Izzie's new Pin up Hunk
28/10/2005 03:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
izmeinaAnyone who sticks two fingers up at the Rat gets Izzie's vote. Now if only we could vote for him over here in the Wild West
Seditious Intent
(If you are not from the Land of the Rainbow Serpent or an ex Stasi Spook looking for employment opportunities- the following may be all a bit boring and confusing so feel free to move on. Nothing to see here)
Breach of trust or democratic duty?
Sunday 23 October 2005
Presented by Terry Lane
Topic
What was the ACT Chief Minister thinking when he posted a draft of the federal government's new anti-terrorism legislation on his website?
Program Transcript
Terry Lane: Mr John Stanhope, the Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory, upset the Prime Minister last week by publishing the draft anti-terror legislation on his website. The Prime Minister apparently wanted the legislation to be kept secret until it is presented to parliament, and Mr Stanhope thought otherwise, and here’s Mr Stanhope right now. Mr Stanhope, good afternoon.
John Stanhope: Good afternoon, Terry.
Terry Lane: Now did you understand after the COAG meeting where the draft was presented, that it was to be a secret?
John Stanhope: No, I certainly didn’t Terry. And I have to say had I entered into some confidentiality arrangement with the Prime Minister, or had it been indicated to me that that was the Commonwealth’s position, then I would have taken note of that, and I would have respected it. But I certainly would have challenged it at the time, and had there been any indication when the draft was provided that it was provided genuinely on a basis that it contained information that had some sort of security status, then I would have thought long and hard. But as it was, I did see the ‘draft in confidence’, but I ignored it, on the basis that I thought it was a sort of a pro forma stamp that’s placed on the front of all legislation by all governments, and at times for a purpose. But this was different; this is a collaborative piece of law reform. The legislation that we’re discussing required a referral of powers by the States and Territories. The States and Territories have a stake in this. In providing me with the draft of the legislation, the Prime Minister, in writing to me a covering letter, asked me to approve it. In other words, he was asking me to tick it off, which he’s required to do under the intergovernmental agreement that pertains to the referral of powers in relation to counter-terrorism. So I regarded it, as much my legislation as the Commonwealth’s legislation, and it was in that context that I felt the need to take expert advice from external sources to my government, and also to consult with the people that I represent.
Terry Lane: You said there in passing that sometimes legislation or proposed legislation, you were justified in keeping it secret. I was under the impression that democracy is a form of government with the consent of the governed. Now if that’s an acceptable definition of democracy, I can’t see how there can be such a thing as secret legislation.
John Stanhope: I agree with that. I don’t disagree at all, I think it would be odious to democracy to suggest that legislation could be introduced and then rammed through without any consultation or discussion with the people around its content. There probably is an argument that can be made, and I’d be prepared to make it, in certain circumstances at a formative stage, and that’s one of the difficulties we have with this legislation, that it is still a work that’s being developed that is in a formative stage. But the difficulty is it’s a two-stage process. There’s the process of the legislation being tabled within the federal parliament, then open for the world to see. The difficulty I and the Premiers face, and which I particularly felt was that I was being asked for my approval to this legislation prior to its tabling in the federal parliament. And that’s the difficulty, you know, this is to that extent, you know, a different law-making regime. It’s legislation that’s been made by the Commonwealth parliament, utilising referred powers. And the States and Territories are required to tick it off. Our signature will be on this legislation, effectively. But it won’t be introduced into our parliaments, and so the approval process, or the consultation process for us, is in a situation where there is no opportunity for consultation post-tabling. Essentially, it’s all over, Red Rover, for the States and Territories the day the Commonwealth tables it, and the debate then continues in the federal parliament. Our capacity to influence or to have any say in relation to the legislation, post its tabling, is essentially ended.
Terry Lane: Can I ask you to clarify something here? Do you mean that the referral of these significant police powers to the Commonwealth is something that is done without the necessity for any legislation to pass through State or Territory parliaments?
John Stanhope: No, it’s a two-part process under an intergovernmental agreement, which the States and Territories signed with the Commonwealth in June last year. We agreed that there would be a referral for powers in relation to these aspects of the criminal law, to allow the Commonwealth essentially to legislate on behalf of the nation in relation to terrorism. And I think that’s a good result, the country and all jurisdictions working together to ensure that we can combat this particular form of criminal behaviour of terrorism. This particular set of laws does involve the Commonwealth legislating, establishing a regime, for instance, in relation to preventive detention, which is a particular interest to the States, because it’s in relation particularly to preventive detention and some other police powers that whilst the Commonwealth is setting down a marker in relation to how it believes the preventive detention regime should operate, and it’s then asking the States and Territories to extend that particular regime from essentially a maximum of two days to 14 days in what I might call harmonised State and Territory legislation, but which nevertheless reflects the model established by the Commonwealth through this legislation. So there’s two sets of legislation: the first, that which we’re currently debating which is a Commonwealth Act, but which does rely on a collaborative approach; and then subsequently each of the States and Territories will legislate in a complementary way.
Terry Lane: And Mr Stanhope, the way that your personal story is being told in the media about this, is that you’re a person who is known to be concerned to safeguard civil liberties, but you have said (and I don’t know whether this is true or not) that the things that you were told at the COAG meeting by the federal and secret police, persuaded you that draconian laws are called for. Is that right?
John Stanhope: Well tough laws, Terry. I guess much is in definition, isn’t it, and the definition of the terms that were used, I did need persuading. Civil liberties and human rights are important to me; they’re very fundamental to my personal philosophy, and indeed, to the way in which my government operates here within the ACT. It’s been a hallmark of my time in government, that we have sought to create a climate within the ACT of respect for human rights and civil liberties, we’ve done that, for instance –
Terry Lane: Well you’re the first legislature in Australia to pass a Bill of Rights.
John Stanhope: That’s correct. And there’s a whole range of other law reform work that reflects my personal commitment, the commitment of my government to equality, and an abhorrence of discrimination of any form, and to civil liberties and human rights.
Terry Lane: Can I just make an obvious point here? Fundamental to any catalogue of civil rights, are the rights of habeas corpus, and the right not to be held in detention without a charge. But both of these rights are simply dispensed with in the proposed anti-terror legislation.
John Stanhope: Yes, and I’m sorry if I was going on there a bit, yes, these are complex things, it’s not black and white, you know that face value, and I’m being challenged by some of those people who support me and know of my strong commitment to human rights and civil liberties reflected through the enactment of a Human Rights Act, a Bill of Rights for the ACT, which I urge Australia to follow and adopt. So I sometimes feel the need perhaps to over-explain my position to remove the ambiguity. I am strongly committed, and that’s evident by my record. And there does appear to be this ambiguity. But that’s the position I took at COAG. I went with some cynicism. I asked for some justification for the need for these laws. I did ask questions of the Director General of ASIO most specifically, and also of the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Mick Keelty. They were tough briefings, and they were sobering, to the extent that we were advised of concerns about the identities and behaviour and antecedents of a significant number of people known to our security and intelligence police forces, with worrying connections and backgrounds. So a case was made. For me though, and this represents a real difficulty for decision-makers such as myself, those that trust in the essential honesty of people like the Director General of ASIO and of ONA, and of Mick Keelty. I’ve known Mick Keelty for eight years, so I have enormous respect for him and I trust him. At one level, the difficulty for me is not that I was horrified into submission that this was such a dramatic briefing that I had no option, that’s not the case. It’s simply a case of COAG was provided with briefings from three people whom I trust, the Director General of ASIO, I believe them to be honest, honourable men, I don’t wish to damn them by that, but I do, I’ve known Mick Keelty for eight years. I asked the blunt question in the context of my responsibilities as a head of government, somebody that is determined to ensure that my constituents are safe. I had no option but to take the advice I was given. I asked the Director General of ASIO and the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, a fairly straightforward question about their belief and commitment in the need for legislation of this order, as an enhancement of their job and a way in which to ensure a greater protection for the people of Australia, most particularly of Canberra, against terrorism, and I asked for an assurance that they believed the legislation was appropriate and necessary, and they said yes.
Terry Lane: But you see, the position that that puts the hoi polloi in, is that we have to trust you. Now we have a very small, very select group of politicians, spies, secret police, and a few bureaucrats. You are permitted to know something that the rest of us are not permitted to know, and we’re expected to trust politicians to push through virtually without scrutiny, it will go through the federal parliament, laws without precedent -
John Stanhope: Well that’s my view, I don’t disagree.
Terry Lane: - in this country. Including the right to shoot a person because you suspect he might be running away. I mean what have we come to?
John Stanhope: Well we need to go back. I think you’ve jumped a step too far in that Terry, we haven’t got to that position yet. We have some draft legislation on the table. I don’t disagree with you, but I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that I have information. I’ve received a security briefing certainly, but I’ve just explained some of the content of that and the basis at the end of the day on which I made my decision, is that I took advice from the Director General of ASIO, and the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police in relation to their views and feelings in relation to the legislation, not its form, but in a broad-brush way. And that’s all we had on the table at COAG. I don’t have available to me, an alternative source of intelligence or security, I don’t have my own security service, nor do any of the States or Territories.
Terry Lane: No, but perhaps if I could put the question to you in another way, without running two things together, the shoot to kill, and all the other things. But let’s just concentrate on detention without charge. How did they persuade you that something which is such an affront to basic civil rights was justified in the circumstances?
John Stanhope: Well that’s where I was getting to, Terry, so that’s the background on the basis which I accepted, which I’ve just given, that the laws could be justified in a free and democratic society. I believe they can. So we need to leave that particular line in the sand, is that I made that decision that we did need good, hard, tough laws to allow us to respond. So let’s take that as a given. So we cross that line. The justification for the laws has been made. The sceptics and the doubters might say, Well I don’t believe they have, and I want more information, I simply don’t believe these laws will work. But just accept, I think we must, there’s no option now for the people of Australia to say well, COAG has accepted a justification, a need for these laws. We then go to the next stage. Right, there’s the justification, COAG didn’t have a draft of the legislation on the table, I must say I made comment at that, I thought this process was most undesirable, I in fact asked the COAG to reconvene with the draft bill on the table that we could go through line by line, but I had no support. Then my request for COAG to reconvene wasn’t successful. I then, as I’ve explained previously, said well there’s a number of safeguards. I went to the meeting with eight dot-points. In hindsight, I perhaps wish they were a bit more rigorous than they were, but that was the next point, Terry, the point you raised. And all my advice is that it is possible to implement tough, anti-terror legislation that’s human rights compatible. That’s the advice I had from my officials, and essentially that is the commitment that the Prime Minister gave. So to answer your question about preventative detention, and it’s a good and perhaps the best example, I supported a preventative detention regime on the basis that it would be constructed, consistent, with Australia’s international obligations under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Prime Minister committed to that. And that was the degree of comfort I had when I left the COAG room, was that yes, all right, here’s a broad-brush agreement to a control order regime, preventative detention, tougher police powers in relation to search, seizure etc., but in the context and framework of human rights and civil liberties as expressed through the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Prime Minister agreed that the laws that we would be asked to agree to, and which he would introduce in the Commonwealth parliament, would be justified, would be proportionate, would reflect our international obligations, would be consistent with Australia’s obligations under international law, as reflected through the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and that’s of course the nub. I have advice from a number of academics headed up by Hilary Charlesworth and Andrew Byrne, I now have advice from the ACT’s Human Rights Commissioner, Dr Helen Watchirs, I’ve received some other advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions within the ACT, that are, and have raised the spectre that the draft Bill is not consistent with the ICCPR, and that’s where we’re at in this process, is that we’re now – and my officials have already, over this last week communicated all of that advice to Commonwealth officials and all the officials of States and Territories, and they’re saying this is the advice that the Chief Minister of the ACT’s receiving, that the advice is becoming clearer, I haven’t yet embraced it or adopted it as my own, but I’m getting to that point, and the position that’s emerging is that the draft anti-terrorism bill is not consistent with the International Covenant, and it points specifically to the lack of real judicial oversight in relation to preventive detention, issues in relation to the lack of information that a person that is detained can receive, and subsequently pass to an independent lawyer, the capacity to appeal against the legality or lawfulness of the detention, the point that you raise, and I don’t disagree with you, that is my position, is that there must be real judicial oversight. Now there is no judicial appeal on the merits and essentially I think it’s Article 9 of the ICCPR which is fundamental to the right to liberty, which of course is another way of describing our commitment to habeas corpus, and that’s the point that I’m at.
Terry Lane: We only have a minute left, and I’m going to ask you a question which would require perhaps the rest of the day to answer, but given your stated respect for Mr Keelty and given that we know Mr Keelty says that we are a terrorist target because our Army is in Iraq, did anybody at the COAG meeting suggest to the Prime Minister that the quickest and surest way of making the people of Australia safe from terror attacks is to get out of Iraq?
John Stanhope: It wasn’t a point that I made.
Terry Lane: I didn’t think it would be.
John Stanhope: At the table, but I make it publicly and loudly, constantly. I am one of those, Terry, that believes that whilst it’s all well and good for us to seek to subvert terrorism when it does raise it’s ugly head, and that we introduce legislation such as this, as a nation it’s time that leaders around Australia, most particularly the Prime Minister and other heads of government, broadened their anti-terrorism arsenal by each of us pledging ourselves to seek to genuinely address the root causes of terrorism. And as I talked and met with Canberra Muslims, they raised with me two issues that they believe we need to address as issues that encourage disaffection, and allows disaffection to thrive and to feed on itself, and they point always to the fact that our Prime Minister simply refuses to acknowledge a causal effect between the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, and our heightened threat or danger. And they raise with me constantly what they see as the West’s hypocrisy and double standards in relation to Palestine. And these are raised with me constantly, and I believe if we don’t seek to address and accept some responsibility, each of us as governments, as communities and as individuals, to assess how our individual and collective action, whether it be economic, political, social or anything else, and most particularly militarily, has affected the rise of this disaffection. If we don’t do that, then we’re not being honest with ourselves and I think there is an imbalance, I see it in the Prime Minister’s principles arising from his Islamic forum, that it imposes a responsibility on Muslim people within Australia to accept some responsibility, essentially and uppermost, to assure us of their peaceful intentions, without imposing a similar responsibility on us to look at ourselves honestly. And I say the Prime Minister needs to do this, to honestly look at our actions and assess whether there is some causal effect between things that we’ve done, and do and say, and some of these records. And for the Prime Minister to continue to refuse to accept the obvious causal link between the invasion of Iraq and terrorism, doesn’t help.
Terry Lane: Mr Stanhope, thank you very much for giving us your time.
John Stanhope: It’s a pleasure.
Terry Lane: Mr John Stanhope, the Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory.
Guests on this program:
Jon Stanhope
Chief Minister of the ACT
Further information:
The ACT Chief Minister's website:
http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/
(the bits in bold are of particular interest to the Izzie)
Seditious Intent
(If you are not from the Land of the Rainbow Serpent or an ex Stasi Spook looking for employment opportunities- the following may be all a bit boring and confusing so feel free to move on. Nothing to see here)
Breach of trust or democratic duty?
Sunday 23 October 2005
Presented by Terry Lane
Topic
What was the ACT Chief Minister thinking when he posted a draft of the federal government's new anti-terrorism legislation on his website?
Program Transcript
Terry Lane: Mr John Stanhope, the Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory, upset the Prime Minister last week by publishing the draft anti-terror legislation on his website. The Prime Minister apparently wanted the legislation to be kept secret until it is presented to parliament, and Mr Stanhope thought otherwise, and here’s Mr Stanhope right now. Mr Stanhope, good afternoon.
John Stanhope: Good afternoon, Terry.
Terry Lane: Now did you understand after the COAG meeting where the draft was presented, that it was to be a secret?
John Stanhope: No, I certainly didn’t Terry. And I have to say had I entered into some confidentiality arrangement with the Prime Minister, or had it been indicated to me that that was the Commonwealth’s position, then I would have taken note of that, and I would have respected it. But I certainly would have challenged it at the time, and had there been any indication when the draft was provided that it was provided genuinely on a basis that it contained information that had some sort of security status, then I would have thought long and hard. But as it was, I did see the ‘draft in confidence’, but I ignored it, on the basis that I thought it was a sort of a pro forma stamp that’s placed on the front of all legislation by all governments, and at times for a purpose. But this was different; this is a collaborative piece of law reform. The legislation that we’re discussing required a referral of powers by the States and Territories. The States and Territories have a stake in this. In providing me with the draft of the legislation, the Prime Minister, in writing to me a covering letter, asked me to approve it. In other words, he was asking me to tick it off, which he’s required to do under the intergovernmental agreement that pertains to the referral of powers in relation to counter-terrorism. So I regarded it, as much my legislation as the Commonwealth’s legislation, and it was in that context that I felt the need to take expert advice from external sources to my government, and also to consult with the people that I represent.
Terry Lane: You said there in passing that sometimes legislation or proposed legislation, you were justified in keeping it secret. I was under the impression that democracy is a form of government with the consent of the governed. Now if that’s an acceptable definition of democracy, I can’t see how there can be such a thing as secret legislation.
John Stanhope: I agree with that. I don’t disagree at all, I think it would be odious to democracy to suggest that legislation could be introduced and then rammed through without any consultation or discussion with the people around its content. There probably is an argument that can be made, and I’d be prepared to make it, in certain circumstances at a formative stage, and that’s one of the difficulties we have with this legislation, that it is still a work that’s being developed that is in a formative stage. But the difficulty is it’s a two-stage process. There’s the process of the legislation being tabled within the federal parliament, then open for the world to see. The difficulty I and the Premiers face, and which I particularly felt was that I was being asked for my approval to this legislation prior to its tabling in the federal parliament. And that’s the difficulty, you know, this is to that extent, you know, a different law-making regime. It’s legislation that’s been made by the Commonwealth parliament, utilising referred powers. And the States and Territories are required to tick it off. Our signature will be on this legislation, effectively. But it won’t be introduced into our parliaments, and so the approval process, or the consultation process for us, is in a situation where there is no opportunity for consultation post-tabling. Essentially, it’s all over, Red Rover, for the States and Territories the day the Commonwealth tables it, and the debate then continues in the federal parliament. Our capacity to influence or to have any say in relation to the legislation, post its tabling, is essentially ended.
Terry Lane: Can I ask you to clarify something here? Do you mean that the referral of these significant police powers to the Commonwealth is something that is done without the necessity for any legislation to pass through State or Territory parliaments?
John Stanhope: No, it’s a two-part process under an intergovernmental agreement, which the States and Territories signed with the Commonwealth in June last year. We agreed that there would be a referral for powers in relation to these aspects of the criminal law, to allow the Commonwealth essentially to legislate on behalf of the nation in relation to terrorism. And I think that’s a good result, the country and all jurisdictions working together to ensure that we can combat this particular form of criminal behaviour of terrorism. This particular set of laws does involve the Commonwealth legislating, establishing a regime, for instance, in relation to preventive detention, which is a particular interest to the States, because it’s in relation particularly to preventive detention and some other police powers that whilst the Commonwealth is setting down a marker in relation to how it believes the preventive detention regime should operate, and it’s then asking the States and Territories to extend that particular regime from essentially a maximum of two days to 14 days in what I might call harmonised State and Territory legislation, but which nevertheless reflects the model established by the Commonwealth through this legislation. So there’s two sets of legislation: the first, that which we’re currently debating which is a Commonwealth Act, but which does rely on a collaborative approach; and then subsequently each of the States and Territories will legislate in a complementary way.
Terry Lane: And Mr Stanhope, the way that your personal story is being told in the media about this, is that you’re a person who is known to be concerned to safeguard civil liberties, but you have said (and I don’t know whether this is true or not) that the things that you were told at the COAG meeting by the federal and secret police, persuaded you that draconian laws are called for. Is that right?
John Stanhope: Well tough laws, Terry. I guess much is in definition, isn’t it, and the definition of the terms that were used, I did need persuading. Civil liberties and human rights are important to me; they’re very fundamental to my personal philosophy, and indeed, to the way in which my government operates here within the ACT. It’s been a hallmark of my time in government, that we have sought to create a climate within the ACT of respect for human rights and civil liberties, we’ve done that, for instance –
Terry Lane: Well you’re the first legislature in Australia to pass a Bill of Rights.
John Stanhope: That’s correct. And there’s a whole range of other law reform work that reflects my personal commitment, the commitment of my government to equality, and an abhorrence of discrimination of any form, and to civil liberties and human rights.
Terry Lane: Can I just make an obvious point here? Fundamental to any catalogue of civil rights, are the rights of habeas corpus, and the right not to be held in detention without a charge. But both of these rights are simply dispensed with in the proposed anti-terror legislation.
John Stanhope: Yes, and I’m sorry if I was going on there a bit, yes, these are complex things, it’s not black and white, you know that face value, and I’m being challenged by some of those people who support me and know of my strong commitment to human rights and civil liberties reflected through the enactment of a Human Rights Act, a Bill of Rights for the ACT, which I urge Australia to follow and adopt. So I sometimes feel the need perhaps to over-explain my position to remove the ambiguity. I am strongly committed, and that’s evident by my record. And there does appear to be this ambiguity. But that’s the position I took at COAG. I went with some cynicism. I asked for some justification for the need for these laws. I did ask questions of the Director General of ASIO most specifically, and also of the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Mick Keelty. They were tough briefings, and they were sobering, to the extent that we were advised of concerns about the identities and behaviour and antecedents of a significant number of people known to our security and intelligence police forces, with worrying connections and backgrounds. So a case was made. For me though, and this represents a real difficulty for decision-makers such as myself, those that trust in the essential honesty of people like the Director General of ASIO and of ONA, and of Mick Keelty. I’ve known Mick Keelty for eight years, so I have enormous respect for him and I trust him. At one level, the difficulty for me is not that I was horrified into submission that this was such a dramatic briefing that I had no option, that’s not the case. It’s simply a case of COAG was provided with briefings from three people whom I trust, the Director General of ASIO, I believe them to be honest, honourable men, I don’t wish to damn them by that, but I do, I’ve known Mick Keelty for eight years. I asked the blunt question in the context of my responsibilities as a head of government, somebody that is determined to ensure that my constituents are safe. I had no option but to take the advice I was given. I asked the Director General of ASIO and the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, a fairly straightforward question about their belief and commitment in the need for legislation of this order, as an enhancement of their job and a way in which to ensure a greater protection for the people of Australia, most particularly of Canberra, against terrorism, and I asked for an assurance that they believed the legislation was appropriate and necessary, and they said yes.
Terry Lane: But you see, the position that that puts the hoi polloi in, is that we have to trust you. Now we have a very small, very select group of politicians, spies, secret police, and a few bureaucrats. You are permitted to know something that the rest of us are not permitted to know, and we’re expected to trust politicians to push through virtually without scrutiny, it will go through the federal parliament, laws without precedent -
John Stanhope: Well that’s my view, I don’t disagree.
Terry Lane: - in this country. Including the right to shoot a person because you suspect he might be running away. I mean what have we come to?
John Stanhope: Well we need to go back. I think you’ve jumped a step too far in that Terry, we haven’t got to that position yet. We have some draft legislation on the table. I don’t disagree with you, but I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that I have information. I’ve received a security briefing certainly, but I’ve just explained some of the content of that and the basis at the end of the day on which I made my decision, is that I took advice from the Director General of ASIO, and the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police in relation to their views and feelings in relation to the legislation, not its form, but in a broad-brush way. And that’s all we had on the table at COAG. I don’t have available to me, an alternative source of intelligence or security, I don’t have my own security service, nor do any of the States or Territories.
Terry Lane: No, but perhaps if I could put the question to you in another way, without running two things together, the shoot to kill, and all the other things. But let’s just concentrate on detention without charge. How did they persuade you that something which is such an affront to basic civil rights was justified in the circumstances?
John Stanhope: Well that’s where I was getting to, Terry, so that’s the background on the basis which I accepted, which I’ve just given, that the laws could be justified in a free and democratic society. I believe they can. So we need to leave that particular line in the sand, is that I made that decision that we did need good, hard, tough laws to allow us to respond. So let’s take that as a given. So we cross that line. The justification for the laws has been made. The sceptics and the doubters might say, Well I don’t believe they have, and I want more information, I simply don’t believe these laws will work. But just accept, I think we must, there’s no option now for the people of Australia to say well, COAG has accepted a justification, a need for these laws. We then go to the next stage. Right, there’s the justification, COAG didn’t have a draft of the legislation on the table, I must say I made comment at that, I thought this process was most undesirable, I in fact asked the COAG to reconvene with the draft bill on the table that we could go through line by line, but I had no support. Then my request for COAG to reconvene wasn’t successful. I then, as I’ve explained previously, said well there’s a number of safeguards. I went to the meeting with eight dot-points. In hindsight, I perhaps wish they were a bit more rigorous than they were, but that was the next point, Terry, the point you raised. And all my advice is that it is possible to implement tough, anti-terror legislation that’s human rights compatible. That’s the advice I had from my officials, and essentially that is the commitment that the Prime Minister gave. So to answer your question about preventative detention, and it’s a good and perhaps the best example, I supported a preventative detention regime on the basis that it would be constructed, consistent, with Australia’s international obligations under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Prime Minister committed to that. And that was the degree of comfort I had when I left the COAG room, was that yes, all right, here’s a broad-brush agreement to a control order regime, preventative detention, tougher police powers in relation to search, seizure etc., but in the context and framework of human rights and civil liberties as expressed through the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Prime Minister agreed that the laws that we would be asked to agree to, and which he would introduce in the Commonwealth parliament, would be justified, would be proportionate, would reflect our international obligations, would be consistent with Australia’s obligations under international law, as reflected through the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and that’s of course the nub. I have advice from a number of academics headed up by Hilary Charlesworth and Andrew Byrne, I now have advice from the ACT’s Human Rights Commissioner, Dr Helen Watchirs, I’ve received some other advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions within the ACT, that are, and have raised the spectre that the draft Bill is not consistent with the ICCPR, and that’s where we’re at in this process, is that we’re now – and my officials have already, over this last week communicated all of that advice to Commonwealth officials and all the officials of States and Territories, and they’re saying this is the advice that the Chief Minister of the ACT’s receiving, that the advice is becoming clearer, I haven’t yet embraced it or adopted it as my own, but I’m getting to that point, and the position that’s emerging is that the draft anti-terrorism bill is not consistent with the International Covenant, and it points specifically to the lack of real judicial oversight in relation to preventive detention, issues in relation to the lack of information that a person that is detained can receive, and subsequently pass to an independent lawyer, the capacity to appeal against the legality or lawfulness of the detention, the point that you raise, and I don’t disagree with you, that is my position, is that there must be real judicial oversight. Now there is no judicial appeal on the merits and essentially I think it’s Article 9 of the ICCPR which is fundamental to the right to liberty, which of course is another way of describing our commitment to habeas corpus, and that’s the point that I’m at.
Terry Lane: We only have a minute left, and I’m going to ask you a question which would require perhaps the rest of the day to answer, but given your stated respect for Mr Keelty and given that we know Mr Keelty says that we are a terrorist target because our Army is in Iraq, did anybody at the COAG meeting suggest to the Prime Minister that the quickest and surest way of making the people of Australia safe from terror attacks is to get out of Iraq?
John Stanhope: It wasn’t a point that I made.
Terry Lane: I didn’t think it would be.
John Stanhope: At the table, but I make it publicly and loudly, constantly. I am one of those, Terry, that believes that whilst it’s all well and good for us to seek to subvert terrorism when it does raise it’s ugly head, and that we introduce legislation such as this, as a nation it’s time that leaders around Australia, most particularly the Prime Minister and other heads of government, broadened their anti-terrorism arsenal by each of us pledging ourselves to seek to genuinely address the root causes of terrorism. And as I talked and met with Canberra Muslims, they raised with me two issues that they believe we need to address as issues that encourage disaffection, and allows disaffection to thrive and to feed on itself, and they point always to the fact that our Prime Minister simply refuses to acknowledge a causal effect between the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, and our heightened threat or danger. And they raise with me constantly what they see as the West’s hypocrisy and double standards in relation to Palestine. And these are raised with me constantly, and I believe if we don’t seek to address and accept some responsibility, each of us as governments, as communities and as individuals, to assess how our individual and collective action, whether it be economic, political, social or anything else, and most particularly militarily, has affected the rise of this disaffection. If we don’t do that, then we’re not being honest with ourselves and I think there is an imbalance, I see it in the Prime Minister’s principles arising from his Islamic forum, that it imposes a responsibility on Muslim people within Australia to accept some responsibility, essentially and uppermost, to assure us of their peaceful intentions, without imposing a similar responsibility on us to look at ourselves honestly. And I say the Prime Minister needs to do this, to honestly look at our actions and assess whether there is some causal effect between things that we’ve done, and do and say, and some of these records. And for the Prime Minister to continue to refuse to accept the obvious causal link between the invasion of Iraq and terrorism, doesn’t help.
Terry Lane: Mr Stanhope, thank you very much for giving us your time.
John Stanhope: It’s a pleasure.
Terry Lane: Mr John Stanhope, the Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory.
Guests on this program:
Jon Stanhope
Chief Minister of the ACT
Further information:
The ACT Chief Minister's website:
http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/
(the bits in bold are of particular interest to the Izzie)
