MCGRATH:
Prime Minister good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Hello there.
MCGRATH:
Prime Minister what sort of legal safeguards will there be to protect human rights?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh a lot. Let's take the control order; you won't be able to get a control order unless the AFP has reasonable grounds for making the application. He'll need the consent of the Attorney General, but critically the control order can only be granted by a judge. There's some idea around that what we are proposing is that control orders, and these are orders restricting people's movements - they're not orders that put them in jail. But typically we would see a control order being applied for if a person for example, on information available, was likely to commit a terrorist offence and we had strong grounds for believing that; somebody who may have trained with a terrorist organisation but because that was not a criminal offence at the time the training took place, that person might be free in the community, but might be behaving in a way that gave grounds to believe he could be involved, or about to be involved in committing a terrorist offence. Now in those circumstances the AFP would go to the Attorney General, get the Attorney General's consent and would then have to appear before a court, a federal judge, or judicial officer in order to get the control order. Now that is the best safeguard of the lot. The granting of the control order would be in the hands of an independent judicial officer.
MCGRATH:
And what about preventative detention?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the preventative detention, what would happen in the case of preventative detention would be that initially you could hold somebody for 24 hours and then at a federal, under existing federal law, and then with the consent of an authorised person, meaning judicial officer of the commonwealth acting in an independent capacity, that could go up to 48 hours. We don't have constitutional power beyond that according to our advice and we would have to get the states to, as it were, backfill the difference between the 48 hours and the 14 days that we're seeking. And once again that would be subject to judicial review. The Commonwealth Ombudsman would have a role in relation to that and there would be an annual report to parliament.
So the proposals that we have put to the states already involve very extensive safeguards. Now I'm pleased at the response of the states, I think everybody recognises that we have to strengthen the laws and I am very positive. I'm very optimistic that we can achieve a sensible outcome. I want to work with the state governments. We have to pool our constitutional power in order to get the right outcome, and the Australian public want stronger anti-terrorist laws subject to proper safeguards. And what I've just outlined indicates that the safeguards are going to be there.
MCGRATH:
What about the other point raised by Western Australian Premier Geoff Gallop. He says that on preventative detention the Commonwealth is going to have very good arguments he says because to extend it for 14 days is a very serious step.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't think it's an unreasonable request though. The British have extended it to 3 months.
MCGRATH:
How much legal representation would people have access to?
PRIME MINISTER:
You can seek judicial review, you can have access to a lawyer.
MCGRATH:
How quickly?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it would depend; I mean if there were a possibility that the lawyer you were seeking access to might be in someway involved in a potential terrorist act, there could be difficulty. But subject to that, very quickly.
MCGRATH:
So the lawyer would have to be approved?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, it stopped short of saying that, it just is on the condition that I've outlined.
MCGRATH:
What about sunset clauses Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the problem I find with the sunset clause is that I can't predict precisely when terrorism is going to end. If somebody could tell me it's going to end in 5 years time, or 3 years time, or 10 years time I'd be delighted to start with, I think we all would be.
MCGRATH:
Wouldn't it be worth looking at in 3 years time though?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think there's a case for a review mechanism. I think there's a very strong case for a review mechanism. I think we can talk about that tomorrow. But we have to be careful of automatic sunset clauses when we don't know exactly when the threat against which we are legislating is going to end. And I only have to state that I think for your listeners to agree that because we don't know when the threat is going to disappear, it's a bit unrealistic to be talking about sunset clauses.
MCGRATH:
But Peter Beattie from Queensland is suggesting that you appoint a public interest monitor.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that would be a good idea if there were no judicial review and there were no judicial authority in relation to the issuing, say of control orders. But if, let's take the control order, if you can't get a control order, and this is the basis of our proposal without going to a judge, and people who are subject to control orders can go back to the judge at any time and ask for the order to be lifted, and if you have that, and you have to have reasonable grounds, you have to have the consent of the Attorney General, I would've thought yet another device would only run the risk of making the proposal unworkable.
MCGRATH:
So Peter Beattie is making the point in his view that this person is not a member of the government, he's not an employee of the government...
PRIME MINISTER:
Who's that?
MCGRATH:
Peter Beattie (inaudible) public interest monitor would represent....
PRIME MINISTER:
Hang on, with great respect that's what a judge, a judge is the guardian of justice and fairness. There's just as much argument for having a public interest monitor, if you like in relation to other cases. I mean if the judge weren't, if there weren't judge involved I would see the point of that. But having a judge involved I think will be seen by most people as a fair and proper balance. You have to establish your case and then you can apply to have the control order lifted and the Commissioner of the federal police has to satisfy a judge, not a public servant or not an Attorney General, but a judge.
MCGRATH:
However the public interest monitor could oversee the whole case, not just control orders...
PRIME MINISTER:
Hang on nobody should oversee what a judge does.
MCGRATH:
But what about...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, I'm sorry, that's fundamental to our legal system that you don't have somebody sitting above a judge.
MCGRATH:
Prime Minister it does seem that on both sides of politics essentially there is a commitment towards tougher laws, almost a race towards tougher laws. Kim Beazley announced yesterday his plan that would allow police commissioners to lock down certain suburbs and allow search powers in those certain suburbs if they were locked down. What do you think of that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's how it exists now. Frankly I watched Mr Beazley yesterday and I couldn't quite follow what he was asking for. Those sorts of powers largely exist at a state level now and we are proposing some more powers. But look I don't want to get into some kind of semantic debate with Mr Beazley if he's saying that he's going to support the stronger proposals, well that is fine. This is not something that I'm really interested in a particular exchange with Mr Beazley over. What matters is we've put forward a set of laws, proposals; we need the cooperation of the states to fully implement them. What I've heard so far the States are adopting a positive attitude. I certainly want to sit down and talk to them; I'll listen carefully to everything they have to put forward. But at the end of the day the public wants the Governments of Australia, the Federal Government working with the State Governments to reach agreement.
MCGRATH:
Do you struggle with this Prime Minister, I mean trying to balance community expectations but also civil rights, human rights, the interests of Muslim communities who are feeling targeted?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh I'm careful to keep all of them in the balance. But there's nothing in these laws that target the Muslim community. There is no foundation in anything I have said or anything anybody has said to justify that complaint.
MCGRATH:
(inaudible) those rallies in Sydney yesterday.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well can I say they are completely and utterly misguided and wrong, and they are listening to people who haven't read what I've said. There is nothing, there's not a skerrick, there's not a word in anything that I've put forward that can be portrayed as anti-Islamic or anti any particular religion. These laws are designed to protect the Australian community at a time of unprecedented and different threat. And in those circumstances nobody should see them as an attack on them. But we should equally understand that we're not dealing with a conventual challenge, we're dealing with a challenge the like of which our societies haven't seen before and we therefore need some laws of unprecedented toughness.
MCGRATH:
And the council of civil liberties says and I quote from them, in everyway this is bad, people are thought of as terrorists and there's no way to prove otherwise.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I just reject that. I mean they normally oppose any extension of the law and of course if something then goes wrong governments are attacked for not having acted earlier. Now I can't guarantee that these laws are going to prevent a terrorist attack, nobody can. But what I can promise the Australian people that I will continue to do everything I humanly can consistent with a proper balance for individual rights to protect this community against terrorism and I hope to enlist the cooperation, and I believe I will of the Premiers and Chief Ministers in Canberra tomorrow.
MCGRATH:
If you can't guarantee that Australia will be protected from an act of terrorism, what does it protect us from? All of a sudden there will be this new regime.
PRIME MINISTER:
It reduces the likelihood but I cannot give an absolute guarantee because it gives the authorities more power to apprehend people who they have reasonable grounds for believing might be about to commit a terrorist act. Now in those circumstances the risk is reduced. But what I'm plainly saying to the Australian people, just as I cannot prevent a flow through of world oil prices to the price of petrol at the Australian bowser, so I cannot guarantee that there will never be a terrorist attack in Australia. I hope and pray there won't be and I'll do everything I humanly can to stop it. But it would be unrealistic of me to guarantee it; no democratically elected leader could possibly do that.
MCGRATH:
Prime Minister we'll hear in a minute more about the David Hicks case, but he is applying now for a British passport, what do you think about that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's a matter for him. I don't have any comment on it.
MCGRATH:
Would it embarrass you if he was gained a British passport and then released from Guantanamo Bay?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't have any comment on it.
MCGRATH:
Prime Minister thanks for speaking to AM this morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]