MARK DREYFUS QC MP
SHADOW ATTORNEY-GENERAL
SHADOW MINISTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM
MEMBER FOR ISAACS
E&OE TRANSCRIPT
RADIO INTERVIEW
ABC RN BREAKFAST
THURSDAY, 6 JUNE 2019
SUBJECT: AFP Raids; Media Freedom; Foreign Interference Laws
FRAN KELLY, HOST: Mark Dreyfus, welcome back to breakfast.
MARK DREYFUS, SHADOW ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Morning Fran, thanks for having me.
KELLY: So there we heard the Prime Minister again saying overnight ministers had nothing to do with these raids. Do you accept that? That they came from the Defence Department to the police, not from the government, not from the minister?
DREYFUS: Can I just say straight away, anything I might say is not a reflection on the behaviour of the Australian Federal Police. I'm not criticising the Australian Federal Police. They're doing their job. My criticism, and Labor's criticism, is of the government. It's the government which referred these matters in the first place. It's the government which made the decision that these leaks, not all the other leaks that occur within government administration, warranted investigation
KELLY: Can I just interrupt you there. When you say it's the government, lets define our terms because we have heard Peter Dutton now, we've heard the Attorney-General, we've heard the Prime Minister say they knew nothing of these raids. They had no role in ordering these raids. So it was the Defence Department, or the Australian Signals Directorate through the Defence Department, referred these matters. Is that right?
DREYFUS: Both of them, Mr Dutton and Mr Morrison, can't hide behind the police here. They knew about these leaks. They knew about them because they were published by Australian journalists in the media. And both of them, both matters were apparently of sufficient concern to the government that they wanted these leaks investigated. But what we can't have is these hollow words from Mr Morrison saying that he believes in press freedom when these raids are happening right now in Australia. So can we expect further raids? Why did these happen now when Mr Morrison and Mr Dutton are out of the country? The government's responsible for referring this. Not every leak is investigated and they know it. And they need to explain. Not the police, they can't leave it to the police. They need to explain why is it that a raid on a journalists home it's an extraordinary event, as Anthony Albanese said yesterday, it's an extraordinary event for that to happen, you've got to go back decades to find a similar example what is it about the publication of a proposal to change Australian law, which was the subject of Annika Smethurst's article, that warrants a raid on her home? And as for the other matter, which is about the behaviour of our soldiers in Afghanistan, the person who took the documents and gave them to the journalist, David McBride, a military lawyer, has been charged. He's going to face court later this year. I'm not commenting on his defences or on that case, but they know. The government already knows, who took the documents. So what warrants a raid on the ABCs offices?
KELLY: So what are you
DREYFUS: So there's questions here that the government has to answer Fran, and they're just hiding away. It's an arrogant wave of the hand from this Prime Minister, whose leadership is failing here. He is failing Australia in letting this happen. He's not a believer in press freedom if he is letting this happen.
KELLY: Can I just clarify something. I know I seem to be going over the same ground here. But we heard the Prime Minister there say they didn't know of the police raids. Are you saying that the ministers would have known, or would have sought for these matters to be referred to the police in the first place? So they're sort of mincing their words here?
DREYFUS: Of course they are mincing their words. The government's responsible for this. These are government documents. This is government information. The government referred this to the Australian Federal Police. And what was their purpose in doing so? What is it about Australia's national security this is the question the government has to answer what is it about Australia's national security that is so threatened by a public discussion of a proposal to allow the Australian Signals Directorate for the first time to spy on Australians?
KELLY: Is that a matter of national security, in your view?
DREYFUS: Well the use of such a power might be a matter of national security. But the existence of such a power, that would have to come to the Parliament in order for the law to be changed. And it's absurd to suggest that it shouldn't be publicly discussed. Because in order for that to happen in order for the Australian Signals Directorate to be allowed to spy on Australians, which ultimately Mr Turnbull, the sacked Prime Minister, decided shouldn't happen of course that's a matter that should be publicly discussed. And no, public discussion of that matter isn't a matter of national security in the sense that we normally understand that. What are matters of national security, are matters that pose imminent threat to Australia. A proposal to change the law, that's not a matter that can be hidden behind national security. This government has got some explaining to do. Mr Morrison can't hide behind Mr Dutton, who is in a cowardly way hiding behind the police what has to happen is that they both, Mr Morrison and Mr Dutton, need to stand up and explain to Australians why some of the freedoms that our forefathers fought for on D-Day, 75 years ago just to remind people, are being threatened. That's what is happening here, and the government needs to explain itself. It can't hide it's responsible for referring both matters. It's responsible for where this has now ended up, and it needs to explain how this threat to press freedom is warranted by either of these matters.
KELLY: In the case, the ABC case, the warrant handed over by the Federal Police gave the police powers to, quote, add, copy, delete or alter notes, emails, footage, draft documents and other items relating to the Afghan Files investigation. Here at the ABC, our Head of Investigations John Lyons, who is a very senior journalist and news executive, says he has never seen such a broad remit. You're a QC, a former Attorney-General have you ever seen a warrant with these kinds of seizure powers?
DREYFUS: Well I've never seen a warrant that authorised destruction of material that is being seized. What warrants are for, are to authorise our agencies, and it might be ASIO, it might be the Australian Federal Police, to go in and seize material which can be used to prosecute. That's the purpose of search warrants. It's a very old power, it's been there for a long time. But seizure involves keeping. It doesn't involve destruction of the very material that's being looked for. So I do regard that as very unusual, and I understand there will be a lot of further argument about this between the ABCs lawyers and the government. But I repeat, the government has to explain why this is happening. There's questions to answer here which Mr Morrison is just trying to wave away in his usual arrogant form he actually says these issues can cause great anxiety. You bet they can! And then he says, I'm open to discussion about it I heard him on the news. It's a ridiculous thing for the Prime Minister of Australia to be seen to arrogantly wave this away.
KELLY: Well if he is open to discussion about it, whats the capacity for the Opposition, or any element of the Parliament to force either the government or the AFP to the table to answer questions? And will you be making any moves in this regard?
DREYFUS: Oh well well look at what Senate inquiries are possible, and whether or not, obviously the government, given that it's trying to wave all this away, is not going to support an inquiry in the House of Representatives. But it might be possible to establish a Senate inquiry to look at some of these issues. And it might be possible to have a better discussion about how, if this is the way the government is going to behave, by referring matters that when it suits it to refer we notice that there hasn't been a raid in respect of the leak of secret ASIO material that suited the government when there was a debate about the Medevac bill
KELLY: I think Mike Pezzullo did refer that to the police, didn't he say that to Senate Estimates?
DREYFUS: Yes but there hasn't been any further action taken in respect of it, so perhaps the government might like to explain why that has happened.
KELLY: OK. Lets go to the laws, lets go to the laws that we have in this country because these stories were both published before the new Espionage and Foreign Interference laws were passed last year. Those laws were much debated. They contained secrecy provisions, which meant journalists and publishers could face lengthy jail terms if they disclose sensitive information. Labor agreed to those laws. Was that a mistake?
DREYFUS: Labor was faced with laws produced to the Parliament on 7th December 2017 by then-Prime Minister Turnbull in the form of a huge bill called the Espionage and Foreign Interference Bill, which amended lots of provisions about criminal law. And they included a complete revision not just of espionage law and new provisions about foreign interference, but a revision of all of Australia's secrecy laws. When we saw that bill for the first time, we said immediately this can't stand, it can't go forward in this form without protections for journalists, and without protections for public interest disclosures. And we fought hard to make sure that the bill, as ultimately passed by the Parliament about six months later in the middle of 2018, actually contained protections. Lots of them. Now of course, there is always room for debate about whether the protections were adequate. But I want those listening to recall that Labor fought very hard to amend that bill, which was hopelessly inadequate in the form of its protections when it was introduced in late 2017. It was much better when it was finally passed by the Parliament in mid-2018. And if people think that it's still inadequate, the government ought to be open to further discussion. These raids are taking place under the law as it was before -
KELLY: That's right, under Section 70 of the Crimes Act
DREYFUS: And possibly Section 79.
KELLY: Yeah that's right, which relates to communication of official secrets. Now yesterday the Attorney-General told us that the investigation this is the News Corp one was clearly about some potential individuals, or individuals in government broke the law. But the AFP warrant at the time was in response to, quote, the alleged publishing of information classified as an official secret, which is an extremely serious matter with the potential to undermine Australia's national security. In your view, given that explanation, what do you understand? Could it mean journalists would be jailed as a result of these stories?
DREYFUS: It's apparent that that is possible from some of what has been said. And again, it's for the government they can't hide behind the police. It's for the government to explain who the targets are here. It's for the government to explain if journalists might be charged. It's for the government to explain if this investigation is directed at journalists and media organisations. They can't just wave it away or ridiculously, for Mr Morrison to say he is open to discussion about it. Well times up he's got to show some leadership and explain whats happening to press freedom in this country.
KELLY: Mark Dreyfus, thank you very much for joining us.
DREYFUS: Thanks very much Fran.
ENDS
