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.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sunday

Sunday 27 March 2005

Philip Ruddock, Attorney-General

JANA WENDT: The Federal Government may have thrown a lifeline to a Gold Coast woman fighting drug smuggling charg es in Bali. On Tuesday it will fly a Victorian prisoner to Indonesia to give evidence that could be crucial in the trial of Schappelle Corby.  

 

Miss Corby is accused of trying to smuggle four kilograms of marijuana into Bali. If she's found guilty, she could face a firing squad.  

 

It's believed the Victorian prisoner John Ford will claim she was an unwitting pawn in an airport crime ring that smuggles drugs between Brisbane and Sydney. The Federal Government approved Indonesia's request for Ford to give evidence at Miss Corby's trial. 

 

Here to talk about the Corby case is the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock. He's in our Sydney studio now with Sunday 's political editor, Laurie Oakes. 

 

Good morning, Laurie.  

 

LAURIE OAKES: Morning Jana. Mr Ruddock, welcome to Sunday .  

 

ATTORNEY-GENERAL PHILIP RUDDOCK: Thank you very much Laurie.  

 

LAURIE OAKES: Now, we'll start with Schapelle Corby. Is it a life-line? Do you think that John Ford's evidence will help her case? 

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, I don't think it's a matter for me to comment on, in terms of the evidence. Our only role in relation to this is to respond to the request that somebody whom it is believed may have information that is relevant is available. And we've certainly made it clear to her defence team that there are certain procedures that have to be followed if there are people in Australia who can give evidence. 

 

And it has to be with the specific authority and request from Indonesia. One of our concerns was that they left it very late in the day, and then offered criticism of the Australian Government. It's not a matter that we can send people to another country. 

 

We have a treaty under which we agree to provide assistance in criminal matters, and it's under this treaty that Indonesia has now made a request, and we are responding. 

 

LAURIE OAKES: Do you think her lawyers just didn't understand?  

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, I think it's fairly clear that not many people in Australia, acting in criminal matters, would have experience in acting in relation to matters in another country. And that's why I think it was really incumbent upon them to follow the advice that was given in a timely way. And only one day before the proceedings to be initiating a request suggests to me some inactivity. 

 

LAURIE OAKES: The Indonesian Chief Judge is quoted in some newspapers today as saying that Ford's evidence could work in her favour or against her. Now, how could it work against Schapelle Corby? 

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: I have no idea. Whether it would be evidence that would support her case, or whether it would be evidence that would be seen by a court to be flawed in some way. Obviously those matters will be tested by the court.  

 

I think the judge is being very circumspect in relation to these matters. One of the things that we feel very strongly about in Australia is that our courts should be able to make their own judgements in relation to these matters without influence by publicity and people using the media. 

 

And we expect that in relation to Australian matters. And what I've been surprised about is the extent to which in this case there has been a lot of campaigning through the media, which I think at the end of the day makes it very much more difficult for the court to be able to deal with the range of issues it's going to have before it. 

 

LAURIE OAKES: Now, you say you can't comment on the evidence, but the Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty did. He described Ford's evidence as hearsay on hearsay. Why did the Federal Police Commissioner say something like that about a case where someone really could be fighting for their life? 

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, normally we don't comment on matters involving police investigations. I certainly don't. Because I think it's best that they — they undertake their investigations, and do so without — without a day by day commentary. 

 

But in relation to this matter, the comments were made very early in the piece, when it was requested that the Australian Federal Police investigate these matters. And they have undertaken to do that. And I think, again, it's a live investigation. It's not a matter about which I can comment any further. Other than to say that in relation to these matters, commentary needs to be — needs to be very cautious, because it can prejudice the results of investigations. 

 

LAURIE OAKES: What about commentary from the Federal Police Commissioner?  

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, I mean he's in a different position, I think, to me. And in a position to know what is appropriate to be said. I'm not offering a view on what he said. 

 

LAURIE OAKES: There's another Australian being kept in Indonesia. Phil Turner. One of five executives of Newmont Mining. He spent some time in gaol and now they won't let him leave that country. Is anything being done to help this bloke? 

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, these matters have been raised on a — on a government to government basis. What we're concerned about, and I think Indonesia understands this well — that if you're going to have investment from abroad in important projects that are going to help with the development of Indonesia, you need to have it occurring in an environment which is, I think, conducive to investment. 

 

And people want certainty and they want clarity, and they want laws that will operate with — with clarity. And so without commenting on the particular matter, it is one that we have raised with Indonesian Ministers. 

 

LAURIE OAKES: And we've raised his case, particularly?  

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, we've raised the issue generally in relation to Newmont mines and their operation, and the range of issues surrounding that operation. 

 

LAURIE OAKES: If I could ask you about David Hicks. He still hasn't been brought to trial in Guantanamo Bay. How long are you prepared to let that go on? 

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, it's not a matter that we can — other than by representation — influence. And where at the moment a trial was expected to be underway, it's been delayed because of requests by his representatives to await the outcome of legal proceedings that have been initiated by other detainees. 

 

And I guess his advisors believe that might be relevant to whether or not the trial in his case proceeds in the way in which the military commission system envisages, or whether there has to be some other approach. 

 

LAURIE OAKES: Is there any risk that this will end up like the Habib case, where Mr Hicks eventually will be sent home with the Americans deciding not to proceed? 

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, we would — we would regret that, if it were to be the case, because they've assured us at all times that they have evidence to bring charges, and in Hicks' case, unlike Habib, they had in fact brought charges. I mean, Hicks is the subject of charges that are now known. And I think that's the important and distinguishing factor. But so far as we're concerned, we continue to make representations. We were making representations again last week at a very senior level. Ambassador Thorley has been speaking to those in the Defence Department who are handling this issue. 

 

LAURIE OAKES: Seeking what, specifically?  

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, seeking expedition of the matter, and assurances from the United States that they have evidence sufficient to continue with the — with the trial. 

 

And we want — we want to know that this is a matter that is receiving their full attention, and we're not allowing the matter to go without continuing to make representations for it to be resolved as quickly as possible. That's the Government's desire.  

 

LAURIE OAKES: Now, it's been reported that you're planning a new maximum security marriage certificate, because of the risk of terrorists and others being able to use fake marriage certificates to establish false identities. 

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, you've probably seen reports over this weekend, Laurie, haven't you, of other documentation being developed fraudulently, in which the — in which the people who issue bank accounts, who issue other documentation — it can sometimes be a passport — might have information presented to them, and it's very important that the information is accurate. And not developed by criminals for the purposes of establishing false identities.  

 

And in relation to marriage certificates, at the moment you've had marriage celebrants developing their own forms. There's no security built into the forms themselves. No sequential numbering. No way in which you can check the authenticity of the documents that are being presented. 

 

So that's — that's the reason that we're moving to have a more secure system in relation to the certificates themselves. But it's coupled with other measures that we're taking to check identity, because what you need to be able to do is to go back to any — any source.  

 

It might be a birth certificate. It might be a driver's licence. It might be a citizenship certificate. And to establish that the document that's presented is a bona fide document, issued by the particular authority. 

 

And these measures will enhance the issue of identifying people. Clearly. And avoiding fraudulent identities being established. And it could be by criminal elements. But it could be by terrorist groups. 

 

LAURIE OAKES: Well, that being the case, I mean, can we continue to ignore the idea of a national identity card?  

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, the question is if you're going to have an id card, how do you establish it? And the only way in which you can establish it is to go through the steps that have to be taken now when any individual organisation needs to identify an individual. 

 

That is, to go back to the source material that we have, and to verify it. The steps that we are taking in relation to enhancing identity, and identity checking, is going to be far more important than any notional card, which would be dependent upon exactly the same steps having to be taken. 

 

LAURIE OAKES: So a national identity card is not on the cards?  

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, it's not on our agenda.  

 

LAURIE OAKES: Okay. You've got legislation before Parliament that aims at discouraging immigration advocates — I assume that's lawyers — from using delaying tactics in courts. How do you propose to do that, and what would be the penalties? 

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, you've got to ask yourself why would we be doing it? And people are talking at the moment about detention, and length of detention. One of the reasons that some people remain in detention for very long periods of time is the considerable backlog in our courts of migration matters. 

 

Now, if they were all bona fide cases, you would be concerned to bolster the court's resources, to get matters resolved. But when you know that ninety per cent of the cases that are brought involving immigration matters are essentially without merit -the courts determine in ninety per cent of cases in favour of the Government, and against applicants — a significant proportion of those matters are being brought merely to gain time for people who otherwise would be required to leave Australia. 

 

LAURIE OAKES: So what are you going to do about it?  

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, we're legislating to speed up the process to take out some of the appeals that are possible now. To get more matters before magistrates that have a capacity to deal with those matters more quickly. And we've appointed an initial eight magistrates to do it.  

 

But in addition, we're going to require advocates to certify whether or not a case that they are bringing on behalf of an applicant has merit. And if they bring a case and continue to bring cases that are non-meritorious before the courts, the courts will have the power, under legislation that is presently before the House of Representatives to be able to award costs not against the party, but against the advocate personally. 

 

LAURIE OAKES: So in effect, that's a fine, isn't it?  

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, in effect, it means that advocates bringing cases that they know are non-meritorious, will be exposed to a — to some potential penalty by the court. And that should be very salutary in terms of advocates. 

 

LAURIE OAKES: There's an irony there, isn't there, that this comes at a time when the High Court's ruled that barristers can't be sued by their clients for negligent conduct in court cases. 

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, I mean, in relation to the rule of law, it's established — the common law, by the High Court of Australia. If there is to be any change it has to come through the Parliaments. 

 

LAURIE OAKES: Should there be a change?  

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, the Attorneys met during this week in a — an organisation called SCAG — the Standing Committee of Attorneys General. And the states are those that will have to deal with the issue. If it is to be the subject of change. The states couldn't agree on how it should be dealt with. 

 

My passion in relation to matters involving the states is that we have greater uniformity. It is unfortunate when you have a range of laws that are significantly different, state to state, and it would be unfortunate if, in trying to remedy an evil that some people think exists, you were to put in place arrangements that in New South Wales, if you listen to the New South Wales Attorney, only provided a remedy in relation to the giving of advice, but no remedy in relation to the appearance before a court.  

 

Or if you took the Victorian Attorney's judgement, there would be a capacity to sue both in relation to the giving of advice as well as the appearances before the courts. Now, they're differences that are emerging. I want to see a single view. 

 

LAURIE OAKES: The final issue. You talk about wanting uniformity between the states. The Prime Minister is using Federal powers to over-ride the states in various areas. Tony Abbott wants to take over hospitals. Peter Costello wants to tell the states how to spend the GST. Does the Federal Government have enough power to do those things, and more importantly, are there any significant areas of state power, now, where the Federal Government can't override them? 

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, I think the states have specific matters that they deal with. The Commonwealth, under the Constitution, had its powers outlined, and the residue was left to the states. And that's included issues like health and education... 

 

LAURIE OAKES: That the Federal Government has now moved into in a big way.  

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: We've used — we've used our funding powers to influence decisions in those areas. What we're doing at the moment is looking at those areas in which there are powers within the Constitution that the Commonwealth has. It can be the corporations power where we might legislate. I've said we'd do it in relation to defamation, for instance. 

 

Industrial relations is another area in which it is happening. And obviously we'll test those sorts of issues. But my desire, and I have to say I think my colleagues' desires, would be to work closely with the states, and to act where we couldn't get co-operation. 

 

But I think there are many areas, particularly in the Attorneys' areas of responsibility, where we can obtain significant uniformity. Harmonisation of our laws. And I've set up a Parliamentary committee to review a number of those, and to report on it. 

 

I've initiated action in relation to personal securities, and I'm pleased that the Attorneys' meeting this week agreed that it would be a very significant reform in relation to hire purchase and maritime leans and bills of sale — other forms of personal security — to get rid of the 64 different forms of securities that we've got across the states and territories of Australia, and to have a uniform code. And a single registration system. 

 

And it would be an important micro-economic reform that would benefit those people who give credit, as well as those people who are buying personal property, and who don't always know whether somebody else has a lean or a mortgage over it. So reforms of that sort can, I think, be achieved with co-operation between the Commonwealth and states, and where that can be done I'll be pursuing it. 

 

LAURIE OAKES: Mr Ruddock, we thank you.  

 

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Pleasure, Laurie.  

 

LAURIE OAKES: Back to you Jana.