CHAIR —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. The deliberate misleading of the committee may be regarded as a contempt of parliament. We have received your submission. Do you want to make any alterations or amendments?

Mr Tonkin —No, thank you.

CHAIR —Would you like to make an opening statement?

Mr Tonkin —No, thank you.

CHAIR —From the department's point of view, are there any specific problems in the existing legislative and administrative framework regarding protests or demonstrations?

Mr Brown —The Department of Defence in Canberra is really no different from any other Commonwealth agency. We occupy some fairly large broadacre tracts which do not attract any sort of publicity or protest. Our main activities are conducted in office buildings at Russell, Campbell Park, Civic and Tuggeranong. They are no different from any other office buildings and have the same sorts of protections. The same sorts of protective measures are exercised by the police if there is any sort of misconduct. We also have some educational institutions such as Duntroon, the Defence Force Academy and the Joint Services Staff College. Again, they are really no different from any other institution or Commonwealth agency. As far as the legislative measures are concerned, the legislative framework which applies to any other Commonwealth activity applies to us. Generally, there has not been any difficulty over the years in providing protection for Defence establishments, if that has become necessary.

CHAIR —Do you liaise with the AFP and so on?

Mr Hollbrook —Yes, we liaise with the Australian Federal Police--and ASIO for intelligence purposes.

CHAIR —Do you have some sort of MOU with them? If there were a demonstration at Russell, who would be in charge of that?

Mr Hollbrook —We have no formal MOU.

Senator REID —If there were a demonstration at Russell--I am thinking of Blamey Square where, from time to time, Defence holds ceremonies--against a visiting general or any visiting person, what would you do?

Mr Tonkin —We would probably have some notice in one form or another of such a demonstration. We would seek to involve the Federal Police, their being the relevant civil authority. It would not be a matter for Defence. Blamey Square is a public place and that is a matter for the civil authority. We would simply ask that any activity we were undertaking there, such as a parade welcoming such a guest, not be disrupted. If people are standing to one side, screaming and shouting and waving banners, that is a normal expression of their rights and interests.

Senator REID —It is no different from it happening anywhere else in Canberra?

Mr Tonkin —No.

CHAIR —You state in your submission that certain Defence personnel have limited powers of arrest. Could you expand on that and give us an idea of the extent and use of such powers?

Mr Brown —There are specific provisions in Defence legislation which are exercisable in relation to Defence establishments. In our submission we drew attention to the provisions in the Defence Force regulations about practice areas. That has relevance to the Majura practice range which is technically national land but is not the sort of area that is likely to attract protest activity.

There are provisions in the Defence Act which allow members of the Defence Force to arrest persons who trespass upon Defence land. That is the sort of power that would be exercised only in extreme situations. As Mr Tonkin has said, normally we would rely on the police to deal with situations of trespass, demonstrations or whatever. But if a situation occurred where a demonstrator or intruder got onto Defence land, was detected and apprehended by members of the Defence Force and proved recalcitrant a power of arrest could be exercised. But, normally, when members of the Defence Force are exercising guarding responsibilities, their instructions are that if they detect an intruder, they confront him or her and invite the person to accompany them to the perimeter of the premises, on the basis that it is an inadvertent entry. Technically, a power of arrest could be exercised and the person would be arrested and handed over to the police for prosecution.

CHAIR —That is not just military police? That is anybody in the Defence Force?

Mr Brown —It is important to be precise under the Defence Act. It relates only to members of the Defence Force. Under the Crimes Act, if it occurred in a prohibited place such as Russell Offices, any official could do that, if so motivated. It is a circumstance which I do not recall having occurred. A place like Russell has limited points of entry, protected by the Australian Protective Services. Short of someone climbing up and over those 10 or 12 foot walls it would be difficult to contemplate too many people wandering around the complex--although it is not impossible.

CHAIR —Your submission also mentioned defence legislation that relates to national land. I think it is called part 11 of Defence Force regulations. Could you discuss the general contents of those regulations?

Mr Brown —Those are the provisions to do with defence practice areas and its firing ranges and bombing ranges--places like that. The only one we have in the ACT is the Majura Range, which I mentioned a moment ago. The scheme of that legislation is that, if it is Commonwealth owned land, the minister can declare it as a practice area. Certain consequences flow from that.

Notice has to be given if a practice is going to take place. Then it becomes an offence for a person who is not authorised to be on the declared practice area while the practice is in place. Members of the Defence Force can remove somebody during the course of a practice if they come in. Clearly, the reason for that is protection of public safety--the undesirability of having members of the public wandering around a bombing range when artillery is being fired. It is not something that is unique to national land, obviously. We have practice areas and bombing ranges of various sorts all around the country.

Mr Tonkin —As you drive up Majura Lane you will see various entrances and red flags flying when the range is in operation, which is, again, part of the public safety concern: do not stray with your trail bike there.

CHAIR —Do you know whether any protests have occurred at defence establishments and how they were managed?

Mr Tonkin —Firstly, dealing perhaps with defence practice areas outside the ACT, we have had circumstances at Jervis Bay with protesters being present, seeking to be present or indicating that they may be present on the naval bombardment range at Beecroft Head, causing a degree of difficulty. My recollection is that in those circumstances the local police were used to apprehend those persons and remove them from the range.

We also sought to negotiate, essentially, with the protest group in that circumstance because we did not wish to imperil their safety. You have in that case naval vessels firing five inch shells. They make an awful lot of mess. We would not want anyone inhibited in that way. We also wanted free exercise of the range, which has been there and in use for nearly 100 years. It was an issue which was quite prevalent for a while. We were dominated in that circumstance by the concern for public safety. It was an issue which eventually went away.

There have been other circumstances where there have been demonstrations. People periodically appear outside recruiting centres or defence centres in capital cities when there is some issue which is identified with defence policy or could even be identified with the activities of allies. A defence recruiting centre is a visible entity, so people will go there. I think there may even have been occasions when people have come inside. Also, there have been demonstrations at our joint facilities in the past, which are episodic at best. It takes a fair bit of organisation to go and protest at Nurrungar or Pine Gap, at least in any numbers. There have been circumstances.

CHAIR —They were managed quite satisfactorily, as far as you were concerned?

Mr Tonkin —It depends on the scale of the event. The demonstrations at Nurrungar were of a fairly large scale, given the availability of police resources to deal with them. The facility such as that with a very large perimeter--it is somewhat analogous to Australia on a small scale, with a big perimeter and a small force--did pose some difficulties, but it was successfully dealt with without prejudice to the operations of the establishment and within the existing framework of legislation.

CHAIR —Does the Australian Protective Service look after that area?

Mr Tonkin —Yes.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —What level of training do your soldiers have in crowd control?

Mr Brown —None, because it is not a role for the Defence Force. Service police get police type training, but ordinary members of the Defence Force do not have any training in those sorts of functions because it is not a role for the Defence Force. The Defence Force does not have a general law enforcement role in Australia. By government direction it is required to have a capacity to provide assistance to the civil power in certain very limited and extreme circumstances and particular elements of the Defence Force are provided with training in that regard. What we are talking about are essentially counter-terrorist operations which are technically law enforcement operations. It has little to do with the conventional policing activities such as crowd control, demonstrations and powers of arrest.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —What happens when there are popular parades such as when President Johnson came out? As I recall, on that occasion there were not enough police officers to line the routes. I understand that soldiers were involved in keeping people back from the motorcade. Are you saying that there is no formal training for that type of operation?

Mr Tonkin —I would suggest that our presence on such an occasion would be essentially ceremonial. It is more a matter of respect for the progression of a head of state, in the same way as the Grenadier Guards line the Mall in London. They are not there to keep the crowd back. They are there in recognition of the visiting head of state or the monarch. It is not a role of the Defence Force to engage in crowd control. Were that to be a requirement of the government of the day, that would be a most serious step which would require a formal exercise of aid to the civil powers. That would be a decision of the Governor-General in Council. That would require an executive decision of the government of the day. It is not a measure which you would take lightly.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —So are you never called upon these days to assist the civil police in crowd control?

Mr Tonkin —No.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —I am not talking about antagonistic crowd control, I am talking about keeping people back from things for their own safety.

Mr Tonkin —Not to my knowledge. At a state funeral or something like that there would be a benefit in having people with any form of authority whom the general public would respect involved with the crowd. We would need to decide whether we would consider someone saying, `Stand back, please,' as a form of crowd control. That tends to bring to mind helmets, batons and shields.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —Are soldiers given prior instruction on what should or should not happen if they are involved in a solemn commemoration and find that people are opposed to the military generally or would that occur on the spot?

Mr Tonkin —It would be on the spot. Part of Defence Force training is in the area of discipline. You would expect the Defence Force, being a disciplined formed body of personnel, to act in a disciplined way in those circumstances. If you cast your mind back to the return home parade for the 1st battalion from Vietnam in 1966 when the commanding officer was splattered with paint, you will recall that the battalion on parade did not respond to that attack. That is a matter for the police. They would presumably march around the demonstrators and progress in the best manner they could, essentially ignoring the incident.

CHAIR —In your submission you mentioned the importance of ensuring the safety of visitors to Defence, especially foreign visitors. To protect their dignity you state that any protest activity must be minimised. Can you expand on what you mean?

Mr Tonkin —This is probably a difficulty with language. We would expect the exercise of the powers of the civil authorities to be effective to the extent that both Defence personnel and visitors to Defence establishments have unfettered access to those establishments both in terms of physical access and in terms of not being threatened in coming to or from those establishments. So perhaps the word `dignity' is a bit quaint. If we had a foreign visitor, for example, then that visitor should be able to drive up to the establishment, enter the establishment and leave the establishment unhindered in a physical sense or in a sense of where the threat is such there is an apprehension of the receipt of violence by that individual.

CHAIR —Minimised by the AFP or Protective Service.

Mr Hollbrook —An example would be the visit of General Sutrisno who was here a year ago. He was going to ADFA. There was a large demonstration at one entrance to ADFA, so we took him to another one. We avoided the demonstrators. There was no affront to his dignity and everybody was happy, except the demonstrators.

Mr Tonkin —We do not disclose the itineraries of some foreign visitors--some members of the Australian community may feel they wish to make a point about that. It is a matter of planning, minimising the potential for contact or conflict, but if there is an unavoidable potential for that then the civil authority is responsible for ensuring that it is kept within appropriate bounds.

Senator REID —I think `dignity' is the right word. Foreign Affairs explained that yesterday. The international convention uses the same word. We had that explained to us. It would be the same convention, I imagine, with visiting dignitaries that you are dealing with.

Mr Tonkin —I am more a straight forward bureaucrat than some of my more official advisers.

Mr SMYTH —Where was that protest at ADFA staged?

Mr Hollbrook —It was staged at the main entrance on the hill--off Northcott. We knew from intelligence that there was to be a fairly substantial presence of demonstrators there, so we took him through a different entrance. I cannot remember which one.

Mr SMYTH —Took him in the gun gates. Were the police informed that that demonstration was to occur or was it a spontaneous thing?

Mr Hollbrook —We knew well in advance from the police and from ASIO.

Mr Tonkin —Not so much that the demonstrators might have informed the police.

Mr SMYTH —We heard from the AFP earlier today and they apparently have good relations with most of the groups that choose to demonstrate and are often informed of their intent. Doing that on national land, who is responsible for the crowd control of the demonstration? Does that fall to the police or is that then a military thing?

Mr Tonkin —No, it is the police or if there is an Australian Protective Service component there, which there is not in the case of ADFA or Duntroon, then again it is the civil police.

CHAIR —Thank you very much for coming and for answering those questions. If we do have other questions we will put them to you in writing.

Mr Tonkin —Thank you.

CHAIR —The committee accepts as exhibit A the code of conduct for law enforcement officials from the United Nations. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank all the witnesses who have given evidence to the committee at this public hearing over the last two days.

Committee adjourned at 12.04 p.m.