Download Word

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This transcript has been prepared by a source external to the Department of the Parliamentary Library.

It may not have been checked against the broadcast or in any other way. Freedom from error, omissions or misunderstandings cannot be guaranteed.

For the purposes of quoting verbatim from a transcript, it is advisable to verify the transcript against the broadcast.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Meet the Press

Sunday 6 November 2005

Philip Ruddock, Attorney-General

MEET THE PRESS PRESENTER PAUL BONGIORNO: Hello and welcome to Meet the Press. A specific terror threat grabs centre stage from work reforms and racehorses.

PRIME MINISTER JOHN HOWARD (LAST WEDNESDAY): The Government has received specific intelligence and police information this week which gives cause for serious concern about a potential terrorist threat.  

 

PAUL BONGIORNO: Today, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock joins us. And business comes to the defence of the revolution in how Australians will be hired, fired and paid. But first, what the nation's press is reporting this Sunday, November 6. The Sunday Age leads with "Leslie: secrecy claims hit case." The prosecution of Australian model Michelle Leslie for drug possession has been rocked by allegations she was with the son of a senior Indonesian minister when she was caught and police have covered up to protect him. The Sunday Telegraph has - "Terror plan for armed soldiers." Troops could be deployed on Australia's streets in the event of a terror attack and be given detention powers, the right of search and seizure and the power to shoot to kill. The Sun-Herald reports - "Anti-terror law protest as Ruddock vows early review." As protests against the new terror laws are staged around the country, the Attorney-General has pledged to look again at the sedition provisions amid concerns over free speech. The Sunday Herald-Sun reports - "Death row tip leads to raid." Condemned Melbourne man Tuong Van Nguyen has supplied Australian police with information that's led to the conviction of a Sydney man on a drug charge. Last week, the Prime Minister, flanked by the Attorney-General, stopped the nation in its tracks with his revelation that there was specific information of a potential terror threat. Welcome back, Philip Ruddock.  

 

ATTORNEY-GENERAL PHILIP RUDDOCK: Pleasure.  

 

PAUL BONGIORNO: Well, on Thursday the parliament passed the amendment that you and the Prime Minister asked for. Have there been any arrests yet?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: No. But arrests weren't necessarily expected because of the passage of the measure. The important point to remember is that authorities needed to be able to act if there was information about a terrorist attack, a potential terrorist attack, but where you didn't know the detail as to where and when it might occur, and that is an important measure. The information we had suggested it would be desirable to have it in place now. That doesn't mean in any way that I, or the Prime Minister, influence operational issues. They are matters that are dealt with independently by the police and other authorities. And whatever will happen, will happen at an appropriate time if at all.  

 

PAUL BONGIORNO: If at all?  

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: If at all. They have to form a judgment.  

 

PAUL BONGIORNO: Does that undermine the sense of urgency?  

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: No, the important point is they needed to have the capacity, which they now have. We have at no time suggested that we run operational issues. We don't. And the point I make is they have the capacity to act. That's what they needed. And the operational issues are in their hands.  

 

PAUL BONGIORNO: There's a report today that there's a new terror group. Not the ones that the media were naming that had their places raided back in June. These are sons and daughters, Australian-born sons and daughters, of Muslim extremists. Is this the group that the Government had in mind?  

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: I don't comment on these matters, but what I can say is typecasting is never helpful. And to suggest that there is a particular group and you characterise it in a particular way isn't helpful either. All of our measures are based upon conduct, and conduct can be undertaken by people born here, people of Anglo-Saxon backgrounds, people who have migrated here, and our tests don't relate to characteristics of individuals, but rather to the conduct in which they are engaged.  

 

PAUL BONGIORNO: But it's hard to deny they're motivated by an extreme and perverted version of Islam?  

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: That can be one factor. But the point I make in relation to these matters is that if people are influenced by any philosophy, any religion, to conduct themselves in a way which poses a risk to others, they need to be dealt with.  

 

PAUL BONGIORNO: On Thursday the minor parties were far from convinced of the need for the technical amendment to the Terror Act. Greens Senator Kerry Nettle believed there was already plenty of legal avenues available.

SENATOR KERRY NETTLE (LAST THURSDAY): So when the Prime Minister stands up and says "Trust me, trust me. I need you to come in here and I need you to pass this legislation because my security forces don't have the power right now to do that." Well I say, "Rubbish. Absolute rubbish!"  

 

PAUL BONGIORNO: Well, Attorney, she obviously passionately believes that the amendments to the Crimes Act that were already a response to the terror threat were more than enough to deal with any potential terror threat.  

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, she wasn't given the advice I was. And the advice is very clear. It comes from the people who are responsible for prosecuting these matters, and when the Director of Public Prosecutions tells you that in order to pursue a particular matter you need to have evidence that tells you as to the time and place when the event may occur, rather than being able to deal with a situation where people are gathering materials and have in mind a plan but not one about which you have sufficient detail, but where you ought to be able to act, you obviously come to a view that the law needs to change. That's the reason for the change. It goes from the specific act to an act and that ought to be obvious to anybody as being a sensible extension.  

 

PAUL BONGIORNO: Two major newspapers, the Sydney Morning Herald on Friday and the Australian yesterday, have carried stories that State police, the NSW police and the Victorian police, are concerned that all the work they've been doing - to quote one source in the 'Australian' yesterday - their monitoring and their surveillance could be jeopardised by the fact that you and the Prime Minister have spoken out in the way that you have. To quote the 'Australian', one source says that there was blood on the floor and disagreement between the Federal and State agencies. Could this not jeopardise our ability to confront and fight terrorism?  

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Look, obviously if you draw to attention of particular groups that they may be under investigation, they take steps to protect themselves. And that is something that's very much in your mind. We had to weigh these matters up. We met with all of the parties involved at a federal level - Commissioner of Police, the head of the security agency, the Director of Public Prosecutions.  

 

PAUL BONGIORNO: Is there a turf war, though, between the Feds and the States?  

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: It is always the case that people will bring to bear a different judgment as to how you should deal with these issues, but when you're in a position that matters that you are aware of may not be able to be pursued, you know that you can only go into the parliament with an explanation, and that explanation was checked very carefully as to what we could say, and it had to be sufficient to convince not only members of parliament but also the Opposition, and the premiers that this was an appropriate course to take.  

 

PAUL BONGIORNO: So from your answer there, you're not exactly denying that there were concerns at State level?  

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: No, there were concerns at our level. I was concerned. What we are doing, or what we did, was a very different act to what is normally expected. There had to be a reasonable explanation and we had to think it through very carefully and we did. We consulted with the relevant officers as to what we could say because we were conscious that people would have another view.  

 

PAUL BONGIORNO: OK. Coming up - the Human Rights Commissioner says new terror laws will turn Australia into a police state.

PAUL BONGIORNO: You're on Meet the Press with the Attorney-General Philip Ruddock. And welcome to the panel, Michelle Grattan, the Age , and Philip Clark, Radio 2GB. On Thursday, the Attorney-General brought the final version of the anti-terror bill into the parliament. It was the result of significant changes after consultation with the States and the Government's own backbench. But on Monday the Human Rights Commissioner John von Doussa was still expressing grave concerns for our civil liberties.

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONER JOHN VON DOUSSA (LAST MONDAY): The defining characteristic of a police state is that the police exercise power on behalf of the executive, and the conduct of the police cannot be effectively challenged to the justice system of the state. Regrettably, it would seem that that is exactly what these laws are proposing.  

 

PHILIP CLARK, RADIO 2GB: Mr Ruddock, what exactly is the case for these new laws? They represent a radical new change in the way our society operates and our freedoms. What acts or individuals haven't been able to be picked up by the current laws? What acts of terrorism haven't been able to be foiled by the new laws?  

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, the important point I think is to look at what is happening, and we've seen in the United Kingdom, we've seen in other parts of Europe, that people are engaged in terrorist acts, matters that have to be dealt with. The warnings for Australia is that a terrorist act here is feasible. And that's what a medium alert is about. We need to be prepared for such eventualities. We've been exercising in relation to these matters. We look at the powers that are in place in places like the United Kingdom, in various parts of Europe, and a number of those measures seem to us to be sensible matters to adopt here. They're unusual, but we think they are an appropriate response. The reference to a police state is - it produces catchy headlines - but when you look at the measures that we're talking about, they're measures that are in place in places like the United Kingdom. Control orders… 

 

PHILIP CLARK: Well, that's a police state in a way, isn't it? You can be on your way home from work, you can disappear, and be held virtually incommunicado - that's a brand new thing for Australia. We don't have laws like that at the moment. What's the need for them? We've caught and prosecuted a home-grown terrorist already. Why are these new laws necessary? The Government haven't really made a case for it, have they?  

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Yes, we have. And I'll make it again. Control orders are being sought in two circumstances. In a situation where you have an imminent terrorist attack or you've had a terrorist attack and you are trying to manage the issue in terms of explosions in multiple places. And in order to be able to preserve evidence and to ensure that it's not destroyed, in order to be able to gather together those people you believe may be engaged in planning and implementing a terrorist attack you are able to detain people for up to 14 days with the capacity for judicial review. Now that, in shorthand, that's what the measure is about and it's been proposed by the Commonwealth but it has to be implemented by the Commonwealth and States in order for it to be able to operate. The other matter is for control orders, and that's to look at a longer period of time in relation to people who may be of concern, they may have trained with terrorist organisations, and you want to be able to know where they are, who they're contacting and if it is reasonably necessary, to be able to ensure that the community is not exposed to a terrorist act or that those skills that people have obtained are used, a court can order that people have to meet certain conditions.

MICHELLE GRATTAN, THE AGE : But isn't one reason for control orders simply that you don't have the labour for undercover surveillance which, in fact, might yield much more useful information about networks and contacts than the more obvious control orders where you've given the person notice that he's closely watched?  

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: That's one of the arguments I've advanced, Michelle. Because the fact is… 

 

MICHELLE GRATTAN: It's a very good argument that you've advanced - that the underground surveillance might be more effective, surely?  

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Look, covert surveillance can be very effective, but when you have an organisation that has just on 900 people and you've got to put together teams that take for 24 hours a day, seven days a week monitoring, I say 30, my UK counterparts say 36 people.  

 

MICHELLE GRATTAN: But we shouldn't be stinting in this area, surely Mr Ruddock?  

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: You don't train people to undertake these sorts of tasks and prepare them in a matter of days. We have committed very considerable funds to growing our security organisation to give it enhanced capacity, but we're not going to be able to achieve it overnight. It's going to take to get ASIO to 1,800 people another four years of work, recruiting people, training people, preparing them, those sorts of skills just aren't produced, as it were, in the work place.  

 

MICHELLE GRATTAN: But would that be the ideal way to do it, surveillance rather than control orders?  

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Look, my view is that in relation to these sorts of issues, you have to look at what is practicable and I've made it very clear that when you can look at monitoring two or three people, possibly, through your security agency you may get additional capacity through what skills the police have, but when you are talking tens rather than hundreds, and potentially there may be more many more people involved, I can't be specific about the numbers, I think it brings home to you the enormity of the task.  

 

PHILIP CLARK: It's not going to be judicial review that's normally used. When we use the phrase "judicial review", we mean a review that is based on all the merits of all the evidence that can be brought and cross-examined and tested, etc. That's not what we're talking about here. It's a limited form of judicial review and, in that sense, a lot of judges would say that's not judicial review at all?  

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Where is it limited? It's only limited when judicial review is being undertaken by what we have included in the national security information legislation, and that deals with the question of how you protect security-related information for the purposes of prosecuting a person, and I think it's perfectly obvious that if you're going to expose a person who has given human intelligence, if you're going to expose the techniques you use to gather your evidence, if you're going to expose your international liaison with other organisations who don't want it known that they're providing information to you, you have to protect that information but still have it available to pursue in a court.  

 

PHILIP CLARK: But in essence it is limited, isn't it, because all the information can't be made available. It's not a judicial review in the way that a citizen of Australia would normally expect in open court?  

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: In relation to all of our terrorism offences, those qualifications have been included in the national security information legislation to ensure that we can proceed with prosecutions but protect individuals who may be involved.  

 

PAUL BONGIORNO: Attorney, just going to sedition, doesn't it seem strange that you've signalled that you're willing to review this legislation, in other words, you're putting a question mark over the sedition laws before they've been enacted? Wouldn't it be better now to look at what the problems are and fix them up before they go through the parliament?  

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, I mean, the issues that are being raised essentially go to drafting questions. It was argued that sedition is arcane and it hasn't been used. Well… 

 

PAUL BONGIORNO: Well, the fear is that people will use it to circumscribe free speech. 

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: That's one of the reasons that we've got a specific provision in the legislation to protect fair comment.  

 

PAUL BONGIORNO: Thanks for being with us today, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock. And coming up - John Howard's workplace changes condemned by the unions but welcomed by business. Heather Ridout from the Australian Industry Group joins us. In the cartoon of the week, Nicholson in the 'Australian' has this view of the new terror laws. An ASIO agent tells a clutch of journalists, "Don't worry about the new secrecy provisions in the terror laws, we'll tell you all you need to know."