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 they are crucial to prevent terrorist acts. They incorporate provisions that would allow the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) to intercept E-mail, voicemail and SMS (mobile text) 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 incommunicado, and would also reverse the onus of proof for those charged with "terrorist" offences. The government would have the power to ban organisations which they claimed were engaging in terrorism or "assisting" terrorist organisations. There are no provisions to reverse bans. The Senate Committee's report notes that bans 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 the High Court deemed it unconstitutional. Menzies then tried unsuccessfully to have the legislation passed at a referendum.) The proposed penalties for offences under the 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 freedom of speech, protest actions, civil disobedience and industrial action. The September 11 events are given as the rationale for the legislation. However, it would probably be an offence under the new laws to point to evidence suggesting that the US Government was actually complicit in or could have prevented these terrible events. (The information 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 the invasion of Afghanistan was prompted by commercial and strategic interests. (Walsh's article pointed out that in 1997 the US flew leading members of the Al Qaida organisation to Texas for a barbeque, to discuss a deal to pipe oil from the Caspian Sea across Afghanistan. al Qaida'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 Bill's potential to split conservative ranks. The Senate Committee's decision to reject the legislation is welcome news. The danger is that Labor, Democrat and possibly even Greens Senators presently opposing the legislation are prepared to consider amendments. It is vital to reject the Bills outright. They are not needed. Existing legislation is more than adequate. Write now, while we still can, to your Senators calling on them to reject the legislation.