Showing posts with label Australian Federal Police. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australian Federal Police. Show all posts

26 March 2009

Shambolic security

The Australian asks more questions about the deficiencies in airport security revealed by events at Sydney Airport:

Why were police notified of the deadly bikie brawl only after receiving a 000 call from a member of the public?

Given the density of closed-circuit television cameras scattered throughout the airport terminal - supposedly one of Australia's most secure - why did the first police officers arrive after the 15-minute brawl was over and most of the attackers had fled?

And, crucially, why were no police on hand at gate five to escort the bikies away as they arrived off a Melbourne flight? It's now known Qantas cabin crew had expressed concern about the potential for strife during the flight to Sydney.

Respected security analyst Alan Behm thinks he has some answers. There was a security failure on Sunday; a man was killed at the airport, he says. But deploying more police to the airport is simply a knee-jerk reaction to a more complex problem, Behm tells The Australian.

Airport security at Sydney and most other capital cities across Australia is geared to prevent an act of terrorism on board a plane, he says. It all depends where you want to put the focus of your security measures: on the air side of the passenger security screening barrier or the public concourse.

"I think the solution really is to maximise the protections you've already got with the (screening) barriers by having the police on the air side rather than the public side, if not apprehending, then intervening, before those thugs got on to the public concourse after getting off the plane," Behm says.

Security protocols for an aircraft captain to radio ahead and warn of an onboard incident exist, which raises concerns about why this was not put to good effect on Sunday.

"It's a question of whether the message was put into that system. Did the purser say to the aircraft captain, 'We have a potential issue here, could you warn security?' I suspect not," Behm says.

There are suggestions police should have apprehended the bikies in the passenger departure area, but this would have posed a serious danger to the public.

"Police can't just get their weapons out and start shooting. They can't go throwing tear gas and stuff around, and even if the police went up against 12 blokes wielding these big steel bars, there's every chance they would have got beaten s--less."

Behm and fellow terrorism expert Clive Williams, of Macquarie University, agree with Keelty that police response times, on being notified of the incident, were acceptable. But it is unrealistic to expect unarmed Qantas security staff to intervene in a bikie brawl, Williams says.

At least one Qantas security official did have the presence of mind to record the numberplates of taxis departing with fleeing gang members, he says.

"He did the right thing. The police arrived essentially after these people (bikies) had fled," Williams says.

"The problem with this bikie violence is that the kind of violence these police at the airport are trained for is terrorism related and not so much gang violence. Obviously there's going to be a need to look at bikie violence more generally, not only in an airport context but the kinds of activities they are engaging in nationally, where there are wars going on between their factions."

.....

Concerns about security at Sydney airport are not new. In 2005 Allan Kessing, a former Customs airport security officer at Sydney airport, was convicted for leaking a highly damaging report about serious security breaches to this newspaper. The report dealt with a range of security concerns including the criminal records of baggage handlers, luggage theft and drug trafficking.

His actions spurred the Howard government to implement a far-reaching probe into airport security, the Wheeler report, which resulted in more rigorous security measures being implemented across the country.

But the bikie brawl has again raised concerns that more needs to be done.

AFP officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, say one area requiring immediate attention is better agreement on airport policing functions involving the AFP and their NSW Police counterparts.

"State police don't want to listen to advice from the AFP; they want to run their own race," one AFP source tells The Australian.

While the AFP has prime responsibility for security at Sydney airport, that does not include the monitoring of the CCTV cameras, a state police role.

The issue of agreement on police roles is a problem, says former Sydney Airport Corporation chief executive Tony Stewart. The AFP believed its main role was counter-terrorism, while NSW Police focused on other areas of crime, he told ABC radio.

"The weak link is the demarcation between whether this was an anti-terrorism incident or a crime incident and somebody was probably looking at the rule book, saying it's the other guy's problem," he said.

In his first comments on the airport violence, Kevin Rudd yesterday pledged "zero tolerance" for bikie crime.

"This sort of behaviour by bikies and others engaged in organised criminal activity is unacceptable in Australia, absolutely unacceptable," the Prime Minister said soon after arriving in Washington, DC. State and commonwealth attorneys-general would discuss a co-ordinated response to the bikie menace at their next meeting, he promised.

Home Affairs Minister Bob Debus says the federal Government has ordered an investigation into the adequacy of the AFP's response on Sunday in addition to a national audit of police officers deployed at airports.

22 December 2008

Former Muslim chastised by media

David Hicks is no longer subject to a control order.

To mark the occasion The Australian has seen fit , in today's lead editorial "Hicks can count himself fortunate", to make some comments about his situation.

As a sign of his goodwill and to fulfil his duty, Mr Hicks should tell the full story of his recruitment and training to Australian Federal Police in his exit interview. In the interests of terrorism prevention, he should not be allowed to duck this responsibility.

Judging by his court hearing, he could have much to tell about guerilla warfare, explosives, weaponry, surveillance, commando tactics, grenade and sniper training. He might also be able to cast light on terrorists' brainwashing techniques, given his view, at one point, that Osama bin Laden was a "lovely brother". Full co-operation with authorities would be the best way Mr Hicks could show his determination to start a new life.

Is this a thinly veiled threat that, unless the AFP is satisfied that Hicks has given "full co-operation", he will be liable to further restrictions? Surely there are bigger fish, even in Australia, for the anti-terrorist authorities to fry.

21 November 2008

No more control orders for David Hicks

Following an online video request from David Hicks posted on the Get Up Australia website, the Australian Federal Police will not seek an extension of the control order on David Hicks. This is a welcome and overdue move.

News.com.au reports

Former attorney-general Philip Ruddock - the man many hold responsible for Mr Hicks' long incarceration at Guantanamo Bay - said he had no problem with the decision not to renew the control order.
"I'd have no problem with him living in my street," Mr Ruddock told Sky News.

I wonder how many of the others who were so strident in their insistence for the harsh control order imposed last year, eg Mr Rann, Mr Downer, now think likewise.

03 February 2008

Commissioner beleaguered

In The Weekend Australian Hedley Thomas and Cameron Stewart report that AFP Commissioner Keelty's support has vanished in the wake of his contention that the media should be gagged or at least severely restricted in its ability to report trials of terrorism suspects..

Ken McKinnon , Chairman of the Australian Press Council, puts the case against the Commissioner's views trenchantly:

Our freedoms must not be destroyed in the name of defending freedom. We have open courts so that citizens may be assured by attendance or media reports that their freedoms are being preserved. Only in the most extreme circumstances should courts be closed. The public interest is the standard by which matters investigated and reported by the media should be judged. Delaying the reporting of terrorism trials as a matter of course would be entirely against the public interest.

.....
Characteristically people in authority, ministers and commissioners alike, control sensitive information. They release what they think the public ought to be told, usually partially, from a particular point of view, and drip-fed at that. Or information is leaked to selected sympathetic journalists.

The best newspapers do not accept this as enough. Editors and journalists rightly believe it is their duty in an open society to discover the whole truth and report that to the public. That entails exploration of all sources of information, official and unofficial.

I, too, am concerned with some opinion pieces in newspapers, especially when they are at odds with what I believe. That does not mean they should not be published. And I can understand that the commissioner's onerous responsibilities are made more stressful by that kind of press analysis and criticism. But they are the necessary rules of play for commissioners and other officials. That is what democracy properly demands. Regrettably, the council has been put on notice that it is going to have to be alert to preserve those rules.

Well said. Let's hope the media continue to practice what Mr McKinnon preaches.