Download PDFATTORNEY-GENERAL &
ACTING MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS THE HON PHILIP RUDDOCK MP
TRANSCRIPT
Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600 Telephone (02) 6277 7300 Fax (02) 6273 4102 www.law.gov.au/ag
DOORSTOP INTERVIEW
FOLLOWING
DEMONSTRATION OF
SPECIALISED EQUIPMENT TO DEAL WITH
CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL OR RADIOLOGICAL INCIDENTS
AT
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA
CANBERRA
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2005
Subject: Terrorism preparedness; bombings in Baghdad; Mamdouh Habib’s return to Australia; identity security initiatives
___________________________________________________________________________
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Well look, here we are. First just if there
are any questions in relation to the CBR
equipment and this launch and then, if
you want to talk about some other
things, I’ll excuse [ACT] Commissioner
Dunn and David [Templeman, EMA
director-general].
Attorney-General Transcript 2
QUESTION: How prepared is Australia for a
terrorism attack?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Well look, the difficulty about these
sorts of matters is you don’t know until
you have some real life experience. But
heaven knows we don’t want that to
happen. But you have to prepare and
this is part of the process of ensuring
that the relevant agencies who have to
respond in the event of any emergency
have the appropriate equipment to be
able to address the range of hazards that
do exist.
And here we’re talking about chemicals,
biological and radiological agents that
might be used in a terrorist attack and
ensuring that the States and Territories
have the necessary equipment and
training to be able to respond. We do
go through a series of exercises during
the course of the year. The Government
committed millions of dollars to a range
of exercises, and there’ll be further
exercises carried out during the course
of this year. And they’re designed to
test those organisations that have to
respond.
Attorney-General Transcript 3
You may remember one of the more
recent ones occurred in New South
Wales where there’d been a major
bombing and all of the agencies that
needed to prepare for something like
that were able to exercise on a site that
had been especially constructed as a
bomb site.
And what you’ve seen in that we’ve
been able to undertake exercises
offshore, on oil installations, oil and gas
installations that might be targeted by
terrorists. We had high-level
kidnappings, murders that have had to
be addressed and all of the States and
Territories have been involved in those
exercises.
How prepared are we? We haven’t
faced the real thing. But we are very
much aware that we have been targeted
and we need to be alert to the range of
possibilities that we might have to deal
with.
QUESTION: Do you believe…
QUESTION: …about the current level of threat?
Attorney-General Transcript 4
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Well the current level of threat hasn’t
changed. It’s been at a medium level
but it is regularly reviewed in the light
of circumstances here and abroad. But
there’s been no change to the current
level of threat.
QUESTION: …already deployed in overseas regions
at the moment?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Well I can’t say that. Equipment of this
sort is for chemical, biological and
radiological exercises. A point we were
making is that the agencies themselves
have to be able to respond to all forms
of hazards, whether it’s fire, flood, we
now see tidal waves, tsunamis, and
Australians are obtaining I think
extraordinarily valuable training
experience in helping to respond to the
tsunami. But it’s- we are not deploying
this sort of equipment into those
situations.
QUESTION: …be upgraded after yesterday’s
bombing in Baghdad?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: There has been no alteration to the level
of threat.
Attorney-General Transcript 5
QUESTION: …see Australia was targeted.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: We reassess the situation after every
reported incident and, if there’s a
change in the level of threat, I’ll tell you.
QUESTION: Attorney, there appears to be a bit of
confusion within the Government over
whether the attack was actually targeted
at Australia. Mr Downer seemed pretty
adamant and then you and Senator Hill
were sort of playing that down a little
bit. Why was that?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Well I wouldn’t have thought there
were substantial differences of view at
all. I made the point yesterday and I’d
simply repeat it - you have had an
incident that is adjacent to an Australian
mission, you’ve had people claim that
they are responsible. We know that
sometimes those claims are correct,
sometimes they’re false. I said yesterday
that in all probability we were targeted.
But you know in this business, there is
no certainty. And that’s the only point
that I think Senator Hill and I were
making. I don’t think Mr Downer’s
comments are in any way at variance in
that.
Attorney-General Transcript 6
In all probability we were targeted, but
there is no certainty.
QUESTION: Mr Ruddock, has Australia agreed to
shackling Habib…?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I will come to those issues in a moment.
Any other issues in relation to this
launch?
QUESTION: Just one more: How much more
prepared are we now that we’ve got this
roll out of equipment [indistinct]?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Well we are continuing to improve our
capability. And the materials have been
deployed and the relevant State and
Territory agencies have been training
with it. And I’d ask Commissioner
Dunn if he’d like to say whether he
believes his people are not fully
prepared?
COMMISSIONER PETER DUNN: I think they are. And only yesterday
we had two major hazardous material
incidents where you see some of this
equipment being used. We use it
routinely, not the mass-
decontamination equipment but
certainly our hazardous material teams
Attorney-General Transcript 7
who form the CBR Response Team are
part of normal public safety within this
city. So I’m very confident that they
can use the equipment. They do it on a
daily basis but this would require us to
flip to a much more serious incident.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: All right?
QUESTION: Mr Ruddock, it’s been reported
American officials are demanding
Mamdouh Habib be shackled…
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No, no, hang on a moment, hang on.
Any other questions on this? If there
aren’t, I’ll - you don’t have to be
involved in Mr Habib [laughter]
QUESTION: Will Australia grant that wish and have
Mr Habib shackled for his return?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I mean I’ve seen the reports. I don’t
know whether any demands have been
made of that sort or not. They haven’t
been made to me. The only point I’d
make is that we know that the United
States, when it routinely moves people
of concern, takes appropriate steps to
restrain people on aircraft for the safety
Attorney-General Transcript 8
of those who are on the aircraft, and so
that’s the approach that’s taken.
Now assessments have to be made by
captains of aircraft as to whether or not
restraint is required at any time. I
wouldn’t say that it could never
happen, that on an aircraft the captain
and others might believe that some
form of restraint is required. But it is
not part of our planning to bring Mr
Habib back to Australia shackled.
QUESTION: Has Australia agreed not to fly in
American air space with Mr Habib on
board?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Well look the issue of flying in others’
air space is a matter for them. The
United States has agreed to our request
that Habib be returned to Australia. We
came to that view when the United
States informed us that Habib was not
going to be put to trial. And I mean
that’s old news.
In the meantime we have been
preparing to bring him back. We can’t
do so through the United States. That is
a demand that they have made. So we
Attorney-General Transcript 9
have to make appropriate arrangements
for his return to Australia. Now I’m not
going to put out a full itinerary. You
know if that’s what you’re asking for, I
mean that’s not going to happen. We
are putting in place arrangements. He’ll
be brought back to Australia as quickly
as possible.
QUESTION: …you would say it’s not reasonable that
he’s brought back in shackles given that
he will be released without charge?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: We have no plans for him to be
restrained. But I simply say any
decision of that sort would be made
involving the captain of an aircraft and
would depend upon the circumstances.
I can’t dismiss the possibility that in
certain circumstances there may be a
need for restraint. But that is not part of
our planning.
QUESTION: Is there any information yet on the cost
of bringing Mr Habib back?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No.
QUESTION: Do you have any idea when he will be
back in Australia?
Attorney-General Transcript 10
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I know that we’re seeking to do it as
quickly as possible and we’re looking at
weeks, not months.
QUESTION: And will it be charter flight or
scheduled aircraft?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Look, it’s unlikely that it will be a
scheduled flight. I mean the reasons for
this are quite clear. You are dealing
with a situation in which we have to
secure his return to Australia. And if
you’re putting people on commercial
flights, they’re going into other
jurisdictions. There are a whole lot of
possibilities. I don’t want to canvass all
of the possibilities but you can guess at
them as much as I can. That when you
are not in a position to restrain
somebody because they’ve not
committed an offence for which they are
being charged, then there is the
potential for people to say if they land
in another place, I’m going to stop; I’m
going to lodge an asylum claim.
That could happen, for instance, and
that’s not within our contemplation.
Our expectation is that he will be
returning to Australia. And that’s part
Attorney-General Transcript 11
of the assurance that we’ve given to the
United States and I indicated that he
remains a person of security concern,
that we’ll be taking steps in response to
that when he returns to Australia. And
I think, having said that, it should be
sufficient to satisfy you that it would
not be within our contemplation that he
should be anywhere else but Australia.
QUESTION: Regarding the Australian Government’s
reaction to identity crimes, the story in
The Australian this morning about the
National Documentation Verification
Service, is that an Australia Card by
default?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Certainly not.
QUESTION: Then what is the Government’s plan?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Well we’ve made it very clear that we
have no intention of redeveloping the
Australia Card proposals of old. The
primary issue that we are seeking to
deal with in the present terrorist
environment, in a situation where there
is very extensive monetary fraud,
money-laundering, is to have a system
Attorney-General Transcript 12
in place in relation to identifying people
that is effective.
And that means when people present
documents of identity, you need to be
able to establish that people haven’t
manipulated, haven’t altered them,
haven’t manufactured their own, and so
what we are seeking to do is to develop
and trial - and the consult trial has been
underway - a system for verifying
documents between governments.
Just to give you an idea, the range of
bodies that do identify people - the
Department of Foreign Affairs issues
passports; State Governments deal with
birth and death certificates, marriage
certificates; you have a whole lot of
issues in relation to name changes; you
have drivers’ licences; you have people
that need to be identified for the
payment of benefits; you have
citizenship entitlements, particularly if
people are born overseas.
Now government sets about to establish
people’s identity in one department or
another and then others are asked to
rely upon those documents. You need
Attorney-General Transcript 13
at times to be able to verify that they
have been properly produced, that they
haven’t been tampered with or
manipulated.
So what we’re talking about is a system
in which you can use modern
technology and you can do a lot more of
the checking about the bona fides of
documents on line.
Now I just make it very clear that this is
not a system that will allow those who
want to verify documents to be able to
access other people’s databases which
contain privacy related material. It’s
not about giving the Department of
Foreign Affairs access to people’s tax
records or their pension payments. It’s
a matter of giving them access to
information that might help in properly
identifying an individual.
QUESTION: Would a bank for example be allowed
to have access to identity records?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Well look, it’s known by banks and
financial institutions that the
Government is developing the
verification system and they’ve made
Attorney-General Transcript 14
public requests that they be allowed to
access the system if it is implemented.
That is not something on which we have
made a decision. We’ve noted the
request but there has been no decision
taken to allow private sector access to a
verification system.
QUESTION: What are the pros…?
QUESTION: …part of the trial?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No it won’t be part of the trial. The
trial…
QUESTION: [Indistinct]
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Well look there are 24 government
departments and agencies that are
involved in the discussions and
obviously the larger proportion of those
are probably going to be involved in the
trial.
QUESTION: Might this breach current privacy laws?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No. The Privacy Commissioner is
involved in the discussions and this has
been a matter that has been progressed
with their full involvement and co-
Attorney-General Transcript 15
operation to effectively address privacy
concerns.
QUESTION: What are the pros and cons of business
access to such a system?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Well obviously banks are anxious to
ensure that they’re not used for the
purpose of money-laundering and
particularly by criminal or terrorist
organisations. And so, they are anxious
to ensure that people who open bank
accounts do so with a bona fide identity
and they have systems at the moment to
ensure that they satisfy themselves as to
people’s identity. I think it’s called the
point system which they operate.
And I can understand why they would
be interested in a verification system
but look, we’ve made no decision on
that. We’ve noted their interest. At the
moment the effort is designed to
ensuring that relevant Commonwealth
and State agencies and Territory
agencies that are involved in issues of
identification can have more effective
ways of verifying the documentation
that is presented is in fact bona fide.
Okay?
Attorney-General Transcript 16
QUESTION: …thin edge of the wedge to allow banks
access to [indistinct] real estate agents
and then progressing from there, and
people…
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Well let me just say that we are putting
very significant responsibilities on
agencies to ensure that the proceeds of
crime are not protected, cannot be
hidden. And identity questions are an
important part of that. And we have
quite extensive co-operation with
private sector organisations now in
relation to dealing with those issues,
particularly in relation to tracking
monies that are moving unlawfully.
So you know I wouldn’t want to dismiss
lightly the requests from the private
sector. I’m simply saying no decision
has been taken. There are a wide range
of issues that would have to be
examined in dealing with broader
access and at this stage we’re, I think,
crawling before we walk.
All right?
* * END * *
Attorney-General Transcript 17
Charlie McKillop 0419 278 715