ABC’s “Lateline” program last night featured Australian Attorney General Philip Ruddock, discussing what may or may not constitute treason, “in the present context“, as he put it! No names, no pack drill!!!
I think many people might take heart from his words.
I’d like to urge people here to be actively lobbying “whoever” to ensure the full measure of the law is the full measure of the law. I suggest that, in his carefully regulated words, Mr Ruddock has made it clear that “the present context” is on the table, and I’d further suggest that precise lobbying is called for. It appears there are receptive ears. It would be a tragedy if the “National Forum” Islamic leaders have mooted with State and Federal Ministers was the only organised and systematic voice being heard. Can you imagine a more absurd proposition than our Muftis and Imams consulting with our Government on Australian Security!? Well…………
(The full transcript (below) contains a lengthy preamble on David Hicks situation – I’ve marked the section I refer to, towards the end of the interview)
A snippet:-

TONY JONES: …. I’m wondering this: what, for example, would an Islamic cleric in Australia have to do or say to be regarded as having been treason – having committed a treason? Would it, for example, would you regard it as treasonable if an Islamic cleric were to encourage young Australians to go abroad to fight Jihad?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, look, I don’t offer legal opinions in relation to the offence of treason, but I suggest to you that public advocacy of particular positions is not usually a treasonous offence. But there are some people who are suggesting if you make comments of that sort it’s inimical with your commitment to Australia and perhaps people in those circumstances could lose their citizenship. This is an issue about which there is some debate. We’re not ruling matters out that we’re looking at, but I’ve certainly made it clear that these are not black and white issues. They’re issues in which there are shades of grey. You have to have some discussion about these questions before you come to a final view.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT

LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1424034.htm

Broadcast: 27/07/2005

Ruddock to discuss Hicks’s case in US
Reporter: Tony Jones

TONY JONES: Now to the United States, where the Attorney-General Philip Ruddock is meeting with American security authorities to come up with new ideas for Australia’s counter-terrorism effort. In a few hours, he’ll be meeting with his counterpart in the Bush Administration, Alberto Gonzales. And he joins me now from our Washington bureau. Philip Ruddock, thanks for being there.

PHILIP RUDDOCK, ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Pleasure, Tony.

TONY JONES: What’s going to be the main focus, I should say, of your meeting today with Attorney-General Gonzales?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, Gonzales is not immediately responsible with counter-terrorism issues. I’ll be meeting with the representatives of the Department of Homeland Security and I’ve been meeting with other agencies while I’ve been here. But the Attorney-General is responsible for legal issues more generally and there are a range of matters in relation to the implementation of the free trade agreement, in relation to the trial of David Hicks, which is a matter that the Prime Minister raised when he was here and a matter I’ve raised with the Attorney-General before because we’re anxious to see it resolved quickly.

TONY JONES: All right. Let’s stay with David Hicks for a moment since you’ll obviously be talking about that again. What will you be saying to the Attorney-General today relating to the David Hicks trial?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, we’ve certainly been anxious that the legal impediments that seem to have been raised be addressed quickly and that the government be proactive in ensuring that those questions that need to be resolved to ensure that the military commission process can proceed are addressed and there are legal proceedings at the moment and I expect to be briefed on those. But, we continue to make the point, having been reassured that they have a substantial case to put, we want to see the issues addressed so that there can be a finding and the view that he is being held unreasonably a long period of time can be negated.

TONY JONES: Would you be protesting the fact that this is taking such an inordinate amount of time?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, I see from time to time with the separation of powers that we have that we can’t always control the time that courts take to deal with matters. You have to advocate the approach that you want. We have to do that at home and the US is faced with the same sorts of issues that if people want to go to the courts to test the lawfulness of a particular approach that’s been taken, they are free to do that. In the case of Mr Hicks, he was waiting a decision in the matter of Hamden. That’s validated the military commission process. He has some further issues he wishes to raise and his lawyers are now requesting adjournments of the process. So, we’ll have to see how that progresses. But, from our point of view, we want to see these issues dealt with as quickly as possible and it’s important to be on the horizon in relation to these matters and on the American’s radar, so that they know we are concerned that they are dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

TONY JONES: Are you suggesting that Hicks’ lawyers have effectively been delaying the process by challenging the military courts right to adjudicate on this?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: No. I’m saying it’s a natural consequence of the fact that you launch legal proceedings That they take time and when you launch the proceedings, those are decisions that are in your hands and the outcome is something that you have to live with.

TONY JONES: What can Alberto Gonzales as Attorney-General do, in your opinion, to hurry this along now?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, the Justice Department has been involved in assessing the evidence in relation to these matters and forming a view as to the appropriateness of the charges and formed a view it was appropriate to bring them in the particular instance and I certainly wanted to test those matters. It’s a reason I spoke to Gonzales before. It’s a matter in which I continue to seek their assurances because I don’t want to be in a position where we were with Mamdouh Habib. We were told part way through the process that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to proceed to a trial.

TONY JONES: Have you got a timeframe in which you want to see this resolved because it just seems to be stretching on forever?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, my timeframe is as soon as possible, but I don’t think I can fix arbitrary deadlines. These aren’t matters that are within our control, but we can express our quest for urgency.

TONY JONES: All right. Let’s go back to the other reason that you’re going to be in the United States. Is it fair to say that you may be looking to find a new suite of counter-terrorism powers, new ways to strengthen ASIO’s current powers, looking at what other countries, particularly the United States and Britain, are doing?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, I’ve always said that the counter-terrorism agenda is an unfinished canvass and you need to be proactive to see what others are doing that might give you some useful ideas that are going to protect the Australian community. I have seen now in New York the difficulties, I might say, because there are difficulties, in searching mass public transport for bombs and weapons and it’s a situation in which if you are addressing it even in a city like New York you can only do so on a random basis. It was interesting, in terms of the comments that were given to me, the very high level of acceptance amongst New York commuters that random bag searches were necessary in the present environment. People were seeking greater security. I think in New York because of the September 11 there is a considerable anxiety. There is a resolve to move forward, but anxiety about the fact that they are potentially targets again. So they wear a lot of these decisions which do impact upon people’s personal convenience.

(It gets good from here on)

TONY JONES: You made the point earlier that Attorney-General Gonzales is not responsible for counter-terrorism but he’s responsible for the administration of the Patriot Act. Do you think Australia needs anything like the American Patriot Act or do you already have effectively those powers?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: I think you asked the right question, Tony, because I looked at the measures that were included in the Patriot Act and primarily they go to issues in relation to surveillance of phone calls and the like. Electronic surveillance of telephone conversations and other forms of communication. They are matters that for both intelligence and law enforcement purposes we have a comprehensive suite of measures, subject to some updating to take into account some of the particular problems that arises as to whether you should use search warrants you’re looking at stored communications or emails, text messaging and the like, which can pass over a telephone line, but can’t be the subject of electronic surveillance in the normal way. So, yes, there are issues that we need to look at, in terms of updating our legislation, but the sorts of issues they seek to cover under the Patriot Act have been largely dealt with in Australia and largely not questioned.

TONY JONES: So, when you’re looking around for what you can actually do effectively, is there any new legislation that you have in mind?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Look, there are a range of issues that have been looked at from time to time. I mean, some arise because of sunset clauses that we have in relation to the questioning power of ASIO. That’s a matter on which if the power is to remain in place, we have to legislate again. I’ve argued very strongly that the power has been useful and I think it’s in the present context important that our agencies are able to get on with the job of intelligence enquiry. So, I want to see that matter dealt with. We’ve had a parliamentary committee looking at it. Presumably, they’ll have to consider whether the power has been properly exercised and useful and whether it should continue and whether it should be subject to further sunsetting. The only point I’ve made is that you have to be very careful – and we’ve seen this in the United States – sometimes when you seek to restructure organisations, when you’ve got to reinvent the way in which you work together, your operations have to be readdressed. Sometimes when you have to go through and legislate again, people have to make submissions to parliamentary committees. They’re doing things that aren’t necessarily their core business and you’ve got to ask yourself whether it is useful to take them away from core business.

TONY JONES: All right. Let’s go to one specific matter. Under what circumstances exactly do you believe that the citizenship of an Australian could or should be revoked?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, I think people have forgotten that we made some amendments to the law to do with citizenship to ensure that citizenship could be revoked if it was obtained by fraud, both in relation to initial migration decisions, as well as in relation to citizenship decisions and we require disclosure of character issues and they can be criminal offences, they can be terrorist activities that you might have been involved in, matters that go to security. If those issues have not been adequately disclosed by a person who is aware of them when they make their application, you can go back and revisit the decision as to whether the initial decision was a lawful decision and one they were entitled to and you can revoke citizenship if people have failed to disclose properly character issues. I think that was a very important development. There are questions now being raised about whether or not if, say, a person committed a treasonous offence, whether or not that’s in line with their commitment to Australia and whether in those circumstances citizenship should also be able to be revoked. The only point I’ve made is the revocation of citizenship might be able to be undertaken, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that you can remove a person if they’ve already lost the citizenship of any other country to which they were entitled. That can happen, particularly in Middle Eastern countries, a lot of Asian countries. They have provisions in their law whereby if you take out the citizenship of another country, your original citizenship is forfeited. So he would be left stateless and if you’ve got a person who’s stateless, you can’t remove them to another place. You’ve got to find another basis upon which you can keep them within your jurisdiction.

TONY JONES: OK, you’ve made that point before. I’m wondering this: what, for example, would an Islamic cleric in Australia have to do or say to be regarded as having been treason – having committed a treason? Would it, for example, would you regard it as treasonable if an Islamic cleric were to encourage young Australians to go abroad to fight Jihad?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, look, I don’t offer legal opinions in relation to the offence of treason, but I suggest to you that public advocacy of particular positions is not usually a treasonous offence. But there are some people who are suggesting if you make comments of that sort it’s inimical with your commitment to Australia and perhaps people in those circumstances could lose their citizenship. This is an issue about which there is some debate. We’re not ruling matters out that we’re looking at, but I’ve certainly made it clear that these are not black and white issues. They’re issues in which there are shades of grey. You have to have some discussion about these questions before you come to a final view.

TONY JONES: All right. Where is your thinking going on this, though? I mean, you’re the Attorney-General and in the end you’ll have to work up the legislation in consultation with your Cabinet colleagues. Are you thinking…

PHILIP RUDDOCK: That’s right –

TONY JONES: …of loosening up – are you thinking of loosening up the definition of treason, for example?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: The issues in relation to treason were addressed in our counter-terrorism laws initially, but we will be looking again at all of those questions to see whether there are shortcomings. Look, the sorts of matters that I think will be on the immediate agenda go to questions of proof, go to the way in which evidence is dealt with; sometimes it can be how you deal with obtaining evidence from people who are abroad where you might want to use video links. There’s the protection of the adequacy of the protection of security-related information in relation to terrorist offences. There are a range of question that officials are undertaking a proper examination of now. But when the Cabinet looked at these issues, we took the view that any matter that was reasonably on the agenda would not be dismissed out of hand. And of course, people are picking up on issues, such as an ID card, such as revocation of citizenship. They are difficult issues and we’ve acknowledged that. We’ve said they’re on the agenda. We’re prepared to look at them. But that doesn’t mean we’ve come to a concluded view.

TONY JONES: OK, finally, and briefly if we can, we’re nearly out of time – do you believe there should be a national terrorism summit to debate and thrash out some of these issues with both state and federal leaders and politicians present in public?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, look, there is a need for continuing dialogue. The Commonwealth was given complete powers by the states. It was a referral by the states of powers to deal with terrorism. But the fact that we were given powers to legislate and to pose terrorist offences for the first time in the Commonwealth Criminal Code, doesn’t mean that there is not a proper role for the states with their agencies who are more operationally appropriate to deal with a range of issues that we could confront in a terrorist situation. So, there is always going to be continuing dialogue and you would expect that and it is important that the Commonwealth and the states work together. We’ve worked exceptionally well together to date.

TONY JONES: Very briefly, what about a summit?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, there will be continuing discussions and the Prime Minister will make any announcements about that.

TONY JONES: All right. Thank you Philip Ruddock. Thanks for taking the time to talk to us this morning, your time.

PHILIP RUDDOCK: It’s a pleasure. Thank you, Tony.