Download PDF
ATTORNEY-GENERAL THE HON PHILIP RUDDOCK MP
TRANSCRIPT
DOORSTOP INTERVIEW
DARWIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
DARWIN
WEDNESDAY AUGUST 3, 2005
Subjects: Australia; David Hicks; racial profiling
JOURNALIST:
On the terrorist front, what’s your response to claims by a former senior ASIO officer Michael Roach that Australia [inaudible] network of up to 60 Islamic extremists?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
Well I can’t confirm or deny issues in relation to precise numbers but we know from the charges that have been brought relating to terrorism offences that Australians have been offshore and trained with terrorist organisations. And it’d be naïve to believe that before it became an offence under our law in 2002 other Australians had not been abroad in those circumstances. David Hicks, for example, is a case in point. We couldn’t charge him but we are certainly aware that he was offshore with al Qaeda and Laksha-e-Tayyiba.
JOURNALIST:
Mick Keelty has confirmed those figures though?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
Well I’m simply saying I’m privy to intelligence information which I am neither able or permitted to disclose. And that’s why I neither confirm nor deny precise numbers in relation to what we believe are people who have had training with terrorist organisations offshore - other than to say there are charges that have been brought,
Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600 ⢠Telephone (02) 6277 7300 ⢠Fax (02) 6273 4102 www.law.gov.au/ag
those charges are in the public arena. So we know people have trained with terrorist organisations and I simply say it would be naïve to assume that others haven’t.
JOURNALIST:
…[inaudible] David Hicks… [inaudible] who are those witnesses, are they civilians, or are they—?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
Look it’s not for me to outline the case that the United States will be bringing in a prosecution. But you don’t have a case unless you have a witness. I mean it is self-evident that somebody has to go before a prosecuting authority and to outline what they know which is relevant to the charges that have been brought.
JOURNALIST:
Are you aware of what they’ve witnessed?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
Well I have seen in general terms the outline of the case that the United States intends to bring but it’s not for me to comment on that case nor to make an assessment of whether it is strong or substantial in the context of American law. The American law is best commented on by those who practice in it and are familiar with it and for somebody who has some expertise in the law but not in American law to be offering comment, I don’t think is appropriate.
JOURNALIST:
But—
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
… I make the observation -- and I did to Mr Allard -- of course, the United States having assessed the evidence and made a judgment that the case is substantial, is likely to have witnesses to give evidence in relation to those matters that they know.
JOURNALIST:
…[inaudible] lawyers that say this is the first time they’ve actually heard this?
Attorney-General Transcript 2
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
Well I don’t want to be disingenuous because there are requirements in relation to prosecutions to outline the nature of some of the evidence that you are likely to see in a trial and Mr Hicks’ American representatives have been in Australia to discuss with relevant agencies information that they know and might be providing to the United States. And so I think it is a little disingenuous to pretend that they’re unaware of some of those matters.
JOURNALISTS:
What do you think about— [inaudible] Mick Keelty has spoken out about—
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible]
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
Well look, I made the point earlier and I think it’s been reaffirmed by Alexander Downer and the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday, these observations were made at a very early point in time in relation to the establishment of the military commission process. And observations were drawn about the way in which evidence at that time was collated, a number of staff that were involved, they were in general terms and they were comments that were made relevant to a period in time - that is, early 2004. The situation has moved on since then. The issues that they raised were subject to an independent investigation by those who are responsible in the United States; those matters were the subject of an independent investigation by those who in the United States have responsibility for investigating those matters and they were found to be without substance. Now that’s the advice that we have received and I think if you look at the observations that were being made, they were very generalised in character and were specific in terms of the time.
JOURNALIST:
Were you concerned though that Mick Keelty confirmed the numbers Michael Roach had used?
Attorney-General Transcript 3
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
Well I don’t know what Mick Keelty has said and I don’t know whether he’s privy to intelligence information. He may have been - as I have - confirming of his own knowledge that there are in fact some people who have trained with terrorist organisations such as al Qaeda and Laksar-e-Toiba and that’s perfectly appropriate because charges have been brought. The facts have been outlined in general terms in the committal proceedings and the evidence has found to be sufficient, in two cases, that people should be put to their trial. So, you know, there are no differences or distinctions here. There is evidence that people trained offshore; I’ve confirmed that; Keelty has confirmed it. I’m not prepared to deal with information that may or may not be known to intelligence authorities.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible] …response to Roach’s comments that [inaudible]—
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
Well so have mine. So have mine.
JOURNALIST:
Just back on Hicks, are you confident then despite the third prosecutor walking away that Hicks will receive a fair trial?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
Well look I made the point if you look at those matters, they’re at a very early stage in the development of the commission process. They were generalised comments, they’ve been the subject of investigation and because some of them were in the context of people within a larger organisation having some individual views that were described I think by the investigation as ‘personality differences’ and I think it needs to be seen in that context.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible] back to your previous point [inaudible]… not going into too much detail about the witnesses, can you give some kind of idea in terms of the identity, in terms of, you know, nationality or where have they been, whether they are civilian or otherwise?
Attorney-General Transcript 4
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
What the two individuals who are charged?
JOURNALIST:
No. No. The witnesses against—?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
No. I’m not going into any of that. No. It’s quite inappropriate for me to do that. The information is the information that the prosecutors have, I’ve simply said that they believe it is a substantial case. And I make the point it’s naïve to believe that you can enter into a trial without people who are going to be able to depose to the facts that have to be established and any further, I think, puts those who are involved in dealing with the prosecution at a disadvantage. I’m not pursuing that matter. The obligations into how and when and in what way evidence is deposed is really in their hands - not for me to comment on.
JOURNALIST:
What are the origins, when did this overseas terrorist training [inaudible] in your understanding?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
Well look it’s quite clear that people were training with al Qaeda and the former head of ASIO gave evidence to parliamentary committees and addressed other bodies in which he said that more than 10,000 people were believed to have trained with al Qaeda before September 11. The intervention in, or after September 11 in Afghanistan, of course, has disrupted the activities of al Qaeda but there are other organisations they relate to, such as Laksar-e-Tayyiba who have had training for people in parts of Pakistan, it’s been a matter of public knowledge. And those that have been charged with training offshore, were training in relation to periods of time that they were in training with Laksar-e-Tayyiba, and where it occurred after the introduction of terrorist offences in 2002.
JOURNALIST:
Would you agree with Michael Roach’s suggestions of racial profiling?
Attorney-General Transcript 5
Attorney-General Transcript 6
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
Well I don’t believe racial profiling is appropriate. I believe it is appropriate to monitor suspicious activity and if the activity is undertaken by anybody, whatever their race or background, and it is suspicious I hope people would use the hotline that enables people to give that information so that it can be the subject of proper inquiry and proper assessment. And I’ll see whether you’re prepared to publish the number but I’m sure you know they can ring a number - 1800 123 400 - and it’s a process that we have believed is important. It’s been enormously helpful to both intelligence and police authorities, for those who see or become aware of suspicious activity to report it to those who are in a position to investigate it.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible]… Mr Roach suggested that—
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
… Mr Roach suggested that people of Middle Eastern descent have already been targeted because of their appearance or beliefs?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
Well look, I would say that competent authorities do not target people on the basis of their race. They target activity which they believe would characterise somebody as an extremist who might pose a risk to the broader Australian community and it is
perfectly obvious when you look at the nature of the charges that have been brought that simply profiling people on the basis of their race or their country of origin and possibly even their religion, could leave you dangerously exposed. Jack Roche was not of Middle Eastern appearance yet he pleaded guilty to terrorist offences and others who have been charged are not of Middle Eastern backgrounds. So, I simply make the point that loose stereotypes of people who may pose a risk would, in fact, leave us exposed when you recognise that numbers of people who have been engaged in terrorist activity where charges have been brought were not of those backgrounds that people have often highlighted. Okay? Thank you.
ENDS