Mr McCLELLAND (Barton) (3.40 p.m.) —I rise to support the motion. The Prime Minister's speech would have us characterise this incident and these events as simply a debate as to whether we have specific—I underline the word—advice to lift the general—and I underline that word as well—threat level facing Australia. We have heard for the first time that other specific levels may have been lifted as a consequence of Australia going into the war in Iraq—namely, the threat level faced by foreign interests in Australia and Australian interests abroad. Apparently, those specific threat levels are not regarded in the Prime Minister's description of a general threat level.
We have also heard the Prime Minister say that he acted entirely appropriately and that he did not interfere with the operational independence of the commissioner for police. Again, we are seeing some of the propaganda that is demonstrated by those comments. Take the words `operational independence'. Take out the word `operational' and what we see effectively is an admission that what occurred last week was political thuggery towards the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police. Why? It was simply because he expressed his honest opinion, effectively to tell the people of Australia that we had to take the incidents that occurred in Madrid very carefully because there may have been a correlation of factors that applied to that event and circumstances faced in Australia. Not to do so, one would legitimately argue, would have been grossly irresponsible. But he was subject to political thuggery because he departed from the script.
If Australians could choose whom they wanted to protect their families and if the choice were between someone of the calibre of Commissioner Mick Keelty or those sitting opposite, I know whom they would pick every time. They would pick Commissioner Keelty every time, and justifiably so. As the Leader of the Opposition said, he is one of our nation's real champions. Indeed, the Prime Minister acknowledged Commissioner Keelty's tremendous achievements in terms of not only his general policing responsibilities, his toughness and his determination but also the impact that he had as a national figure in the terrible events that confronted the nation in the form of the Bali bombings.
To see a man of Commissioner Keelty's character driven to consider his resignation is, quite frankly, appalling. Consider the comments and the approaches that were made to this man last week when he was in the middle of participating in a vitally important conference with the most senior police officers of the land. Consider the number of phone calls that he must have received and the dilemma that he was in. He actually considered resigning from his position. If the approach to him was so appropriate, why would a man such as Mick Keelty consider resigning from his position? The fact that such a man was placed in that position is nothing short of an outrage. Indeed, I echo my disgust at the comments of the Minister for Foreign Affairs when he said:
Now, Mr Keelty makes a point that, you know ... al Qa'eda are running around saying that this is all because of the Spanish position in relation to Iraq—
effectively accusing the Australian Federal Police Commissioner—the highest law enforcement officer of the land and someone who, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, has devoted his career to protecting the security of Australians and Australian families—of espousing propaganda. To accuse a man such as that of mouthing al-Qaeda propaganda is nothing short of disgusting. The Minister for Foreign Affairs stood up and asked the Leader of the Opposition for a retraction of his comments condemning the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Minister for Foreign Affairs should stand up and be man enough to withdraw his comments and apologise to Commissioner Mick Keelty for that suggestion. It was nothing short of an outrage.
Commonsense says that, if you connect the dots, you would be naive to dismiss a connection between the role of the Spanish government in the war in Iraq and the events that occurred in Madrid. But Commissioner Keelty was not saying whether it was a good thing or a bad thing that Australia participated in that conflict. That was not his turf. He was saying: `Let's look at the dots. If they are connected, we have to be aware.' For him to do other than that would have been to ignore his responsibility to the Australian people. His comments echoed those of Mr Pistole, the head of the FBI's counter-terrorist mission in the United States, who was also out here last week at that important conference, and they echo comments by the deputy secretary of the Department of Defense in the United States. Those comments have also been supported by a number of people.
I note that, at one stage in an answer to a question today, the Prime Minister suggested that the issue was something that would be left open. Of course, it would be naive, as I say, not to draw the dots and to try and con the Australian people by silencing the Commissioner of Police. To prevent him from making such comments was grossly irresponsible. The Prime Minister said in an answer today that the focus of the government was dealing with the reality of terrorism. If that was the focus of the government, why didn't they allow the commissioner for police to participate unimpeded, unhindered and not harassed at a time when he had a responsibility as Australia's prime law enforcement officer to participate with the leading law enforcement officers of this nation and with myriad experts who had come out to Australia at a crucial time—that is, immediately after the Madrid bombing? Why wasn't he allowed to participate in that conference unimpeded? You can imagine the pressure on that man starting not with this all-important news bulletin at 6 p.m. on Sunday night, as the Prime Minister suggested, but immediately after he stepped out of the studio on Sunday morning to express his honest opinion to the Australian people. If the government's focus was on dealing with the reality of terrorism, why didn't they get out of the way and leave an honest and determined champion of Australia's security interests to participate in that conference without being harassed? The fact that they did not do so shows what this government's priority is. Their priority is their propaganda, not the security of the Australian people. The government's priority is spin, over protecting the families of Australia. There is no other conclusion that can be drawn from these events. It is unquestionably the case that what we have seen are political standover tactics of the very worst kind.
As I said, the pressure of the government was such that they were prepared to sacrifice Commissioner Keelty because he dared utter words that were inconsistent with the government's spin. But, to justify those standover tactics, the Prime Minister talks about `operational independence' or `operational responsibilities'. We know what the Australian Federal Police's operational responsibilities are, because we heard of them as recently as 18 March of this year, when the Attorney-General answered my question on notice. With regard to the Australian Federal Police's involvement in the new National Threat Assessment Centre—which I understand will be starting up next month—he said that the Australian Federal Police will be fully integrated in the National Threat Assessment Centre analysis and, as such, will be directly responsible for the preparation of threat assessments. If the Prime Minister says, `I will listen to ASIO and no other about the threats faced by Australia,' why have we even set up a National Threat Assessment Centre at all? Why have we brought experts in these agencies together to advise the Australian people of threats faced by the Australian people because of myriad circumstances, including events overseas such as those in Madrid? Clearly, it is part of the operational responsibilities of the Australian Federal Police to participate in those national threat assessments, to consider the likelihood of a terrorist event in Australia as a result of a number of factors. To dismiss that, as the government has sought to do, as not being part of Commissioner Keelty's operational responsibilities is simply wrong and it is, again, misleading the Australian people.
You have to ask whether this was simply pressure exerted on Commissioner Keelty, who you have to say is probably one of the toughest of all public servants. It was a statement and a warning shot across the bows of all public servants to toe the government's line in this election year. That is what it was about. It was the intimidation of someone who can probably be regarded as the toughest of our public servants in order to warn other public servants that they had better toe the government's line or wait and see what will happen to them.
I ask the government: how can Australians, in those circumstances, have confidence in the impartiality, frankness and sincerity of Australian Federal Police officers—and, indeed, others—confidence that they will give their honest and frank advice in the national threat assessment process, given the consequences if they dare utter words that are inconsistent with the government's spin? How can the people of Australia have confidence that this government's priority is their security rather than the government's spin? If you look at the government's response with respect to security issues, you see that that is what it is about.
Mr Downer interjecting—
Mr McCLELLAND —I was just prompted by the minister at the table. Under regulations in his portfolio, over 400 individuals and terrorist organisations have been listed as terrorist organisations, to make it illegal to contribute to those organisations and to be able to confiscate their assets. How many organisations have had their assets confiscated? Two: one case involved a Melbourne record company called Shining Path—they had to withdraw from that; the other case involved a grand sum of $2,100. In the context of other countries confiscating and freezing over $100 million of assets, this government has frozen some $2,100. We have passed—and we have seen tremendous debate and fanfare, as part of this government's rhetoric—a myriad of legislation. How many terrorists have we seen prosecuted in Australia, despite dramatic headlines regarding the activities of Willie Brigitte in Australia? Not one terrorist has been prosecuted in Australia.
This government is about the propaganda of security—muzzling, restricting, intimidating—and, indeed, writing statements of retraction for a very decent and dedicated man. The national security of Australians should be above politics. Our national security depends on the dependability and independence of those charged with our national security. That independence has been fundamentally breached and so too, potentially, has our national security. This government should be ashamed of the pressure and the intimidation that it applied to a very decent, determined and dedicated man. It should apologise to that man and it should apologise to the Australian people for attempting to pull the wool over their eyes.
Opposition members—Apologise!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The honourable member for Barton was heard in relative silence. The fact that the Minister for Foreign Affairs is rising is not an excuse for that sort of behaviour from my left. Those who wish to listen to the debate shall do so silently. Those who cannot see that way clear should remove themselves from the chamber under their own volition, or I will act.