AG's comments on Melbourne terrorism trial verdict

ATTORNEY-GENERAL ROBERT MCCLELLAND

15 SEPTEMBER

PRESS CONFERENCE, BLUE ROOM, PARLIAMENT hOUSE, CANBERRA, 16:15 PM

Subjects: MELBOURNE TERRORISM TRIALS; CLARKE INQUIRY.

ROBERT MCCLELLAND: The jury in the Pendennis trial has now reached a verdict in respect to ten of the accused. The jury is still deliberating on charges against two individuals and the court orders remain in place in respect to those matters, so, as such, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on detail relating to those matters.

However, I welcome the convictions that have been handed down today. There have been six individuals convicted of membership of a terrorist organisation. Three individuals convicted of providing support to a terrorist organisation and one individual has been convicted of directing the activities of a terrorist organisation.

The trial has been lengthy and complicated. It commenced in February of this year, over 50 witnesses have been called, over 3000 pages of evidence. The jury is, of course, entitled to reach various verdicts on the evidence before it, and four men have been acquitted of the charges bought against them. This is an example of effective cooperation between the Australian Federal Police, ASIO, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and of course mention should also be made of the role performed by the Victorian Police Force, which was also outstanding.

Indeed, cooperation between these agencies is key to ensuring better coordination and ultimately more successful prosecution of terrorism cases. Implementation of the recommendations of the Street Review made earlier this year on matters of interoperability in national security operations is ensuring closer interaction and integration between policing and intelligence agencies. Recognition must also be made of the role of the court. It was a tremendously demanding responsibility placed on the judge and indeed court staff. And of course recognition should also be made to the sacrifices that were made by the jury who have clearly applied themselves with dedication to this important public role. I would also take the opportunity of briefly digressing to also indicate our appreciation for all those involved in the successful prosecution that occurred last week of Bilal Khaazal in Sydney.

It should be noted in both instances that the Muslim community has been integral to the success of these investigations. Strong links have been forged between police and the Muslim community through the ongoing efforts of the Australian Federal Police's community engagement teams. Successful prosecutions are of course important, vitally important, in sending a clear message to those who may be influenced by violent, extremism. The real prospect of conviction and imprisonment will hopefully open their eyes to what terrorism really is: nothing more than criminal behaviour at its most base and brutal level, armed at innocent civilians as the target of choice.

The Rudd Government is committed to protecting all Australians. We take a hard line against terrorism and we make absolutely no apology for that.

The seriousness of the offences involved in this case highlights why we must do all we can to ensure the public's security. Clearly a terrorist attack would not only cause loss of life and injury and destruction to property, it would also do significant damage to our social fabric. We live in a tolerant, multicultural society and our agencies are determined to keep it that way and I command all those involved in these successful prosecutions, very happy to answer questions.

QUESTION: Attorney, do you feel that the law enforcement agencies, and I use that term broadly, to include ASIO and the like, are now at a point where they understand these new terrorism laws that we've seen introduced since 9/11 and can use them well and deliver prosecutions?

ROBERT MCCLELLAND: I think to answer that question briefly: the proof of the pie is in the eating and I think they have performed their role admirably and clearly there are complexities involved in the fine line between the gathering intelligence and the fine line of gathering evidence which is admissible in court proceedings and I think all agencies with the assistance of and the expertise of the Director of Public Prosecutions have done an outstanding job and in that context council appearing on behalf of the Commonwealth clearly have developed and are continuing to develop expertise in these matter.

QUESTION: So some of the charges didn't stick. Is there likely to be a review of the legislation?

ROBERT MCCLELLAND: Obviously that's a matter for the agencies to advise government on but we'll look at the advice of the agencies in respect to both the individual charges and we will also look at how the laws generally operate as we are doing on an ongoing basis.

QUESTION: Is this - this group that's been convicted in Melbourne, is - are they an aberration or are they symptomatic of what concerns you might have about terrorism or extremism in Australia.

ROBERT MCCLELLAND: It would be naive to discount the prospect of a terrorist attack in Australia. Clearly a terrorist attack in Australia is possible and hence we have our security rating at the level of medium. Indeed, it would be naive not to recognise that such an attack could be perpetrated by home grown terrorism. It is an indication as to why our agencies must continue to be vigilant, as I am convinced they are, and it's an indication as to how we must get our national security arrangements in place so that our agencies, as has been shown in this case, operate effectively together and continue to work effectively and cooperatively together.

QUESTION: Are there any other groups like this out there?

ROBERT MCCLELLAND: Well, again, the national security agencies clearly in performing their role, look at the conduct of a number of individuals in Australia. But, given the fact that there are outstanding matters being considered by the juries and also that there is an ongoing trial in Sydney, I won't comment on any of those specifics or, indeed, identify any organisations.

QUESTION: Are you getting advice from your agencies that radicalisation of [indistinct] is a worsening problem or is it getting better? Can you give us some sense of...

ROBERT MCCLELLAND: The Government is of the view that having tough and effective national security laws is very important, and the area where we think there needs to be more work is in the area of counter-radicalisation. The Government is actually undertaking a considerable amount of work in that area to look at the factors that have led to young Australians being radicalised, and what we can do to prevent that occurring. And that's obviously in terms of not only social cohesion but looking down to the level of the individual organisations or groups they may be associated with, who they come into contact with. Clearly a lot of work has been done in countries such as Great Britain, the Netherlands, and we believe that the time has come for Australia to look at those broader and longer-term objectives. If we want to be in a situation where our children and grandchildren aren't feeling threatened by terrorism, that's the area that we need to occupy some space.

QUESTION: So, just following on from that, is the greater problem now then not imported terrorism but the radicalisation of Australians?

ROBERT MCCLELLAND: The reality is that we have to be alert to the prospect of a terrorist event being perpetrated by those who may come from overseas, but equally our agencies are - need to be and are in fact alert to the prospect of a terrorist event being perpetrated by young Australians.

QUESTION: What are you - again, what are the agencies telling you, in terms of where the threat is likely to come from, is it likely to come from within our own communities or from abroad?

ROBERT MCCLELLAND: Again, these possibilities exist - the answer to that is yes, the possibilities exist in respect to both levels. And that makes it imperative that our agencies work in cooperation with international agencies as well as working with not only national or federal agencies but also with street level policing. Clearly, a lot of intelligence and a lot of valuable evidence literally comes from the police on the ground, from local police, local state police on the ground. So, again, increasingly more work is being done in that space. Former Justice Street in his report indicated that more work needed to be done in that space, and our agencies have been working hard on doing just that. But it must be said, and specifically said, that it's still work in progress, and our agencies are still working hard to make sure those relationships with local state police are as effectively as they possibly can be. They're significantly improving, but even local police and our federal agencies will say that there is more to be done. And they're determined to do that work to ensure that cooperation at all levels.

QUESTION: Can you say how important this prosecution is, how it relates to - rates against other prosecutions we've had for terrorism offences?

ROBERT MCCLELLAND: It is my view that the successful prosecution in the Pendennis trials is the most successful terrorist prosecution that this country has seen. It involved obviously a number of individuals but it also evidenced a degree of organisation that our law enforcement agencies have been able to - able to prevent developing. And, as I say, we must be alive to the fact that not only would a terrorist event cause injury and death and destruction, it would be enormously damaging to our social fabric. Now, I think, in that context it must be recognised that the Muslim community as a whole has been enormously supportive of the work of the national security agencies. They are aware that everyone would be the loser if we suffered an event that could cause damage to our successful, vibrant and tolerant multicultural society. And that is clearly what would occur if there was a terrorist event in Australia.

QUESTION: On the Clarke Inquiry, are you disappointed that the AFP remain the only agency involved in that investigation not to have made a publishable submission available to the inquiry, and is it your expectation that they will do so?

ROBERT MCCLELLAND: I'm on the record as certainly making statements that would encourage the Australian Federal Police to make what they reasonably can make available public. Having said that, they are in the most difficult position given that much of the material in their possession was provided by the British authorities. I know they are liaising closely with the British authorities. I would expect, certainly as the British cases unfold as they are I understand from October, that increasingly evidence provided by the British agencies will be public aired in Britain. And I'm hoping that the situation will be kept under ongoing review in terms of what the Australian Federal Police can make public here.

Thanks very much.

* * End * *

Source: Email List