New terror laws violate more civil rights

The Howard Government is proposing new laws to allow federal 
police to detain terror suspects for up to 24 hours before being 
charged. No case has been made out for altering the existing law 
which permits suspects to be held without charges for a maximum 
of four hours, plus a further eight hours if judicial 
authorisation is obtained.

The laws will also allow the government to prosecute members of 
an organisation that it deems to be terrorist, even if that 
organisation has not yet been officially banned under existing 
laws.

The existing draconian laws include provisions for ASIO to act as 
a secret police force. ASIO may now hold persons incommunicado, 
effectively with no time limit. Persons refusing to answer 
questions put by ASIO — even individuals not considered 
terrorist suspects — may be jailed for up to five years, and 
anyone revealing details of these or other ASIO activities may be 
jailed for up to two years.

Why does it want to hold people indefinitely, without access to 
the outside world (not even family or a lawyer) and then to make 
it an offence to report on what took place? No one has provided 
any need for such laws. The definition of "terrorism" and the 
scope of the laws are so broad that they could be used against 
communists, trade unionists, peace activists, environmentalists 
and other progressives.

The government is also drafting legislation to restrict access to 
evidence by lawyers acting in defence of persons accused under 
the terror laws, and to require security checks on these lawyers.

It is also considering legislation to make it an offence to 
"consort" with someone accused of being a terrorist, and another 
law to permit internment without charge of foreign nationals. 
Appalling though this proposal is, it is just one step away from 
applying the same law to Australia's own citizens.

Terror laws to muzzle criticism

In addition to the new laws, amendments to existing legislation 
will allow the government to confiscate money made from the 
publication of books or memoirs by anyone who has trained with an 
organisation the government deems to be terrorist.

The government argues that it prevents people from "profiting" 
from their experiences. In fact, it is intended to muzzle 
criticism of the Howard Government's slavish obedience to US 
foreign policy by people such as David Hicks and Mandouh Habib, 
who have direct and bitter personal experience of the results of 
that policy.

The Howard Government has even taken the stick to leading 
government officials who put a position that in any way invites 
criticism of the government.

Not content with its "achievements" to date, the Howard 
Government is considering legislation to amend the current 
defamation laws so that the defendants (such as the ABC and SBS) 
would have to prove "public interest" was served in their 
statements, publications and broadcasts. Truth alone will not do.

Labor's position

The ALP federal opposition has backed the government's 
legislative process, albeit with some minor concessions to civil 
rights. Labor's foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd did not rule 
out support for the latest government proposals, saying only 
that: "We will be looking carefully at the draft proposals put to 
us by the Prime Minister."

State Labor Governments have emulated the Howard Government by 
introducing their own legislation that would effectively crush 
civil liberties in the name of "fighting terrorism". This 
includes the consideration of a proposal by Queensland Premier 
Peter Beattie to allow police and the Crime and Misconduct 
Commission to conduct house searches without a warrant.

The terror coalition

Overseas, US President George W Bush has been forced to allow 
White House special security adviser Condoleeza Rice to testify 
before a special US Senate committee investigating the World 
Trade Centre bombing.

There are huge unanswered questions arising from this event — 
questions as to what happened to the US Airforce on September 11, 
what financial interests Bush and members of his administration 
have in common with Osama Bin Laden, what happened to the black 
box flight recorders, etc.

It is clear that the governments of the US, Britain and Australia 
are all terrified of revelations arising from this and other 
enquiries; hence the crackdown via "terror" laws on those who 
might reveal information about the WTC bombing and its aftermath.

The Howard Government's latest "terror" proposal, and other 
aspects of the existing and proposed legislation, has already 
been the subject of intense criticism from the Law Council of 
Australia, as well as from the Greens and Democrats in state and 
federal parliament. The Communist Party of Australia strongly 
opposes the legislation.

In combination with the existing laws the new batch of 
legislation poses an extreme danger for the civil liberties of 
Australian citizens.