POLICE HER EXCUSES DO NOT STACK UP THE LIBERALS THINK THEY ARE UNTOUCHABLE WELL THEY ARE WRONG THE PRIME MINISTER SHOULD HAVE SACKED HER BUT THEN HE HAS GOT NO INTEGRITY AND NEEDS TO BRING HIS MINISTERS INTO LINE IF THEY DO SOMETHING WRONG THEN THEY ARE GONE BUT THEN TURN BALL SHOULD ALSO BE BROUGHT INTO LINE FOR MOVING HIS MONEY FROM OFFSHORE AT THE SALOMON ISLANDS TO AVOID PAYING THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF TAX WHEN HE BECAME PRIME MINISTER HE IS AS BAD AS WHAT ABBOT WAS AND CAN'T BE TRUSTED.
    particolor
    31st Dec 2015
    10:49am
    Feel better now ? :-)
    HAPPY NEW YEAR..:-)
    Peterrj
    1st Jan 2016
    12:58am
    particolor ... I am sure jamesmn does!!!!


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles

    You May Like