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.
Counter-terrorism laws a balancing exercise: -

View in ParlViewView other Segments

(generated from captions) terrorists abroad have in Australia and one of the important points

and one of the important points that I should emphasise is that even

before September 11, as tragic as

before September 11, as tragic as it was, we know that in Singapore

Jemaah Islamiahralian mission. It

was aborted by Singaporean

authorities. But since then there

have been a significant number of

events abroad where our have been a significant number of events abroad where our interests

have been targeted. The Marriott

Hotel, our mission, the Bali

bombing, and when you think about

not only those who were under

not only those who were under charge in Australia in relation to either

training with terrorist

organisations or planning terrorist

attacks here in Australia, you have

convicted a person who pleaded

guilty to the offence of planning convicted a person who pleaded guilty to the offence of planning a

terrorist attack and surveiling the

Australian Embassy and consulates

Australian Embassy and consulates in Sydney. So clearly we are on the

horizon and we remain on the

horizon. We look at what has

happened abroad and we look at

happened abroad and we look at where they might want to attack interests,

Western interests as they see it

Western interests as they see it and our major cities are obviously I Western interests as they see it and our major cities are obviously I

think targets which have not been

reached before, but where you could

well contemplate that we might and

how you deal with those issues are,

of course, the very basis for the

additional measure s that we've

announced in this week. Given that

background then, if there was

activity before September 11 then

you had a September 11, why did it

take the London bombing to bring

about these fresh changes? Well, what we announced immediately about these fresh changes? Well, what we announced immediately after

the London bombing was that we

the London bombing was that we would undertake a thorough review of all

of the measures that have been

implemented abroad and to see

whether any of them were measures

that we could usefully add to our

armoury here and the more notable

armoury here and the more notable of them, of course, are the control

orders and the preventative

detention arrangements and also the

notice to produce. Now some detention arrangements and also the notice to produce. Now some of

these measures might well over time

have been matters that competent

authorities would have said we

needed to address. Certainly the

notice to produce which gives you

notice to produce which gives you an alternative to a search warrant,

particularly for large companies

where you might wish to find

particular documents or particular

detailed information which they

detailed information which they know where it is and if you had to where it is and if you had to search for it would be very where it is and if you had to search for it would be very difficult to

find. The notice to produce

arrangements seemed to me to be

arrangements seemed to me to be very sensible. The other measures we

were aware were in place. We

were aware were in place. We hadn't previously thought it desirable to

go down that route, but in the

context of the number of people who

are of concern, the resources that

we have and the resources that we

have are not unlimited, we have and the resources that we have are not unlimited,

have are not unlimited, particularly in terms of covert surveillance.

Being able to put some people who

you believe may be engaged in

preparing for terrorist acts under

preparing for terrorist acts under a control order where you can

control order where you can restrict their movement, where you can

restrict who they contact and talk

to, can give you greater coverage

than you might otherwise have.

Let's talk about preventative detention. When will

Let's talk about preventative detention. When will that apply,

under what circumstances? Well the

measure is in two parts. We are

seeking additional period of time

for the Australian Federal Police,

but because of the way in which our

constitution is drawn, the fact

constitution is drawn, the fact that a period of detention particularly

if it's a long period of detention

might be seen to be punitive if it's a long period of detention might be seen to be punitive means

that it's not something you can

impose administratively. You have

to have it imposed by a court which

requires charges and evidence to be

adduced in support of those charges

and a finding. Is and so in terms

of preventative detention, short

periods of time as seen by our periods of time as seen by our legal advisers is to be periods of time as seen by our legal advisers is to be possible but

longer periods of time - and we

looked at 48 hours - would be

questionable. And for that reason

the PM is asking the States who are

not constrained in that same way to

look at whether or not this might

look at whether or not this might be a measure that they could usefully

introduce. And certainly the

Australian Federal Police believe

based upon the London experience,

based upon the London experience, particularly where you have a

multiplicity of attacks, there they

had four that were on the London

transport system and of course they

weren't to know within a relatively

short period of time there would

either be another set of attacks or

a copycat set of arrangements. But

they were of the view that

preventative detention - and I

preventative detention - and I think they used it on about 30 preventative detention - and I think they used it on about 30 occasions

in the United Kingdom - enabled

in the United Kingdom - enabled them to manage that situation far more

successfully than they might have

otherwise been able to do. This

would only apply then in the event

of a terrorist attack? ╝Yellow╛No,

it doesn't, but it means that there

has to be suspicion that people are

engaged in terrorist activities.

Just on suspicion, what constitutes

reasonable suspicion and who Just on suspicion, what constitutes reasonable suspicion and who

decides? Well, you asked this

question during the week Barrie and

one of the points that came to me

very much was that suspicion is a

formulation that the courts use

quite frequently in relation,s in

relation to conduct that they have

to examine. It's not a concept

that's unknown to the law and to examine. It's not a concept that's unknown to the law and it's

suspicion in the normal sense that

the circumstances and the evidence

that you have gives rise to a view

that the person that you are

that the person that you are looking at may be engaged in conduct that

could constitute a terrorist act.

And who makes that judgment?

And who makes that judgment? Well, the police would make that

judgment initially, but the police

would have to form that view judgment initially, but the police would have to form that view

reasonably and as with any

reasonably and as with any detention in our community, the prerogative

writ of habas corpus would be

tested. There's that terrible

example in London of mistaken

identity and somebody lost their

life as a result? That's a

life as a result? That's a different set of circumstances, but you're

right, people even police can make mistakes.

right, people even police can make mistakes. But the point I'm making

is that in relation to any period

is that in relation to any period of detention a) person detained would

be able to get legal advice and be

in a position to challenge the

detention and the question as to

whether or not the view was

reasonably formed. Now there's talk

of a sunset claws, is there really

any prospect, though, of

of a sunset claws, is there really any prospect, though, of reversing

these laws once they come in. The

threat of terrorism is likely to go

on indefinitely? I don't know

whether it will go on indefinitely

but it's certainly been likely than

many thought was likely and it is

certainly four years since

certainly four years since September 11 and we know now that significant

threats remain. So I would be the first to

threats remain. So I would be the first to agree that if you were

senseting it on the basis that it

would be one or two years it would

be highly likely that you would be

wanting a renewal. It would be many,

many years down the track? Well,

many years down the track? Well, the questions would have to be examined

in terms of whether there was a

reasonable need for laws of that

character. I don't think anybody

likes doing it. I've made the

likes doing it. I've made the point over a period of time and in the

earlier introduction. This point I think was earlier introduction. This point I think was well understood, that

think was well understood, that this is a balancing exercise in which

people's right to life and personal

safety and security - which is a

fundamental right that they are

entitled to enjoy and governments

have an obligation to protect -

have an obligation to protect - have to be weighed up with what steps

to be weighed up with what steps you can reasonably take to provide that

protection which doesn't unduly

limit other entitlement s that you

expect to be able to enjoy scp. expect to be able to enjoy scp. That balancing occurs

expect to be able to enjoy scp. That balancing occurs every day of the

week. People understand it in

relation to road rules where they

understand that your right to

understand that your right to choose on which side of the road you'll

drive is limit sod that people can

drive safely on lives. Here we're

dealing with terrorists 'threats

dealing with terrorists 'threats and there may well be some limits which

will impact upon some but not most

of the Australian community, which will limit who may

of the Australian community, which will limit who may might talk to,

where they might go. It doesn't

seem to me that they're

seem to me that they're unreasonable if you suspect that someone is

engaged in activity s that might

pose a significant risk to your

community. I want to ask you a

community. I want to ask you a about a couple of other issues. Tomorrow

Parliament will debate the Harvey

McManus matter, are you comfortable

with that situation? It's a

difficult situation in the context with that situation? It's a difficult situation in the context

that there is a matter before the

courts. The Government didn't

specifically initiate it. It

initiated an investigation in

relation to the leak of

relation to the leak of confidential material held in the department of

veterans 'affairs and when the

investigations were undertaken it

was found that the person who has

been charged with

was found that the person who has been charged with this leaking of

material was in contact with

particular journalists and the

particular journalists and the judge is seeking from those journalists

some evidence in relation to those

matters and that's where the

contempt arises. Now whether

contempt arises. Now whether that's a reasonable outcome, these matters

are governed essentially by the

common law. Yes, but will you

undertake to review the law? Is there a prospect undertake to review the law? Is there a prospect that you'll

initiate - The law is being

initiate - The law is being reviewed at the moment by the Australian Law

Reform Commission in relation to

Reform Commission in relation to its inquiry on evidence and the

Commonwealth will undoubtedly put a

position to the Law Reform

Commission and - Have you decided

what your position will be? Oh look,

I'm looking at a range of issues.

Look, there is some information I'm looking at a range of issues. Look, there is some information

Look, there is some information that is so important in terms of how

is so important in terms of how it's dealt with that there ought to be

consequences if you're getting

information in relation which can

significantly affect the financial

markets out of a budget, I think

there ought to be consequences. If

you're getting information in

relation to criminal investigations

which you might jeopardise or

intelligence inquiries which could be put

intelligence inquiries which could be put at risk, it seems to me

be put at risk, it seems to me there still need to be consequences for

serious behaviour of that sort.

serious behaviour of that sort. Now whether or not it should be

ameliorated for offences that

wouldn't have that same sort of

impact is something we'll obviously

look at. Just finally as I

understand it a teacher from Texas

is in custody in Melbourne facing

deportation. He was here to give a

series of workshops on peace activism. series of workshops on peace activism. Do you know anything

about this? Well, I understand it's

a decision that's been taken by the

minister for immigration and there

may be legal proceedings

may be legal proceedings surrounding it. I understand that the decision

was based upon a security

was based upon a security investment and you know security assessments

are not matters about which I can

comment in any detail. His I are not matters about which I can comment in any detail. His I see

visa has been revoked, that's a

serious action to take? Visas can

serious action to take? Visas can be revoked on character ground.

Character grounds can go to a

person's criminal record or broader

issues of security and if there is

an adverse security assessment

that's not a matter about which I

would be able to comment. His

supporters say, though, he's

would be able to comment. His supporters say, though, he's a '60s

peacenik and no threat to security?

I'm not going to comment about

matters about which assessments are

made by competent agencies. The

only point I'd make is that in

relation to those matters there are

provisions by which the decisions

can be challenged if people are

inclined to do that. OK, thanks for

your time this morning. Good to

your time this morning. Good to talk to you Barrie. your time this morning. Good to talk to you Barrie. Hi, I'm Belinda Hazel from Judbury in Tasmania. I believe the PM's right when he says that the Telstra executive should be talking up the share price and they haven't been acting in the best interest of the company in general. We are apple and stone fruit producers

and I also have a business with another partner in an agriculture horticulture business consultancy.

It's very important for us to compete in global market places

and to do that we need to get smarter at how we do things,

and one of the ways we do that is with communication.