In the past week we have seen the top brass of the Australian Federal Police going in to bat for some of the most politically sensitive security policies being pursued by the Government. How appropriate it this? Greg Barns writes.

Last Friday morning Andrew Colvin, the Australian Federal Police Commissioner, fronted the ABC’s AM program. Colvin mounted a vigorous defence of the Abbott Government’s proposed legislation that allows the AFP and other security agencies to monitor the usage of the internet of every Australian and forces internet service providers to store data of customers for two years.

Fast forward to last Monday evening and in the audience of the ABC’s Q&A program was one of Colvin’s senior officers, Australian Federal Police manager of counter terrorism, Neil Gaughan. On the panel of that program was the Attorney-General George Brandis busily defending his Government’s troubling national security agenda.

Even the most benign reading of the transcripts of both programs shows that what we have is the top brass of the Australian Federal Police going in to bat for some of the most politically sensitive policies being pursued by the Abbott Government.

The issue that emerges from the appearances of Colvin and Gaughan is whether or not it is appropriate in a democratic society for police officers to be undertaking such a role?

That Colvin and Gaughan were in the position they were in is evident from these examples.

On AM Colvin was asked by presenter Chris Uhlmann about the laws that jail journalists for up to 10 years for revealing details of ASIO illegal activities. Colvin sounded like Senator Brandis or his media adviser when he replied:

I think Government’s been very clear about the special intelligence operation, that it’s not targeted at journalists. It’s not targeted at the media. And the Attorney-General was very clear yesterday in putting additional safeguards both for the offences that are being passed through the Parliament now or have been passed through, as well as the offences that relate to similar provisions in Australian Federal Police laws as well. So the Attorney’s put in place further provisions that safeguard journalists and should give some level of comfort to the public.

On Q&A Gaughan was called upon by Senator Brandis to bolster his rationale for new laws that will make it a criminal offence to go to an area designated by the Australian Government as a no go zone – again a highly controversial intrusion on freedom of movement. Gaughan outlined the circumstances in which someone might be charged with committing an offence under this law and sought to downplay its significance. He also took the opportunity to defend accusations that he and his and colleagues had taken a supposed weapon – a plastic sword in a recent anti-terror raid!

There is nothing new in police appearing alongside ministers; they do it regularly when it comes to issues such as road safety or domestic violence. But those are issues where there is little political controversy – most people accept the need for police and government led campaigns in those areas. But anti-terror laws that extend the reach of the state markedly, and erode fundamental liberties radically are inevitably controversial and police should be very wary of being seen to take sides with one political force over another.

The role of the police is to administer and enforce laws passed by the Parliament. It is not to advocate in the media for the passage of legislation and nor is it the role of police to appear on television with the Attorney-General in a way that makes it look as though the role of the police is to assist the A-G in dealing with political opponents.

The Australian Federal Police Act 1979 sets out the functions of the AFP in section 8. Those functions do not include advocacy but are directed at providing police services, to investigate offences and provide security and ceremonial functions when required.

In asserting that that senior police should not allow the perception to arise that they are being political one can contrast Colvin and Gaughan with Victoria’s Police Commissioner Ken Lay. On September 21 Lay told the media that he would not release quarterly crime statistics three days before Victoria’s November 29 election because to do so would embroil him and Victoria Police in politics.

It was a sensible decision by Lay given that in the 2010 Victorian election former police commissioner Simon Overland released crime statistics that were incomplete a month before the election and the Labor government used those statistics for political advantage.

The problem with the conduct of Colvin and Gaughan in advocating for Senator Brandis’s proposed laws and in appearing with him on a political talk program such as Q&A is that it undermines what is critical in any democratic society, and that is that the police not be seen to be backing government policy and in turn unconsciously or consciously putting pressure on other legislators to pass the government’s laws.

Police chiefs should steer away from political controversies no matter how dear to their hearts is the issue at hand. Unfortunately the AFP looks as though it is backing the Abbott Government in the area of anti-terrorism policy. The only role the AFP should play is to enforce whatever law the legislature passes.

Greg Barns is a barrister and a spokesman for the Australian Lawyers Alliance.