Entering Australia - Grrrrr !!!!

[KeithMEL]

Well but do they charge you if you carry a laptop, a camera, a mobile, and an iPod (all used) with you?
Because that would mean 50% of all tourists& businessmen entering Australia should end up getting charged!

Officially - if those electronic items are 6 months or older then they're cool, otherwise they'd have to prove that they're strictly for personal use (education, work etc). In reality however, I don't think most people would really care... unless that particular customs officer is feeling extremely pedantic that day.

Anyway, if anyone's bored, here are more details of the duty free concessions:
http://www.customs.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=4728

[altitude]

altitude: I'm assuming since your location says MEL, this is in Melbourne Tullamarine?

I've not encountered this kind of questioning to the 2nd degree in BNE before.

The last time I went there (April '07), the only thing they were interested in was the LCD TV my dad wanted me + an uncle to bring over for him (although the item was not heavy enough when weight allowances were distributed across two people, and we had all the receipts, so no tax).

So, different airport, two pax and like you, normally travelling alone and Asian, with Ozzie citizenship + passport.

Hi Kyo,

Yup, was in Tullamarine.

It was just annoying at that time, especially if you haven't done anything wrong! =P

[altitude]

I'm not surprised you got secondary. Your travel pattern (and mine too) is unusual so they want to check it out.

If you look anxious/in a hurry that is more likely to lead to further questions than being calm, as it may be mistaken for nervousness (ie perhaps you are doing something of interest to them).

I guess it was my 'in a rush' look that catch his attention. I practically ran from the aircraft to passport control.

I don't sleep well on board (hence my annoyance at silly questioning) and was in a rush to get home, have a warm shower and head off to work on time

[inix]

Been to PER only once, but thought that the customs was pretty pleasant. Certainly much better then the ones which I had dealt with as compared to LHR. It only took me less then 20 minutes, even after collecting my checked in luggage.

Anyway, my take is simple. Just smile and relax. These guys are just doing their job, so let it be.

[Kiwi]

I guess it was my 'in a rush' look that catch his attention. I practically ran from the aircraft to passport control.

I don't sleep well on board (hence my annoyance at silly questioning) and was in a rush to get home, have a warm shower and head off to work on time

I doubt it was your look. Australia, like NZ and some other countries, pre-flags passengers of interest (based on the APIS data) for immigration to check up on. If you get pre-flagged then nothing you can say or do in front of the immigration officer will make any difference - it is off for questioning for you.

[jhm]

Australian Citizen and Australian Passport - though travelling alone and Asian.

Received the secondary questioning after clearing passport control last Tuesday morning.

I guess I wasn't peeved at the questioning, its just that I had to be at work at 9am and answering stupid questions such as,

- why were you only away for 3 days? (cos I felt like it!)
- what were you doing?
- you've been to singapore and hong kong quite frequently in the past 6 months (I didn't really want to explain to him that I'm trying to achieve 75,000 elite miles on SQ to ensure that I qualify for Elite Gold )
- what's your job? you must earn alot to travel so much? (none of your business is what I wanted to reply)
- do you have a business card or work ID?

After those questions and a few more, he let me through after I showed him my business card.

This is intrusive questioning from Australian immigration of an Australian citizen with - presumably - an absolute legal right to enter Australia ?!?

I'm not saying anyone should do it (given that they can no doubt make life difficult) but in theory what if you told them to simply stick their questioning where it hurts ? They can't exactly deport you so after proving your identity, they must let you in ?

(I appreciate the situation is entirely different if you present yourself at immigration of a country which you have no legal right to enter. In that case, you answer all questions unless you want to be locked up / sent on the next plane back / etc.)

[Greatfox]

I believe if you do that, not only will it increase their suspicions that you're doing something dodgy, they can detain you for formal questioning

[Kiwi]

I believe if you do that, not only will it increase their suspicions that you're doing something dodgy, they can detain you for formal questioning

Right. I often experience similar entering NZ but am always polite and helpful for they could detain me overnight or worse on grounds of suspicions (and let's face it my travel patterns are rather odd).

[jhm]

I believe if you do that, not only will it increase their suspicions that you're doing something dodgy, they can detain you for formal questioning

Detain for formal questioning on what basis ? And if you still refuse to answer all questions, they surely can't do anything else but let you (an Australian citizen) in the country ?

[jhm]

I often experience similar entering NZ but am always polite and helpful for they could detain me overnight or worse on grounds of suspicions (and let's face it my travel patterns are rather odd).

Perhaps the law is different in Aus and NZ but, from my understanding of this thread on FT:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...57#post6458857

as a British citizen, I only have to establish that I'm the citizen who holds the passport and then I must be let back in my own country. The immigration officer could deliberately make things difficult/slow for a few hours whilst they establish my identity but apart from that, s/he can't detain me for questioning regarldess of whether my travel patterns are odd or I act suspicious etc.

That's not to say I won't answer polite/simple questions asked by UK immigration (e.g. where have you come from etc) but the questions above asked by Australian immigration of an Australian citizen seem - IMO - to be too intrusive. (And as mentioned, for entry into any other country, I'll answer everything.)

[Kiwi]

Speaking only for NZ (but I suspect Australia is similar).

Yes immigration has to let kiwis into the country. However customs can hold anyone (even kiwis) if they have suspicions about related crime (drugs, people smuggling, etc). Sure they cannot hold indefinitely but in theory you could then be charged and immediately transferred to the judicial system - ie held in a cell pending bail.

Hopefully it is all rather unlikely, but I'd rather not test it out thanks. Just as an immigration officer in another country can make things unpleasant for me by denying entry, so can customs in my own country.

[jhm]

However customs can hold anyone (even kiwis) if they have suspicions about related crime (drugs, people smuggling, etc). Sure they cannot hold indefinitely but in theory you could then be charged and immediately transferred to the judicial system - ie held in a cell pending bail.

... but to be held or charged, there presumably has to be reasonable suspicion (or whatever the standard of proof is) and the question (I don't know the answer) is whether simply refusing to answer certain questions (e.g. "it's none of your business what I did in Afghanistan for 2 days nor why I went there so many times") is sufficient grounds!

Similarly, it's not a crime (nor would I expect to be arrested) if I walked into a police station in the UK and told them I went to Afghanistan for 2 days etc - it's not a crime nor (unlike Americans and Cuba) illegal for me to visit any country.

[KeithMEL]

... but to be held or charged, there presumably has to be reasonable suspicion (or whatever the standard of proof is) and the question (I don't know the answer) is whether simply refusing to answer certain questions (e.g. "it's none of your business what I did in Afghanistan for 2 days nor why I went there so many times") is sufficient grounds!

I know of quite a few people, both Australian or otherwise, who have been sent to secondaries because they have weird itineraries. Not visiting remote places mind you, but MR-style or immediate turnaround type itineraries. I also believe there is a fair bit of profiling going on (young, single, male, extensive travel). So whilst I have no idea what the exact standard of proof is, I'd presume the above when viewed collectively constitute reasonable suspicion.

A Kiwi FTer I know ended up being flagged in "the system" by NZ customs as a drug mule because of his travel patterns (and yes he's young, male and single), and as a result would be subjected to secondary inspections every single time upon entry at AKL. These can usually take a couple of hours apparently and each time they'd end up frustrated, finding nothing. One day he went ballistic, and I think the staff there, half of them who know him by now, sympathised with his plight and promised to sort it all out. So he got a call from an NZ drug squad person, they had a chat over coffee and he was taken off the system. At least that was what I was told.

[Kiwi]

... but to be held or charged, there presumably has to be reasonable suspicion (or whatever the standard of proof is) and the question (I don't know the answer) is whether simply refusing to answer certain questions (e.g. "it's none of your business what I did in Afghanistan for 2 days nor why I went there so many times") is sufficient grounds!

It can be in their eyes. I had to provide proof I visited Pakistan as a tourist. At first they asked for proof I had not been involved in terrorist training camps, until they realised that was stupid when I said I can't prove a negative.

[Kiwi]

I know of quite a few people, both Australian or otherwise, who have been sent to secondaries because they have weird itineraries. Not visiting remote places mind you, but MR-style or immediate turnaround type itineraries. I also believe there is a fair bit of profiling going on (young, single, male, extensive travel). So whilst I have no idea what the exact standard of proof is, I'd presume the above when viewed collectively constitute reasonable suspicion.

For a while I was flagged in Australia's system but somehow (I don't know how) I got myself off their list.

However I do regularly get caught up by NZ's system due to my odd travel pattern. Apparently no one else has as many trans-tasman trips as me - all for 1 or 2 days. No one else visits as many odd out of the way countries on short trips as me. I'm resigned to never being completely free of suspicion and just hope the proportion of times I get secondary is not too high (this year has not been as bad as last year).

It makes it very difficult for those travelling with me (I advise them not to go through immigration and customs together to save them getting the treatment too), and also difficult for those meeting me - I have no idea if I'll be out in 5 minutes or it will take more than an hour. I also have problems when I have onward flights to destinations with low frequency - will I make the connection or be caught up in customs too long?

BTW there are at least a couple of ways to get secondary. First is system generated - based on APIs data and their records they pre-select some people. If you get pre-selected the officer has no discretion to waive at all. Sometimes this can be of benefit though - once when I had just a couple of books with me and come across the same agent in secondary I'd seen a couple of weeks before meant secondary was super-fast as he did the bare minimum to show he'd followed process.

The other way is based on the judgement of immigration or customs officers. Sometimes I'll get someone new who shows obvious suprise at the long list of entries and exits I have (I see them scrolling through). Again, if they mark the form for secondary there is no way to reverse it - once it is marked you have to do secondary. I have sometimes had officers apologise to me for marking up my form while they are still talking with me and deciding (too late for me) that I didn't need to go to secondary after all.