PRIME MINISTER:
Ladies and gentlemen the Attorney General and I have called this news conference to make a number of announcements about counter-terrorism. As you are aware there will be a special meeting of the Council of Australian Governments on the 27th of September to discuss counter-terrorism measures and any desired changes to the existing law. What I'm announcing today is an outline of the Government's proposed approach. It is fortuitous that tomorrow there will be a meeting of the Legal Working Group attached to the National Counter-Terrorism Committee, which brings together the commonwealth and the states and much of what I announce today can be the subject of some detailed discussion tomorrow. In order to further strengthen our counter-terrorism laws there are some things that the Commonwealth Government can do unilaterally. There are some things that require a cooperative effort between the commonwealth and the states, and there are some things that only the states can do acting to the full extent of their own powers.
I'm announcing a number of very significant changes which will further strengthen our counter-terrorism laws and a press statement and a fuller outline of the proposals will be circulated at the end of this news conference.
The first proposal is a new regime to allow the Australian Federal Police to seek from a court a 12 month control order on people who pose a terrorist risk to the community. These would be similar to apprehended violence orders but would allow stricter conditions to be imposed on a person, such as travel and association restrictions and tracking devices. The Government will confer with the states and territories regarding the details of this proposal.
We also will be proposing a new preventative detention regime that at a commonwealth level, and this is so we are advised to the full extent of our constitutional power, detention for up to 48 hours in our terrorism situation. This detention is to be contrasted to the ASIO and police detention for the purposes of questioning, which is limited by the intelligence available to allow proper questioning.
As is the case in the United Kingdom, the focus of preventative detention is primarily about stopping further attacks and the destruction of evidence. At the COAG meeting we will propose to the states that they legislate, as they have greater power to do so, constitutionally for longer detention periods, and we have in mind a period of up to 14 days which is similar to the period which obtains in the United Kingdom.
We will propose a new 'notice to produce' regime to facilitate lawful Australian Federal Police requests for information that will assist in the investigation of terrorism and other offences. We'll seek powers to get greater access to airline passenger information for both ASIO and the Australian Federal Police. We propose to strengthen the existing offences for the financing of terrorism, providing false or misleading information under an ASIO questioning warrant and for threatening aviation security. We also intend to legislate for an extension of the stop question and search powers of the AFP where there are reasonable grounds that a person might have just committed, might be committing or might be about to commit a terrorism offence. We'll explore with the states and territories about extending these powers to police at transport hubs and other places of mass gatherings-including major sporting events as well as the use of random baggage searches and also a national code of practice for close circuit television systems for mass passenger transport sectors.
The ASIO special powers warrant regime will be refined to clarify the definition of electronic equipment and allow for entry onto premises in the computer access warrant provisions. Extend the validity of search warrants from 28 days to 3 months, extend the validity of mail and delivery service warrants from 90 days to 6 months and amend the search warrant provisions that provide that material may be removed and retained for such time as is reasonable for the purposes of security.
We also intend there be created new offences for leaving baggage unattended within an airport precinct, and inciting violence against the community to replace the existing sedition offence to address problems with those who communicate inciting messages directed against other groups within our community, including against Australia's forces overseas and in support of Australia's enemies. This incidentally is consistent with the Gibbs committee in its review of commonwealth criminal law back in 1991, which then recommended that the sedition offence should be updated and simplified and the maximum penalty increased from three years to seven years.
We also propose to clarify the terrorism offences in the criminal code and the criteria for listing terrorist organisations will be extended to cover organisations that advocate terrorism. This will be another issue that will require discussion with the states.
In the area of citizenship, we'll continue to work on visa and citizenship security and character checking processes but will move immediately to strengthen a number of the provisions of the citizenship act. We're going to extend the waiting period to obtain citizenship from two years to three years. Security checking of citizenship applications so that citizenship applications can be refused on security grounds, and we'll strengthen the deprivation of citizenship provisions relating to serious criminal offences to include offences committed in the period between approval of an application and the acquisition of citizenship.
And finally we're going to improve our terrorism financing regime to better implement criminalising financing of terrorism, alternative remittence dealers, wire transfers and cash couriers. Ladies and gentlemen the announcements I've just made represent a very significant but absolutely necessary strengthening of our counter terrorism laws. It will require the cooperation of the states to be fully implemented. I believe that there will be a disposition on the part of the states to support these measures.
We are very conscious that in all of these things a balance has to be struck between the liberty of the subject and the right of community to be protected. We have looked very carefully at what happened in the United Kingdom, we've had the benefit of briefing from the Federal Police team that went to Britain in the wake of the attack on the 7th of July. We've had a very lengthy discussion of this issue in the National Security Committee.
What I'm outlining of course, are the proposals which will of course be followed by detailed legislation as soon as possible. We are unfortunately living in an era and at a time when unusual but necessary measures are needed to cope with an unusual and threatening situation. I believe these measures do provide a lot of extra protection but they do not, given the circumstances in which we live, unfairly restrict the rights of the citizen. I think they do strike the right balance. I think they are overwhelmingly essential, but they on their own cannot guarantee this country will not be the subject of a terrorist attack. I do however believe that they will give to our law enforcement and intelligence agencies contemporary and necessary weapons to strengthen their defence of our way of life and our right as individual citizens to be free as far as possible from terrorist intimidation and terrorist attack.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard please on this incitement of violence provision as it affects Australian forces overseas and other - how do you overcome the definitional problems here that there? Would there be a fair bit of discretion left to a Judge or would that be spelt out in a more prescriptive way or what?
ATTORNEY GENERAL:
Well what we're seeking to do is to put beyond doubt that you can deal with these sorts of issues. But we're not certainly intent on taking away from people the opportunity to contest the evidence or to see that the evidence is within the framework of the law as we drafted. The submission offences, as the Prime Minister said, had been the subject of comment before and those comments in the Gibbs Review suggested that it needed to be refined. Obviously there are several areas in which we are concerned - those that were identified in relation to the sedition issue and went to the question of those who are critical of our troops, but also you've got the issues in relation to those people who may be advancing in a significant way terrorist attacks in Australia where our measures are limited. So we're dealing with incitement in a number of ways in relation to the way in which bodies might be prescribed, where incitement is clearly a factor that we want to see entertained and the broader issues in relation to the way in which sedition is seen.
JOURNALIST:
Does that actually include things like, there's a concept of glorification of terrorism that's been discussed in Britain at the moment?
ATTORNEY GENERAL:
Well look, I think the word glorification is a word that's being used. It's not the terminology that we will be using in the enactment. But I think conceptually it's conduct and advocacy that it is likely to encourage somebody to carry out a terrorist act that is of concern to you. Glorification I think, you know, again it's a question of how you get the balance right in relation to these matters and I think you'll find the words won't be about glorification but it will be in the context of whether the behaviour is seen as inciting somebody to carry out a terrorist act.
JOURNALIST:
You've played out a very broad palette of things you are going to do; do you envisage any of these measures having sunset clauses on them?
PRIME MINISTER:
We're not proposing them at this stage.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister there will be many in the community who will argue that these measures go too far and breach civil liberties, how are you going to answer the criticism that these measures will go too far and that Australian is essentially being turned into some sort of quasi police state?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is an absurd proposition, Steve. There is nothing in these measures that can possibly be regarded as creating a quasi-police state. Let us take the first of them; the control order. That can only be granted on application to a court. Those sorts of things are imposed without resort to courts in police states. So the police state proposition is wrong, with great respect, it is quite wrong. I mean you've got to go to a court to get a control order. And the preventative detention regime; it's certainly clear to me on what I was told in the wake of the attacks in London that the process of identifying people, particularly those who are acting in concert as quickly as possible as a means of ensuring that some other potential terrorist act does not occur, does involve a capacity to be able to detain people for a very short period of time to prevent the destruction of evidence to prevent the trail going cold. Look, nobody likes the fact that we have to do these things but I do believe that the suggestion that it represents a quasi-police state is really quite over the top.
JOURNALIST:
But isn't it a question of balance Prime Minister, there is a question of balance?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, it is a question of balance and it would be it would unbalanced if there were no, for example, with a control order if they could be imposed with resort to a court. That would be unbalanced.
JOURNALIST:
Why not have a sunset clause though Prime Minister, why not have a sunset clause Prime Minister, why not have a sunset clause?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, if the need for this legislation dissipates then the legislation can be repealed.
JOURNALIST:
Is this all there is or is there a possibility that we might see more legislation?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we never say this is it. But this does represent the product of very careful consideration, very careful consideration. But I'm not saying that we won't find it necessary in the near or medium term to further legislate.
ATTORNEY GENERAL:
Can I just say in relation to the control orders, when I hear comments that suggest that this is somewhat akin to what you might expect in a police state that it's modelled upon the provisions in the United Kingdom. So, you know, you're looking at countries that observe the rule of law of democratic institutions and were certainly not accused of being a police state when those laws were enacted there. And I equate this to something that we know and understand here in Australia which doesn't relate to anything as dramatic and as perilous as an act of terrorism where courts are granting orders every day. And that is in relation to apprehended violence orders where courts are able to outline a range of control measures to deal with the threat that a person feels. Now why when a person poses a broader risk to the Australian community as a whole should there not be a capacity to deal with the same issue in an equivalent way? It's certainly not the steps of a police state otherwise you'd have been out there arguing that apprehended violence orders were mechanisms used by a police state.
JOURNALIST:
What are you going to do with the sunset clause on the questioning and detention power when you bring in that new legislation?
ATTORNEY GENERAL:
Well we certainly considered whether we should make a decision in relation to that matter in advance of the Parliamentary Committee deliberations and the view we came to was that we would wait until we've seen what the committee says. But I've made it clear by my own observations that I think the powers are very necessary in the environment in which we're operating and at the very least there needs to be a substantial, a substantial extension of it. But my preference would be for the sunset clause to be removed altogether.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister how will you answer the charge that will no doubt be made that you, that you're making this...
PRIME MINISTER:
Could you start that again, you were...
JOURNALIST:
How will you answer the charge that will no doubt be made that you are making this very complicated announcement today in part to divert attention away from your government's troubles with Telstra?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is absurd. How will I counter it? I'd point out that tomorrow morning there is a meeting of the legal... let me get the description of it right: The Legal Working Group which is attached to the National Counter-Terrorism Committee is meeting tomorrow and it's made up of expert lawyers from both the commonwealth and the states and they will be able, in a very timely fashion, to have a discussion about what we have in mind. I will be going, of course as you know, to New York on Sunday to attend the United Nations meeting and I won't be returning for another week or 10 days and I believed it was appropriate that this announcement be made before I went and obviously that I would be involved in both the decision and the final decision and the announcement. That is a ridiculous proposition.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister there has been some discussion in Coalition ranks about deporting radical Muslim clerics and even your Deputy has talked about the issue of people with dual citizenship, just for the lay person how does the strengthening of the citizenship provisions fit into that debate, is there any connection at all in what you're outlining today?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what we have decided is what we've outlined today. I don't really want to get drawn into the general discussion. I take the view that people who are dual citizens do run the risk of being deprived of their Australian citizenship if they break a relevant Australian law. But what we are doing is looking at the changes independently of any particular debate in the community, looking at them against the need to strengthen our counter-terrorism capacity and I'm not going to make a judgement - I'll leave it to others to make a judgement as to how these decisions play into a particular debate.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister what about the Australia card is that off the agenda completely now?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, it's not off the agenda but it's not something that is directly relevant to the summit that we're having. We will continue our discussions with the states on what I would call identity security, which is something that's been the subject of discussion with the states in the past and I think that will probably come up at the COAG meeting. But the need was to get in place in advance of that meeting, the Commonwealth's position. I expect a lot of cooperation with the states on this. I'll be very disappointed and the Australian public will be very disappointed if there's not cooperation between the commonwealth and the states on this issue because the public wants protection from the threat of terrorism and they want the commonwealth and the states to put politics aside and to work together and I think its only fair that the states have an idea well in advance of that meeting. And bear in mind, it's now what, the 8th of September and the meeting's on the 27th, well in advance of that meeting. And that's why it's necessary to make the announcement this week. I think it's too late to leave it until early the week after next. And I think the timing of the legal, the expert group tomorrow makes today's announcement very appropriate.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister can you clarify on the incitement to violence provisions? Would that include speaking in support of insurgents in Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look it won't stop legitimate political comment. I mean I've made that very clear. I mean people will still be able to attack the Government for having sent troops you know, in Iraq or Afghanistan. It's not designed in any way to hamper or hinder free speech and political comment. But you know, as I know, and sensible people know, there is a difference between saying, you know, "I think the troops should come home. I don't think Howard should have sent them, I think it's a terrible mistake, he's a disaster" and actually encouraging people to attack them. That's an entirely different thing. And even people who are strongly opposed to our position on Iraq would strongly support measures to punish that kind of behaviour.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister if we were involved in something unfortunate overseas and it was reported or written about inadvertently caused a reprisal, would the person who wrote it or reported it be liable under those laws?
PRIME MINISTER:
You're asking me to give a legal opinion aren't you?
JOURNALIST:
Well.
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I think it is very, very difficult, apart from outlining in general terms, and Philip may want to go further, outlining in general terms what the intent and purpose of the legislation is. To ask me to give a precise definition and opinion in a particular hypothetical situation to which opinion and definition I will no doubt be held by everybody in the gallery in the future, I'm not going to get into that game.
JOURNALIST:
But that's got to be in the legislation, surely?
ATTORNEY GENERAL:
There is legislation to be prepared. It hasn't yet been drafted. A good deal of consideration has been given to it. People, and I in particular, were very conscious that proper commentary is something that you wouldn't want to in any way constrain. It's a question of behaviour that is likely to occasion an act of terrorism that you're concerned at, an act of violence. And it's the conduct that incites that, that we are seeking to look at. We are very conscious that the drafting issues also involve some constitutional questions that will have to be carefully looked at. And we will look at the way in which we will exempt matters such as non-violent dissent and so on as part of the process. But again, with these issues, we want to engage properly with the states and territories because they are involved in the whole counter-terrorism agenda in having given a reference of power and we also want to consult with our own members, who are very, very conscious in relation to these issues that we do need to strike the right balance. And the sort of questions that you're asking are often very much on their minds. So we want to try and ensure to the best that we can that there are no unforeseen consequences in relation to this.
PRIME MINISTER:
Can I just say we'll have to go because I've got to get ready for question time.
JOURNALIST:
Just one question on policy...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, I'm sorry. I just want to say something about the unemployment figures and then I'll take one more question if I may. The unemployment figures today show that for, I don't know how many months in a row now, we have a 30 year low. We've had 32,600 new jobs. We've now had 400,000 new jobs generated in the last 12 months and this is the largest 12 month increase in employment ever recorded. This is not a 30 year record. It's the largest 12 months job-lift ever recorded in Australia's history. And 1.7 million new jobs have been created in the time the Government's been in office and also significantly in today's figures, the labour force participation rate increased further to a new record high of 64.8%. And that is why the measured unemployment rate still has a 5 in front of it.
Now I don't want to see the labour force participation rate go in the other direction because a rising participation rate is the greatest piece of field evidence you have of people's confidence and their sense of security about the labour market. And it's a remarkable feature of this job situation now that we continue to have this very, very strong participation rate. So yesterday's figures and today's figures are very powerful evidence of the strength of the economy and in effect yesterday and today the figures have joined a couple of the dots. We wondered for a while why it was that employment seemed to be holding up so strongly in the light of an apparent slight weakening in growth - reality is that growth has resumed very strongly and those two economic dots on this occasion have now been connected. One more question. Mark?
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister there's been suggestions by the Indonesian President and by a leading French anti-terrorism judge that there's a heightened risk in the next couple of months of bombings in the region and attacks on financial centres. Does the Government see any heightened, particularly heightened, risk in the next couple of months?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if we had any reason to change our alerts, we have any reason to issue specific information, we will do so. I don't think it's a good practice to give generalised responses to those sorts of questions. I have to be careful. We all have to be careful what we say. But we have a current alert level and clearly the possibility of terrorist attacks is there all the time. Thank you.
[ends]