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.
Lateline -

View in ParlViewView other Segments

(generated from captions) Around the Howard's walking track. Yeah! And the National Gallery. National Gallery - Anne McDonald - I mean, the prints curator at the extension of political poster art actually sees stencilling as an from the '70s and '80s. And there's some great stuff there where it shouldn't be that is, you know, put in places and is, you know, embracing... real artistic merit, though? Does it actually have Some of it can. commercial art galleries But then, you go to art galleries - AND to national public ones, in there as well. and there's a great deal of garbage that isn't graffiti It isn't just that all art is in some way superior.

in this respect, Garbage is interesting American novels because one of the greatest of the last 10 years is Don DeLillo's 'Underworld'. And graffiti art, of a high and dynamic order, graffiti art is central to that. But that book is about rubbish. as rubbish It's about modern culture beauty within that. and graffiti as the subversive called "Kiss My Black Arse, Narelle". Stay tuned for his sequel iconographic piece of graffiti Finally, here's Australia's most immortalised as a snow dome. of the Sydney Opera House. 'No War' printed on the sails And that's it for another week. Humphrey McQueen, A big thank you to Fiona Katauskas, Helen Thorn and Peter Craven. APPLAUSE Closed Captions by CSI This program is not subtitled Tonight - end up in the High Court? will the anti-terror laws suggests Queensland's Solicitor-General may be unconstitutional. the new legislation for a legal review. As Premier Beattie calls is very simple - My concern about this when the laws are passed, to make sure that

they are enforceable and binding. is a constitutional challenge. The last thing I would want to see these laws are constiutional. The advice we have is that by our legal advisers. There's never been any doubt raised these laws are constiutional. The advice we have is that

This program is captioned live.

Welcome to Lateline. Good evening. I'm Tony Jones. And they're racing - by a nose the Government pulled ahead its new anti-terror legislation when it emerged today that the first Tuesday in November. will be introduced on But at the same time, has entered the race a dark horse from Queensland something to think about. and given the punters fillies in the other states - Now all eyes are on the uncommitted

a chance on such a heavy track? are any of them prepared to take might well go to the stewards - The decision in the end for the High Court of Australia if we can borrow that analogy without being accused of sedition! Later, we'll cross to London professor George Williams to speak to constitutional law anti-terror laws. who's studying the UK's by Professor Don Rothwell. And we'll be joined in Canberra but first, our other headlines. That's coming up, A massive attack in Baghdad.

a downtown hotel Three suicide bombings target housing Western journalists. A storm in the ports - on Australian wharves the container gridlock continues despite Customs claims the log-jam is easing. And escaping the poverty trap - the indigenous welfare cycle. Noel Pearson's plan to break will examine new advice Federal Government lawyers anti-terror laws that the Commonwealth's draft could breach the Constitution. for the Queensland Premier, The advice prepared Peter Beattie, to preventative detention has warned that the laws relating for terror suspects and control orders a High Court challenge. could be open to But the Prime Minister says any such doubts. his legal advisors have not raised Narda Gilmore reports. From Canberra, the Government is in a hurry There's no doubt counter-terrorism laws in place. to get its tough new over shoot-to-kill provisions It's played down concerns and the impact on human rights. Now there's another hurdle - Queensland's Premier, Peter Beattie, State and Territory leaders has written to other constitutional problems warning of significant with the draft legislation. is very simple - My concern about this when the laws are passed, to make sure that they are enforceable and binding. is a constitutional challenge. The last thing I would want to see In written advice to Mr Beattie, has warned of the dangers the Queensland Solicitor-General in asking judges and control orders to impose preventative detention

who've committed no offence. on suspects He says that is: on the separation of powers. ..and could infringe He warns it: to a High Court challenge. That could leave the laws open these laws are constitutional. The advice we have is that raised by our legal advisors. There's never been any doubt lawyers have been expecting. But it's a problem constitutional It is certainly the case cannot simply assume that the Commonwealth will be held to be valid. that this legislation has similar concerns The West Australian Government

official advice. while NSW is waiting on of our Solicitor-General's advice We'll be having the benefit very shortly. the issues can be resolved. Peter Beattie says he's confident have agreed this morning The Prime Minister and I from the States that the Solicitor-Generals the national equivalent will consult along with these issues. and we will try and work through opinions as to what the law means. Lawyers often have different such laws shouldn't be rushed. Kim Beazley says it proves It makes it absolutely clear the last few weeks is correct - that what we've been saying for it's got to go committee deliberation. to a proper parliamentary It seems voters have concerns too - a new poll showing in the legislation. most oppose shoot-to-kill powers But the government is pushing ahead - it's planning to introduce the legislation on none other than Melbourne Cup Day next Tuesday. Its industrial relations changes will be saved for another day next week - but they're also proving to be a hard sell for the Government. A multimillion-dollar ad campaign

doesn't seem to have eased voter concerns. Newspoll shows more people think the changes will be bad for the economy than good. I don't think winning or losing the PR battle is the important issue. The important issue is whether these reforms are good for Australia's future, and I believe they are. The Government has also lost ground to Labor in two separate polls on a two-party-preferred basis. But Kim Beazley is still struggling to make up ground on John Howard as preferred prime minister. The Opposition Leader isn't concerned, saying it's clear the public has seen the truth on IR.

They're not going to be confused by a slick multimillion-dollar campaign which is merely building up their resentment. John Howard is confident that once his workplace changes are in force, voters will wonder what all the fuss was about. Narda Gilmore, Lateline. In Iraq, it's been a violent and hectic 24 hours. As Baghdad was cleaning up after bombers targetted the hotel that's home to much of the foreign press in the city,

there were more attacks. With the latest casualties announced by the US Military, it's now reported that the American death toll has surpassed 2,000. sometime in the next few days. All of these developments come

as Iraqi election officials announced the final result

from the referendum on Iraq's draft constitution. It has passed, despite overwhelming Sunni opposition. Norman Hermant reports.

To maximise cover naij the world

press Iraq's insurgents took the

battle to them.

EXPLOSIONS Three blasts, all

EXPLOSIONS Three blasts, all around the famous Palestine hotel, home to

many international journalists in

Baghdad. This was a

Baghdad. This was a well-coordinated attack around the square where

Saddam's statue once stood. First a

white van parked next to a concrete

barrier wall outside the hotel.

EXPLOSION Minutes later, across

EXPLOSION Minutes later, across the square another blast. EXPLOSION


mixer truck drives into the gap in

the barrier. It moves forward and

then backward as it tries to free

itself from security barbe de, wire

caught in its axles. Flashes reveal

the truck is being hit by machine

gunfire. He can go into further.


This was the scene inside. REPORTER:

Is it on the roof or what? I don't

know. That's another one. From

know. That's another one. From dusty corridors, the injured started to

emerge. No doubt those behind this

strike knew these images would be

broadcast around the world.

broadcast around the world. Security around the hotel had just been

scaled back after being boosted for

the beginning of Saddam Hussein's

trial last week and the referendum

on the draft Constitution. Tonight,

election officials announced the

final result of that vote.

TRANSLATION: The final results are

yes, 78%. No, 21%. Two provinces

with Sunni majorities rejected the

draft by large margins, but Sunnies

fell short of the two-thirds

fell short of the two-thirds no-vote they needed in a third province.

they needed in a third province. The Constitution has passed, despite

overwhelming Sunni opposition.

And Iraq's insurgents didn't wait

for the final results. One day

for the final results. One day after their assault on down-town Baghdad,

there were more bombs and more dead all over the city. The Federal Customs Minister Chris Ellison

will host what has become a crisis meeting tomorrow morning over the logjams blocking the nation's biggest ports. Glitches in the new Customs computer system are to blame for the chaos, but Customs officials say

the hold-ups in container traffic are easing. Freight industry groups beg to differ, saying the delays could take weeks to clear and that they'll impact on state and national economies. Rachel Carbonell reports. The Port of Melbourne is the nation's largest port and handles more than $130,000 of trade every minute. But like Australia's other big ports, it's being held up by bugs in the new Customs computer clearance system. We have customers who are breaking down in tears. It's incredibly frustrating for them not to be able to get their goods. Their brokers are equally frustrated. Things that might take 5 or 10 minutes to do previously are now taking four hours. And the problems are flowing on into the economy. Already the delays are beginning to impact on production runs at manufacturing facilities and those who are trying to put retail products out for late Christmas runs. I'm advised that at the moment it is costing NSW businesses around $2 million a day in handling storage and fees down the logistics line. That is unacceptable for NSW businesses.

State ministers are demanding solutions. They want more resources to make the system work and compensation for businesses. Trucks are being told to go down and pick up containers. They're told that they're ready and through Customs, and when the the trucks get down there, they're not, and this is costing the trucking companies a lot of money. Ships aren't yet backing up,

but if the situation doesn't improve, they will. Shipping lines are calling for a bit of lenience from officials until a solution is found. We can't keep going the way we are, even if it remains where it is. Everyone is working actually very, very long hours to try and keep the cargo moving. We can't keep up this pace. The air freight industry is also being affected. It only handles 1% of the nation's freight but it's 13% of total freight value, and often consists of important cargo like medical equipment and pharmaceuticals. We've set up a help line for people who have got problems. We've got 200 Customs staff on that help line. It is essential that we get this new system working, and I'm intent on doing that. And Customs officials say they've had some success

moving containers and easing delays. Cargo is moving. The Port of Sydney is not gridlocked, and shipping containers are moving away from the waterfront. But the Federal Opposition says not enough is being done and the Customs Minister, Chris Ellison, should be sacked. Senator Ellison declined to be interviewed on camera today, but a spokesman said the Minister will address all the issues at the industry round table in Sydney tomorrow. Rachel Carbonell, Lateline. The Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson has tonight delivered another plea for welfare reform, outlining an agenda he says will deliver his community on Queensland's Cape York Peninsula from the cycle of poverty. In an emotional address, Mr Pearson said economic independence could help save the culture and heritage of Indigenous Australians and he called for a fundamental change to Aboriginal housing as a key plank of his philosophy. Tom Iggulden reports.

Fresh from escorting the PM through his home town of Hope Vale this week, Noel Pearson outlined his welfare reform agenda to an affluent Sydney crowd gathered at the Australian Stock Exchange.

His reforms are aimed at giving his community the means to engage with the mainstream Australian economy. And to do that, he says, means first addressing what Australian communities take for granted.

And there are a set of social norms

which most Australians take for

granted. They are inherent

granted. They are inherently

conservative. They require people

conservative. They require people to observe some basic rules that

society expects of its members in

relation to mutual responsibilities

in relation to public order and

safety and in relation to

expectations that society has of

members in relation to their

children and their upbringing.

An emotional Mr Pearson chose words

to illustrate how disyointed norms

had become in his home community.

How is it that people who have such

tender love and regard and

infatation with their own children

and their own families can then act

so detrimently in their interests,

in the way they spend their money

and in the way they prioritise

and in the way they prioritise their time and in the way they divert

their attentions? It's a great

paradox. So much love and yet the

incentives are so tragically

misaloined that that love does not

translate into a full tummy

attending school at 8.30 when the

bell rings. And Mr Pearson blamed welfare dependency for eroding

the pride and capabilities of Indigenous communities to engage with mainstream Australia.

In Queensland at least the life

expectancy of an Aboriginal house

has been suggested to me by the

relevant Queensland minister is

relevant Queensland minister is less than 10 years. Well, that is a real

indication of the fact that the

families who live in them have

absolutely no skin in their house.

It's just been provided on a plate

and unless we get. Mr Pearson cited the controversial issue of housing as one area where welfare had eroded pride through handouts.

It is unacceptable at the moment.

It is unacceptable at the moment. We need to deal with the home

ownerships and the vepts and in a

wide range of issues and so I'm a

great supporter of Noel's. You've

got to get the sentiment right.

There are many disincentives to br

brought in. He is very right to raise it. Mr Pearson said the Federal Government had listened to his ideas with a sympathetic ear. Tom Iggulden, Lateline. Returning now to our top story, and the emerging concerns that draft anti-terror legislation may be unconstitutional. Just a short time ago I spoke to Professor Don Rothwell - chair in International Law at the University of Sydney and Director of the Sydney Centre for International and Global Law - and constitutional law expert Professor George Williams, who's currently in London to review the British anti-terror laws. In his most recent book, 'The Case for an Australian Bill of Rights - 'Freedom in the War on Terror', Professor Williams argues that the threat of terrorism only increases the need for the protection of basic rights.

Thanks to both of you for joining us.

Thanks to both of you for j. You're welcome, Tony. Thank you,

Tony. Can you explain the general

proposition being made by the Queensland Solicitor-General, the

committee elements of the proposed

or the draft anti-terror laws are

unconstitutional? Well, the'm seems

to be this: that the Australian

Constitution provides for a

separation of power between the

different arms of government and in

particular says that the judges in

the you dishry must be kept

the you dishry must be kept separate from the other arms of government.

The problem here may be that by

giving special powers to judges

you're breaching that separation

you're breaching that separation and calling their independence into

question. It may well be that

question. It may well be that public confidence in their functions could

be lessened. This is an area that

the High Court has looked at

extensively over the last decade

extensively over the last decade and it's a murky area of constitutional

law but it's an area if you don't

get it right it could be struck

get it right it could be struck down by the High Court. Alright. The

Queensland Solicitor-General is

saying in this case that

saying in this case that nonjudicial powers effectively would be handed

over to judges when they make

control orders. Could you explain

how that could be the case? Well,

what judges might be asked to do is

make committee decisions about

whether somebody should be subject

to this extraordinary restrictions

that wouldn't come act because

they're guilty of an ounce but

because sit thought necessary in a

different sort of way to prevent

terrorism or because there might be

suspicious activity. Normally junls

aren't involved in those types of

activities. Normally judges are

involved in declaring guilt or

innocence or determining the law to

involve them in something that's

more of an example of the state

imposing you and different

rescrikions upon citizens that

rescrikions upon citizens that could amount to something that goes

outside of what they are allowed to

do in the Constitution and if it is

outside the law could be invalid

outside the law could be invalid and it could be some time down the

track. It could be a year or more

when the court could intervene and

strike it down. You wouldn't know

now what the result is. You could

merely predict now there koild be a

challenge. There are counter'ms to

that, aren't there? Judges, for

example, are able to issue warrant

tas are somewhat similar to control

orders in their effect at least?

That's right. I mean, certainly you

can't say with any certainty what

the outcome would be and there are

High Court decisions that say some

functions like this can be

functions like this can be conferred upon judges. A good example is the

high court has held that judges can

be asked to decide whether

be asked to decide whether telephone tapping warrants should be given

tapping warrants should be given and junls are involved in that process

in a way to give independence and

respectability and some safeguards

to the process. If the High Court

thought this was akin to telephone

tapping warrants in all likelihood

it would be uphell. On the other

hand, there are some cases that

hand, there are some cases that have again the other way for example

where judges have been asked to

undertake special functions or

undertake special functions or roles on behalf of the government which

on behalf of the government which is thought to prejudice their

independence or call into question

their imparialty and that's when

their imparialty and that's when the High Court has struck down those

functions. If you like there's a

sprek trum for one and the other

sprek trum for one and the other and hard to know where it fits but at

the moment there are real concerns.

Don Rothwell, what do you think

about the argument that the

independence of judges could

independence of judges could somehow be tainted by exercising these

be tainted by exercising these kinds of powers? Lock, I think as George

Williams said the Constitution was

fairly leer in that chapter 3 of

fairly leer in that chapter 3 of the constus says that the judges of the

federal courts exercise the

federal courts exercise the judicial pow oar f the Commonwealth F they

are not exercising judicial power

then in what case are they

exercising power this instance? Are

they exercising something akin to

they exercising something akin to an executive power? That's precisely

the question that's at stake here.

And as George Williams has said,

while there are some grey areas and

where there are some incidental

aspects of judicial power that are

considered to be quit legitimate,

this is a completely new scenario

that we haven't seen before in

Australia and the fact that one Solicitor-General apparently in

Queensland has raised this issue

would suggest that there's

sufficient constitutional doubt to

cast some real concerns over the

long-term legitimacy of this

legislation. I think the Queensland

Solicitor-General is Walter

SofkonofQC. How much weight should

we attach to state's

Solicitor-Generals? What you can

say is they are appointed because

they're some of the most eminent

barristers in the states or within

the your diction. State

Solicitor-Generals are sometimes

apointed directly to the most

apointed directly to the most senior courts in our country, state

courts in our country, state Supreme Courts, state federal courts and

even the High Court. So these are

not opinions that won would trifle

with. They are substantive opinions

which would need to be taken quit

seriously by the governments

concerned. Don Rothwell, we've

obviously heard the law council

making its complaints and concerns

known. Do you get the sense that

those concerns are spread from

lawyers through to the judiciary?

Well, yes, I think that's quite

clearly the case. We've had reports

today of former High Court chief

justices Sir Anthony Mason and Sir

Gerard Brennan expressing concerns

about this legislation. Large

numbers of academic lawyers

expressing concerns admittedly

expressing concerns admittedly about different aspects of this

legislation. I think there's now

really a wide-spread concern

really a wide-spread concern amongst various members of the legal

community about differenting

community about differenting aspects of this legislative package. George

Williams I know you're out of town

in fact looking at the way the

British put together their

anti-terror laws and the review

process, but do you get the sense,

even from a distance, there's that

concern in Australia? Well, it's

very easy to track simply watching

the debate in Australia and it's

the debate in Australia and it's not surprising because these were

similar concerns to what were

similar concerns to what were raised a couple of years ago when we had a

very lengthiy debate after

very lengthiy debate after September 11 on the terrorism laws at that

time. The remarkable thing about

that debate is it was very open, it

went for a long period of time and

significant amendments were made to

the legislation T real feel I hole

here is we will rush through laws

that may be more significant in

their impact but we will do so

without the apes we need to make

sure they are balance

sure they are balanced and fair. If

the laws aren't get right they

the laws aren't get right they could be struck down by the high court

be struck down by the high court and the whole system could unravel.

I'll come to that process in a I

little while in a little more

detail, but the Commonwealth

Solicitor-General clearly has a

Solicitor-General clearly has a very different idea of what is and what

isn't constitutional and in fact we

may and we haven't heard yet from

the other states Solicitor-General

and we don't know where they stand

at this point. Why do you get such

major difference of opinion between

senior lawyers on issues like this?

Does politics play into this?

Does politics play in I think it is less politics and more there is

legitimate room for disagreement.

It's also an example that this is

It's also an example that this is an area of the law where people

dedisagree. Often you can ask two

lawyers in this area and often

you'll get three opinions. That

illustrates the central problem for

if government. It is really

if government. It is really breaking new ground for this type of

proposal. It does go into a tricky

and difficult area that raises

questions of constitutionality. It

knees to move slowly, I believe,

knees to move slowly, I believe, and deliberately to make sure it gets

the law right. If it doesn't do so

we simply won't know which of those

opinions is right because in the

opinions is right because in the end only one opinions matter and that's

the seven judges of the High Court.

What we can say at the moment is a

challenge could well be likely and

unless due care is taken the

government may ultimately face a

defeat. Is there any way of judging

at this point how a challenge - how

the present High Court would

actually lock at such a challenge?

Uhm, yes, you can look to some

recent cases on the High Court and

look to cases even over the last

year where they dealt with matters

of detntion of asylum seekers and

how far the executive government

how far the executive government can go with detaining people without a

fair trial N one of if most

important cases of last year the

High Court split four three in

empowering the government to have

people detained but interestingly

justice Michael Mccue was one of

justice Michael Mccue was one of the junls on finding on behalf of the

government. He's about to retire

government. He's about to retire and be replaced by Justice Susan Centen.

Who knows how she will decide this

case. It shows how finally balanced

these are in the High Court and

these cases can turn on very small

details in legislation, Mings that

might be overlooked and things

ultimately, though, that may shift

one judge one way or the other and

shift the whole result. Don

Rothwell, let's go to your main

Rothwell, let's go to your main area of expertise. If the states or even

some of them were to withdraw their

support from these new laws, does

the government have the power to

override their aboutions? Look, I

think they do, Tony, because there

is now a raft of international

conventions, UN Security Council

resolutions dealing with terrorism.

There's something like over 10

international conventions dealing

with terrorism in Australia as a

party to a good many of those. As a

result of the Commonwealth

Government's external affairs power

undeck section 51.29 of the

condition institution and a long

history of fairly expanded

interpretation give on the that

power by the High Court, most

prominently in the Tasmanian dam

case back in 1983, I think if the

Commonwealth did have to go it

Commonwealth did have to go it alone here, did have to try to enact this

legislation without the corporation

of the states, they could well and

truly turn to look at those

international convengs, those

Security Council resolutions to try

to draft legislation which would

effectively achieve much the same

outcome with one possible exception

and that's the issue of judicial

power that we've already canvassed

earlier this evening. On past

history, how likely is it, do you

think, they would be prepared to

make use of the external powers

here? Traditionally Conservative

governments in Australia have been

cautious about making extensivious

of international law as a means of

enacting legislation on our

constitutional power dealing with external affairs.

external affairs and Conservative

governments in the past have

strongly criticised Labor

Governments for their reliance upon

that power. But interestingly this

current government enacted very

wide-spread environmental laws in

Australia based on four

international conventions when

Senator Hill was the Minister for

the giant and that was quite an

innovative use of the ex ternt

innovative use of the ex ternt power and shows when push comes to shoef

this government will clearly rely

upon those conventions and

international law powers it thinks

it is politically necessary and

expedient. It's a bit of a

double-edged sword for them. Jon

Stanhope the Chief Minister has

Stanhope the Chief Minister has been arguing that in fact aspects of the

dracht laws would put Australia in

breach of some of its international

law legal rights. If you took the

view you were to put everything

view you were to put everything into the international basket you might

be in trouble? That's true,

be in trouble? That's true, however I believe if the High Court was

confronted with a constitutional

challenge raised on exactly that

point the court would say, "Well,

point the court would say, "Well, is there power founded in an

international treaty or a Security

Council resolution?"If they were

content to find such a power they

wouldn't necessarily be concerned

there would be a conflicting power

in a human rights treaty. George

Williams, do you think it is likely

that the government would turn to

the external affairs powers?

Well, if the states decided they

weren't going to support this

initiative they'd have to, they'd

have to turn there or perhaps the

defence power. The problem with

those powers even given the width

that Don talks about they are

exactly the same limitations that

we're talking about and that is you

have to comply with the separation

of judicial power and freedom of

speech by the way it is protected

from the Constitution and indeed if

the Commonwealth decided it had to

go it alone what you would find is

they'd have to wind back some of

their propose ands and couldn't

their propose ands and couldn't have lengthiy detention period and

ultimately would still to win in

ultimately would still to win in the High Court. Indeed, however they do

it, it strikes me if they introduce

this law on Melbourne Cup Day they

would take a punt on what the High

Court would do. What worries me is

the preparation and analysis you'd

normally have in a public debate on

these laws hasn't been undertaken.

You've been looking at the way that

the British anti-terror laws

the British anti-terror laws operate and the process they have there of

judicial review and the safe guards.

How different is the process when

you actually look at it happen

you actually look at it happening?

Well, in terms of the laws we

Well, in terms of the laws we start with that they're very similar.

Indeed John Howard said he wanted

Indeed John Howard said he wanted to follow the UK laws to bring about

best practice in Australia of

terrorism laws, but if you look at

the UK debate it is really starkly

different N here we have a human

rights act that does provide basic

protections for human rights that

give use a back stop, if u you like,

of those laws. That makes it a

fundamentally different legal

fundamentally different legal debate here than in Australia. On the

process itself there are big

differences as well. Tony Blair

pushed through a terrorism law

earlier this year in the UK but the

experience they had with that is it

is necessary to have a longer

debate. It's necessary to have a

full and frank debate and that's

full and frank debate and that's why there is now the law is being

there is now the law is being looked at by a robustly committee. I

at by a robustly committee. I tended that meeting a day or so ago here

and that committee asked the hard

questions you'd expect to be asked

of this law and you'd expect out of

that the Blair Government will need

to make changes to their terrorism

law. What you find in Australia is

the farcical situation where we

the farcical situation where we have a committee with not enough time to

do their job. We started off by

copying the UK law but the UK law

gets changed and we pass the law so

quickly we don't pick up the

necessary changes they've

necessary changes they've recognised here. What sort of judicial

safeguards do you think should in a

way match the British with their

human rights act, which we don't

have here in Australia, what

judicial safe guards could be put

judicial safe guards could be put in place to sort of match that in

Australia? Well f you want to have

the protection they now have in the

UK and indeed in any other

democratic nation in the world you

firstly need some decent form of

human rights protection. You need

human rights protection. You need to set down in your laws the basic

liberty use are seeking to protect

from terrorism. If you only have

laws that attacks terrorism you

don't end up actually protecting

don't end up actually protecting the things you are trying to safeguard

as part of the process. So you do

need a human rights about, a bill

need a human rights about, a bill of rights or whatever it might be

called. That doesn't stof tough

protection laws but they are

protection laws but they are against liberties. The other things you

liberties. The other things you want to look at in Australia is not just

involving judges making decisions

about control orders and other

things but ensuring there's proper

judicial review of the process so

judicial review of the process so if the judge makes a mistake you can

appeal or go to some other court to

make sure that proper

make sure that proper considerations are Makin into court, that the

process is fair so that all

process is fair so that all adequate information is considered.

Essentially that with these quite

dramatic restrictions upon liberty

that can occur there's a fir and

open process you'd expect to find

when any type of liberty

when any type of liberty deprivation occurs like this in other contebts.

Don Rothwell, what do you think

other safeguards would have to be

set in place to set the minds of

judiciary and Australian lawyers at

ease? I think the point that George

Williams has just been making is a

very good one in the sense if it

very good one in the sense if it was built into the current existing

legislation - that that's setting

aside the need for a bill of rights

- if we were to work with the

current existing bill, there could

well be mechanisms built in for

judicial review, but judicial

judicial review, but judicial review in which there could be an attempt

to balance the national interest,

the community interest in terms of

national security, but also the

individual interest in terms of

freedom, liberty, the exercise of

civil and political rights and that

could be very much built within an

existing human rights framework and

I think that would go quit some way

to addressing a number of concerns

raised by the legal community in

Australia. Alright. We are out of

type. The debate issen ofly going

type. The debate issen ofly going to continue for a short while at least

before the laws are enacted. Anyway,

hopefully we'll hear some more of

that debate over the next week or

so. Thank you very much to both of

you, Don Rothwell, George Williams

in London. You're welcome, Tony.

Thanks, Tony. Telstra's chairman has renewed his attack on the Federal Government's regulatory hold on the telco. Donald McGeckie says the controls are far worse and more damaging than he'd ever realised. In an extraordinary statement to shareholders, he said the current rules were depriving Telstra of its ability to compete. Philippa McDonald reports. So you've been a shareholder for how long? Yeah, since day one. Today Telstra's new CEO was face to face with shareholders who've seen yet another dollar wiped off the price of their shares since he took the reins just three months ago. Inside the auditorium Telstra's chairman delivered a blunt message to the Federal Government. Let there be no mistake - Telstra is committed to the Government's sale of its remaining stake in your company, but not at any price. The Telstra chairman says in the past eight years the number of telecommunications regulations has increased from 20 to 350. Regulations restrict Telstra's ability to compete. Our ability to compete in a rapidly changing and competitive marketplace. While the Government isn't commenting, Telstra says the cost of compliance to the raft of legislation has been a massive $2 billion over recent years. A price which today left shareholders shocked. I think the Government should give Telstra a fair go

in this increasingly competitive environment. And there was more bad news in store. Australians are giving up their fixed-line phones in favour of mobiles and voice-over Internet like never before. Fixed lines have traditionally been Telstra's big revenue raiser. We're not doing as well as we need to be doing. And we can't and won't hide the truth from you, our shareholders. But Telstra's shareholders were given few details on how the corporation's new management is likely to tackle these challenges. A strategic review which was to be released in time for today's meeting won't be available until November. Thousands of job loses are in store

and even Sol Trujillo wouldn't predict whether such cost cutting would be good for the share price. Philippa McDonald, Lateline. The US President, George Bush has named Ben Bernanke as his nominee to become the next chairman of the US Federal Reserve, replacing Alan Greenspan as the world's most powerful central banker. The former Princeton academic has risen swiftly under Mr Bush. Gaining a seat on the Federal Reserve and then chairing the President's Council of Economic Advisors, he's seen by many as a safe choice, with strong economic credentials and little political baggage. Professor Bernanke is a vocal proponent of inflation targeting. But he's signalled he won't be rushing the Fed into any changes. Our understanding of the best practice in monetary policy evolved during Alan Greenspan's tenure at the Fed, and it will continue to evolve in the future. However, if I am confirmed to this position, my first priority will be to maintain continuity with the policies and policy strategies established during the Greenspan years. Alan Greenspan will step down at the end of January after more than 18 years in the job. And world stock markets jumped on news of Mr Bernanke's nomination. In Australia, the All Ordinaries ended today's session up 34 points. Energy stocks were among the bright spots, with Woodside Petroleum up 3%. Mining stocks improved and Telstra shares rallied 8 cents. Now to the weather. And that's all for this evening. If you'd like to look back at tonight's interview or review any of Lateline's stories or transcripts, you can visit our website at: I'll be back tomorrow night, so please join me then. Goodnight. Captions by Captioning and Subtitling International.

This program is not subtitled