Senate Committee rejects "anti-terror" laws — for now

by Peter Mac

A select committee of the Australian Senate has rejected new 'anti-
terrorist" legislation proposed by the Howard Government — at least in its 
current form — as anti-democratic. The Government claims that the new laws 
are crucial to prevent terrorist acts.

However, they incorporate provisions that would allow the Australian 
Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) to intercept E-mail, voicemail 
and SMS messages without a warrant. Democrats' leader Natasha Stott Despoja 
commented, "the legislation would mean no warrants, no privacy, no 
accountability".

Worse still; the new laws would give ASIO the powers to arrest and detain 
citizens "communicado" and would also reverse the onus of proof for those 
charged with "terrorist" offences.

The legislation would give the government the power to ban organisations 
which it claimed were engaging in or "assisting" terrorist organisations. 
There are no provisions under the proposed legislation to lift bans, and 
according to the Senate Committee's report any such decision would be 
"effectively unreviewable".

These are powers that former Prime Minister Robert Menzies could only have 
dreamt of.

(At the height of the "Cold War" witchhunts of the early 1950s, Menzies 
tried to pass legislation to ban the Communist Party of Australia (CPA), 
but this was deemed unconstitutional by the High Court. He then tried 
unsuccessfully to have the legislation passed at a referendum, but this 
also failed.)

The penalties for offences under this latest legislation include up to 25 
years imprisonment. "Terrorism" itself is ill-defined to the point where 
basic rights regarding freedom of speech would effectively be eliminated. 
The legislation could be used as an excuse to suppress opposing views, 
protest, civil disobedience and industrial unrest.

The rationale given for introducing the legislation is the September 11 
attack.

If the new laws are passed, it would probably be an offence to point to 
evidence suggesting that the US Government was actually complicit in these 
terrible events.

(The evidence includes, for example, the cancellation of normal US rules on 
intercepting hijacked aircraft, the earlier US refusal of an offer to 
extradite Osama Bin Laden, the CIA's release of one of the bomb plotters so 
he could complete his pilot's training course, the "just in time" 
relocation of a crucial Pentagon nerve centre, and the amazing ability of 
the US and Britain to launch a huge force to invade Afghanistan less than 
three weeks after the bombing.)

If the legislation had been passed five weeks ago, journalist Richard Walsh 
and the Fairfax group could probably have been charged with assisting 
terrorism for suggesting that commercial and strategic interests prompted 
the invasion of Afghanistan.

(Walshe's article pointed out that in 1997 the US flew leading members of 
the Al Quaida organisation to Texas for a barbeque, to discuss a deal to 
pipe oil from the Caspian sea across Afghanistan. Al Quaida's subsequent 
refusal of this kind offer is said to have enraged Washington.)

Others who have suggested that the September 11 bombing was deliberately 
orchestrated to provide the US with a strategic launching pad for future 
attacks on China and Russia would also probably be liable to imprisonment 
under the legislation.

Even aid agencies that have voiced criticism of US and/or Australian 
foreign policy could be charged under the new laws. Although Attorney-
general Daryl Williams has described opposition to the bill as "naive", 
some of the criticism of it has come from Liberal MPs, who have recognised 
the legislation's potential to split conservative ranks.

The Senate Committee's decision to reject the legislation is welcome news 
indeed. However, the danger now is that those opposing the legislation in 
the Australian Parliament are demanding amendments, but have not ruled out 
passing some sort of new legislation

Given the tendency of the ALP, in particular, to lurch forever to the 
right, the outlook for civil rights in Australia will depend on how quickly 
a big and broad movement can be built against the bills — especially 
within ALP and trade union ranks.