Subjects: Quintet of Attorneys General and Five Country Ministerial meeting in Washington DC; ‘Let Them Stay’ campaign; resettlement of Syrian refugees; encryption; Cardinal Pell; Julian Assange, Senate voting reform; counter-terrorism legislation; international law for self-defence.
E&EO…………………………………………………………………………………………..
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
For these last two days the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and I have been in Washington for an important national security conference involving the so-called ‘Five-Eyes’ nations, the five main English speaking democracies – the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand.
Represented at the conference have been the attorneys-general, the national security ministers, and now for the first time, the immigration ministers of those five nations.
The focus of the conference has been how to keep our population safe, particularly with a focus on the continuing threat of global terrorism. We have spent two days discussing with Jeh Johnson - the American Homeland Security Secretary, Loretta Lynch - the American Attorney-General, Theresa May - the British Home Secretary, and other counterpart Ministers, ways in which the threat posed by terrorism can be addressed both individually and in our respective countries and collaboratively through greater sharing of techniques, greater sharing of information, even greater cooperation at an intelligence and at an operational level, and also, importantly, cooperation between law enforcement agencies and the private sector and civil society.
It’s a conference that will occur each year, it’s a conference of growing importance, and as far as the eye can see it seems the focus on terrorism will remain the principle business of this conference. I’ll invite my colleague Peter Dutton to make a few remarks, in particular, about the outcomes in relation to border protection from the conference.
IMMIGRATION MINISTER:
George, thanks very much. Firstly can I say thank you very much to Secretary Jeh Johnson, also to the Attorney-General Loretta Lynch and all of our colleagues for what I think has been a very productive meeting.
As the Attorney-General points out, for the first time immigration, homeland security and border force ministers have come together because all of our countries face the threat from foreign fighters, either departing our shores, or returning even more radicalised and posing a significant threat to our own people.
I’m very pleased that as part of the discussions the Australian Border Force has been able to enter into a further agreement with the US Homeland Security Department to enhance the relationship, to provide a greater level of exchange of information. And the US faces an incursion of its borders and that’s the case of course for many countries across Europe and all of the projections that we’ve heard over the course of the last couple of days we’ll see those numbers continue into the foreseeable future.
Obviously Australia has been very successful in stopping the boats, in particular, in making sure that we don’t allow people to drown at sea and the response to that has been positive because as all Australians know it’s important for sovereignty of any nation, it is very important for the sovereignty of any nation, to make sure that your borders are secure, and Australia has been successful at doing that but we face down the threat of people smugglers every day. At the same time we are able to bring in people in record numbers through the refugee and humanitarian programs into our country and of that I think all Australians should be very proud.
I think they’ve been a productive couple of days and certainly the relationship between the Australian Border Force and Homeland Security has only been enhanced and I’m very grateful for the bilateral meetings we’ve had with the other partners as well. And this will continue as an annual event, as the Attorney points out, because the threat from terrorism, the threat from people moving illegally across borders will be with us for our lifetime and we need to make sure we work together, we collaborate and have a free, wherever possible real time, exchange of information and that has been advanced during the discussions in the last couple of days and it’s been a very productive meeting indeed.
JOURNALIST:
Attorney-General, you’ve discussed expanding efforts to counter the threat of Islamic State or Da’esh and other international terrorist groups by, you say, strengthening border and aviation security. What more can be done that hasn’t been done to date?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
Well I think in dealing with this threat one of the keys is to ensure that there is as much information exchanged between our various intelligence and law enforcement and border protection agencies and, as was stressed during the course of the conference, that that information should be exchanged swiftly and, where possible, in real time. So we, Minister Dutton and I, had quite a deep discussion with our international partners about how, not merely the nature of the information that is exchanged can be expanded, but also how swiftly that information can be exchanged so that, for example, something that raises a flag at one border should immediately raise a flag on the borders of the other partner nations.
JOURNALIST:
Immigration Minister, the ‘Let Them Stay’ campaign is quite prominent. Do you have anything further to say about the future of the asylum seekers due to be sent back to Nauru?
IMMIGRATION MINISTER:
Well the Government has been consistent all along in relation to our strong stance to make sure that we keep our borders secure. I’ve repeated on a number of occasions that we’ll have a look at each individual case and we will be compassionate in our assessment of those cases. But the Government’s resolve remains unchanged and that is to ensure that people who seek to arrive in our country by boat won’t settle in our country. And we have provided medical support to a number of people off Nauru, as well as family members who are in good health but have travelled with a family member in need of that medical support. The principle will continue in relation to any of these cases and that is that once the medical support has been provided then the person will be able to return to Nauru. That remains the position of the Government and we’ve been consistent on that from day one.
JOURNALIST:
I’m sure it would have come up at the conference in the last couple of days but Labor in Australia has called on you to explain why Australia has only settled 26 Syrian refugees in the past five months after the former Prime Minister announced an emergency intake of 12,000 as quickly as possible, whereas the Canadian Government, in just three months, has flown 20,000 Syrian refugees to their country and welcomed them with open arms.
IMMIGRATION MINISTER:
The first point of course is that I’ve said from day one that we are going to conduct biometric screening, enhanced security checks, including working with our partners in the US, Canada, the UK and elsewhere if appropriate to make sure that we can check the bona fides of people that seek to come to our country. Now there are two reasons for that and two reasons that makes it very important for us not to compromise those security checks. The first one of course is that we want to extend a hand of welcome to those people who are in desperate need of a new life because they have been, in the case of Syria or Iraq, they’ve suffered at the hands of terrible people or they’ve been displaced from their homes, whatever the case might be. Secondly, we want to make sure that the security of our nation remains the absolute priority and that we don't displace people that are genuine refugees that would seek to come otherwise, and we seek to get that balance right and I think we do. Several thousand people have been screened in, but we are waiting to do security checks with the US and otherwise.
If Mr Shorten or Mr Marles is suggesting that somehow we should compromise on the security checks and express people in then I think they should make that very clear because I think that is at odds with what the Australian public demands. The Australian public demands that the Australian Government does everything possible to make sure that first and foremost our national security is protected, and secondly to make sure we are bringing the right people into our country so that they can start a new life.
JOURNALIST:
Canada, as you mentioned at the outset, is an intelligence partner of Australia. Are they operating off different information when they receive refugees from Syria?
IMMIGRATION MINISTER:
Well it’s an issue for Canada to comment on but in relation to Australia we’ve been consistent again from the time of the announcement last year, and that is that we are going to conduct biometric testing, we are going to check against databases, we are going to make sure we can establish the identity of people and in some cases that is very difficult because they are without proper documentation and all of those background checks need to be undertaken. And I’ve given an assurance right from the start that we will not compromise, not even in one case. If we are in doubt in relation to a particular application that person will not come to our country because my responsibility, the responsibility of the Prime Minister, is to make sure we keep the Australian public safe and that’s our absolute priority.
JOURNALIST:
In the United States, Attorney-General , the issue of encryption has been incredibly fraught, because of the issues of privacy and also the issues of law enforcement – most recently in the case of the San Bernardino terrorist attack where Apple has now been asked by US courts to provide access to that phone – what’s the Australian Government’s position in relation to allowing companies like Apple to ensure they have custom software that allows a terrorists phone to be accessed by investigators?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
First of all, this is a decision of an American court and it has been something of a background to the conference that we’ve been having over the past two days. To put the situation shortly, American law enforcement authorities, in seeking to investigate the San Bernardino massacre in which 14 people were the victims of a terrorist crime, sought access to a mobile phone, that was denied, so they applied to the court and it has been reported in the United States this morning that the court made an order requiring Apple to facilitate access to the data on that phone.
Apple is considering its position. Apparently it is appealing the order. The Australian Government’s position naturally is that we would expect, as in Australia, that all orders of courts should be obeyed by any party which is the subject of a lawful order by a court. The particular facts of this case are not facts that would arise in Australia. But what I think it does illustrate is at a time when encryption of data is becoming almost ubiquitous and vast quantities of data which would previously have been accessible by warrant to law enforcement agencies, inaccessible, I think it shows how important it is that ISPs do cooperate with law enforcement agencies in facilitating and cooperating with proper investigations into serious crime.
JOURNALIST:
You said ISPs, would you also include companies like Apple, companies that do make this software on their products because, as has been raised in the United States in the Congress in front of hearings, if it’s not an American company that is going to be encrypting, it will be a Russian one, it will be a Chinese one?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
Well this particular case involved Apple and I think that the observation applies generally to all companies in the tech-sector.
JOURNALIST:
How important do you think it is that this sort of compliance occurs in Australia? Do you have any concerns in Australia that a citizen’s right to privacy would be impeded via some sort of backdoor access to personal devices for intelligence purposes or otherwise?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
We’re not proposing that and this is not a problem that has arisen in Australia. My Department has established very cooperative and collaborative relationships with companies in the tech-sector and we’re happy with the level of cooperation we are receiving. But nevertheless there is a broader problem for law enforcement, in all jurisdictions frankly, if data is encrypted in a way that is entirely inaccessible without the cooperation of the ISP or the maker of the device, then that makes inaccessible relevant investigative information that would hitherto have been accessible and that’s a problem for law enforcement.
JOURNALIST:
Minister, in the last 48 hours there’s been a campaign to get Cardinal George Pell to return to Australia to answer questions that he’s otherwise going to answer from Rome, at the Vatican, to the Royal Commission. Do you believe Cardinal Pell should return to Australia?
IMMIGRATION MINISTER:
Obviously the Royal Commission is underway and I don’t think it’s helpful to make comments in relation to their ongoing matters and I’d leave any comment obviously to the Commissioners to make.
JOURNALIST:
Attorney-General?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
I agree with what Mr Dutton has said. Cardinal Pell is giving evidence by video conference, which is not at all unusual by the way, as a result of orders and directions made by the Royal Commission itself. Now those people that have gone into the public arena to criticise that, are in fact criticising the orders that have been made by the Royal Commissioner and calling them into question. I think frankly the Royal Commission, the Royal Commissioner and the manner in which the Royal Commissioner chooses to arrange the Royal Commission, should be respected by everyone.
JOURNALIST:
Julian Assange, has the Obama Administration asked you about his fate?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
No, certainly no communication has come to my Department. I’m aware of the latest developments in relation to Mr Assange but Mr Assange’s fate is in Mr Assange’s hands. He’s the subject of a valid warrant issued by the British Government under European law, under the collaborative European warrants scheme and he is perfectly free to walk out of that Embassy and face the consequences of a valid warrant that has been issued against him in relation to allegations of serious crime.
JOURNALIST:
Senate voting rules, when should we expect the Government to introduce changes to those?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
No announcement has been made about that.
JOURNALIST:
Will the Government accept the recommendation of changes to the control orders legislation?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
That’s been reviewed as part of the review of the latest tranche of national security legislation by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The Government works collaboratively with that committee. In the past we have routinely accepted their recommendations. There have been very few cases in which we haven’t accepted recommendations in relation to national security law because we do want the Parliament to be a partner in this. This is not just a matter of the executive government putting legislation on the table, and as it were, saying ‘take it or leave it’. So the latest batch of recommendations is under consideration at the moment.
JOURNALIST:
The application of international law for self-defence, the issue of imminence, that came up at your talks in the last 24 hours. Can you elaborate on what the significance of that was?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
Yes. In public international law and the law of armed conflict, there is a lively debate going on at the moment in relation to what is known as the West Point principles, and in particular one of those principles which concerns what constitutes an imminent threat so as to justify in international law acts of self-defence and military actions in the nature of pre-emptive self-defence. So as a result of the intervention, in particular of the British Attorney-General, supported by Australia, an officials working party has been established among the Five Eyes nations to try to arrive at a common position among us as to what the nature of an imminent threat, so as to justify and invoke the doctorate of pre- emptive self-defence, is in the law of armed conflict.
JOURNALIST:
That’s in relation to Syria and our bombing of Syria and the involvement in Iraq at the behest of the Iraqi Government, isn’t it?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
Well, it arises in that context but of course the issue is a generic issue of international law.
[ends]