Federal police booted out an outspoken Chinese Communist Party critic from Parliament House while he was eating lunch because he was a "known activist" and an "issues motivated individual", fresh documents show.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Internal messages reveal officers also acknowledged he "wasn't doing anything wrong at the time" when he was ordered to leave the building.
The incident, which occurred in November during a sitting week, sparked concerns over who made the order and whether it was appropriate.
Former Senate candidate and human rights activist, Drew Pavlou, visited Parliament House on November 23 to meet with politicians, including Liberal senator James Paterson and intelligence and security committee chair Peter Khalil, when he was asked to leave by Australian Federal Police officers.
Documents released in a freedom of information request by former senator Rex Patrick show he was deemed a risk and was removed from the building due to "extensive" previous protest activity.
Mr Pavlou says an Australian Federal Police officer also posed for a photo with him under the guise of being a supporter, which was later revealed to have been used in an intelligence report.
Police stationed at Parliament House's public entrance recognised Mr Pavlou as he entered the building and alerted a senior officer, internal reports reveal.
READ MORE:
- Police order anti-Chinese Communist Party activist Drew Pavlou to leave parliament
- Police confirm they were behind order to remove human rights campaigner Drew Pavlou from parliament, insist it was not a ban
- 'Great win for democracy,' AFP apologises to anti-Chinese Communist Party activist Drew Pavlou for Parliament House removal
A decision was made by a senior officer to remove him after midday while he sat in Queen's Terrace cafe due to his "extensive current and previous protest and disruption activities" and "the risk of disruption to the order and decorum of the Parliament".
Mr Pavlou and his two associates "left without incident".
Internal messages between officers sent later in the afternoon acknowledged Mr Pavlou hadn't been "doing anything wrong".
"FYI Drew Pavlou was asked to leave APH today, and to return at his scheduled apt time with Peter Khalil (6pm)," the officer wrote.
"He has posted about it on Twitter, not doing anything wrong at the time, but possibly had a LOTBKF [look out to be kept for]. NFD [no further details] at this stage."
The following day Mr Pavlou re-entered Parliament House after speaking with the superintendent.
The senior officer said Mr Pavlou had been allowed to visit the building the next day because he had "engaged the AFP in proactive dialogue regarding his "attendance", the commissioner's talking points say.
An internal review was announced shortly after the incident prompted heavy media attention. The review found there was "insufficient reasonable grounds" for Mr Pavlou's ejection and the AFP offered an apology.
Mr Pavlou told The Canberra Times the decision to remove him because of previous protest activity was "ridiculous".
"It's ridiculous and Orwellian to label somebody an 'issue motivated person' and have them kicked out of Parliament as a security threat simply because they have previously organised protests over the course of their life," he said.
"This has the potential to threaten the civil liberties of so many Australians who want to engage with our democracy and meet MPs."
Mr Patrick added most people attending the halls of power were motivated by issues.
"Everyone who came to see me as a senator was an issue motivated individual (or group)," he said on social media.
Documents released only after legal threat, former senator says
Mr Patrick lodged the freedom of information request two days after the incident occurred.
The documents were released more than six months later on Friday and only after he threatened legal action, he said.
The former South Australian senator said he planned to launch proceedings in the Federal Court to force the AFP commissioner to make a decision and offer a statement of reasons.
The federal police's legal counsel said it would try to swiftly resolve the matter after receiving notice of his intention on May 12.
Mr Patrick said he was disappointed he had to rely on such drastic action.
"The AFP completely dropped the ball on my request for access to these documents. It should only take 30 days to get an FOI decision, I'd had no response after 160 days," Mr Patrick said.
"I am disappointed that to get a response I had to threaten Federal Court action to force the AFP commissioner to do what the law requires."