Terror bill will make Aus police state

Mid-day.com
Oct. 20, 2005

With its draconian anti-terrorism laws being rushed through parliament in frenetic hurry, Australia is moving towards a police state, according to the country’s Law Council.

Under the provisions of a proposed Bill, the Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005, people who support insurgents can be jailed for up to seven years.

The Australian Federal Police will also be enabled to carry out what are termed preventive detention orders, effectively locking up people thought to be involved or to have knowledge of a terrorist act.

Suspected terrorists who are detained by police will be able to ring loved ones but not tell them where they are, while judges can stop suspects from using the Internet or telephones.

Details of the Bill were leaked on his website by Jon Stanhope, chief minister of the ACT (Australian Capital Territories), who believes the draft laws go much further than measures agreed to by state and territory leaders last month.

The John Howard administration said last week it would introduce the laws in parliament on October 31, but only allow the senate one week to investigate them and report by November 8.

President of the Australian Law Council, Jon North, is quoted by a news agency as saying that although Australian people are frightened of terrorists, especially after the October 1 suicide bombings in Bali, civil liberties have to be protected.

The latest Bali bombings have brought forth warnings of an attack on Australia and trenchant criticism of the government’s record in countering terrorism in the region.

The Attorney General, Philip Ruddock, said recently that a terrorist attack on Australia was “highly probable” but his job was to do everything possible to ensure it did not happen.

“We understand that the people are scared, we understand that terrorism is the major, major issue, but we must not take away fundamental rights without asking our government to assure us that we are going to be safe,” North said.

He said he was particularly concerned about the shoot-to-kill provisions in the draft legislation, and the plan to allow children as young as 16 to be detained without charge for up to 14 days.

North said he was also worried about the reaction of the government in the wake of the London bombings in July.

Prime minister John Howard insists the government will not water down its tough new anti-terror laws despite fears they would erode civil rights.

However, growing fright on the Liberal Party backbench over the legislation has forced the government to reconsider extreme elements of the law, especially the provisions regarding the length of time suspects can be held without charge, issues around the holding of minors, freedom of speech, new sedition laws and proposed jail sentences for soft terrorism charges.

The latest debate on the new draft laws came as thousands of emergency workers and bureaucrats began a week-long anti-terror exercise, Mercury 05, across the country on Monday.

Meanwhile, the government has decided to double the size of its spy force, the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), over the next five years, as part of its strategy for home-grown terrorist threats.

It will also invest in new information technology systems to cope with the vast volume of intelligence now being developed and exchanged internationally.

Most new government spies, who will swell the size of the force from 980 to 1860, are expected to be recruited from Islamic and ethnic communities.
Attorney General Ruddock feels ASIO needed “a variety of language skills and awareness of different cultural backgrounds” if it was to be effective.

The government has increased ASIO’s budget from Aus $62.9 million to $171.7million, since the September 11 attacks in the US in 2001.

The Sydney Morning Herald says in a perceptive editorial, “The question is whether basic democratic rights must be thrown away at the first hint of danger… if basic laws must be abrogated, the government has to explain why, provide for a more stringent review of the legislation, and ensure its life is limited.

“Most importantly, parliament must be allowed to devote as much time as it needs to consider and refine these radical changes to our democratic rights.”