Doorstop Interview - 3rd November 2005
E & O E - PROOF ONLY
I just wanted to talk about counter-terrorism this morning. We are very
concerned after the Government needed to make some technical changes in
the Parliament yesterday that they didn't take up our offer to have
them passed through the Senate last night.
We are now concerned with all the media coverage and want to be assured
that operational matters have not been compromised as a result of the
actions the Government took yesterday.
Secondly, now that more detail has emerged about the agreement between
the Premiers and the Prime Minister on the bigger counter-terrorism
package, we are again calling on the Government to release the Bill. It
is now time that they did so.
We are very pleased Labor has been able to effect the outcome on this
package. I am glad that judicial review, in particular, has been
inserted into the preventative detention regime.
We are obviously waiting to see the details on a range of other matters
and we call on the Government to release that now so that that scrutiny
in the parliament can start.
JOURNALIST: Why is it you out here expressing concern on operational
matters when it is Kim Beazley and Arch Bevis that received the
briefing?
ROXON: It is a matter that a number of us have coverage of. It is true
that I was not briefed. I am concerned about the impact it could have.
Obviously [the briefing] is a matter that I am not in a position to
make any comment about. But it seems to us that if this was urgent and
needed to be pushed through the parliament - it was a minor technical
matter, so we are not concerned about the content of it - then it seems
strange to us that the Government wouldn't take the opportunity to use
the Senate and pass it last night, rather than do it today. There has
been an extraordinary amount of coverage, so we are concerned to make
sure that operational matters haven't been compromised. Obviously we'll
be watching that closely.
JOURNALIST: Are you saying the Prime Minister shouldn't have made that announcement yesterday?
ROXON: That is a matter for him. What I am saying is that the steps
that have been taken do raise a question about whether or not
operational matters have been compromised. We hope that they haven't. I
guess this is just an example of where we have made an offer to work
with the Government in the national interest that they haven't picked
up. We think they should have. It is a point that is important to be
made.
JOURNALIST: Wouldn't Kim Beazley and Arch Bevis, who were part of the
briefing, be able to tell you whether or not they thought operational
matters have been compromised?
ROXON: It is unrealistic to think that as an opposition we can make a
thorough assessment of the information that is available. At the end of
the day, the Government has that information. We are concerned whether
or not operational matters have been compromised. That is something we
will be watching. Obviously it is another matter you will be putting to
other people throughout the day.
JOURNALIST: How could operational matters have been compromised?
ROXON: Well, I think by such a public discussion of these changes,
there has been a lot of media coverage, as of course there would be
when an announcement like this is made. You don't want to be in the
position where you are alerting people that might be subject to these
laws. That is a serious concern for us. I am concerned, as the Shadow
Attorney-General, responsible for the way that we do implement these
laws, that we should actually have a more strategic approach and I am
not sure that that has happened. That is something we'll be watching.
JOURNALIST: Would the PM really risk that? I mean isn't that a big risk?
ROXON: I would hope not. I would think and hope that even our Prime
Minister, for all his form, would not do that sort of thing. But at the
end of the day, he is the only person who can make that assessment.
JOURNALIST: Has the PM been slack?
ROXON: There was an opportunity, if they wanted, for these technical
amendments to be passed quickly - for them to do it all yesterday,
through the House and the Senate. We made that offer, they didn't take
it up. It seems to me that if they want these tools that they should
get them as quickly as they believe they need them. I think that just
raises a question mark on the way they've managed the issue.
JOURNALIST: Government MPs say it's just a matter of twelve
hours though, isn't that a fair point? I mean if the threat level
remains the same then obviously it isn't that urgent?
ROXON: Obviously it is a matter of degree. The Senate was going
to be sitting next Monday. I guess the same could be put - it was only
three days so was there a need to make this change? Given how small the
changes were - it does seem to be an argument amongst lawyers as to how
you interpret 'the' and 'a' - it is not a major issue in our battle
against terrorism. But the Government did say that they need them
urgently. It either needs them urgently or it doesn't. It could have
taken the offer to pass them through the Senate last night and it
didn't do that. We are now raising the questions: one, why didn't they
do that and two, has it compromised operational issues? And that is a
matter that we will all have to observe today.
JOURNALIST: Peter Andren says that his legal advice says that the
difference between 'the' and 'a' is not a problem, and these laws are
just a scapegoat to cover up what is going on with IR and detract
attention away from it. What do you say to that? You have legal
expertise.
ROXON: Well I think that it is a very technical point. I think the
interpretation the Government was worried about was a technical one. I
think that if you put 100 lawyers in a room you would probably get 98
different views on it. It seems to me that the Government, out of an
abundance of caution, wants to make that change and its not a major
change so we don't object to that, that is why we supported the Bill.
Certainly, again, there is a big question mark over their motives and I
think all of you realise that it was the same day that the industrial
relations legislation was introduced into the house. Thanks.