THE HON. PHILIP RUDDOCK
ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Mr Ruddock, thanks for your time.

A very good evening to you, Bryan.

I wonder if I could ask you about this new legislation that’s coming in.

Yes, this is the anti-terrorist legislation?

Yes.

Yes, that legislation has been on the books for some time.

These are amendments, aren’t they?

We are bringing in some amendments, yes.

And what is the purpose of them?

Well, we will be giving the authorities certain powers, Bryan, the better to defend Australia from terrorism.

What sort of powers, exactly?

They’ll be able to enter premises, for example, where they think there might be terrorist activity.

And arrest people?

And arrest people, by all means. We hope they will, yes.

And what will they arrest them for?

Well, they might, for example, think they know something.

They might know what?

Something maybe they shouldn’t know, Bryan.

What sort of thing?

That’s not specified in the legislation. This would be a matter for them.

So, they could arrest me?

Theoretically, Bryan, yes, if they thought you perhaps knew something.

What sort of thing would I know?

As I say, Bryan, this is not specified in the legislation. This would be a matter for the arresting officer.

But, Mr Ruddock, how would I establish my innocence here?

Well, you wouldn’t be innocent, Bryan, if you were being arrested, would you? They are not going to arrest you if you are innocent. They’re not fools, these people.

How do I get out of this?

You’d have to establish, in some persuasive way, that perhaps the thing that they thought you knew, you don’t know.

How do I do that?

I have no idea, Bryan. That’s not my problem.

But I would have to prove that I didn’t know it.

That’s it. It’s fairly simple.

But isn’t that the opposite of the presumption of innocence?

Bryan, this is not a normal situation.

In what way isn’t it a normal situation, Mr Ruddock?

Someone has come into your house, Bryan, and arrested you because they think you might know something.

Yes, and it’s up to me and I have to prove that I don’t know it.

That’s correct. It’s not a normal situation.

Do they tell me what it is that I don’t know?

No, they’re not going to tell you what it is.

Why not?

Bryan, if I came into your house and arrested you because I thought you might know something, I wouldn’t be able to tell you what it is without impeding your capacity to argue that you didn’t know what it was.

In that case perhaps no arrest should be made until the alleged offence can be established, Mr Ruddock.

We don’t want them to know. We’re not going to tell them, Bryan.

But if you don’t tell them what it is, how can they possibly argue that they didn’t know it? They don’t know what it is, Mr Ruddock.

That’s right. I think you’ll find we’ve got them there, Bryan. I don’t think they’ve got a leg to stand on, myself, and they deserve everything they’ve got coming.

When is this legislation coming in?

After 1 July, when we don’t have to trouble the scorer much. We’ll run both houses.

And you wrote this?

I’m not alone, Bryan. There were several of us there.

Who?

Oh, there was me, Lewis Carroll, a bloke called Escher from South Australia; a few of us.

Do you know what I think of this legislation, Mr Ruddock?

Be a bit careful here, Bryan.

Do you know what I think of this legislation?

Be a bit careful what you say.

(Public announcement.) Bryan Dawe, to the front desk, please. There are some gentlemen here to see you.

Don’t look at me, Bryan. You got yourself into this.