GRIMSHAW:
Prime Minister good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Morning.
GRIMSHAW:
Have you been forced to water-down the anti-terror legislation from the draft that was leaked by Jon Stanhope?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. The changes that the Attorney General referred to are the changes that normally happen when there's a toing and froing between the Commonwealth and the States about legislation where we're acting together. This bill will enact the things that have already been announced, and they were announced weeks ago, and they were agreed at the COAG meeting several weeks ago. I guess Mr Stanhope is engaging in a bit of internal Labor Party politics because some of his own people don't like any legislation in this area, let alone this legislation.
GRIMSHAW:
Mr Stanhope is saying that the draft legislation that he saw went way beyond what he'd agreed to at the COAG meeting. Have you had expressions of reservation if you like from some of the State leaders, once they saw the sort of detail in the bill, in the draft bill?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, not one of them has been in touch in touch with me, not one.
GRIMSHAW:
Alright.
PRIME MINISTER:
And Mr Stanhope has in fact been attacked by the Acting Premier of Victoria for having leaked the document. You see we're not trying to hold the document back, but until the result of the process between the Commonwealth and the States... we agree on the final form of the legislation, there's not much point releasing it in a bit by bit fashion. What is going to be in that legislation is what I announced and what the States agreed to - no more, no less. I announced that we were going to have preventive detention. I announced that we were going have control orders. I announced that we would be expanding the sedition offence to include incitement of violent behaviour against the community. All of those things have been out in the public domain. Now obviously people are entitled to have a look at the final form of the legislation, and they will, but this idea that we have snuck in a whole lot of attacks on civil liberties beyond what I announced is completely wrong.
GRIMSHAW:
Which areas... you say that it's already been tweaked. Which areas have changed already?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they're drafting things; they're not areas of substance. I mean they're still going to have preventive detention. We're still going to have control orders. We're still going to have the expansion of the sedition offences.
GRIMSHAW:
Because the concerns are when you read the legislation and these are concerns that have been expressed by observers and expert if you like, that it's too broad and it's too subjective. Can we look at some of the examples...
PRIME MINISTER:
Sure.
GRIMSHAW:
For example police shoot to kill powers. The police will be empowered to shoot to kill if they... if someone that they suspect maybe plotting an attack, attempts to flee. If you look at that broadly and subjectively, wouldn't that been seen to be endorsing the sort of scenario that lead to the wrongful death of Jean Charles de Menezes in London?
PRIME MINISTER:
Those provisions Tracy, have been in the State Crimes Act for years - they have. Police all around Australia have the right to use lethal force if they suspect that a particular crime is being committed and that there is an imminent danger to the community, or members of the community. Now that is a very broad definition, it's the best I can recall of what is in the State legislation. And there is a similar provision in the Commonwealth Crimes Act, and all that we are doing is extending that provision to include terrorist offences beyond the normal criminal offences that might be covered by the Commonwealth Crimes Act.
GRIMSHAW:
Isn't it the case though that currently a crime has to have been committed before that power is bestowed....
PRIME MINISTER:
Not according to my advice no.
GRIMSHAW:
Alright. If we look at the provisions under sedition. Boxer Anthony Mundine said for example after the September 11 attack that America had brought it on itself and it wasn't terrorism. Technically wouldn't that be a breach of the law under the new legislation?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no because if you look at the defences you will find that that kind of free expression is a defence, no it's not - that is not right. That if I may say so is an example of the exaggerated fears that some people, not you, are putting around. What we're doing in relation to the sedition offences is really gathering together the existing sedition offences, which have been in our law for decades, and we're adding incitement to violence. Now that's not an incitement to violence, that's expression of his political opinion. And there's no way that any of these provisions are going to stop people attacking the Government's policy on Iraq, attacking the Government's policy on terrorism. But what it will stop is people encouraging people overseas to attack our soldiers in Iraq for example. And it should quite frankly; it should sanction something like that.
GRIMSHAW:
So none of these provisions will be changed by the time this Bill makes it to Parliament? Is that what you're saying?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, no what I'm saying is that these provisions will give effect to what was agreed at the COAG meeting. As to the final way in which that is expressed that continues to be a matter, as it always has been, of discussion between the Commonwealth and the States and discussion between the Government and its own backbench committee. I mean we're quite happy to talk about the technical efficacy of the drafting, but the substance of the law has already been announced and it does change the current situation in two critical areas - it brings in preventive detention for a period of up to 14 days and it also introduces control orders which will limit the freedom of movement of people who are properly suspected of being a danger. Now I acknowledge they are unusual, and I've been talking about that now for about two months, or six weeks, and it's necessary because we live in very unusual times.
GRIMSHAW:
Today we will see a major counter-terror exercise get properly underway I guess, and it will focus on, we understand, a possible Commonwealth Games sort of scenario. Is the Commonwealth Games the biggest foreseeable target in your mind now? Is that your greatest concern?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's the next great international event in Australia. Now I hope and pray that it's not a target but we have to be ready and we're going to have this exercise over the next few days involving cooperation between the Commonwealth and the States. About 4,000 people will be involved in it; there'll be simulated terrorist events in both Melbourne and Bendigo. There will be a focus on testing the response capacity of the Games, and that's as it should be.
GRIMSHAW:
If we need twice the spy power in this country, is five years too long to wait to get it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it will take that long to find and recruit the people and train the people who are needed. You can never double an army overnight, and you can never double a police force. You have to do it in stages. We had an investigation, an assessment carried out by Allan Taylor, a former head of ASIS, and he recommended this and the Government has accepted that recommendation. But this comes on top of almost a trebling of ASIO's resources since the 11th of September. There has to be a greater focus on home-grown terrorist threats. London reminded us that people can be raised as Australian citizens and turn against this country. I hope it doesn't happen, it's less likely to happen here but it could happen and we have to give ourselves the best chance of stopping it happening.
GRIMSHAW:
Alright, a couple of non-terror related issues to talk with you about this morning; can you confirm that China has asked to mine uranium in Australia?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm not directly aware of any approach other than the normal interest of companies in which Chinese financial interests may in turn have an interest. If China, or indeed anybody else, wants to mine uranium in Australia they'll be subject to the same laws as anybody else; that's our foreign investment laws. They'll have to get permits and so forth from the various state authorities. And of course they'll have to comply with our uranium safeguards policy that was laid down more than 20 years ago, with remarkable foresight as it now turns out, during the years of the Fraser Government. So we will just deal with all-comers in accordance with our rules.
GRIMSHAW:
Alright. On another issue, what do you think of a national exam to replace the HSC?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm not sure that you should have uniformity for uniformity's sake. I am in favour though of having a situation that if you get a qualification in one part of Australia you should be able to ply your trade or win admission to a university or a higher education institution in another part of Australia. In other words there should not be barriers for Australian students crossing states and one of the things I'm negotiating with the Premiers at the moment is to get rid of all of these barriers in the trade qualification area. And I think we'll make some progress on that very soon. I might see a national exam maybe as a supplement to the existing set of exams, but if everybody were to agree then there would obviously be some merit. But we shouldn't just see total uniformity for its own sake as necessarily being the most sought after goal.. It's really a question of having a good curriculum. I mean I think we've had made a lot of mistakes in education in this country over the last 30 years. I mean we stopped teaching people grammar. All of the schools, well most schools, stopped teaching people grammar several decades ago and we are now paying the consequences of that. And of course we made a terrible mistake in abandoning technical schools a generation ago. Now if we get the right outcomes I'm in favour of uniformity, but not just for its own sake.
GRIMSHAW:
Thank you for your time this morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]