Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
Proposed terror laws debated -

View in ParlViewView other Segments

(generated from captions) You don't do that if you rush it

You don't do that if you rush it and the simple fact it, John Howard's

proposing to gag the parliamentary

process when we return in a

fortnight, and that's not the way

you get good laws especially in

areas like this that are

areas like this that are very

sensitive. Let's talk sb specifics,

though. What provisions in the

though. What provisions in the legislation that you have seen are

of concern to you? We've only just,

like most Australians, had an

opportunity to look at this in the

brief. We've got two weeks before

Parliament resumes. Already, we're

hearing reports that there are some

changes apparently being considered

or made by the Attorney-General and

the Prime Minister so we'll spend

the next little while having a

the next little while having a close look at it and talking to a range

look at it and talking to a range of people in the community who have a

clear interest in. This I don't

clear interest in. This I don't want to pre-empt that. But you've seen

the draft legislation. I've seen

the draft legislation. I've seen the draft legislation. John North here

has seen the draft legislation.

has seen the draft legislation. It's pretty clear what's in there at the

present moment. There is there

anything in there at the present

moment n that draft legislation,

which is of concern to you? Look,

before the COAG meeting, Labor

flagged a number of areas where we

thought it was important for

principles to be adhered to, so

questions like sunset clauses are

fundamentally important and I want

to see the fine print of that.

10 years, the sunset clause. You

don't need any fine print, there's

10 years. Is that too long? In fact,

we do need some fine print, because

you're right, the Bill does talk

about 10 years, but in fact the

meeting spoke about a five-year about 10 years, but in fact the COAG

revu. I want to see what the detail

of that review s how it's going to

be done, and what will flow from

that review. But that's one of the

examples, and whether we like it or

not, it happens to be the case that

the devil is in the detail in these

things. So we do need to see that

fine print to get a clear

understanding of how some of these

issues will be dealt with. Alright.

And whilst the Bill gives us a bit

of a guide, I've got to say, it's

short in a number of areas. Well,

does more than give awe bit of a short in a number of areas. Well, it

guide, to be fair. Let's go to John

North, specifically looking at the

draft legislation, what specific

provisions are you worried about?

The major ones are preventive

detention and control orders,

because that is going to enable the

government to lock up people who

they do not reasonably suspect of

having committed a terrorist act.

But they could already do that,

couldn't they, under the previous

about two years and they've not couldn't they, under the previousfor

that seven days once, so what has about two years and they've not used

changed to make them now demand 14

days? Alright. Explain to us what

are the grounds set out in the

legislation, if there are any

grounds set out in the legislation,

for how someone qualifies for being

put under a control order, or being

put into detention? A senior AFP

police person of superintendent

or above, asks a judge or police person of superintendent rank

of the Federal Court to issue the or above, asks a judge or magistrate

order. The person concerned doesn't

know about it. They can't tell

members of their family if it

urs and their lawyer, if they get members of their family if it occurs

one, is monitored. Well, how does a

judge or a magistrate know what

grounds are actually applicable for

a control order? The AFP will have

to present them with sufficient

evidence. The difficulty is, these

are really people in legal limbo

land, because the AFP, if they had

enough proof that they were

in terrorism, could arrest them, enough proof that they were involved

charge them, and bring them before

court. Arch Bevis, does any of that charge them, and bring them before a

concern the federal Labor Party?

Well, potentially, yes, and that's

why the proper process needs to be

followed. That's why we need to

a full Senate inquiry. In 2002, followed. That's why we need to have

we confronted similar issues after a full Senate inquiry. In 2002, when

the tragedy of 9/11, these sorts of

laws were referred to a full

in the Senate and as a result of laws were referred to a full inquiry

that inquiry, a lot of these

concerns were delved into, there

were major amendments proposed to

the legislation and I have to

confess, supported by the Liberals

on that committee as well, and we

saw better legislation and better

laws as a result. Contrast that to

now, where John Howard's proposing

to introduce the Bill in a

when Parliament goes back, have it to introduce the Bill in a fortnight

dealt with by the Parliament in one

week, and give the Senate just one

day for a hearing. And these are

precisely the details we need to go

through in a proper manner with

proper scrutiny. Are you

concerned by the fact that the proper scrutiny. Are you potentially

legislation itself does not set out

the grounds for putting someone

under a control order or putting

them in preventive detention? There

are no grounds at all in the draft

legislation for, that it's simply

interpretation that has to be made, legislation for, that it's simply an

as we've just heard by the AFP or

ASIO and then another

by a Madge straight or a judge. ASIO and then another interpretation

Yeah, I think there are a number of

those concern, and yes, I do have

will be seeking questions about those matters that

will be seeking some answers from, questions about those matters that I

from the Attorney-General and from

the government. But you know, one

the ways in which we traditionally the government. But you know, one of

dealt with that is to allow the

public sufficient time to look at

these Bills when they're in the

Parliament and allow the Parliament

the proper time to actually deal

with them as well. None of that's

been afforded to any of us at the

moment. John Howard, for some

reason, has decided to adopt this

extreme tactic of forcing things

through. And heaven knows why,

because at the COAG meeting he was

provided with full cooperation by

the States an Territories and yet

seems to want to ram through the States an Territories and yet he

But you have a political problem seems to want to ram through ...

here, don't you, because your

colleagues in State Labor

governments around the country are

quite happy for this go through?

There was an agreement at COAG that

all of the governments at Australia

came to. If you read the communique

from that it was quite broad about

the sorts of measures that needed

be taken. Now we're geting to the the sorts of measures that needed to

sharp end of the process where the

detail of the legislation needs to

be examined and put on the table.

Unfortunately, there are, in the

Bill that we've seen so far, a

number of areas of concern that

further clarification, but there number of areas of concern that need

some other areas that just need further clarification, but there are

further details, frankly and that's

the process we have to go through.

There is no rush with this. There's

no rush with this. We've given a

commitment that we'll ensure

sufficient time in the Parliament commitment that we'll ensure there's

for this to be fully debated before

the end of the year and still have

proper inquiry. Let's have a look the end of the year and still have a

some of those other

some of those other areas of proper inquiry. Let's have a look at

because John North has brought up some of those other areas of concern

the shoot-to-kill policy which is

set out in the legislation. Now,

Prime Minister and the set out in the legislation. Now, the

Attorney-General say that's nothing

more than what's already in the

Crimes Act, they're simply taking a

section of that Act and putting it

into this legislation to give

arresting police the same powers

that arresting police have in the

Crimes Act. There's two problems

with that. The first is that AFP

officers may not be in uniform and

therefore the person subject to the

control or prevention order might

not know they are police and that's

what happened in Britain in the

Underground and the second problem

is that this is an order in which Underground and the second problem

they are trying to seek an arrest

a person who they do not reasonably they are trying to seek an arrest of

suspect of being a terrorist. So

do they get to the point where they suspect of being a terrorist. So how

can shoot them? They've only put

this into the legislation because

they want to cover themselves in

case they get a London case. But

what's in the legislation that's

different to what's in the Crimes

Act, because as I've said - in fact,

the Attorney-General says it has

been word for word lifted from the

Crimes Act. The Crimes Act doesn't

have "fleeing", they've used that

word in this Bill to try to cover

this English situation. They must

have done it at the behest of the

AFP who do not want to find

themselves in the same trouble as

the UK police are now. Do you mean

the legislation sets out that

someone can be shot at while

fleeing? Yes, with reservations,

fleeing? Yes, with reservations, but the trouble is ... What are the

reservations? The reservation is

that the AFP officer has to

reasonably suspect that the person

is about to harm him or someone

else, and has to yell "stop", and

then if there's no other means of

stopping them, they can shoot them.

But the crazy thing about this is

that it falls within the section in

which they do not, at time they go

to get the control order, have

enough proof that the person is a

terrorist. In other words , they

can't charge them but they can put

them under a preventive order or a

control order? Exactly. Arch Bevis,

does that worry you, what you have

just heard there, how it's spelt

just heard there, how it's spelt out in the draft legislation, it does

mention the word "fleeing" and it

doesn't sound like it's takeing in

the London case and protecting the

AFP or ASIO against a similar

situation? There are some caveats

situation? There are some caveats in the proposed legislation that deal

with necessary force and where

there's a belief that there's a

terrorist incident or someone's

going to come to harm in an

going to come to harm in an imminent situation. That said, yes, I do

situation. That said, yes, I do have some concerns about that. Now,

whether or not it complies with the

arrangements exists in all of the

States or any of the States at the

moment in respect of police powers

is not something in the last two

case I've been able to determine.

But there again, that's one of the

things that people would

legitimately be concerned about,

that the normal parliamentary

process would get to the bottom of.

For some reason John Howard doesn't

want the normal parliamentary

process to be used on this occasion.

Are you concerned, looking at the

use of the term fleeing in there,

are you concerned that's been set

are you concerned that's been set up to protect the AFP or ASIO in a

situation very similar to that

situation very similar to that which pertained in London when the man

pertained in London when the man who was not a terrorist was shot dead?

Don't think anybody wants to see a

situation like that tragedy in

London where an innocent person was

shot by police in the days that

followed the London bombings.

followed the London bombings. No-one wants to see that situation

anywhere. It is the case that

anywhere. It is the case that police in the States today have the powers

to use lethal force in certain

circumstances. Now, the question

here that needs to be looked at is

whether or not the caveats that

exist in this draft Bill that John

Howard has proposed properly get

Howard has proposed properly get the balance right. Have we ensured that

the necessary safety provisions are

there as well as protecting the

human rights and civil liberties?

Now, that requires some pretty

careful consideration taking into

account the various existing state

laws. John North wants to come in

here. I'm sorry but the existing

law, as you stated, covers the

situation where they can use lethal

force. There was no need to put

in this Bill. The existing law force. There was no need to put that

the Crimes Act? Yes, and that they in this Bill. The existing law being

can shoot and use lethal force if

they're going to save someone sells

or themselves from being harmed.

Let me come back to you, Arch

Bevis. You have read the

legislation, you have read where it

says "fleeing". That means someone

who is running away from the AFP or

whoever is chasing them as they

could be plain clothes as they were

in London, running away, could be

shot if the people chasing them

believe they present some form of

danger? Look, I agree, there needs

to be something done in respect of

the situation with plain clothes

police. You don't want a

circumstance where someone doesn't

know who it is that's yelling out

them to stop. You also need to know who it is that's yelling out at

ensure that the individuals who are

the subject of that chase, as it

were, have their basic rights

protected as well. That fleeing

provision does also include some

caveats. I think John referred to

exact them a moment ago. It's not clear

exactly --in exactly what

circumstances that power would

pertain. These are of the things we

need to get to the bottom of, Tony

and it's frankly difficult, 24

hours, 48 hours after these

documents have been made public -

this would not be a problem if

was going to be the normal this would not be a problem if there

followed in the Parliament. The was going to be the normal processes

reason we are in this bind now, the followed in the Parliament. The only

only reason we're all talking about

Jon Stanhope's web site, is because

the Prime Minister proposes to have

a truncated parliamentary debate on

this. Let me go back to John North

with a very specific example. Let's

take a 16-year-old boy, call him

Ali, he's put in preventive

detention, while inside, according

to the draft legislation

on Jon Stanhope's web site, he can to the draft legislation legislation

have two hours contact per day with

his parents but all his

conversations will be monitored and

if there are no translators

available, they have to be in

English. How does that affect his

legal representation, legal representation? Well, his

legal representation, if he gets it,

will be monitored as well, sow

have any client-solicitor will be monitored as well, sow don't

confidentiality, and of course, his

parents and anyone else cannot tell

anyone that he is in this

detention, or they themselves could anyone that he is in this preventive

face five years' jail. Arch Bevis,

you have heard that section as well.

That's an extraordinary situation

where let's say Ali's school mate

finds out that Ali is in preventive

detention and tells his teacher at

the high school. His friend is then

subject to five years' imprisonment.

Does that sound right to you?

No. I have to say there have been a

few examples that have - both

theoretically and the odd one in

practice, that have to come up,

where you have to wonder about the

operation of some of the secret

arrangements with respect to the

questioning. You can understand the

need for there to be some secrecy

certain circumstances where it may need for there to be some secrecy in

impede ongoing investigations and a

genuine threat to public security.

But to have people for a prolonged

period of time unable to tell their

family, their employer, their

mates, university colleagues, family, their employer, their school

happening, does strike a bit mates, university colleagues, what's

and it would only be in happening, does strike a bit strange

extraordinary circumstances that I

could imagine those sorts of powers

would be warranted. We need also to

have a look, I think, at the

processes of accountability,

so far you've been talking about processes of accountability, because

various powers that exist. One of so far you've been talking about the

the things that federal Labor has

been keen to try and get on the

record before COAG is the need for

some accountability after the event,

so that these sorts of powers

require judicial and executive

approval, that they require a

reporting mechanism back to the

Parliament, so that on any occasion

these powers are activated, it

becomes public and there is some

transparency so that these things

are not hidden. There needs to be

also an oversight review if these

powers are being exercised by state

police, by the various state

policing oversight bodies, your

ICACs, your CMCs, those sorts of

tribunals. We need loose to look at

some of those balancing provisions

and they're part of the

consideration that Labor will be

going through in the next fortnight.

It's interesting you say Labor

because you obviously mean federal

Labor because State Labor has

already made up its mind, it

appears, on this legislation.

They've agreed to it. Now, they are

looking at the detail, but they're

doing their own examination, and

they say that's enough. I think all

owe find they've agreed to the

principles set out in COAG and have

committed to those principles. The

legislation has questions in it for

all of us. Whether it's lawyers,

whether it's state or federal

politicians, and even if we believe

the news reports, some government

backbenchers. Alright. So the

of these laws is obviously backbenchers. Alright. So the detail

that's going to be very much an of these laws is obviously something

issue in the next fortnight. We've

only just scratched the surface

here, but I'm afraid in doing so

we've used up all your home

tonight. We'll hope if we can to we've used up all your home allotted we've used up all your home allotted

come back and talk to you about

again, because there is a lot more come back and talk to you about this

detail to talk about. John North,

thank you also for coming in to detail to talk about. John North, we

indeed. about it. Thanks to both of you thank you also for coming in to talk

a step closer to a uranium deal. China and Australia appear to be has cleared the way The Federal Government mines on Australian soil for China to develop uranium regulatory obligations, if it can meet strict Foreign Investment Review Board. including the provisions of the The Government says would also be needed a nuclear safeguards agreement should ameliorate any concerns and is adamant such an agreement involved in nuclear weaponry. about selling uranium to a country to mine Australian uranium Revelations of China's desire Treasurer is on a visit to Beijing. have come while the Federal

Rachel Carbonell reports. buy uranium from Australia, It's no secret that China wants to its own uranium mines here but its hopes of running were little known until today. Australia about the issue last year It's been revealed China approached has been positive. and it seems the response agreement with Australia, If China agreed to a safeguards