Speaker 1: What I do when I wake up in the morning.
Speaker 1: I look for things that are in the newspapers, things
Speaker 1: that are taking place in the Senate or in the House.
Speaker 2: Rex Patrick is a former Senator from South Australia. Before that,
Speaker 2: he was a sub mariner in the Navy. These days,
Speaker 2: he devotes himself to making government more transparent, which he
Speaker 2: does by launching an obsessive number of freedom of information
Speaker 2: request and scrutinizing what comes back.
Speaker 1: Now, I have been keeping a close watch on ORCUST.
Speaker 1: I saw something come up referencing Orcust Commands and I
Speaker 1: thought that's really interesting. There were no details available publicly,
Speaker 1: and so I put in a request to both the
Speaker 1: Australian Submarine Agency and the Australian Federal Police in June
Speaker 1: last year, seeking access to information about the command, how
Speaker 1: it came, about, what its objects were and so forth.
Speaker 2: When the FLIS came back, a lot had been redacted.
Speaker 2: Rex was looking at pages and pages of blacked out text.
Speaker 2: But from what wasn't bothered out, he started the former
Speaker 2: picture of ORCUST Command, a specialized arm of the Australian
Speaker 2: Federal Police being used to protect submarines and other military assets,
Speaker 2: but also to crack down on dissent. I'm Daniel James
Speaker 2: and you're listening to seven AM today Rex Patrick on
Speaker 2: the Australian Federal Police. The new powers to protect America's
Speaker 2: interests in Australia are what it means for the future
Speaker 2: of protest. It's Monday, January nineteenth. Rex. Tell me about
Speaker 2: the afpg's ORCST Command. Who are they and what will
Speaker 2: they be doing? So?
Speaker 1: The ORCST Command is a new command within the AFP,
Speaker 1: set up over the last six months, and its function
Speaker 1: is to provide a secure ADO overlay to Orcus submarines,
Speaker 1: that is US and UK submarines operating out of Western
Speaker 1: Australia and other Australian ports. But actually, more broadly, what
Speaker 1: the document showed is that the REMIT goes much much
Speaker 1: broader than what I've just talked about, And in actual fact,
Speaker 1: there's an MLU and a memorandum of understanding that's been
Speaker 1: signed between the Australian Federal Police and not the Australian
Speaker 1: Submarine Agency but the Department of Defense, so much broader
Speaker 1: and so it's planned at least at this stage, that
Speaker 1: the AFP will have four teams of people who will
Speaker 1: look after things like when a submarine comes in, making
Speaker 1: sure they're escorted. The documents show that the force will
Speaker 1: have a marine asset of some form of boat with
Speaker 1: training Coxin's on board jet skis remotely piloted aircraft and
Speaker 1: that will allow the police to provide a protective service
Speaker 1: for submarines that are transiting in and out of Hma Stirling.
Speaker 1: But the brief makes it very clear that what the
Speaker 1: government wants to do is build up a capability to
Speaker 1: deal with outrage from the public. So public order management
Speaker 1: are the words that are used, and they talk about
Speaker 1: the deployment of munitions associated with public disturbances. One presumes
Speaker 1: that things like tear gas, potentially battens, potentially shields, other
Speaker 1: assets that can be used in the face of protesters.
Speaker 2: So there's a pretty big shopping list in terms of
Speaker 2: the resources going into this command. What kind of budget
Speaker 2: are we talking about here.
Speaker 1: Well, there's a fair bit of money sitting behind this.
Speaker 1: This wasn't revealed in the documents, but the documents did
Speaker 1: talk about a submission for MAIFO, which is the midyear
Speaker 1: budget statement if you like, which took place in descent.
Speaker 1: I've gone and looked at that now and we can
Speaker 1: see that home affairs for the AFP Command are getting
Speaker 1: an extra seventy three million dollars this year at about
Speaker 1: one hundred and twenty three or thereabouts million next year.
Speaker 1: So that's two hundred million dollars over the next year
Speaker 1: and a half. That's a lot of money. That's a
Speaker 1: lot of capability that they're building.
Speaker 2: I just want to ask a few questions on recruiting,
Speaker 2: and I understand that AFP has some recruiting commitments under ORCUS.
Speaker 1: And in fact at centain Essence. I note that Senator
Speaker 1: David Pocock asked questions in relation to the ORCUST Command
Speaker 1: talking about numbers of potentially up to eight hundred members
Speaker 1: of the AFP and being involved. That's quite significant.
Speaker 3: The AFP has been given the responsibility to put to
Speaker 3: implement the protective overlay in relation to UCUS, particularly around
Speaker 3: australia sovereign nuclear powered submarines capability. We are currently implementing
Speaker 3: the protective service overlay.
Speaker 1: And in some sense it's a bit that's a little
Speaker 1: bit disturbing about this because it hasn't been talked about. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we've got to respect that there will be controversy over
Speaker 1: nuclear powered submarines. People have a right to protest, and
Speaker 1: that protest might include over where and how nuclear waste
Speaker 1: is going to be handled, for example, things that reasonably
Speaker 1: people in as members of the public have a right
Speaker 1: to know about and a right to be concerned about,
Speaker 1: and a right to object to if they wish to.
Speaker 2: So.
Speaker 1: I find that there's a sort of a strong contrast
Speaker 1: between the level of secrecy that's been engaged to date
Speaker 1: and the fact that it involves interaction with the public.
Speaker 1: Everyone gets that there are secrets around submarines. I'm a
Speaker 1: former submariner and I respect secrecy in relation to military capability.
Speaker 1: But where it intersects with the public being either safety
Speaker 1: or waste or the ability to protest, I think the
Speaker 1: government has a duty, has an obligation to share their
Speaker 1: concerns with the public and be opening up front about
Speaker 1: any remedies they have in respect of those concerns.
Speaker 2: Coming up. What could anti ORCUS protest in Australia look like? Rex,
Speaker 2: How would you describe the scale of anti ORCHUS protests
Speaker 2: in Australia so far?
Speaker 1: Well, this stage, much of the protest about UCUS has
Speaker 1: taken place in relatively small groups, and of course, there
Speaker 1: are people who are very concerned, even myself. I'm a submariner.
Speaker 1: I understand the benefit of submarines, but I just think
Speaker 1: that spending three hundred and sixty eight billion dollars on
Speaker 1: one single capability, particularly where there's huge risk involved, is
Speaker 1: hugely problematic. I write about UCUS all the time in
Speaker 1: that context, but I suspect as time marches on, as
Speaker 1: we start to see more and more submarines turning up,
Speaker 1: there may well be a right in the number of
Speaker 1: protests associated with these deployments, and as the number of
Speaker 1: US forces pick up, particularly in circumstances where we're seeing
Speaker 1: the United States walking away from things like a rules
Speaker 1: based order, engaging in discussions like attacking Denmark, attacking Panama,
Speaker 1: and indeed going into a sovereign jurisdiction and taking a
Speaker 1: president from that country to post charges in the United States.
Speaker 1: So people are actually a little bit concerned about these things,
Speaker 1: and I'm talking about people who normally would sit on
Speaker 1: the right side of politics. We may well see a
Speaker 1: rise in protest and respect of the United States. And
Speaker 1: the fact is that government has seen this coming and
Speaker 1: have formed the Orchest Command REX.
Speaker 2: There's no doubt that you love a freedom of information request.
Speaker 2: You spend a lot of time challenging the government on
Speaker 2: the need for transparency. At the same time, as you've mentioned,
Speaker 2: is obviously also a legitimate need for some defense information
Speaker 2: to remain secret. So what do you think the public
Speaker 2: needs to know about the creation of this AFP task force?
Speaker 1: Again, because it intersects with the public. So, you know,
Speaker 1: if I were asking for information about how deep Virginia
Speaker 1: class submarines go, or how fast they go, or how
Speaker 1: to override the interlocks on the torpedos, I would expect
Speaker 1: properly for the Department of Events to say, sorry, Rex,
Speaker 1: you're not allowed to have access to that. That's not
Speaker 1: in the public interest to have access to that sort
Speaker 1: of information. And of course I've accept that, and I
Speaker 1: think everyone appreciates that when you are dealing with nuclear
Speaker 1: powered submarrange, you do have to provide appropriate security. We
Speaker 1: would expect that to occur in Australia. I've been to
Speaker 1: Pearl Harbor, I've sailed on US nuclear powered submarines, and
Speaker 1: they have a commensurate level of security at their basis
Speaker 1: to make sure that these nuclear assets are properly protected.
Speaker 1: But you know, a clear example where I say there's
Speaker 1: intersection with the public is where they're going to store
Speaker 1: the high level nuclear waste. Now, whether you are in
Speaker 1: favor of Aucus or against Aucus, I think one would
Speaker 1: reasonably say that public have a right to know what
Speaker 1: is your approach to dealing with nuclear waste. I'm currently
Speaker 1: in the federal court trying to get access to a
Speaker 1: document that describes how they're going to select the location,
Speaker 1: and I think that that's a document that ought to
Speaker 1: be made public. We ought to be talking about it
Speaker 1: because it intersects very closely with the public. Other areas
Speaker 1: might be safety, nuclear safety. The public have a right
Speaker 1: to scrutinize what's happening in relation to AUCUST and nuclear safety.
Speaker 1: August we know is going to last for fifty years,
Speaker 1: and indeed we can see in this instance it doesn't
Speaker 1: matter that the die from the AFP was six months,
Speaker 1: because it's still very relevant and as well, moving forward,
Speaker 1: there are a number of issues that I think the
Speaker 1: publics have a right to know, things like the cost
Speaker 1: of the program breaking down and telling us exactly how
Speaker 1: we get to some of these very large numbers. I'm
Speaker 1: not engaging any defense secrets in saying to the government.
Speaker 1: Please provide details of what your success has been so
Speaker 1: far in that endeavor, and that's just about holding government
Speaker 1: to account.
Speaker 2: Looks Patrick. Thank you so much for speaking with us again.
Speaker 1: You're most welcome.
Speaker 2: Also in the news, the government will split its hate
Speaker 2: speech and gun and reform laws into separate bills. The
Speaker 2: Prime Minister has confirmed as in the Albinezi can seize.
Speaker 2: The omnibus bill dealing with both reforms, designed in the
Speaker 2: wake of the Bondai terror attack, does not have the
Speaker 2: support parliament. Neither the Coalition or the Greens were prepared
Speaker 2: to pass the bill in the Senate due to concerns
Speaker 2: over the hate speech legislation, but Green's leader Larissa Waters
Speaker 2: has signaled her party would work with the government on
Speaker 2: gun reform. Parliament returns today and will be following the
Speaker 2: developments on seven AM this week, and the Liberal Party's
Speaker 2: review into its historically bad election result won't be made
Speaker 2: public as planned due to legal concerns. The ABC is
Speaker 2: reporting that Peter Dutton has seen the report and believed
Speaker 2: that that fames him. There's concern that releasing the report
Speaker 2: in its current form would carry legal risks for the
Speaker 2: Liberal Party given the chance Dutton could sue. The review
Speaker 2: was conducted by party veterans Prue Goward and Nick Minchin
Speaker 2: after the Liberal Party saw a collapse in support at
Speaker 2: the twenty twenty five election. I'm Daniel James. This is
Speaker 2: seven am. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 3: No