It is not suggested that you can't screen someone that is known, or familiar, just that you can't work outside the rules...ie, "Gee, I'd like to put my hands down Pamela Anderson top to see what she is carrying, so I will target her outside of random".

Really, a bit of common sense must come into play...2005 saw a huge political !!!!e fight between AUS and PNG when some "numby" made the then Prime Minister of PNG, Sir Michael Somare take of his sandals, so they could be checked for what ever.

And in this current case, did said Security guy seriously think that the Foreign Minister of Australia suddenly get radicalised and was going to do a hijack.

I put up with this targeted crap on a very frequent basis... in Uniform, with an ASIC to boot, but I accept that as part of the job, but seriously, to TARGET our Foreign Minister, get real!!!!

I have to ask,


Why the hell is the Deputy PM traveling as our representative, on a commercial jet to a meeting of the UN?

Why is it not provided a 787-BBJ in green and gold livery, AUSTRALIA in big letters down the side of the fuselage and a Kangaroo on the tail.

You know when the Japaneses, Koreans, Americans, French, Russians etc are in town. Their aircraft wave the national flag, projecting a sense of presence.

Its like the Hollywood stars arriving at a premiere in limos, while our one comes on the bus.

We are really a two bit country.

The really stupid part of it all is that it's completely avoidable. When I'm not in the mood to get checked I just fluff around getting my bag once I've gone through the scanner and wait for someone else to get pulled aside hen waltz right past.

As would anyone deliberately trying to avoid detection .

It's a farce.

Can anyone shed some light on what sought of screening the Minister was subjected to. The article suggests that she felt uncomfortable about a made security office being present during the screening. This cannot just be a case of waving a wand around her.

It was not the metal detection wand, rather the ETD swab where you actually have to touch the person and their carry on to get a sample.

As for the minister. The screening requirements apply to her as much as anyone else although the airport may apply VIP protocols if it sees fit. What brought the ISS screeners undone was that there was a deliberate targeting of the minister rather than the random, contuous process as prescribed in the procedures covered by the legislation.

"I have to ask,


Why the hell is the Deputy PM traveling as our representative, on a commercial jet to a meeting of the UN?

Why is it not provided a 787-BBJ in green and gold livery, AUSTRALIA in big letters down the side of the fuselage and a Kangaroo on the tail."




It is a rule thing - Must use commercial (first/business class ok) unless not practical or cost effective. Choppergate was not that long ago and did not turn out well for another Bishop. If we let our pollies use government jets at will, the local government member will want a 787 too.

Back on the topic of "Random Testing" Julie Bishop as stated is a frequent traveller (6 months an to June 2014) $415,698 O/S travel & $56,720 domestic travel.

That is A LOT of flights, if it is "Random" she should have been tested a number of times.

Yeah, she would not have the guts to use a $1,000/hr Helicopter for a 1hr drive like the old witch, surely?

Just remember to be 100% honest on your tax return this year as that Helicopter ride put a bit of a dent in the coffers and you, the workers ants of Australia are required pay for it.

$1,000 per hr = slow chopper or heavy weighting times??

Mrs Bishop admitted today the sum of $5227 for the 80-kilometre journey was “totally unacceptable”

Toughen up woman. Who cares if she was "targeted", I think she should toughen up and say "I'm not exempt from this BS testing either".

Don't try to play by different rules.

The Bishop 'sisters' harmonise beautifully, don't they?
Mind you, they're not the only outrageous snouts in the trough - just higher profile, that's all.

I just find it so comforting that I was able to fund the recent junket by Bronnie and Pyne where, after they were briefed by the Israelis,
then popped over to give the Palestinians a good talking to.

It's just a shame that, while they were over there, they didn't have the time to get a briefing on how airport security is properly and effeciently done.

Malcolm, you have the mandate. Get that slug, Truss, off his ring to do something about the costly, theatrical, security farce
that us mere mortals have to endure.

I went through Perth 5 times in a 2 month period, was selected every single time, its definitely not a random test,- I don't look anything out of the ordinary,other than the uniform, and have never been profiled anywhere else in the world, -just a plain Joe Blogs CM :rolleyes: thankfully Perth no longer on my roster!

Would that person have been within their rights to tell the second tester to stick it where the sun don't shine as he had already legally complied with the requirements?

"During the investigation, the man was told that Ms Bishop had felt "uncomfortable" at his presence in the screening."

How can the presence of a security officer make you feel uncomfortable when you are being subjected to explosives trace testing?

Kelly....can't answer that one as men test women and women test men all day(literally and metaphorically)...mainly without hiccups.

However, I must say, I'm always a bit uncomfortable testing women (as an Airport Screener)...as it doesn't quite sit right. Especially sometimes when there's bugger all clothing to swab. I know it must be done and I know there's no practical alternative, and I try to do it professionally...but I just don't care for it. But I suppose there are some that do.:suspect:

Cubbie...I can't speak for Perth, but at our port, we ETD upwards of 50% of passengers. So the chances of regular passengers getting ETD'd are quite high. I suppose someone good at stats could do the sums.

And...if you're one of the type that sit in the bar/club till the last minute....your chances get pretty bloody high...as there's no one to hide behind. Had to laugh at a guy who had to be paged over the pa as his flight was closing. Eventually turned up at security and ETD'd....."I always get picked". Smile nicely and knowingly to passenger. Under breath..."Well, if you're the only person there, of course you're going to be picked...idiot !"

Back to topic for a moment. If those guys picked Ms Bishop for a lark....they gets what they deserves.

Once you've been cleared you are permitted to pass through the screening point. I am wondering if there are other reasons why this scenario occurred but cannot think of any.

What's stopping anyone who's "known by the people" to pull this card?

If the security staff have decided what constitutes as random for the day, and that random pax happens to be someone well known, does this mean they can't be checked?

Perhaps....he returned to the conveyor belt to collect something?

Even so, no matter the reason (as we weren't there) once you are selected, even if by mistake, there has to be a very good reason to cease the process...and I can't think of one.

Peuce, can you explain the concept of random? As applied to your profession.
I would have thought random was random, and would still be random, in a statistical sense, even if you tagged them because you knew them.

From what you are saying, I now understand why you are forced to do little old ladies in zimmer frames - happened at Brisbane domestic last month, instead of explosive testing miners (who where standing beside her) and swarthy Mediterranean types, and the such like.

I don't envy your job mate. You may well be setting up for an explosive incident that would have otherwise been avoided, if you were allowed test more likely suspects.
Although someone could have bribed/coerced/forced BB to carry said explosive.

Band a lot: Indeed Bandy, that would be true.

I'm pretty sure that the Deputy PM of Australia could get out to an aircraft without having to join the security line with all the plebs. She consciously chose to be treated like everyone else but it looks as if she didn't like it as much as she thought.

Eddie...ETD selection(as it now stands) is a simple process...unencumbered by sinister plots, subjective profiling and all sorts of other conspiracy theory ideas.

The documents are clear....selection is to be "random and continuous".

That means...as soon as you finish testing a person, you must select the next person to walk past....whether they be male, female, black, white, or brindle, catholic, Muslim or calathumpian. That's what makes it random. I finish one person, I turn around, and there's my next target. Easy, peasey.

Having said that, as in all walks of life, I'm sure human nature sometimes intervenes and a bending of these rules might occur....just like a pilot might "slightly" bust a minimum...or "slightly" bust last light. That's life and it's never going to change.

As for those proponents of profiling, as opposed to random...can you just imagine the logistics and issues involved in putting that in place at the security screening point?

P.S. Don't feel sorry for me. It's a great job...most of the time. Especially so on days like one last week when you see what was prevented from being taken on an airliner.