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.
Friday Forum -

View in ParlViewView other Segments

(generated from captions) As we've heard, the Prime Minister is to meet the premiers next month for a special summit on counter-terrorism. On the table: how to deal with those who advocate terrorism and the question of identity cards. Labor's Kim Beazley approaches the issue differently - he wants Australia to adopt the US model and create a Department of Homeland Security to co-ordinate key activities on intelligence-gathering and border protection. In the mix are civil liberties and renewed concerns about David Hicks. This week, three former US prosecutors described the military commission process set to try Hicks as "deeply flawed". And former High Court judge Mary Gaudron questioned the Government's objectivity in the matter. With Parliament set to resume next week, tonight, we seek the views of two key players: Nicola Roxon, Labor's Shadow Attorney-General - she joins me from Melbourne - and in Adelaide, the Government's Minister for Ageing, Julie Bishop.

Good evening to both of you. Good evening. Good evening, Maxine.

Labor has consistently called for

a fair trial for David Hicks, but

has stopped short of calling for

him to be tried back in Australia.

Why is that? Well, I think our

Why is that? Well, I think our key concern has always been that there

has to be a fair process. We want

people who are accused of being

involved in terrorist activities to

be tried and to be brought to

justice, but our concerns are that

that process has to be a fair one

that process has to be a fair one so that when or if there is a

conviction we can all be confident

in locking someone up for the

in locking someone up for the crimes they've been involved in. Now, that

can happen in a US court, that can

happen in an Australian court, it

can happen in a number of systems.

We just don't believe that the

Military Commission process is fair

and is ever going to be able to

deliver that outcome confidently.

As you know the British have

As you know the British have taken responsibility for all of their

nationals who have been detained in

Guantanamo Bay. Absolutely. They

stand in stark contrast to what the

Howard Government has done. Mr

Rudduck and Mr Howard have always

washed their hands of those who've

been held in Guantanamo Bay and I

think Australian citizens are

entitled to expect more from their

government and it's not really

asking for that much to say, "Let

the process be fair. Let the people

be tried. Let the evidence be

be tried. Let the evidence be tested and then if they're convicted we

and then if they're convicted we can all be confident that that's what

they deserve. If they're involved

they deserve. If they're involved in these activities they should be

tried, convicted and put in prison,

but not detained without charge,

but not detained without charge, set up in a rigged system, as it's been

described by those in the military,

and it just surprises me that Mr

Rudduck is the only person now in

the country that seems to believe

that this process is fair. It will

be interesting to see what Julie

be interesting to see what Julie has to say because I know she holds

these sorts of civil liberty issues

close to her heart as well and I

think it's worrying for many people

in Australia that this is what has

happened. Julie bishop? Maxine,

let's put this in context. David

Hicks was captured by the Northern

Alliance in Afghanistan. He was

handed over to the US military.

handed over to the US military. He's been in Guantanamo Bay, detained.

He's now facing a Military

Commission and the US Court of

Appeals recently reviewed the

Military Commission process and

found and ruled that it was

appropriate in these circumstances.

Now, our own High Court takes

account of US Court of Appeal

decisions. It's a civil court, the

highest in their land. We've also

had imput into the Military

Commission process and I believe

that David Hicks should be allowed

to get on with his trial, the

Military Commission trial. No date

has been set for this trial? A

suburban boy for Adelaide was

fighting with the Taliban,

regrouping with the Taliban after

September 11. But Julie Bishop, as

you know, David Hicks has been held

for four years. I mean, why has the

government tolerated this sort of

treatment darsd one of its

nationals, regardless of what he's

done? The government is urging

done? The government is urging the United States to get on with the

Military Commission process. There

have been a number of legal

technicalities and interventions,

but recently in Washington, the

Prime Minister urged thest to get

Prime Minister urged thest to get on with the Military Commission and

with the Military Commission and the Secretary of State confirmed that

that would happen. Yes, but you

that would happen. Yes, but you eve seen the chorus this week. We've

seen the chorus this week. We've had three military prosecutors speaking

out against this Mary gau dron, the

British Attorney-General Lord

Goldsmith. What is it that all of

these people know about what they

say is a flawed process that Philip

Ruddock doesn't get? Well, Maxine,

there will be a variety of views on

this and many other top picks.

this and many other top picks. We're in unknown territory in many ways,

but I repeat that the US Court of

Appeals has reviewed the military

MiG process and has demeanoured it

appropriate in these circumstances.

I don't think that's actually

technically right. I know we don't

need to go into all of the details

of it, but the court has said that

the President has the power to set

up these commissions. It's

up these commissions. It's different to saying that it's appropriate. I

think that actually there aren't a

variety of views on this issue.

There is only Mr Rudduck's view and

everybody els. Nicola Roxon, as

everybody els. Nicola Roxon, as you know, Philip Ruddock has rejected

this and makes the point that via

our representatives in Washington

the government has every reason to

be satisfied with the process.

Well, I think it's almost

Well, I think it's almost impossible for the public to be able to

for the public to be able to measure whether Mr Rudduck is being fully

honest with us in these

circumstances or not. On the one

hand he says he hasn't actually

hand he says he hasn't actually seen what the case against David Hicks

what the case against David Hicks is and he's leaving that to the US. On

the other hand, he leaks out parts

of the information when it suits

of the information when it suits him Don't think we can really see

whether or not he's adequately

testing these allegation as and

when you've got the military

personnel, people employed by the

US military, putting their jobs on

the line with the guts to say,

"This process is unfair." Surely

that's enough for Mr Rudduck to

think again. Julie, you wanted to

come in there. The allegations have

been vetted. The US Court of

been vetted. The US Court of Appeals case I've referred to was

case I've referred to was subsequent to that. We've had imput into the

Military Commission process. We're

satisfied that the matter should

proceed; that David Hicks can

present his case to this Military

Commission. The whole world is

watching and I believe that he'll

watching and I believe that he'll be able to have a trial and put on the

word his reasons, his explanation

for what he was doing in

for what he was doing in Afghanistan after September 11. But surely,

Julie, you and a number of others

will want this discussed in your

party room? I feel sure that there

are people in your party as well as

in ours who are very concerned

in ours who are very concerned about the allegations that have been made

and would want to make sure this

process is squeaky clean; that if

we're going to convict people --

The alternative, Nicola, is to

The alternative, Nicola, is to bring him back to Australia where we have

legal advice that he could not be

charged under Australian law

charged under Australian law because we don't have res tree inspective

criminal laws that relate to

terrorism. The alternative is

unacceptable. The legal advice

exists to the contrary, but we

exists to the contrary, but we don't even need to be -- We can argue

about whose legal advice would

about whose legal advice would stand up. -- we don't need to be in that

argument. There are other

processes, such as using the US

civilian courts, which are

established processes which

everybody agrees do meet the

standards of a proper and fair

trial; that the US Government is

choosing not to use and we think

that Mr Rudduck and the Australian

Government could be pushing harder.

Any Australian citizen is entitled

to the basic rights to a fair trial.

We have no sympathy for people who

are involved in -- You are assuming

this won't be a fair trial. I don't

accept that. You've no basis for

saying that. As I said, the US

saying that. As I said, the US Court of Appeals have considered this,

post-the allegations made and they

said, they ruled it was appropriate

in these circumstances. It is

interesting, Maxine. The Australian

goft has had imput into the

goft has had imput into the military process and I believe we should get

on with allowing David Hicks to

on with allowing David Hicks to have a hearing and put his explanation

before the Military Commission.

A quick comment before we

A quick comment before we move on.

A quick comment before we move on. I have to revise my view that it is

Mr Rudduck and Julie Bishop who are

the only two people in the country

that think it will be fair. It

raises the wider question of how

prepared we are to go to make

ourselves safe. This question has

gained extra impetus in the wake of

the London bombings. How does the

government see this question, Julie

Bishop, of security versus liberty?

Clearly, we have to strike a

balance. One of the great

underlying values in our country

is freedom of speech, for example.

We have the recent case of the

Islamic cleric saying some things

that many Australians, most

Australians, awe Australians would

find abhorrent. Yet, again we have

to balance the right to freedom of

speech with the responsibility that

comes with that right. So in all

thanks that we're facing, in terms

of the security issues, terrorism

concerns, we have to strike the

right balance and not lose the

values that make this country the

great place that it is. You've

great place that it is. You've just referred I think to Abu Bakar who

referred I think to Abu Bakar who in the last 24 hours has been saying

the last 24 hours has been saying as many would regard as repugnant

things. Should we tolerate that?

As I said, we assume a right to

freedom of speech in this country.

Yet, every right carries a

responsibility. There are limits to

freedom of speech now. We have

freedom of speech now. We have civil and criminal defamation laws, for

example. I believe that when people

use words to actively promote

violence or incite terrorism, then

there should be limits on the

freedom of that speech, as we do in

other areas. Nicola Roxon, how do

you see this because it may be when

the Prime Minister gets together

with the premiers what is discussed

is this new law that the British

is this new law that the British are talking about, an incitement,

indirect incitement to commit

terrorism. I think it is important

for us to check whether or laws can

cover things appropriately. I agree

with Julie that the line that needs

to be drawn is people who are

inciting violence or damage to

property should be able to be held

to account. The freedom of speech

to account. The freedom of speech in debating ideas and issues is quite

different to encouraging people to

commit acts of terrorism or other

violence and if our laws aren't

adequate then it does need to be

addressed. But getting the balance

right is really critical and I

right is really critical and I think that actually by and large the

parties have worked quite well

together on this, but in the past

we've actually seen Labor using the

Senate process to do what we think

has been really important in

improving many of the proposals

improving many of the proposals that the government has put forward in

this area and I think even the

government has conceded on many

occasions that the Senate Committee process

process and other things have

improved the legislation. I've got

to say I'm worried about what will

happen in the new environment when

the government has control of the

Senate. I hope it doesn't let that

go to its head and is prepared to

negotiate out new snait committees

and use the expertise there also

and use the expertise there also is in the Labor Party in acknowledging

that the balance between these

issues is a difficult one and we do

need to make sure we get it right

and don't overreact to

and don't overreact to circumstances that are happening around the world.

Alright. I just want to move on

now, if I can, to another issue

that is almost as contentious. Of

course that's the Federal

Government's proposals around

industrial relations. Julie

Bishop, we saw a meeting between

Kevin Andrews and the - his state

counterparts. The upshot of

counterparts. The upshot of course is the states now are headed for

is the states now are headed for the High Court and a challenge on this

one. Well, it was perhaps a

predictable outcome, but the

legislation hasn't been introduced

into party yet and so for the

into party yet and so for the states to declare that they are

(parliament) are going to the High

Court on legislation they haven't

even seen I would suggest is

premature because any High Court

challenge could only occur after

challenge could only occur after the legislation is passed through both

-- Sure. It's not premature

apparently to spend billions of

dollars of taxpayers' money on an

advertising campaign for the same

law that hasn't been drafted. It's

law that hasn't been drafted. It's a crazy situation. My point is the

jut,of the states' meeting today

jut,of the states' meeting today was in fact nothing new has occurred.

Our minister offered a proposition

to the states that they would

co-operate with with one unified

national system in rel to

national system in rel to industrial relations laws. The states have

apparently rejected that and say

they will take their case to the

High Court. My point is until such

time as the legislation is actually

passed into law there won't be any

court - High Court -- Can I

interrupt. You've got states'

writers in your own party who are

very uneasy about this, haven't you?

Well, what we saw today was not

about states' rights but about state

governments rights and they don't

protect state governments rights.

protect state governments rights. (Laughs). What we need to

ensure productivity into the future

where we have an ageing population,

ageing population, a flexible

industrial relations laws to

industrial relations laws to enhance productivity to enhance workforce

participation. Let me give you just

one statistic that came out of the

intergenerational report. Currently

we have 175,000 new entrants to the

workforce every year. Because of

workforce every year. Because of the ageing of our population and the

retirement patterns of our

population, the entire decade of

population, the entire decade of the 2020s there will only be 125,000

2020s there will only be 125,000 new entries. Why is the government

restructuring the system where the

pendulum swings way back in favour

of the employer. That's not the

case. The case in fact is very much

supportive of employees. There's a

shortage of labour in this count

industry and that's the flip side

industry and that's the flip side of having such low unemployment levels.

The employees are in a very strong

position, stronger than perhaps for

decades, to enable them to

decades, to enable them to negotiate their conditions, the flexibility

their conditions, the flexibility of the arrangements that they want and

we must do this to ensure a

productive economy and an enhanced

workforce participation in the

country. It is essential. Nicola

Roxon, a reply on that. Labor is

also challenging the govern Nance

also challenging the govern Nance IR proposals on a number of fronts

proposals on a number of fronts also in the High Court about the

government advertising. What's that

about? Well, exactly. It's

terrible to hear Julie want to sort

of run out these lines about

productivity and an ageing

population when we don't even have

answers from the government on what

it is they actually intend to do to

working conditions in this country.

It surprises me that she says, "The

states should wait and not

states should wait and not challenge this as an issue even although

they've already committed as a

government millions of dollars to advertise

advertising which is our money,

taxpayers' money spent on this

campaign." I'm actually a plaintiff

in action in the High Court because

we don't believe that the

we don't believe that the government has properly got permission from

has properly got permission from the parliament to actually use this

money on an advertising campaign

money on an advertising campaign and I think that, again, it looks like

the power has gone to the

government's head. They think that

taxpayers' money is just a Liberal

Party slush fund to be spent on an

advertising campaign for laws which

haven't yet been trafted, let alone

put into the parliament. We think

that's wrong. We think it's a waste

of money. We're also going to test

whether it is actually illegal as

well. Finally, Julie Bishop, when

will we see the detail? Just on

that. If the states are taking a

case to the High Court on some

case to the High Court on some basis that we come up with will be

unconstitutional I'm surprised that

the Keating government used the

corporation's power to drive home

its industrial reform act so we are

relying on the same power, the krp

rations power under the

rations power under the Constitution to introduce industrial relations

reforms. The debate as Julie knows

and everyone knows, is not about

and everyone knows, is not about the constitutional head of power. It's

about what Mr Howard wants to take

away from working people. We don't

have an answer tonight from Julie

whether people are going to have

their lunch breaks, whether they're

going to have Christmas Day or

going to have Christmas Day or their annual leave. These are the things

that ultimately have to be debated

and we're really having a bit of

shadow boxing, I think, until the

government comes clean and gives us

some answers on what they really

intend to do. Julie, I know you

can't range overall of those things

and we are close to time, but can

you give us any idea when we'll see

the detail of this? I'm assuming

the legislation will be introduce

mood the parliament on this sitting.

We return to parliament on Monday.

I'm sure there will people drafting

the legislation as we speak and

the legislation as we speak and very shortly we'll be in a position to

consider the detail that's designed

to ensure that we have enhanced

workforce participation, greater

productivity begins in this country.

Alright. We'll be revisiting this

one no doubt. For a lively

discussion tonight, thank you

discussion tonight, thank you both very much, indeed. Thank you,