Attorney-General responds to terror raids and Nauru move
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Attorney-General Nicola Roxon joins us in Canberra and responds to the anti-terror raids in Melbourne overnight as well as the first group of asylum seekers making their way to Nauru.
TranscriptLEIGH SALES, PRESENTER: The spectre of home-grown terrorism has returned after a few years in which the issue's been relatively low-key.
Federal and Victorian police have raided a dozen homes across Melbourne targeting members of an Islamic group.
They seized firearms in the raids and arrested a 23-year-old man and charged him with a terrorist offence.
Immediately, it's renewed debate about whether Australia's anti-terror laws are too harsh.
The Attorney-General Nicola Roxon is responsible for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Earlier she spoke with political editor Chris Uhlmann in Canberra.
CHRIS UHLMANN, REPORTER: Nicola Roxon, welcome
NICOLA ROXON, ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Hello.
CHRIS UHLMANN: Is there a real and present danger from Melbourne's Al Furqan Centre or anyone who was caught up in these terror raids?
NICOLA ROXON: There's not an immediate risk. People in the community need not fear for their safety today or tomorrow. What is clear, though, is that police have uncovered people with a serious intent to cause harm and they've threw out the activities that have been involved, obviously identified people who have got material and are or were preparing to use that material in some way for a violent or terrorist act. That process obviously has to continue and the operation is continuing, so I'm a little bit constrained how much more I can tell you about it.
CHRIS UHLMANN: I guess the question is how much that's measured though, and charging someone with collecting documents likely to facilitate terrorist acts - I mean, what does that mean exactly?
NICOLA ROXON: Well there's all sorts of steps obviously involved in preparing for a terrorist event. We of course want to be able to encourage our law enforcement agencies and the police to act as soon as they have sufficient material to be able to charge somebody. We don't want to wait until an event happens or don't want to wait until too late to be able to prevent something happening. Of course, that's not the same as grabbing someone as they're about to walk on a plane with a bomb, but it is serious and it's something that I think people will be alarmed happens in our community, but should be relieved that the police have identified.
CHRIS UHLMANN: Are you concerned that the Muslim community feels like it's being targeted every time this happens?
NICOLA ROXON: Look, I'm very concerned to assure people of all faith, but particularly the Muslim community that there is no targeting here. The police efforts are always identified to those who have been involved in activities or are preparing for, have material that might indicate their intent on causing serious harm to Australians. And I think it's important that we understand they can be of any faith, they can be of any background, they can be of any age and we're determined to identify those criminals in the community who are setting out to hurt us.
CHRIS UHLMANN: Do you think that ASIO's emergency powers, which really came about in - after 2001 and the police powers that we have now are too broad?
NICOLA ROXON: Well they're under review at the moment. The question's been asked sort of 10 years on: are those powers still necessary? I think that we should ask those questions all the time because there were extraordinary powers; many of them have not been used. The question we have to ask is: do we want them there in the case of an unexpected and rare event, but nevertheless then important to have those powers, or are they now unnecessary? And that's why we've asked for them to be reviewed.
CHRIS UHLMANN: Do you think that people understand that right now, under Commonwealth law, ASIO could be questioning someone in secret without laying a charge, that person could be strip searched, have no right to remain silent. If they refuse to answer a question, they can could face five years' jail, their right to a lawyer can be blocked, they can held for seven days and questioned for 24 hours or 48 if they need an interpreter. Isn't that punitive?
NICOLA ROXON: Well I think if you piece all of those things together and you ask someone walking around the - along the street whether would they expect that to apply to them, of course they'd say no. And the truth is for, you know, every 900,000 out of 900,001 people would not be subject to it. It's only where there are very special circumstances that apply. There's protections, there's oversight, both in a political and judicial sense. So I think when you piece it together, that's not really balancing all the protections and the very extreme circumstances that would have to apply for that to be used by ASIO.
CHRIS UHLMANN: But that law actually isn't under review at the moment and what you are reviewing is the telecommunications powers and in the name of fighting terrorism again, you're looking to expand those so that internet service providers will have to keep information for up to two years.
NICOLA ROXON: Well we currently have a Telecommunications Act that was written about 30 years ago where most people had a fixed phone and maybe a fax. We're asking whether or not the laws are keeping up to date with technology, and the simple question really to ask is: do we want our new telecommunication system to be a sort of a no-go zone for the law enforcement agencies? Do we want it to be a safe haven for criminals? Now, I don't think we do, but we don't want it to be a free-for-all for governments or police to be able to trawl through everything people are doing on the internet. And I think people have misunderstood the proposal. It's very much a targeted approach to make sure that we don't lose important information for investigations.
CHRIS UHLMANN: On something else: within 24 hours, the first asylum seekers are expected to be transferred to Nauru. What access will they have to the Australian legal system?
NICOLA ROXON: Well, of course we have had Minister Bowen updating you along the way with each of the steps. We are in the process, as we've indicated, of saying by the end of this week or late this week, people will be moved to Nauru. We'll have Australian officials there. We've committed to making sure they're processed under the convention. There are some details that are still being negotiated between Australia and Nauru and Minister Bowen will make those announcements when it's appropriate to do so.
CHRIS UHLMANN: Your Attorney, though; access to Australian courts?
NICOLA ROXON: Well, obviously part of the process is different. The commitments are to make sure that people have their claims assessed under the Refugee Convention. It'll be done by Australian officials. It doesn't mean that every single process that would apply if you're an Australian here in Melbourne or Sydney will be the same if you're an offshore person being processed and we will make those announcements. There are some negotiations that still need to be completed with Nauru.
CHRIS UHLMANN: What does no advantage test mean? You're gonna be applying one; what does it mean?
NICOLA ROXON: Well, Minister Bowen's answered a lot of questions about this and we're trying to make clear the point that if people do risk not just their own lives, but other people's lives in coming to Australia by sea - we unfortunately have seen a lot of deaths at sea as a result of that - that we need to send a clear message that you won't get fast-tracked or some advantage compared to if you stayed in the country you're in and made an application for asylum. Now, that is difficult for people in some ways to understand and very simple proposition in other ways. We don't want that to be a speedy process.
CHRIS UHLMANN: But it would be compared what though, I guess? No advantage compared to be in Malaysia where it might be a five-year stay if you were waiting for resettlement or on the Thai-Burma border where it might be three generations before you get resettled?
NICOLA ROXON: I know. And I mean, the question, I know why you ask it, but it does actually underscore the point which is there are thousands, in fact millions of people waiting to be resettled around the world. Australia has an obligation to assist. We've just announced today, for example, that we're going to assist another thousand people who are now refugees as a result of the conflict in Syria. I think the community wants us to do that and we want to send a clear message: "Do not take a risk to get on a boat. You won't get an advantage from doing that," and we're putting in place the legal requirements that will deliver that.
CHRIS UHLMANN: There seems to be a lot of uncertainty about what no advantage means though and you've applied another new and it would appear novel test in another piece of legislation before Parliament at the moment and that is uncertainty in the mind of a minister when it comes to trying to stop this super trawler. Can you think of another instance where that kind of measure would apply? What does it mean?
NICOLA ROXON: Well I think that we've clearly again set out, and Minister Burke has explained that he wasn't confident that the law as it stood gave him the power to deal with the situation which was a new one: the super trawler and the risks that it might pose to Australian fisheries. He's been upfront about saying, "Therefore I'm going to change the law to make sure that we can be cautious." It's a precautionary approach, get all of the scientific information in place, and then if it gets the tick, that'll be able to go ahead in the future, but we need to do that work first. I don't think that that's really a big ask to say, "Get that information in first."
CHRIS UHLMANN: But how could any business plan on the basis of knowing on what the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Fisheries are certain or uncertain about? No business could plan on that basis.
NICOLA ROXON: I think that the fishing businesses are fairly clear of the rules that apply. We have got a cautious regime in Australia. It seems maybe not cautious enough to deal with the new type of fishing processes and equipment that can be used. It's such an asset in Australia, we think that it's worth, as the Minister for Environment, taking time to check that the environment's gonna be protected, that the fish are gonna be protected and I don't think that that's an unreasonable request to make.
CHRIS UHLMANN: Nicola Roxon, thank you.
NICOLA ROXON: Pleasure.