Calls for terrorism laws overhaul

8 Sep 2011, 1:22 pm   -   Source: Michael Kenny, SBS
2 Comments
Share This
+ Comment
2
The laws gave ASIO the power to detain people without charge, trial or conviction and conduct compulsory questioning for information gathering. (AAP)

The laws gave ASIO the power to detain people without charge, trial or conviction and conduct compulsory questioning for information gathering. (AAP)

Lawyers' groups and civil libertarians have called for an overhaul of the counter-terrorism laws that were introduced in Australia after the September 11 attacks, Michael Kenny reports.

Scrap terrorism laws, civil groups urge

The SBS MP3 Player requires the Adobe Flash 8 Plugin. You can get Flash from here...

RELATED

Lawyers' groups and civil libertarians have called for an overhaul of the counter-terrorism laws that were introduced in Australia after the September 11 attacks, claiming they have compromised the basic rights of terror suspects.

The call comes after the Gillard Government appointed an Independent National Security Legislation Monitor earlier this year to undertake a comprehensive review of the current laws.

The laws were introduced by the Howard Government in 2003 and 2005, after a number of terror attacks, including the Bali bombings in 2002 in which 88 Australians were killed. They gave the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) the power to detain people without charge, trial or conviction and conduct compulsory questioning for information gathering.

The Law Council of Australia says this has allowed people to be detained when they were not accused of any crime, but may have inadvertently come into contact with a person with knowledge about terrorist activities.

The council's President Alex Ward believes the case of Indian-born doctor Mohammed Haneef in 2007 highlighted some flaws in these laws.

Dr Haneef was arrested and later charged based on concerns over his contact with his two second cousins in the United Kingdom who were linked to a failed terror plot in Glasgow.

But the charges against Dr Haneef were later dismissed after police found there was insufficient evidence to charge him.

"They said, 'We'll detain people with limited due process and with limited review and that sort of thing, we'll follow draconian measures which are appropriate if you've got a serious enough situation,'" he told SBS. 

"But the laws are still there on the books and they can be used. I guess the Haneef case is one case where you look at it and you say the powers were used a bit too zealously," Mr Ward said.

Mr Ward says he is hopeful that some of the more controversial aspects of the current terrorism laws will be overhauled by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor.

The Gillard government appointed Sydney barrister Bret Walker to the part time monitor role in April.

The Australian monitor position is modelled on a similar position that was established in Britain in 2001.

Britain's Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Laws, Lord Alex Carlile has produced numerous reports since that time, covering areas like the interrogation and detention of terror suspects.

Mr Ward believes the British approach has worked well.

When the counter-terrorism laws were introduced, the former Howard Government argued they were critical to protecting public safety at a time where there was a heightened threat of terrorism attacks.

But some civil liberties groups now question whether they are as relevant now as they were after the September 11 attacks in 2001.

Liberty Victoria says it appreciates why the Howard Government needed to expand police powers to carry out random searches in public places, like railway stations after the September 11 attacks.

But the organisation's president Spencer Zifcak believes some sections of the community have been targeted more through random searches than others.

"All too often, laws like this, including in the UK, are framed by saying 'we are about to declare a particular area as an area where anybody and everybody can be searched' and then random searches are undertaken and certainly the UK experience has demonstrated that the searches move from being random searches to people who look suspicious and that generally means people who are wearing Islamic clothing," Mr Zifcak told SBS.

That's a concern shared by Associate Professor Andrew Lynch from the University of New South Wales, who has conducted extensive research on counter-terrorism laws in Australia.

He says Australia's laws go further than other countries like Britain and the United States, by giving intelligence agencies the power to detain  people who may simply have some knowledge that could help prevent a terrorism attack.

Dr Lynch believes Australia's intelligence agencies have so far used these powers sensibly.

However he questions the former Howard Government's decision in 2005 to expand the grounds for outlawing terror organisations to include organisations that advocate terrorism, beyond those responsible for terrorist acts.

The 2005 Anti Terrorism Bill also extended the criteria to provide that anyone could be convicted of terrorism offences without evidence of a specific plot or target.

Dr Lynch believes many Muslim-Australians have felt stigmatised by the current proscribed list of terror organisations.

"There are currently I think 19 groups so proscribed and all but one of them is an Islamic group and the reality is of course that there are other organisations in society which we may also have a good reason to suspect of engaging in terrorist plotting," he told SBS.

"White supremacist groups are frequently singled out- like the Nationalist Front movement. The problem with the list of groups that are proscribed is that in focusing on Islamic organisations that does send a message to those communities in Australia that these laws are about them".

But Dr Lynch hopes the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor can put forward some sensible reforms to the current counter-terrorism laws.

"I think the effectiveness of that office will in large part be due to the ability of the monitor to be a consistent commentator on the state of these laws," he said. 

"It means that review is not simply a one-off task that either happens when a bill is before the parliament or on some occasions, post enactment review.

"But it means these laws will receive ongoing attention and through the ability to publicise his reports, that may well galvanise a bit of political action around the topic. For far too long, the politics of the matter has really intruded into the best practice of law making".
 

  • Follow us: 
  • Follow us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • Follow us on Youtube

Your Comments

Mrs

Cate B - from Brisbane, 9 months ago

of the migrant groups wanting to 'take over' our laws and put their own in. Whilst we had Catholic/Protestant segregation, due mostly to ignorance, they were not at each others throats; and you could see their faces. This country is more alined with European ideals than Middle Eastern which we couldnt tolerate to live with.Their Laws do not fit into any Western Society. If they want to come then they must embrace this land, give their allegiance to THIS NATION and do all to fit in with us.

Mrs

Cate B - from Brisbane, 9 months ago

When these 'migrants' will so blatantly break Australia's laws on migration - it is evident that our laws mean nothing. This is why they intend to bring in Sharia laws for them - and the rest of Australia's population. On a personal level, I dont think anyone objects to 'refugees' seeking to come to Australia.We talk about how rich Australia is from previous refugees and migrants from all other countries and how they have settled into law abiding, for the most part, but I dont recall any

Join the Discussion

Name
City / Suburb E.g. Artarmon, Sydney
Title
Comment
You have characters remaining.
Validation
What's this?
This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots.
All submitted comments become the property of SBS. They are moderated, so we reserve the right to edit comments and remove HTML tags. Not all submitted comments will be published. Publication does not mean we endorse the opinions expressed. Please read our terms and conditions for more information.