Backbench revolt forces backflip on planned law

By Cynthia Banham

May 16 2002

Sydney Morning Herald

The federal Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, is expected to take a compromise version of his anti-terrorism legislation to his party room today in an attempt to quell a backbench revolt over draconian aspects of the proposed laws.

Despite extensive meetings with Government backbenchers, he has failed to reach consensus within his party on the fate of the most controversial part of the laws - the powers to ban terrorist-linked organizations.

Government sources said yesterday that Mr Williams, who had a long meeting with his backbench committee on Tuesday night, had ''moved a long way" in agreeing to modify the legislation, including offering to introduce an exemption for humanitarian aid organizations.

The laws - which were due to be debated in Parliament yesterday but were taken off the Senate agenda at the last minute without explanation - have been criticized for the way they define terrorist acts. The definition was so wide it would have caught aid organizations in its net.

Mr Williams has agreed to tighten the definition by introducing an element of intent - previously there was no defence of honest or reasonable mistake - and is also understood to have backed down on provisions which would have made all terrorist offences subject to a reverse onus of proof. This would have put the obligation on the accused to prove he or she was not guilty of an offence.

Under the agreed compromise, the reverse onus of proof would still apply to terrorist training offences but not to preparatory offences such as being found in possession of an item connected with a terrorist act.

Proscription powers remain the thorn in the Attorney-General's side. As originally drafted, they would have allowed him to outlaw certain organizations considered to have terrorist links. Those powers have been likened to laws banning the Communist Party which were struck down by the High Court in the 1950s.

Mr Williams had already proposed to change the legislation so an organization could be proscribed only by agreement of four ministers, including the prime minister. But some backbenchers remain convinced that the proscription laws are wrong in principle and they have questioned whether the powers are necessary and whether they would assist in the prosecution of terrorism.

In another significant compromise, Mr Williams has agreed to introduce a merits review for decisions which proscribe organizations. Despite the lack of consensus on the proscription issue, government sources have said Mr Williams has made enough concessions to ''now probably garner majority consensus" in the party room today.

A spokeswoman for Mr Williams yesterday would not confirm the party room meeting or the backbench split over proscription, saying he was ''in continuing discussions with Labor and the backbench committee on possible amendments to the legislation".

Meanwhile, Labor has put up proposals to do away with the proscription powers and leave it up to the courts to determine whether an individual was involved in a terrorist organization. The powers to ban organizations would be replaced with a new definition of a terrorist organization.