Posts

Federal Police Drop Vaccine Mandate

,

The Federal Police have finally dropped their vaccine mandate for workers, yet won’t apologise to the people who have been persecuted and lost wages for years.

It’s been known from the very start it didn’t stop workers getting COVID, and it didn’t stop transmission of COVID to others. That hasn’t changed, so why this change four years later?

It’s not good enough! One Nation calls for an apology, backpay, compensation and immediate rehiring of anyone who lost a job because of a vaccine mandate.

Transcript

CHAIR: I also note the time. Can we give Senator Roberts the call for a moment? Senator Roberts, do you have questions for the AFP? 

Senator ROBERTS:  Yes, I do. Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for appearing tonight. Just before the last break, Commissioner, did you say you revoked the COVID vaccine mandates on your police yesterday? 

Ms Van Gurp :  I can answer that. Thank you for the question. You might recall last time we appeared at this committee back in November, we did disclose that we had undertaken a review of the COVID Commissioner’s Order 10 policy, which related to COVID vaccines. That review, as of November, had been completed and supported by our enterprise operations board. I mentioned at our last hearing in November that the next phase for us to do, as per the legislation, as per the Work Health Safety Act, was to undertake genuine workforce consultation. So throughout December and January we have undertaken that genuine consultation with the workforce, which included comments back that were supportive and not supportive. In consideration of that consultation, the commissioner, yes, he has determined that Commissioner’s Order 10 is to be revoked, and that was announced to the workforce. Our internal website has a range of frequently asked questions and information for staff to address the issues that were raised across that consultation process. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Am I accurate in saying they were revoked yesterday? 

Ms Van Gurp :  No. The Commissioner’s Order 10 was signed off as revoked by the commissioner on 13 February. It was announced to the workforce this week. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Why did you revoke the vaccine mandates? I know you have been through a process—I don’t need to hear about that again, with respect—but what was the reason they were revoked? 

Ms Van Gurp :  Throughout the process since the Commissioner’s Order was put in place, we did undertake regular reviews looking at that policy. As we talked about before in this forum, it was an important policy for us at a time to protect both our workforce and the community, particularly the vulnerable communities that we are working with across the Pacific and other areas of the globe. But the most recent review in relation to reflecting on the health advice from our Chief Medical Officer as well as ATAGI and others, we determined that that risk posed didn’t necessitate a specific Commissioner’s Order anymore because, rather than it being a global pandemic, the status of COVID had been downgraded, so we made that determination through that internal review and through doing an updated risk assessment treatment plan. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Given that nothing has changed arguably in recent years—certainly in many, many, many, month many, months—why did it take long to revoke the vaccine mandates? 

Ms Van Gurp :  As we have talked about here previously, while for some other agencies the advice had changed around the risks of the community, we were conscious that we have a workforce that we need to be able to readily deploy at any time and we are deploying to vulnerable communities, so our assessment was not just to follow the general community advice; it was to undertake our own internal assessment, so we held that policy in place for a longer period of time to protect both our workforce and the community, but we have determined now is the time to revoke that policy. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Given the injections did not stop people getting COVID and did not stop people transmitting COVID, why were the mandates implemented? 

Ms Van Gurp :  Based on the health advice both from government and our Chief Medical Officer, it was to minimise the risk to both our members and to the vulnerable communities, so acknowledging, yes, of course, Senator, you are correct—the COVID vaccine didn’t prevent people getting it or prevent people transmitting it but it did mitigate that risk. 

Senator ROBERTS:  So was that on the evidence of the Chief Medical Officer and ATAGI health agencies? 

Ms Van Gurp :  Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Did they provide you with the evidence? I am asking: on what evidence? 

Ms Van Gurp :  I will have to take that on notice, but essentially we considered the advice coming from ATAGI and others externally. We considered the risk to our people by undertaking our own risk assessment treatment plan internally and that was in consideration of the way in which we deploy staff, where we are deploying to, the nature of our operations et cetera. So, for some time, our internal position was that we needed to maintain that vaccination requirement that the safety of our members and for the safety of the communities were dealing with. But as I said, we have revised that risk assessment treatment plan now and have determined that Commissioner’s Order 10 can be revoked. 

Senator ROBERTS:  On notice, could I have a copy of the advice from the Chief Medical Officer and ATAGI, please? 

Ms Van Gurp :  I will take that question on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Also in your own deliberations within the AFP, I would like to know what drove the conclusion, particularly your risk assessment. I would like to see the risk assessment. 

Ms Van Gurp :  I will take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: The inefficacy of the COVID injections in stopping transmission was known well before yesterday. Why did it take so long to revoke? 

Ms Van Gurp :  As I mentioned, our decision to have that Commissioner’s Order in place was not just based on ATAGI and other advice; it was our internal position as well in consideration of our own risk assessment treatment plans. We went through a thorough process to make sure that, before we revoked it ,we were being thorough in our assessments. As I previously talked about, we did an internal review that Deputy Commissioner Gale’s team led. That review came to our internal enterprise operations board for consideration. We supported the position of the review and then, as per the WHS Act, we undertook workplace consultation prior to making a decision, and that is a requirement under legislation. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Could I, on notice again, have any evidence that you considered within the AFP in making the decision and on why it took so long? 

Ms Van Gurp :  Yes, Commissioner. I’m happy to take on notice to provide that plan. 

Senator ROBERTS:  I haven’t been promoted yet! 

Ms Van Gurp :  Senator, sorry! 

Senator SCARR:  It’s coming now—just hold off! 

Ms Van Gurp :  It’s past my bedtime! 

Senator ROBERTS:  It’s past my bedtime too. I have two more questions, very briefly. Did you mandate the AstraZeneca shots that were later withdrawn? 

Ms Van Gurp :  Our Commissioner’s Order 10 required that staff had to have two vaccinations. We didn’t mandate which vaccination that needed to be. But I’m happy to take it on notice if you need more clarity around that. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Thank you. Commissioner, will you apologise to police who were basically forced to take the AstraZeneca shot? 

Mr Kershaw :  I don’t know what evidence you have there, Senator. I’ll have to take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS:  They were withdrawn from use in the UK and other countries, I believe, on the basis of a court case in Britain. They were also withdrawn in this country, although I understand the federal health department did not withdraw them until quite some time later. I’d like to know why they were mandated. 

CHAIR: Do you mean that type of vaccination, Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS:  Yes, the AstraZeneca brand. 

CHAIR: I’m not going to answer for the commissioner, but I think he has taken it on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Yes, he has. Thank you all for appearing. 

CHAIR: I hope you’re enjoying whatever regional town in Queensland you seem to be joining from. I’m sure it’s a fabulous place.  

/1 Comment/by

AFP’s Role in Protest Interventions

,

During the recent Senate Estimates, I questioned the AFP about whether they were under orders not to intervene during protests when offenses, such as the flying of illegal Hezbollah and Hamas flags, were observed.

The AFP clarified that they were under no such orders and explained that maintaining peace at rallies and protests is primarily the responsibility of State and Territory police as frontline officers. They also noted that decisions on whether to intervene may depend on tactical considerations and safety concerns.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: On to another topic, are Australian Federal Police officers under any orders at certain demonstrations to not intervene when they see an offence being committed? 

Ms Barrett: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: We see the issue of illegal flags being raised at some demonstrations—illegal Hezbollah flags and Hamas flags. Why wasn’t action taken? 

Ms Barrett: There are a few things I would say to that. Primarily, it’s our state and territory colleagues that are policing public order in protest activity. The AFP doesn’t generally have a frontline presence at protest activity. 

Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t got jurisdiction, say, in Sydney at a big protest—only in Canberra? 

Ms Barrett: It’s not our primary role. It’s primarily the role of the states and territories. They are better equipped and trained to deal with large public order matters. We obviously provide support to them and some specialist capability where it’s required, but they are primarily the ones on the front line at the protest activity. They also have access to utilising this legislation and, in fact, there have been other state and territory colleagues and counterparts that have used this legislation in relation to the prohibited hate symbols. The other point I would make is that there are a lot of tactics that go into policing protests and into maintaining law and order and public order, particularly in mass protest activity. It is quite a simplified expectation that police officers would be immediately arresting on the spot. There is a lot of consideration that would go into tactical decision-making around whether it would be the right decision to immediately intervene and arrest in a mass protest activity, and that is where our state and territory colleagues have the specialist skills and training. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have two questions. Do you have jurisdiction in Sydney, for example, or in the state, apart from airports? 

Ms Barrett: We have jurisdiction for Commonwealth offences, so under Commonwealth legislation. Our state and territory colleagues have state legislation that allows them to enforce public order in those situations. As I’ve already said, they also have access to Commonwealth legislation around some of these applicable offences. 

Senator ROBERTS: Last question: is one of the considerations as to whether or not to take action to arrest someone who’s demonstrating with a hate flag or hate symbol the need to be seen to be enforcing the law? People are just shocked that these people are getting away with breaking the law willy nilly in front of the police’s eyes. 

Ms Barrett: There are a number of grounds that have to be satisfied before a police officer can arrest someone under the Commonwealth legislation. There are six or seven grounds for arrest, so it’s not as simple as just making a decision to arrest somebody. It has to be either to prevent the continuation of offence, prevent a loss or destruction of evidence, ensure a person’s appearance before court—there are a number of elements that you have to satisfy yourself of before you make a decision to deprive someone of their liberty. I can tell you that every police officer takes the decision to make an arrest very seriously because, as I said, you are depriving someone of their liberty. The other thing I will just make the point of is that every police officer has the independent office of constable. I can’t direct someone to make an arrest in any situation. It is an individual decision made by the individual police officer, and they themselves have to be satisfied that they’ve met the grounds for arrest under the Commonwealth legislation. 

Senator ROBERTS: One of those grounds was the continuation of an offence. Isn’t letting people continue to march with a hate symbol a continuation of an offence? 

Ms Barrett: Yes, in most circumstances it could be. But I will take you back to my earlier point—that there are a lot of other factors, particularly in mass protest situations where you’ve got big crowds, high emotions, a lot of passion and a propensity for violence or disorderly behaviour. There are a lot of tactics that go around policing large demonstrations like that, not least in terms of officer safety as well. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. 

/by

AFP Questioned on Tainted Blood Complaint

,

During this session with the AFP, I inquired whether they had received a complaint about several individuals who had received tainted blood as a result of failures by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and the Red Cross to ensure the safety of blood donations used in medical treatments. The question was taken on notice.

Transcript

Thank you all for appearing tonight. I’ll get one question out of the way first. In October this year, several haemophiliacs and parents of haemophiliacs filed criminal complaints with the Australian Federal Police commissioner, Commissioner Kershaw. The complainants have not received any acknowledgement of their submissions. Is the federal government aware of these complaints? When can the complainants expect a response?

Mr McCartney: I’m not across the matter. I’ll take that on notice, and we’ll come back to you.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve supported these people and we’ll continue to support them. They’ve got a serious case. It’s an injustice that’s very strong and sustained. Their counterparts in Britain have been dealt with properly. These people over here are not being dealt with.

/by

ASIO’s Role in Monitoring Security Threats

,

During my session with ASIO, I asked why they did not intervene when terrorist flags were flown, which is an offence, at demonstrations. Mr. Burgess explained that he was actually pleased when such incidents like this occurred because it made it easier to identify persons of interest and monitor them more closely in the future.   He stated that it’s not ASIO’s role to enforce the law, as that responsibility falls to the Australian Federal Police (AFP).

He clarified that ASIO functions as a security service.   From a security perspective, Mr. Burgess noted that they would assess whether a visa applicant was a Hamas or Hezbollah sympathiser. He also confirmed that ASIO collaborates closely with the AFP and international partners.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you have the last five minutes. We’re finishing on 10.30.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Burgess and others, for attending. At recent pro-Palestinian rallies in Australia, the Hamas and Hezbollah flags and symbols have been highly visible and displayed by participants. This is an offence. Why did ASIO not step in with the AFP and arrest the offenders?

Mr Burgess: Firstly, and again, ASIO is not a law enforcement agency. We don’t arrest anyone. What I can say on this matter is that, as the head of a security service, I welcome when individuals fly the flag, so to speak, and indicate that they’re someone we should have an interest in. If people are silly enough to do that—whether it’s unlawful or not is a matter for law enforcement—I personally welcome people declaring their hand, which allows ASIO to conduct lines of inquiry and investigation into those individuals should they be a threat to security.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you sending two messages there? One is to encourage people to fly their flags even though it’s illegal. Or are you encouraging people to do that and be identified?

Mr Burgess: No; I’m just making the comment that if people are silly enough to do that, then it actually is something that we can use as a point of interest. Of course, if people are actually flying symbols which are unlawful, then they’re breaking the law. But I’ll leave that to our Federal Police colleagues to talk about when they’re up at estimates.

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t think you had the power to arrest people, but what are your responsibilities? What avenues do you have?

Mr Burgess: We’re a security service. We get to investigate threats to security, including politically motivated violence, promotion of criminal violence, sabotage, foreign interference, espionage and anything that jeopardises the integrity of Australia’s border or attacks Australia’s defence systems.

Senator ROBERTS: The flying of a flag would be seen as flagging someone of suspicion to you, but it’s up to the police to prosecute.

Mr Burgess: It’s an indicator that there may be a violent ideology behind that. It might just be the actions of a misdirected individual who doesn’t really know what they’re doing.

Senator ROBERTS: By the way, I’ve read your opening statement, and I won’t be asking questions about the Gaza visas. Is it true that many Palestinian and Lebanese visa applicants are sympathisers of Hamas and Hezbollah?

Mr Burgess: Let’s get into a conversation about what a sympathiser is. Are you asking whether there are people who actually support listed terrorist organisations?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Mr Burgess: Yes. Are they all supporting listed terrorist organisations? No. The nature of that support is actually—when we get involved in a process of looking at someone, a visa holder, if it’s referred to us or intelligence indicates that we should look at someone, we’ll look at everything that’s before us and available to us through our international partnerships to make an assessment of whether someone in that case represents a direct or indirect threat to security.

Senator ROBERTS: You look at individuals.

Mr Burgess: We’ll look at individuals when they’re referred to us or intelligence indicates that we need to look at someone, and we’ll investigate them with rigour.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that many Palestinian and Lebanese visa applicants are sympathisers of Hamas and Hezbollah. I’m told you do the screening in terms of security.

Mr Burgess: We’re looking at security, yes. A very small number of them turn out to be an indirect or direct threat to security, based on our current work.

Senator ROBERTS: At mosques in Sydney and Melbourne, there have recently been speakers preaching hate and violence to their followers in relation to antisemitic themes. Why have ASIO and the AFP not intervened and arrested these pedlars of death and destruction? I know that you can’t arrest someone.

Mr Burgess: I obviously won’t talk about specific cases, but if we’re looking at individuals who are actually very cleverly staying on the right side of the law but could be interpreted by someone as actually still giving permission for violence, of course we would be interested, and our investigative efforts would be applied with rigour. How much effort they get depends on what we find as we make our inquiries and up through our levels of investigation, including the use of special powers if warranted.

Senator ROBERTS: What do those special powers involve?

Mr Burgess: A range of interception, computer access warrants, enter and search operations. We get highly intrusive under a warrant authorised by the Attorney-General, if we have the grounds that warrant that.

Senator ROBERTS: If it involves a breach of the law, will you report it to the police?

Mr Burgess: We pass that straight to our partners in the law enforcement joint counterterrorism teams.

Senator ROBERTS: You work together with the AFP and the state police forces, presumably.

Mr Burgess: In every state and territory, there is a thing called a joint counterterrorism team, which includes the state or territory police forces, the Australian Federal Police and ASIO officers.

Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to Senator Rennick’s questions, what do you see as your responsibility once exposing a foreign agent?

Mr Burgess: If we’ve got a threat to security, someone’s engaged in foreign interference or espionage, we will deal with it through either an intelligence-led disruption or pass that matter over to our mates in the Counter Foreign Interference Taskforce, and the Australian Federal Police will take it from there, as was the case with the two Russian-born Australian citizens this year.

Senator ROBERTS: You and Senator Rennick may not have agreed on the words and not understood each other’s words, but do you need any laws passed to enable you to do your job better?

Mr Burgess: No, not at this stage.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Burgess.

/by