CHAIR —I declare open the second day of the public hearings for the inquiry into the right to legitimately protest or demonstrate on national land and in the parliamentary zone. On behalf of the committee, I welcome everyone appearing before the committee today. The committee calls its first witnesses, from the Australian Federal Police.

For the record, I remind you that the proceedings today are legal proceedings of the parliament and warrant the same respect that proceedings in the house demand. Although the committee does not require you to give evidence on oath, you should be aware that it does not alter the importance of the occasion and deliberate misleading of the committee may be regarded as a contempt of the parliament.

The committee has received your submission and has authorised it for publication. Do you wish to make any additions or alterations to that submission?

Cmdr Bird —No, not to the submission.

CHAIR —Would you like to make an opening statement before the committee proceeds to questions?

Cmdr Bird —Initially, we should say that the AFP recognises the right of individual citizens to freedom of expression, association with others, peaceful assembly and participation in the conduct of public affairs. However, this right must obviously be balanced against the right of other citizens and guests of the government to go about their business without fear of disruption to their affairs and the need to prevent interruption to parliamentary business.

During the past 12 months, the ACT region has been involved in approximately 21 demonstrations within the parliamentary zone, mostly within the parliamentary precincts, and at diplomatic premises in Canberra. There have been 23 incidents involved in those areas. Some of those incidents outside diplomatic premises may also have been associated with a demonstration at Parliament House. For example, they will march from diplomatic premises to Parliament House within the one demonstration.

With good management and liaison with protesters so far, we have in the main managed to control those demonstrations effectively. It is fair to say that the ACT police has had a great deal of experience in conducting and managing demonstrations because of the fact that Canberra is the national capital. The demonstrators tend to focus their concerns in Canberra either at Parliament House or at diplomatic premises associated with the ACT. Some of those protesters protest against Australian government decisions and others protest against the visits of overseas dignitaries.

However, on occasions there has been a lack of support by organisers and demonstrators who protested in the parliamentary precincts. It has caused some problems about which you are obviously aware, including the blockade of Parliament House in recent times.

Our current procedures involve members of Detective Superintendent Martindale's branch, which is the security, intelligence and diplomatic liaison branch, and other police officers in consulting and negotiating with demonstrators about the arrangements. Most people with whom we come into contact who want to conduct a demonstration accept and abide by the advice we give. They meet our requirements. If they want to march from Civic to Parliament House, they will leave at least one lane of Commonwealth Avenue bridge open so that the rest of the public can use it.

Some, however, do not accept this advice and make alternative arrangements without consultation with us or even during the demonstration. They suddenly decide to do something different to what they have told us. This causes unnecessary difficulties for us and, on occasions, we get into a confrontational situation.

Our recommendations suggest that we are looking to have a permit arrangement so that we can further control the demonstrators and make sure that both their wishes are acceded to and that the dignity of the parliamentary precincts are not impaired. It is on that basis that we come before you this morning. I argue that case.

CHAIR —Would you outline your understanding of the respective roles of the AFP and the APS in demonstrations in the ACT generally and on national land and the parliamentary precincts in particular?

Cmdr Bird —When the new Parliament House was built, an MOU was established between the APS and the AFP about our respective roles. Effectively, the APS looks after the internal access of the internal precincts of the parliamentary area and we look after the outside.

Because that MOU has not been reviewed for some time, we are in the process of meeting next week with APS people to update that MOU to ensure that it is current, rather than as it was when Parliament House was first established.

CHAIR —Has that been brought about because of this inquiry or because of demonstrations?

Cmdr Bird —It is just coincidental that it occurred now. I wrote to Mr Robertson not long ago and asked that we meet to bring it up to date because their charter has changed and we need to reflect what the new arrangements are more so than what they were back when new Parliament House was first established.

CHAIR —Once you have settled that, could we get a copy of those arrangements?

Cmdr Bird —Yes, certainly.

CHAIR —Some submissions have suggested that the extent of the authority given to the various enforcement agencies is confusing and leaving uncertainties for those responsible for security. Would you agree that there is a need to further clarify the roles and responsibilities in providing security for the parliamentary precincts and its surrounds?

Cmdr Bird —Yes, certainly. The Canberra Times report of what occurred here yesterday was a good example. There are so many different laws that we have to work with--what occurs in the parliamentary precincts, what is applicable in the parliamentary zone and what is applicable in the rest of Canberra.

The difficulty we have is that some of the demonstrations occur in the ACT, so we have to look at the laws that affect that part of Canberra. When they come into the parliamentary zone, we have to be careful about what laws affect us there and then in the parliamentary precincts. So it does make it very difficult. I think Denis can attest to that when we had the difficulties over the `Trojan Horses' issue.

CHAIR —Are your personnel aware of things like, say, that in the diplomatic area the roads are under the ACT and the other area is part of national land?

Supt McDermott —We are more aware now since the woodchip industry blockade. Obviously, with negotiations with the National Capital Planning Authority with the removal of the `Trojan Horses', we have been made more aware and given maps to indicate that. That has occurred only in the last few months. It was not until then.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —Why was the APS set up as opposed to the AFP? You originally used to do the work that the APS does, did you not?

Cmdr Bird —When the AFP was first established, we had that responsibility because the AFP was established through the ACT police, Commonwealth police and, eventually, the narcotics bureau and they became the AFP. Part of the Commonwealth police's responsibilities was looking after government buildings. So we picked that up as well under the AFP umbrella, but decisions were taken after that. I am not privy to the decisions as to why it was split except that it was split. We are now just looking after policing of Commonwealth interests and the APS looks after the remainder.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —This is perhaps an unfair question--and, if so, you will obviously tell me--but is the splitting of the roles is appropriate, in your view?

Cmdr Bird —It would have to be a personal view.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —Yes.

Cmdr Bird —Yes, I think so. I am not denigrating the APS in any way, but I do not see what the APS does as a pure policing role. Yes, I think there is a difference. There is a role for the APS and there is a role for the AFP.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —Yesterday I was concerned with how you came to be involved in the removal of the `Trojan Horse' and the institutional proceeding which, I understand, followed. I might say that everyone dumped on you yesterday; they all kept saying, `Ask the police that question.'

Senator REID —All day we heard that.

Supt McDermott —It was a fairly protracted problem that we dealt with, and we negotiated with a lot of people initially. After the woodchip industry matter, in some respects there was a degree of criticism of the way it was handled, but in a lot of other ways it was handled in the only way possible.

The question was asked by the commissioner for us to make approaches to remove, so we dealt with the Attorney-General's Department for legal advice and through the National Capital Planning Authority, and we ultimately got a letter from the National Capital Planning Authority asking us to take some action. That is how it started.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —Are you sure of that? I thought they said that they did not do that. Is that your recollection?

CHAIR —I think they did request.

Mr SMYTH —There was some confusion yesterday as to who actually started the move that got rid of the `Trojan Horses', and basically everybody said, `Ask the police because they would know.'

Supt McDermott —We made the approach--and I am not blaming anyone--seeking advice on how to do it, because of the legislation.

Senator REID —At what stage was that--before somebody had asked you to do it?

Supt McDermott —Pretty early in the piece, based on the commissioner's comments that we should take some action, we decided to move on it, but then it came back and, as the paper reported this morning, there was some decision and discussion about the fact that the Aboriginal people were still in front of Old Parliament House. I have a copy of the letter on the file. Some of this is a bit sub judice because of the hearing matter on 4 September.

CHAIR —We should take care on this issue because it is before the court. Refer to the process of why it happened, but nothing after that.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —What is the letter you refer to?

Supt McDermott —The letter from the National Capital Planning Authority seeking our assistance in the removal of the `Trojan Horses'.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —When we asked them about it yesterday they wiped their hands and more or less said that it had nothing to do with them and that you people made the decision. You are saying that you have a letter from the National Capital Planning Authority?

Supt McDermott —We ultimately made the decision to do it because obviously we did the job, but the letter did seek our assistance in the removal.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —May we have a copy of that letter?

Supt McDermott —Yes. I have not got it with me, but I most certainly can get it.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —There was a suggestion that you also received a request from the Presiding Officers.

CHAIR —No, I think that went to the NCPA.

Supt McDermott —I was just about to say something along those lines. I know there were discussions. We had a meeting with Mr Martin at one point--that is, Commander Blizzard, the security controller from here, Superintendent Holmes, and I. A discussion point was about the removal, but the ultimate document did come from the National Capital Planning Authority.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —For what it is worth--and it will not be worth much--I thought you handled the truckers dispute very well. I had no complaint with the way that was handled by the police. I thought it was very well done. Can you explain to us now the rationale on why you move against one demonstration and not another?

Supt McDermott —It is a fairly contentious subject. Somewhere through the process, we were basically advised--although it was not written--not to touch or do anything against the demonstration group at the front of Old Parliament House. I questioned that issue because I thought it was a bit discriminatory inasmuch as we were moving one group. The bottom line of the answer was the fact that the `Trojan Horses' were unsightly in the front of Parliament House. It was causing the concern that dignitaries coming to this country could not walk out the front of Parliament House without the eyesore; and that is the basis of it. I must agree that it did look like favouritism, but that was the exact circumstance that we were placed in.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —It is certainly a very subjective thing. I must say that the `Trojan Horse' demonstration was there for three months before I even saw it, so I do not know that it was terribly effective. I always thought it was a movie promotion for Helen of Troy or something. In my view, it was never particularly unsightly, whereas a collection of ramshackle buildings that are quite illegal and dangerous to health and safety did seem to be an eyesore in a very lovely part of the national capital. If the reason for removal was the unsightliness, it would defy all logic that you would not consider the other lot unsightly as well.

Supt McDermott —I do not think that was the sole purpose; it related to the fact that it was in the location that it was in at the front of Parliament House and the fact that the National Capital Planning Authority had no permit.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —How subject are the police to direction from above? What is your line of command? Who has ultimate responsibility?

Cmdr Bird —The commissioner.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —Does anyone direct the commissioner?

Cmdr Bird —The Minister for Justice is the minister responsible for the Federal Police.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —Does he have a role of directing the police?

Cmdr Bird —Under the AFP Act, each 12 months the minister issues a directive to the commissioner on the manner in which he expects the AFP to perform, in as much as what parliament sees as the AFP's responsibilities. They talk about things such as investigating serious fraud, importations of drugs and the management of the policing responsibilities of the ACT. There are a number of areas in which the minister issues this direction to the commissioner.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —If the minister tells you not to prosecute an obvious breach of the law, are you obliged to take that direction? I am sorry to put these questions to you. I know they are difficult, but it seems that we are in a very difficult situation.

Cmdr Bird —It is difficult to answer. The office of constable is there. No-one can effectively tell us not to do something. We have the ultimate responsibility to arrest or not to arrest, or summons or not to summons. The guidelines can be given to us and the commissioner issues guidelines to us on the manner in which we should conduct our duties. If he tells me to arrest you, I will say, `What has he done; have I got evidence on which I can justify his arrest?'. The final decision is mine.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —What if you have the evidence against me and someone with authority over you says, `Do not arrest him.'

Cmdr Bird —That can occur. Again, it has to be looked at at the time. Obviously, we would take that advice and that direction and guidance into account in making a decision. My understanding of it is that the final decision as to whether one arrests is still made by the constable or the person conducting the investigation. He may not arrest; he may just simply summons.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —A lot of evidence has been given to me over a period of three years through various estimates committees and it has been reported reasonably widely in the paper. Again, it was said yesterday that the collection of sheets of iron opposite the Old Parliament House is illegal. It is there without a permit, it is dangerous and there are health problems. The National Capital Planning Authority keeps telling us that because of uncertainties in the law, it does not know what to do about it and it does not know if it has power. Everyone seems to say that the Federal Police has power and it is up to it. Are you aware that there is an illegal activity happening in contravention of the building code and the planning code of the Australian Capital Territory?

Supt McDermott —I understand that is correct--it is actually a fact that it is illegal, and I am not here to blame anybody else.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —I hope you do because someone somewhere along the line--

Supt McDermott —From the point of saying that the decision was taken not to move the Aboriginal building because of the ramifications--the backlash, and I am not afraid to make that point.

Mr SMYTH —Who would have made that decision?

Supt McDermott —I really do not know where it came from. But I know that in some respects it was a discussion point with the National Capital Planning Authority. Where they got the advice from, I do not know. On the issue of the decision to act on offences committed, ultimately, the Director of Public Prosecutions would have the overriding say if no action is to be taken on a brief of evidence that is submitted.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —The Australian Federal Police have a tremendous reputation for honesty and integrity. But it seems inconceivable and quite contrary to the whole tenor and culture of the AFP that, clearly, a breach is happening and, for reasons that you can only say are political, you are told to lay off. That is bad enough, but then you do take action against another demonstration with a similar set of structures, that is running a different political point and you let yourself be used in removing one and not the other. I do not need to lecture you, you know it, but it is a very serious matter when a group with the integrity and culture of the AFP are put in that position. As I say, I feel for you people. I am not criticising you. But, by the same token, it is perhaps necessary that you explain in the clearest possible terms why you would remove one and not the other.

CHAIR —I do not think it is up to the Federal Police to discuss policy that has obviously come from somewhere. That is something that, possibly, you should bring up with the minister.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —Mr Chairman, the integrity of the police is second to none. As I understand what they are telling me, the ultimate decision is theirs.

CHAIR —Yes, but it is a policy matter and you should pursue that in other areas.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —I am a bit concerned, Mr Chairman. Everyone ducked for cover yesterday and all pointed the finger at the AFP. We have lost the people that we had yesterday, but we now seem to be getting a slightly different interpretation.

CHAIR —The superintendent has gone as far as he can go personally in giving the answer and I do not think there is anything further that you could add.

Supt McDermott —I will do some research and provide you with some more information on that. I am prepared to do that.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —You are saying you removed one and not the other because you were told to remove one and not the other.

Supt McDermott —That is right, that is what I am saying. Just to add another comment to that, we were prepared to move both. We did prepare a contingency to move both.

Mr JENKINS —I apologise for being late but I have listened with interest in my room to the TV broadcast for the last 15 to 20 minutes. I apologise if I have missed some of the answers while rushing up here. In the case of the Aboriginal embassy, we are talking about a long period that these structures have been there. So I should imagine that at some stage throughout the history a decision was made to not remove them. That has been re-affirmed by whoever.

Supt McDermott —That is right. I think the other issue that came up was the fact that there was discussion about whether it would become a heritage site. I do not know whether that was canvassed yesterday but I think that was another issue that was under consideration. Without looking at the full research or the documents I have, that may have been part of the reason why it was left alone.

CHAIR —It has been listed as a heritage site.

Mr JENKINS —Superintendent McDermott, you indicated the belief that there would be a backlash about the removal of the Aboriginal embassy. You have just mentioned that you made contingency plans involving the removal of both. I think we discussed yesterday that in the case of the other demonstration involving the `Trojan Horses', an office building and goodness knows how many camp followers who were there at the end, there was perhaps a belief that the backlash might not have been as great because there may not have been as much community sympathy after the several weeks or months during which that protest had been there. Would that have been the assessment of the AFP?

Supt McDermott —No, I think he did have a lot of support, that particular protest. In actual fact I got about 120 faxes criticising us for what we did.

Mr JENKINS —But in the immediate sense of the logistics of the removal, was it likely to then cause an even bigger demonstration, an even bigger use of the piece of dirt?

Supt McDermott —No. The outcome of the previous removal of the Aboriginal embassy many years ago was quite a bit of violence. Mr Bird is probably more across that issue than I am. I know that was part of history and that was a consideration as well. At the time we did what we did.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —So if you threaten to create violence you will leave us alone?

Supt McDermott —Not always, Senator.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —I understand that the removal of the `Trojan Horses' occurred in the depths of night. Whose decision was it to act at that time?

Supt McDermott —Mine.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —What was the rationale for that?

Supt McDermott —Because of the amount of equipment that had to be moved and the possibility of a lot of public onlookers during the day. We had to bring in cranes and trucks. There would have been quite a deal of inconvenience. As it turned out it was an ideal time to do what we did because within 40 minutes we were ready to move the lot out on trucks. It was really the best and safest time for everybody because of the way it worked. From our point of view, it was the most effective.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —Someone was telling us yesterday that the Aboriginal embassy at various periods is not manned at all. There would be no problem with violence if you went down at midnight and removed it when there was no one there.

Supt McDermott —No.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —If someone made a complaint to you about deliberate breaches of the law--someone like the Presiding Officers, the minister, the National Capital Planning Authority or an officer of the ACT government--would you feel obligated to take action in relation to the collection of ramshackle buildings opposite Old Parliament House?

Supt McDermott —It would not matter where the complaint came from. We are obligated to act. Whether we come up with the ultimate result that the public might want to achieve with the complaint is another issue.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —If a member of the public made a complaint about obvious breaches of laws, you would take action?

Supt McDermott —We would be neglectful if we did not.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —On the heritage site, are you aware of the impact of that?

Cmdr Bird —We are aware that it is in train to make it a heritage site but we have not looked at the implications of that.

Supt McDermott —I have only very briefly discussed it with the National Capital Planning Authority and there are implications. If it becomes a heritage site, my understanding is that we cannot move it.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —That was my thought. I did not really look at it, so I wrote to the Heritage Commission. They have written back to me saying it really means nothing. All it does is give them power to advise an authority before an authority takes any action and nothing more. Of course, there is a difference, as I understand it, between the site and the buildings. I understand that it is of some significance. I believe that the site should be recorded and maintained and revered. But there is a difference, I understand, between the site and a collection of recently erected constructions that are dangerous and a health problem. I am not asking a question, but perhaps suggesting that it might be, at some time, an appropriate thing for further investigation.

Supt McDermott —Thank you.

Senator REID —ACT Community Law Reform has put in a submission in which they raise some questions in respect of the relationship between federal and ACT issues. They say:

Strictly speaking, the subject of protest in and around Parliament is none of the ACT's business. But is it conceivable that an impatient ACT Government might have sought to order the Australian Federal Police to break up the pro-logging "blockade", without consulting parliamentary officials or even against their wishes? Might police have ignored events in the immediate vicinity of Parliament House, but taken action against those blocking Commonwealth Avenue? In another situation, might an ACT Government direct the AFP not to take action against demonstrators in the vicinity of Parliament House, despite the wishes of the Federal Government or the parliamentary presiding officers?

They conclude by, in a sense, raising the issue of the actual relationship between the AFP generally and the AFP in its ACT role. I wondered if you would like to make any comment either specifically on those questions or on the underlying issue.

Cmdr Bird —Again, I would have to defer to Denis because I think he was managing the loggers dispute. I, fortunately, was not here at the time.

Supt McDermott —It is a fairly complex question. With the loggers dispute, we ran into a problem right from the start. I think I have to address that issue first before we talk about the relationship. With 400 or 300 trucks, the point of controlling that is just a nightmare. If it ever happened again, I have no doubt that we would do it very differently.

As a part of negotiation with the loggers, they conceded to a lot of the requests that we put to them. We were very fortunate. Admittedly, the blockade did occur in one form or another but, to their benefit and to ours, we succeeded in a lot of issues.

As to the relationship between the ACT region part of the AFP and the AFP generally, the effect it has is not great as far as we are concerned, from an operational sense. It works effectively. That was an indication with that demonstration. We sought assistance from personnel from the national side of the AFP. I do not know whether I am addressing the questions that are raised there--

Senator REID —It is really the conflict. If the ACT government said, `Don't worry about Parliament House, let it be blockaded, but keep those trucks off Commonwealth Avenue'--

Cmdr Bird —This is something similar to what occurred outside the Indonesian Embassy, is it not? We had the ACT government saying, `Leave the crosses there,' and Senator Gareth Evans saying, `Get rid of them.'

Senator REID —That was resolved in a court.

Cmdr Bird —Senator Evans issued a direction that was challenged and the result was that it was accepted and we have removed them.

Senator REID —But where you are just faced with a direction from the ACT government and the federal government, which do you act upon?

Cmdr Bird —I think you have to look at the set of circumstances that occur. This happens on many occasions--not that we get a direction, but we have the conflict between the two. Quite often the demonstrators start at the university or they start at Garema Place. They march up Commonwealth Avenue to outside Parliament House. So you have that difficulty there now.

Normally we try to manage it so that they get their opportunity to demonstrate and to march and, at the same time, Canberrans who want to use Commonwealth Avenue or whatever are still allowed to go about their business. It is the same when they get to Parliament House. There are rules that we then have to apply. For example, we make sure they stay within the designated demonstration area. As soon as it becomes Commonwealth legislation we change. We turn the page over and look to see what we have to do there. But it is difficult. Apart from the conflict that occurred with the crosses, we have never had a difficulty where the ACT government has said, `Do not do that, and we do not care what happens with the Commonwealth.' Most of the time they let us manage the incident as best we can, whether it be on ACT territory or Commonwealth territory. So far I think we have done that fairly successfully.

Mr SMYTH —You talk about crossing the line and then changing the page to look at Commonwealth versus ACT. Has the difference in legislation caused you any difficulties at this stage?

Supt McDermott —It has. We really did have a difficult time coming to terms with it. We used the `Trojan Horses' again because they were outside the precincts of Parliament House. I might say that with some of the legal advice we got, they had difficulties as well in the finish. We ultimately got legal advice from the National Capital Planning Authority which assisted us. So from time to time we do, but generally the laws are applicable--the Public Order Act obviously within the precincts and outside, for that matter. We do not have a problem with that. The traffic legislation, we can manage with what we have got there. But what is on national land or territory land is the difficulty. That is where we ran into a real problem because it was within the parliamentary zone, not necessarily the precincts. That is what gave us some heartache.

CHAIR —What actual legislation do you use for policing demonstrations?

Supt McDermott —It is various. If I could just refer to some notes, Trespass on Commonwealth Lands obviously, sections of the Public Order Act, of our own Australian Federal Police Act and of the Motor Traffic Ordinance, Commonwealth Breach of the Peace.

CHAIR —The Unlawful Assemblies Ordinance of 1937. This is the one where no more than 20 people can assemble. Do you know if anyone has ever been arrested or prosecuted under that ordinance?

Supt McDermott —We had that replaced, as I understand, with the Public Order Act or part thereof.

CHAIR —So that has gone.

Supt McDermott —That is my understanding.

Cmdr Bird —We probably used that outside the Old Parliament House many, many years ago.

CHAIR —It was brought up yesterday and we were wondering if anyone had been prosecuted.

Senator REID —The Roads and Public Places Ordinance 1937. Is that it?

CHAIR —No, unlawful assembly.

Supt McDermott —The Public Order Act replaced that and assemblies came into that.

CHAIR —It has been put to the committee that a permit system would be a useful way of managing demonstrations so as to balance the rights of the demonstrators and the non-demonstrators. Do you have any views on such a system?

Cmdr Bird —We argued for a permit system in our submission.

CHAIR —Do you hold that strongly?

Cmdr Bird —Yes. The majority of demonstrations that we have managed in recent times have been managed without a permit because of the arrangements that Superintendent Martindale and his people have developed and the intelligence that they have developed over the years in as much as they know a lot of the people who regularly conduct demonstrations. A lot of the people who perhaps come from interstate and who want to demonstrate here make contact with Roger's people because the majority of states have a permit system. So they ring up and say, `How do I get a permit to come and demonstrate in front of Parliament House?'

Mr Martindale puts them right but encourages them to come and talk to us. So we do find out what they want to do. We can then provide guidance and tell them what they can and cannot do--where to park their trucks or whatever. That ad hoc arrangement has been developed over the years. Our view is that, if we did have a permit system, it would enable us to better manage the demonstrations that occur either in the parliamentary zone or precincts or even outside at other locations within the ACT.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —A point was made yesterday by one of the groups. Perhaps you could have a look at that evidence and give us a more considered answer. A suggestion was put that rather than a permit system there should be a notification system. If I remember it correctly, the idea was that they would simply notify you for the reasons that you have mentioned. The notification would then give them immunity from prosecution under those acts. As I recall their proposal, it would be voluntary. So, if they did not give notification, it would not stop the spontaneity but they then could be liable for prosecution under any of those laws. But notification gave them some immunity from prosecution.

Cmdr Bird —That is basically what is happening now.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —Yes, except that, as I understood it, the notification was to give immunity. They tell you now but you could still arrest them under those proceedings, if you wanted to. You would not, but you could.

Cmdr Bird —I think we would have some difficulty. The Attorney-General's submission talks about a permit. It suggests that it be a non-compulsory type of arrangement. That troubles me a little. I think that was Rod Campbell's suggestion yesterday. The suggestion about advising and then getting away from having the threat of being prosecuted if you do not comply with certain conditions is the worry that I have.

I suppose if we were forced into a situation where the committee said it did not like a committee system we could still live with some sort of notification system because that is what we have lived with for some time. If that notification also carried an opportunity to avoid prosecution for trespass, obstruction, or whatever, then I think we would have some difficulties accepting that. It just opens up a bit of a Pandora's box. The demonstrators could then do a lot more things than they could at the moment. Once you allow them so much latitude they will extend it a little more.

CHAIR —Have you ever refused a permit or notification of any group?

Det. Supt Martindale —No. We have never, in my time, needed to refuse anybody. It is the duty of my area to help people demonstrate lawfully. We go out of our way to deal with them, talk to them, maybe send them guidelines. If they are going to demonstrate at Parliament House, we would send them the guidelines that they have to comply with in order to demonstrate here legally. We go out of our way to assist them. If there is going to be an unlawful demonstration as such, then invariably we do not get to hear about it anyway.

I am in the business of trying to predict for Commander Bird's benefit what sort of demonstration it is going to be so he can work out how many police he will need to police that demonstration. In these days of limited resources I need to be extremely accurate in doing that to make sure that the taxpayers or the ratepayers of the ACT get value for their money and we do not end up with 100 policemen on overtime when we need only 10 or, more importantly, vice versa at times.

What I am trying to do, together with my crystal ball, is predict, for Mr Bird and Denis McDermott, how many people they will need to police that demonstration. The permit system, I think, will be an aid to that. We can then at an early stage formally start corresponding--in fact, especially if the people are from interstate--with them and, in making sure that they lawfully demonstrate, then we can find out how we need to manage that demonstration.

Senator REID —But then the question is: if a group comes without a permit, what do you do with them?

Det. Supt Martindale —Indeed.

Acting Cmdr Saunders —We still manage it.

Det. Supt Martindale —We still manage it.

Senator REID —Now you do, now it is fine. But in the future, if you have a permit system and people come spontaneously or without getting a permit, what do you do? Do you let them demonstrate or do you arrest them immediately because they are there without a permit?

Det. Supt Martindale —I do not think we do the latter.

Senator REID —Hence, the dilemma; it is the political control of the permit.

Det. Supt Martindale —Yes, indeed. I see the permit as an aid for people who want to demonstrate lawfully, and we can police that properly. There will always be spontaneous demonstrations. I assume that, if the French start nuclear testing tomorrow, we will have a spontaneous demonstration in Canberra. I would not expect people to have time to apply for a permit for that demonstration.

Senator REID —If there is a law that requires a permit, they are at risk in a sense immediately whereas, if you have a permit, you are then only at risk if you then breach the peace, or whatever else.

Det. Supt Martindale —Yes, I appreciate that.

Senator REID —That is the dilemma we are faced with.

Det. Supt Martindale —Indeed.

Supt McDermott —I think there are two other issues in that of which the committee should be aware. One is that, whilst there is a lot of negotiation done by Superintendent Martindale's people, through the process of demonstrations we are negotiating--and it does not matter where the demonstrations are--with organisers to try to have them abide by some guidelines that we are setting or we have set in agreement in the first place.To give a few examples, we negotiate regularly around Parliament House to try to avoid people marching over Parliament House, having fragmentations of groups breaking away from the demonstration area. So, from that point of view, whilst it is a controlling mechanism, it is important that we have something that people have to abide by.

In the process, the second point I would like to make is that I cannot see the value of a permit system in line with the Queensland process where there are no penalties. There has to be something binding to try to have people at least sit down and negotiate a set standard--otherwise we are really going back to where we are now.

Mr SMYTH —On that question of fragmenting demonstrations, some of the Vietnamese community told me that people were moved from the executive entrance to the front of Parliament House--

Supt McDermott —That is right.

Mr SMYTH —When the head of the communist party of Vietnam attended. Why were they moved and who was it that asked for them to be removed from the rear of the building to the front of the building?

Supt McDermott —Rightly or wrongly, we have set a standard for the demonstration area at the front of Parliament House. We are trying to avoid the problems around the building. We just do not have the resources to be at every point of the building, so it is better to try to keep it so. Those people were asked very politely to move, and they did--which is great from our point of view. That was the sole reason: to try to get them back to the demonstration area. This was done because, at one point, I think there were three different locations around the building, and that was very difficult to manage.

Mr SMYTH —So that was just a simple AFP thing to make it more manageable?

Det. Supt Martindale —No, it was a bit more than that. The demonstration took place within with the precincts of Parliament House, which come under the auspices of the Presiding Officers. When they moved to the ministerial entrance, they were outside of the authorised demonstration area. So they were asked to either go back to the authorised demonstration area or go outside of the precincts to demonstrate--which is the bridge crossing, Melbourne Avenue.

Acting Cmdr Saunders —I think the reason behind that is that, with the considerable increase in the number of overseas visitors we are getting as guests of government, there is frequently the need to get them into Parliament House without any impairment to their dignity. I think from the AFP's protection point of view there has been a considerable change over the last months. Before we were mainly concerned with their physical wellbeing, but now that has been extended to preserving their dignity as well.

In the case of the chairman of the Vietnamese communist party, it was fairly obvious that had they congregated in that area--and his vehicle was to pass in fairly close proximity to them--there was a fair chance that his dignity would have been impaired. That was really the reason that we wanted them restricted to the demonstration area.

Mr SMYTH —Given that that was then in the precinct, I assume the Presiding Officers would have asked for that.

Senator REID —Who has added the word `dignity' to the definition of the protection offered?

Acting Cmdr Saunders —I think it is a word that has filtered down fairly extensively within probably the last 12 months or so. I do not know that anybody specifically has added it, but I think there is a different emphasis on the nature of the visitors we are getting these days. I think initially we were getting visitors from Europe who were probably more used to the demonstration situation than perhaps some of the visitors we get from places such as Vietnam, for instance.

Det. Supt Martindale —The word `dignity', of course, appears in Vienna conventions and the public order act.

Acting Cmdr Saunders —Yes.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —Would you accept, though, that it is pretty pointless having a demonstration if the point you are trying to get across is never seen by the person you are trying to get the point across to and, also, that demonstrations of government actions are meant to influence government ministers who never use the demonstration area to access parliament?

Acting Cmdr Saunders —I understand that there are two sides to the particular issue. I think it is very hard to argue one against the other. In my particular role, I have the role of protecting that person. I guess maybe I am fairly influenced to that side of it, of course, but obviously I do understand the other side of it too.

Mr JENKINS —I just want to clarify the instance about the demonstration that we have just used as an example. We are agreed that what was asked of the demonstrators was what was set out in the guidelines put down by the Presiding Officers, used by the AFP and other people responsible for the management of the demonstrations. They dated back to 8 February--the copy I have here is dated 8 February--but I understand that the copy dated 8 February was a reiteration of something that had been agreed to before. A statement has also been made that that is only within the parliamentary precinct circle. What would have happened if the demonstrators had decided, instead of returning to the authorised demonstration area, to go over the bridge towards Melbourne Avenue and stand outside the circle of the precinct? In that hypothetical, how does the AFP think they may have handled it?

Cmdr Bird —On each occasion we have a liaison with the PSCC and Prime Minister and Cabinet. The level of the demonstration is one of the issues that we look at, because we have to, as was pointed out, look after the dignity of the visitor.

Those visitors would be part of a motorcade. If there were the threat of a demonstration or the threat of something like your example, the operational order covering that visit would have about three different motorcade routes to enable us to get that visitor to, say, Parliament House on this occasion. The officer in charge of the motorcade would be aware from the information given to him through our people at the demonstration at Parliament House that there is a separate group that wants to demonstrate. We would then take the necessary action to avoid that particular motorcade route and take him some other way so that he would not be necessarily seen by that group of demonstrators.

Mr JENKINS —Can I use as an example back in 1993 when the President of Vietnam visited. It was very tense. It was the first time the Speaker asked me to go out to Fairbairn to represent him. I did not know what to expect, but I did not really expect the sort of security that we had. I have not seen security at that level since.

On that occasion, I suppose the thing that impressed me, in a way, was that half way along the entrance way to Fairbairn, where there had been a barrier placed, there was still a handful of demonstrators. They still managed to be there and to make their point. Is what you are telling me today that, on this basis of protection of dignity, two years down the track we might not allow that sort of thing in that position?

Det. Supt Martindale —I think I should clarify things. With the General Secretary of the Vietnamese Communist Party, it was not just the case of dignity; there was a very real threat to his safety. So we were concerned about that as well. Part of our operational planning was that threat to him in that case. What you said earlier was not a hypothetical situation because demonstrators in fact moved down to the bridge and we did change the motorcade route. That was not so that he would not see a demonstration, but there was a fear of things being thrown at the car and people throwing themselves in front of the car. There was a lot of anger associated with that visit.

With the previous visit of Prime Minister Kiet, the threat to him was slightly less. The situation certainly was not as volatile. A lot of the feelings had been defused before he came because of the actions by government in talking to the community and things like that. In the last two years, we have probably all got a lot smarter about the way we protect people.

Acting Cmdr Saunders —I do not think that we have ever tried to prevent people from demonstrating in a public place--

Det. Supt Martindale —That is not our job--

Acting Cmdr Saunders —but we may have had to take a different route.

CHAIR —The committee has received evidence that people are generally happy with the way that demonstrations are handled by the police in the ACT. Are you happy yourselves with the way it is handled, or have you made mistakes and do you think there should be improvements?

Cmdr Bird —It depends on how far you go back. Obviously, we have made mistakes because we keep trying to improve the way we do it. But overall, as I said in my opening, because of where we are in the national capital, we have gained a lot of experience in managing demonstrations. In some respects, we, as the managers of our own people at demonstrations, have to make sure that they do not get too complacent. It is not a daily but it is a weekly event that some of our members are involved in a demonstration. The vast majority of those are peaceful demonstrations. We have to guard against the complacency that might pervade our troops' minds and to make sure that, if there are improvements that we can make, we do identify those and continue to make them.

One of the reasons why we favour a permit system is that it may enable us to develop our response to that particular demonstration more accurately and therefore perhaps not need as many members. At the moment we rely on what Roger can tell us and then make an educated guess as to the number of members we might need.

We were concerned about a number of different aspects of the Croatian president's recent visit, such as his safety and demonstrations against him. We had to work out what numbers we wanted. Quite a large policing group had to manage that visit. In hindsight, we did not need as many as we planned for. If we have a permit system whereby we can control, manage or get advice about directing these activities, it may mean that we can reduce our numbers at particular demonstrations and, firstly, save money and, secondly, make sure that the rest of our responsibilities for policing Canberra are not compromised by having all the troops here at Parliament House.

Senator REID —In relation to the Croatian president's visit, had you not had dealings with the two groups that were going to demonstrate?

Cmdr Bird —Yes.

Senator REID —In what respect did you misjudge the numbers? Was it in the way they behaved or in the number of people?

Cmdr Bird —There were the Serbs against the Croatians.

Acting Cmdr Saunders —Some of the intelligence coming from interstate was probably not accurate. We were projecting that there would be a fair interstate participation that did not eventuate.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —You have said that no permits have been refused. But there is no obligation to have permits. One concern with the permit system is that it does allow either someone in authority like you or people who give you directions to say that a permit cannot be issued. You can then have an authority, be it a minister, the Presiding Officers or you, determining who can and cannot demonstrate. That is the concern about that. I accept that you would not refuse any but the most heinous demonstration. But others may come. You may be influenced by political people at a time to not allow certain demonstrations. That is the problem with permits. That is where there is some merit in the notification system. Do you have any comment on that?

Cmdr Bird —It is difficult in some respects for people who do not want to seek a permit. One dilemma we have is whether we should be the people to issue the permits. I do not necessarily agree that that is a good idea. For example, in the parliamentary precincts, the Presiding Officers are responsible. They have to look after their bailiwick. Certainly there would be consultation, but the final decision has to be taken by the managers of the place.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —It would fill some of us with horror to have the Presiding Officers deciding who can demonstrate.

Det. Supt Martindale —They decide the guidelines now.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —The guidelines have never been referred to parliament. We never look at them.

Cmdr Bird —I thought that the guidelines were part of Hansard.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —They might have been tabled. They have not been referred to. We have never been consulted on them. They are the opinions of two people.

CHAIR —I do not think we should reflect on the Presiding Officers.

Senator REID —What about a demonstration at an embassy?

Senator IAN MACDONALD —Would you mind looking at the Hansardas it relates to notification? In your own time, you might give us some views on what was suggested there. I asked some questions yesterday, and the answer was to ask them of you. There is a prosecution over the `Trojan Horse' incident. Who is the complainant?

Supt McDermott —The sergeant who arrested him.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —What is the charge? That is all I want to ask.

Supt McDermott —The offence was trespass on Commonwealth land and the erection of a structure on Commonwealth land.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —Were there two charges or one?

Supt McDermott —Two.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —So trespass and erection of a structure on Commonwealth land. Is there a restraining order taken out in relation to that particular demonstration?

Supt McDermott —No, he has conditions of bail. There were two conditions; I just cannot think what they were. They did prohibit him from a similar sort of process within the parliamentary area. It does not stop him from coming back. I would have to check what they actually say.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —It would not stop him from giving evidence in this committee room?

Supt McDermott —Not to be within one kilometre of Parliament House, with the structure.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —With the structure. So it would not prevent him from coming here giving evidence?

Supt McDermott —No, not at all.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —Thank you.

CHAIR —We will finish there, unless you have any comments you want to make. Thank you very much. If we any further questions, we will put them in writing. Thank you for attending.

[10.18 a.m.]