PRIME MINISTER:
I am pleased to announce that the Government will be recommending to the Governor-General the appointment of Deputy Commissioner Andrew Colvin as the next Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police.
Deputy Commissioner Colvin has an outstanding record. He is a quarter-century veteran of the Australian Federal Police, beginning in Sydney where he was involved in narcotics investigations, investigations into money laundering and even then into terrorism financing.
In 2002, he became the national coordinator for counter-terrorism and in that capacity, he helped to respond to the 2002 Bali bombings, the 2003 Marriott Hotel bombing in Jakarta and subsequently the 2004 Australian Embassy bombing.
In 2006, as Assistant Commissioner, he was involved with the Street Review into the AFP's interoperability with its national security partners. Most recently, he has been the Deputy Commissioner responsible for national security. He has got a Masters in Public Administration. He is eminently suited to lead the Australian Federal Police in these challenging times.
The Australian Federal Police is probably our most diverse and capable police force. Not only is it responsible for general policing in the ACT, it has a preeminent role in many areas of policing: drug importation, child protection and the international work which we do. The AFP responded magnificently to the MH17 crisis and deployed swiftly and effectively to eastern Europe.
So, this is a highly capable police force and it has an outstanding career police officer as its next Commissioner.
I congratulate Deputy Commissioner Colvin and I ask the Minister to support these remarks.
MINISTER FOR JUSTICE:
Thank you, Prime Minister. It gives me great pleasure that the Cabinet will be recommending to the Governor-General, Andrew Colvin's appointment. This appointment is being made after an extensive national and international search to make sure that the Government was recommending the best possible person for this job in what is challenging times for the organisation.
A panel of very well respected and senior Government officials interviewed candidates and provided the Government with a comprehensive report and they recommended Andrew as the outstanding candidate.
As the Prime Minister has said, he is a 24-year veteran of policing and he has got substantial experience at senior levels within the Australian Federal Police and a very sound understanding of the contemporary law enforcement environment.
He holds a Masters Degree, as has been suggested, from Harvard and a Bachelor Degree from the University of New England.
Since 2010, Andrew Colvin has been a Deputy Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police but most recently as the Deputy Commissioner responsible for national security.
He currently chairs the Asia Pacific working group on money laundering which deals with counter-terrorism financing.
He was chief of staff to the then Commissioner between 2005 and 2007 where he led the AFP professional standards branch as well as the policy, legal and government relations branches. For his services to the Commonwealth, he has received the Order of Australia Medal in 2003 for all his work on the joint police investigation into the Bali bombings.
I think it is very clear to everyone that Andrew will take over leadership of the Australian Federal Police at a critical time. He will need to respond to the change in our national security environment but at the same time make sure that the other priorities of the Australian Federal Police, such as battling organised crime, are still part of the Australian Federal Police agenda.
We believe that he has the vision, the commitment and the energy to lead Australia's national policing agency, to forge the complex national and international alliances that are involved and to build on the AFP's already strong approach to complex crime and security issues.
In his current capacity as Acting Commissioner which Andrew has held for almost five weeks – and I think everyone would be aware that that has been something of a baptism of fire – Andrew has performed exceptionally well and it is with great pleasure that the Cabinet will be recommending to the Governor-General his appointment and I would personally like to congratulate him for a very significant milestone within his life.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNATE COLVIN:
Firstly, can I acknowledge the support of the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and the Minister and Cabinet in making this recommendation. I know it shows great confidence in the AFP and certainly, in particular, that I would lead this organisation. I want publically state as well my appreciation for, obviously, my friends, colleagues and my family. You don't consider taking on a role, leading an organisation – in the current environment we have – like the AFP, without that support.
Undoubtedly, this will be a challenge but I have the great fortune of leading an organisation that is well equipped to deal with the challenges of the future and I have a great executive team around me. While today is not the time, I guess, to spell out what the future of the AFP will hold, I know I will sit down with that executive team in the coming days and weeks and we will map out the future for the AFP.
That said, it is obvious that security challenges and the security environment will dominate my term as Commissioner of the AFP but I also want to reiterate what the Minister has said, that transnational crime, organised crime is more pervasive than it has ever been. It is affecting the lives of Australians each and every day and the AFP has a very vital, important role in combatting transnational crime and organised crime. To that end, our international footprint, our international work will become even more important over the next five years over my term as Commissioner.
I look very much forward to working with my state and territory colleagues. We have a great partnership in policing around the country. I think it is serving the Australian community extremely well. I look forward to working with my international partners, which is a particular strength of the AFP and one that I will enjoy progressing and making sure it continues to be a strength for Australian policing. I look forward to working with my partners in Government across a range of departments and agencies.
The AFP has said on many occasions before, and it will no different in my term as Commissioner, that there is nothing we do that we do alone and modern policing is very complicated and there is nothing that we can achieve that we can achieve alone.
Finally, the challenges of the security environment are obvious, but less obvious is the vital work that the AFP members around Australia and around the world play across a range of disciplines, a range of crimes as well as our capacity development work. My message to them is they can rest assured that in this Commissioner, they have a Commissioner that will support them, give them the skills and capabilities they need to continue to perform the functions that they have at the moment and I look forward to my term as Commissioner.
Thank you.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well said, Commissioner-designate. Do we have any questions?
QUESTION:
Commissioner-designate, congratulations on your appointment. Can I ask you and the Prime Minister whether you think the current structure of Australia's law enforcement intelligence agencies both at a bureaucratic and ministerial level is the best structure?
PRIME MINISTER:
I might kick off on that. We have enormous confidence in our security agencies and in our police: their professionalism, their commitment and their ability to coordinate their operations. It is a well-oiled machine and it is working particularly well at the moment. That is not to say that there will never be any changes and that is why we commissioned a security review when we announced the $630 million boost in funding for our security agencies. Let's see what that review turns up. I notice there has been a little bit of overheated speculation. Frankly, it is speculation on speculation. We have very good security services but we are always looking for ways of doing things better.
QUESTION:
There have been a lot of discussions about banning the burqa – whether it is a good idea or not – from your own MPs and also from PUP senators. Mr Colvin, do you think that is helpful in the current environment particularly in terms of relations with the Muslim community and Prime Minister what is your personal view? Bill Shorten called on you this morning to show some leadership on this issue?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, look, I think that the Government is showing leadership on all issues all the time. There are a couple of different issues here. The first is the burqa as an item of attire in the general community, and the second is the burqa as an item of attire in a secure building or in a circumstance where peoples' identity is important. Now, I have said before that I find it a fairly confronting form of attire. Frankly, I wish it was not worn but we are a free country, we are a free society and it is not the business of Government to tell people what they should and shouldn't wear. We can all have an opinion, we can all have a preference, but in the end it is up to the citizens of Australia to decide what they should wear.
It is a little different, obviously, in a situation where peoples' identity is important. My understanding is that in courts, for instance, people may be required to show their face. In certain buildings, people may be required to show their face and I think that is perfectly appropriate. It is perfectly appropriate that in certain circumstances people be required to show their face and there can't be one rule for one form of attire and a different rule for another form of attire. It has to be the same rules for everyone and if the rules require you to show your face – well, you show your face.
QUESTION:
What about in Parliament House, should they show their face there?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, this is a secure building and it is important that people be able to be identified, it is important that people be able to be recognised as the people for whom a pass has been issued. In the end, it is a matter for the presiding officers and for the security controller of the building but this is a secure building and it has got to be governed by the rules appropriate for a secure building.
QUESTION:
Are you saying they shouldn't be worn in Parliament House?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, could I caution people about making mountains out of molehills. Has anyone ever sought entry to this building so attired? As far as I am aware, no. And making a big song and dance about a hypothetical, I am not sure is particularly helpful but I just want to stress that this is a secure building and it should be governed by the rules that are appropriate for a secure building and obviously people need to be identifiable in a secure building such as this.
QUESTION:
Can we get the opinion of the Commissioner-delegate (sic) as to whether or not it is a security threat?
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNATE COLVIN:
Let me say a few things. I don't think it is appropriate for us to comment on speculation and different scenarios. Police in this country is done without fear or favour in all circumstances. I think, as the Prime Minister has said, we need to be careful not to make something of an issue that police deal with each and every day in suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne. We have seen instances where there have been matters taken to court before, where certain head dress has been asked to be removed. I think we need to deal with each circumstance as it comes. Police are trained to deal with these issues. That is what I would expect of my police and my fellow Commissioners would expect the same. It is without fear or favour. This isn’t about religion, this isn’t about particular head dress, it isn't about what somebody may or may not choose to wear. Police in this country is done in order to provide the freedom so people can live the life the way they want to live it.
QUESTION:
[Inaudible] banned at Parliament House [inaudible]?
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNATE COLVIN:
No, not necessarily. I think we need to come back to what the Prime Minister said, we need to look at the circumstances, where it is appropriate for us to make certain identification then we should do that. I am not going to buy into whether it should be banned or not.
PRIME MINISTER:
Again, if I could just stress, national security is too important to be made sport of, and we could have a huge national debate over whether or not the burqa should be allowed into Parliament House but what useful purpose would it serve given that as far as we are aware, no-one has ever sought to enter into the building so attired and if access was ever sought under those circumstances it would be dealt with appropriately by our security officers I am sure.
QUESTION:
[inaudible] the original question was, the comments by your backbenchers about people wearing it in the community, do you think it is helpful to the whole Team Australia push and to convince the Islamic community this is not about them, it is about a crime?
PRIME MINISTER:
The point I have made repeatedly in recent months is that we are interested in combatting crime. We wouldn't for a moment target particular communities or particular religions because not only is it wrong but it is un-Australian. We have always extended a warm and generous welcome to people from all countries, all cultures, all faiths. That is never going to change and what impresses me, the longer the current security issue lasts, is the enthusiasm that just about every single Australian has for our country and for our freedoms and that includes – whether I might like it or not, whether I might prefer it or not – that includes the freedom to wear whatever you want under normal circumstances.
QUESTION:
Has a date been set for when Australian involvement might commence and can you just clarify what you're still waiting on before a final decision?
PRIME MINISTER:
David, I will have more to say on this in the Parliament. I will make a brief statement to the Parliament, a brief update to the Parliament on our military commitment in the Middle East and I am going to leave that discussion until then.
QUESTION:
You will be the Commissioner of the AFP when the G20 meets in Brisbane later this year. What sort of challenge do you see presented at the G20 and how much have recent events here and internationally increased that challenge for you and your service?
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNATE COLVIN:
I think the G20 brings with it unique challenges for both ourselves and the Queensland Police, as well as our colleagues around the country. We have been for quite a long time now working very hard to make sure that the security treatments and the layers of security that we have around the G20 are appropriate. We always plan on the basis of the threat being more than what it may be at the time. So with the threat level and the public alert recently being raised, that hasn't changed our planning as much as it has changed our attitude towards the way our police might respond in certain situations.
We have a heightened state of readiness on many fronts. G20 is just another opportunity for us to ensure that our partnership with the Queensland Police is right. Queensland Police have done a wonderful job in preparations. We’ve seen a number of lead-up meetings to the G20 which have gone through without incident. We will continue to be vigilant of what the threats may be but I am confident that the plan is right.
QUESTION:
Just in a follow-up to David's original question, would you like to see the Colvin-era usher in a
homeland-style security agency or governing body like we see in the United States or the UK?
PRIME MINISTER:
They’re already talking about the Colvin-era, Andrew!
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNATE COLVIN:
As I said, I will let the speculation be commented on by others. What I do know is that the Government have asked for a review of current counter-terrorism arrangements. We will be a very active and I think an important contributor to that review and we will make sure that we give full and frank advice about that. My focus right now and the arrangements that we have have served us well for quite a long time. My focus is to continue to make sure they continue to serve us well.
QUESTION:
But at the moment it would be a distraction to go down that path?
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNATE COLVIN:
It is always appropriate that we continue to look at our arrangements, particularly in a heightened security environment, to make sure they're optimal. But right now, I think the arrangements are working well. That doesn't mean we shouldn't review or look at whether changes are appropriate.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, have you further examined the legal options for deploying Australian units in Syria or is that a closed matter now?
PRIME MINISTER:
I will be dealing with the current deployment to the Middle East in the Parliament shortly. On the particular question that you asked me, Malcolm, we’ve never ruled it out. We’ve just observed that the legalities of operating in Syria are quite different from the legalities of operating in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi government. So, I’ll just leave it at that. The legalities are different. Frankly, the moralities are the same. ISIL is an apocalyptic death cult. It is a menace to everyone. It’s declared war on the world and it’s the same whether it’s in Syria or Iraq, but the legalities are different and legalities matter to a country such as Australia.
QUESTION:
[inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
I’m just not going to go further into this at this time.
QUESTION:
The Americans have used the collective self-defence argument to defend what it has done in Syria. Do we recognise the same doctrine?
PRIME MINISTER:
The short answer is we do think this is a legitimate basis for international action but you shouldn't read anything into that in terms of what Australia might or might not do in times to come.
QUESTION:
So we recognise the doctrine?
PRIME MINISTER:
It is a perfectly legitimate doctrine. It is a perfectly legitimate basis for military action under the right circumstances and, again, as I have said all along, we support the American action in Iraq. We support the American action in Syria. We note that the American action in Syria was supported by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UAE, Bahrain and Qatar. So it wasn't just an American action. It was an American action that was powerfully supported with air strikes from other Middle Eastern nations.
QUESTION:
[inaudible] but Article 51, as I understand it, applies pending consideration by the Security Council, it’s not an enduring justification, is it?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am not going to get into a lengthy discussion of a hypothetical situation and you’re essentially inviting me to hypothesise about what might happen down the track. Again, if I may caution people, I know as a former journalist exactly how we like to play things. We like to speculate not on what’s happening today but on what might happen tomorrow, next week, next month, next year. As a Government, the important thing is to take a methodical, step-by-step approach to what’s needed in our national interest and that’s what this Government is doing.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, the Treasurer has flagged that the Government’s looking for additional savings in the mid-year economic update. Given the Government's struggling to gain support for its May Budget savings, where are the new savings going to come from?
PRIME MINISTER:
Thanks for asking me about the Budget because I want to affirm Government's Budget strategy: we stand by all of the budget measures. We accept that some budget measures do need to pass the Senate and we obviously want to put them to the Senate in the form which is most calculated to get passage of the relevant legislation. So, in flagging the possible restructuring of the social services legislation, we're not walking away from anything. We support all of the budget measures, but we accept that some of them are supported by other parties. Some of them are still subject to negotiation with other parties and with the crossbench. So we don't walk away from anything. We stand by everything because we inherited a debt and deficit disaster. We inherited a situation where, without change, we’re paying a billion dollars a month every single month just to pay the interest on Labor's debt. Without change, that is ratcheting up to $3 billion a month. So, change is not an optional extra; change is an absolute necessity for this country if we're to enjoy the prosperity, the employment. If we are to enjoy the quality of life that we are used to, we do have to get our Budget under control and this Government is absolutely determined to get us back to broad balance by 2017-2018 as we outlined in the Budget.
Thank you.
[ends]