THE HON. PHILIP RUDDOCK
ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Mr Ruddock, thanks for your time.

Words, Bryan, cannot express the joy I experience whenever I move among you.

You’ve taken some flack over this decision to bring in the terrorism legislation on Melbourne Cup Day?

Bryan, the Parliament is sitting on Melbourne Cup Day. It cannot be a surprise that it will be engaging in governmental business while it is sitting.

Yes. I think the criticism is that the government appears to be trying to hurry through contentious legislation while the media and the Australian public’s attention is elsewhere.

I understand the nature of that criticism.

What is your reaction to that criticism, Mr Ruddock?

I don’t agree with that criticism. I simply make the point, Bryan, that the Parliament is sitting on Tuesday.

And then the next day the IR legislation’s coming in?

You bet it is, Bryan.

You don’t think there’s anything wrong with this?

There is nothing the matter with this whatever, no. These laws, which are new, are not a secret.

Well, no. What went wrong there?

The bastard who is the Chief Minister in the ACT put the bloody thing up on his website.

And you weren’t very pleased with that?

I cannot tell you, Bryan, how pissed off I was that a person elected to public office in this country would willingly divulge what we were going to do to the public.

Is that not the democratic way, though?

It is a constitutional crisis of exactly the kind you describe, yes.

Well, Mr Ruddock, what can you do about it?

We will be taking advice on this issue, as we do on many issues, Bryan.

What advice will you be taking?

We will be taking advice of the kind we took when we put all those asylum seekers in prison.

Why did you take legal advice in that instance?

Because the Constitution, Bryan, provides that only judges may imprison people.

What did that advice say, Mr Ruddock?

I cannot reveal to you the precise nature of the advice.

What did you do as a result of that advice?

I got myself another portfolio.

No, I meant what did the government do?

The government argued that it was not putting people in prison.

What was the government doing?

The government argued—successfully I might say—that it was putting people in administrative detention.

What’s the difference?

Administrative detention, Bryan, is two words.

Those problems are now over, aren’t they?

They are not over, no. The immigration minister spends an enormous amount of time and many millions of dollars dealing with problems devolving from those issues.

What are those problems?

Problems relating to the appalling treatment of those people.

Which people?

The persons who were seeking asylum in this country.

When?

During the time they were in prison.

Mr Ruddock, thanks for your time. Have a great Cup Day.

My Cup Day, Bryan, will be significantly better than yours or my name’s not Rumpelstiltskin.