Should AFP investigate 60 Minutes?

Here’s an idea for a cross-promotion.

Maybe AFP: Australian Federal Police should do a show chasing 60 Minutes.

According to The Australian, the Immigration Department is asking the AFP to see if 60 Minutes committed any offences when it used a drone-like contraption called a Hexacopter that took video pictures while hovering low over Christmas Island’s buildings, asylum-seekers and guards.

The remote-control drone gathered images for 60 Minutes before it fell into the sea before being retreived by a local diver. Where was Sea Patrol when they were needed?

The incident was part of the fact-finding that was conducted for a story on detention centres for 60 Minutes.

According to the article, reporter Liam Bartlett was apparently denied access when he approached the island’s detention centres on Wednesday and Thursday after turning up with a refugee advocate, Kate Gauthier of ChillOut (Children Out of Detention.)

He eventually asked for access as a taxpayer but was denied due to “operational reasons.”

“We should be allowed to go in on behalf of the long-suffering taxpayer,” he said.

“If the taxpayer can’t see what they’re paying for, and, gee, aren’t they paying for it through the nose, something’s crook.”

The Oz also noted a producer’s request for “nothing less than four stars” for accommodation when making inquiries at the tourist bureau elicited a few laughs from the locals.

However on Saturday he tweeted, “Serious factual errors from Paige Taylor on page 2 of Todays Oz – if your going to bag us, at least have the decency to get it right!” He also denied suggestions he had attempted to hide a microphone wrapped around Gauthier’s baby.

In today’s Australian, Bartlett says he got permission from the Immigration Department to visit a detention centre on Christmas Island, but when he turned up a security guard said: “You’re not coming in.”

Despite all the apparent hoo-ha, the story aired on 60 Minutes last night.

Over to you, AFP.

23 Comments:

  1. 60 minutes go your hardest ,i say! AFP should investigate the imagration dept. very comical, the government investigating the government. change it julia gillard, change now! stop taking advantage of the tax payer

  2. What a crock of shit..I dont care less about getting into an arguement about the asylum seekers and whether they should go back to where they came from or not..I have my own opinions and everyone else is entitled to theirs.

    But why the hell should 60 minutes be allowed to send a remote comtrol drone into a detention centre.. Imagine if us, one of the public, did that to another government building…we would be arrested..

    And as for Mr Bartlett’s stupid statement ” so this is the sort of pig-headed obstinance you can expect” What a moron…It was simply a guard following orders..

    What an arrogant reporter doing a piece of crap reporting..No matter who you agree with..

  3. Another example of the government trying to keep australians in the dark. We should be investigating them. And enough of these so called ‘refugees’ , i was disgusted to hear that $80 000 is spent per head on these people every year. When are Australians going to stand up to the government and claim back their right to decide who we allow into this country.

  4. Of course we can’t take them all in but we have to help as much as we can including our very own homeless. It’s disgusting in a country such as this that there are homeless people on the streets.

    And in regards to the ones who are rioting and destroying property, before even thinking of sending them back I would ask the question “why” are they doing that, there must be a deeper issue to the problem that we don’t know about. I would get to the bottom of why they are rioting and help the cause before sending anyone back home.

  5. Before you defend Australia’s tough policies just think; is your house is jam packed with homeless people, picking up everyone in need you see on your daily travels? If not I guess that’s point in case that just as you cannot support and feed a dozen homeless people, Australia can not afford to open its doors to all those in need.

  6. @ Rowie, yes I agree some of these people are fleeing persecution, and no I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes. When I say send them back to where they came from, I actually mean the one’s who riot and destroy property. They need to be in detention until their backgrounds etc can be verified. If things were so bad where they came from then they should be happy to be in the safety of our detention centres. We look after assylum seekers better than we look after our homeless.

  7. @ steveany, I couldn’t give a rats rectum whether you agree or disagree with anything I say darling. We all have different opinions. I did once work in PR at Nine, but I don’t see what that has to do with anything that I have said on
    TV Tonight.

  8. @ Madam Rothschild, come on have a heart and put yourself in their shoes. These poor people are fleeing persecution and God knows what else. It’s very easy to put the bullet in them and finish them off but very hard to actually help them when they are in so much need. I realise we can’ take them all in but something has to be done to help these people.

  9. Please dont speak on my behalf Mr Bartlett. You, your tv program and your networs are an embaressment that I do not wish to be linked with. PS I hear ACA are looking for a new bullyboy reporter.

  10. @Moanique Rothschild
    Amazing. I find myself disagreeing strongly with nearly everything you write on TV Tonight, which is no mean feat as you write a great deal. You either work in TV PR or you must be one of the lucky few in a targeted demographic.
    Anyway, good luck to you – tell John Howard, Alan Jones and Pauline that I said ‘hi’.

  11. “Back to where they came from”. If someone arrives by air without required documents they are sent ‘back to where they came from’. What’s the difference? Our youth are sent over there to fight their “wars” and they run over here to…the land of Centrelink, Medicare, Dept of Housing, etc., etc.

  12. I watched the story and yes 60 Minutes needs investigating as does the security of the detention center. But in the bigger picture the whole Labor immigration policy needs an investigation. If it’s true and the majority of boat people are well off and can afford to buy homes and set up business then I say let them in, if they are of good character. These are the immigrants that will employ others and improve the community and not cost the tax payers $80k each, every year.

    Maybe if the government made these potential immigrants more welcome then they would come in the front door and not on leaky boats.

  13. “Just send them all back where they came from and we would save a lot of money, and trouble in the future.”

    Sounds like someone is the perfect audience member for the new SBS series they’ve been plugging recently, 19-21 June I think. Looks like a brilliant series.

  14. Moanique, really? What era do you live in – the 1950’s?

    Must be nice to live in such a blinkered little world where everything is black and white.

    And how far back are we going when we ‘send them all back where they came from’ ? 10 years, 50 years, or how about with the arrival of the convicts? Would you still be here if that was the case?

    Unbelievable.

  15. “Just send them all back where they came from and we would save a lot of money, and trouble in the future.”

    Who – 60 Minutes, or the taxpayer? Because I’m all for the former, but a bit ambivalent about the latter…

  16. I think 60 Minutes had every right to film, we deserve to see what our taxes are paying for. Why waste more taxpayers money on an AFP investigation. Just send them all back where they came from and we would save a lot of money, and trouble in the future. Pauline Hanson was spot on, one day people will realise she was onto something.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.