ROB STARY, LAWYER: I've not disclosed anything that comes out of any interrogation warrant, George, or anything that's of an operational nature. On the contrary, the leaks that have come have come either from the Attorney-General's office or from the Australian Federal Police or from ASIO. They're the ones that have brought it into the public forum, not me.

GEORGE NEGUS: Are you, in fact, accusing the Government of being in breach of its own legislation?

ROB STARY: There certainly should be an investigation initiated as to how those leaks have taken place. The only way there can be a public disclosure is if the Attorney-General issues a certificate of disclosure and, to our knowledge that has not occurred.

GEORGE NEGUS: But have you actually made an official complaint? Are you one of the complainants, the people who have actually contacted the authorities about these leaks?

ROB STARY: Indeed, we have. We've complained to the Director-General of ASIO, to the Inspector-General of ASIO, to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, to the Attorney-General's office himself, to the Justice Minister. We think it's been a gross breach and we think that it ought to be investigated.

GEORGE NEGUS: Looking at this ASIO Act - and it's quite an act - speaking as a simple working journalist, rather than a lawyer, what would you have to do, or what would I have to do to be in breach of this act?

ROB STARY: George, to put it simply, there are two sorts of warrants. There's a search-and-seizure warrant and you're permitted, and indeed the Attorney-General's permitted, to talk about anything that arises from those search-and-seizure warrants. What you're not permitted to do, within a 28-day period, is to disclose the operation of an interrogation warrant. Nor are you permitted for a period of two years to disclose anything that comes out of that interrogation warrant.
If you do, as firstly a suspect, or a person who's subject to the interrogation, you're liable to imprisonment, you're liable to imprisonment as a lawyer, and you're liable as a journalist or any other member of the public if you disclose anything that comes out of that interrogation warrant.

GEORGE NEGUS: Up to five years in jail?

ROB STARY: Up to five years imprisonment.

GEORGE NEGUS: So where these latest series of raids are concerned, last week and this week in Sydney, do we know what kind - for sure, what kind of warrants were used? Were they warrants that were used that are safe for us to talk about, or were they questioning warrants that are very, very unsafe for anybody to talk about?

ROB STARY: Well, I can tell you that we act for six people who were the subject of search-and-seizure warrants. What I would not be permitted to do - or to use the Attorney-General's words, I wouldn't be in a position to confirm or deny that there had been interrogation warrants issued for the other four people. If I did disclose that, I'm committing an offence, and of course, I wouldn't disclose that.
Now it seems to me the material that has been deliberately leaked relates to those operational matters that have come out of the interrogation warrants. And to get back to your earlier point, I think either directly or indirectly, or without knowledge, some journalists may have committed an offence by, in fact, describing what's occurred.

GEORGE NEGUS: You mean the stories that have been appearing in the print media of late? You would contend that they are, in fact, a breach of act?

ROB STARY: Yes, I'd say it's arguable that they're a breach of the act. That's how draconian this legislation is. It stifles public debate, it stifles the opportunity of anyone to defend themselves, even if they're the victim of a malicious complaint. You're not permitted to say anything.
If there has been any untoward activity - and you remember Mick Keelty, the AFP Commissioner, has said this and, indeed, a spokesperson from the Commonwealth Attorney-General's office has said this - that terrorist activity is being thwarted or that there's been disruption of a cell or terrorist cell - I think the words were used - then we say, if that's the case, then people ought to be charged, so that they can have their day in court and they can defend themselves and that there can be public scrutiny of what takes place.
And the timing of those warrants is curious because, as you know, there's a parliamentary review committee examining whether the sunset clause on the ASIO legislation should take effect in June of next year.

GEORGE NEGUS: Rob, can I say this to you, given that the Howard Government has the numbers in the upper house, is there any - really, in reality, being serious about it, any chance whatsoever of what you're suggesting coming to pass, that the people who are opposed to these powers are likely to see any change?

ROB STARY: I'd like to be optimistic George, and say maybe there will be change. I mean, there are conservative spokespeople like Malcolm Fraser who say they're concerned about the extent of the powers that ASIO have. There are many people across all sections of the community that say there's no real demonstrated need and enough is enough and these powers ought to be curtailed.

GEORGE NEGUS: I guess the Government would argue that in the same way that you're accusing them of a massive PR stunt at the expense of the Muslim community in this country, you jumping up and down about this act is a PR stunt on behalf of your clients?

ROB STARY: Well, I'd say in response to that we should publicly ventilate all of these debates and arguments. We should have full disclosure. If there's anything untoward that's happened, charge people, take them before the court, give them their opportunity to defend themselves rather than this cloak of secrecy that hangs over them, giving them no opportunity to defend themselves, even if they're the victims, hypothetically, of a malicious complaint.
They've got no opportunity to say, "I am innocent." It's outrageous that the Australian Federal Police can identify the residential home of one of the suspects and that his neighbours can be interviewed and that he can be publicly vilified by implication in the way that he has, without any opportunity of defending himself.

GEORGE NEGUS: Finally, you don't think that the threat of terrorism is a sufficiently large one for Australia for this sort of very draconian legislation to be introduced, and used?

ROB STARY: Well, there are enormous powers that the Commonwealth had in terms of investigating and detaining people for terrorism offences. They're more equipped, they're better equipped than they ever have. They've got power of listening devices, telephone intercepts, surveillance and, if people engage in any wrongdoing, they should be charged and remanded in custody. These powers are completely unnecessary, there's no demonstrated need, we are not in the middle of Afghanistan or Iraq, we're in the middle of Australia, and the encroachment on these sort of civil rights is just completely outrageous.

GEORGE NEGUS: Rob Stary, thanks very much for your time.

ROB STARY: Thanks George.