You do not have to be a terrorist. You do not have to be an
adult. You do not even have to be a suspect. But under proposed Australian
laws, you could still be jailed indefinitely. Continuous detention - without
contact with the outside world and without a lawyer present during any
interrogation - is just one of the many controversial elements of a Federal
Government plan it says is necessary to combat terrorism.
The
spy agency ASIO would also have much stronger powers; the attorney-general
would be allowed to ban any groups or organisations; the right to silence would
be removed; and people could be jailed for life for possessing a
"thing" connected to terrorism, even if they had no idea that the
thing would be used for the purposes of terrorism.
These
proposals are contained in a package of six anti-terrorism bills, which the
government wants parliament to pass later this year, once two parliamentary
committees investigating the bills have completed their reports.
But
lawyers, civil libertarians, unions, aid agencies, religious groups, academics
and journalists say the proposed laws are so anti-democratic and far-reaching
they would put Australia into a similar position to that of Malaysia - with its
notorious internal security laws - and the former Soviet Union. They accuse the
Howard Government of using the cover of terrorism threats to try to gain new
powers so that in the future it can stifle dissent or opposition.
The
government agrees that the changes would be unprecedented, but says they are
also vital if Australia is to avoid the kind of terrorist attacks that struck
the United States on September 11 last year.
But
what exactly does it mean by vital? Attorney-General Daryl Williams
acknowledged in December that so far there was no evidence of a single
terrorist threat to Australia, a view his office repeated this week.
Liberty
Victoria president Chris Maxwell, QC, says the government is deliberately
misusing the concept of a terrorist threat to both scare the public and subdue
any political opposition to the bills. "It's the same strategy as they did
with the asylum seekers. If it says 'a real terrorist threat' often enough,
people will be frightened and will be prepared to accept anything. Leadership
in government should be about leading people through periods of distress rather
than exploiting that distress," he says.
Williams
is now in the US for talks on security issues, but his spokeswoman says that
"even though there is no specific threat, the security environment has
significantly changed since September 11. We need to do everything we can to
ensure we have sufficient tools to identify and prevent this kind of event
happening here".
Williams
and Prime Minister John Howard have pointed out that no one predicted the size
or nature of the September 11 attacks before they occurred. Terrorists have
also shown the capacity to work quickly, quietly and across borders, defying
traditional methods of law enforcement and detection.
ASIO
Director-General Dennis Richardson told a parliamentary committee hearing on
Tuesday that its covert intelligence gathering procedures - such as bugging
homes and phones, searching buildings, hacking into computers and reading
private mail - were often inadequate for dealing with what was known in the spy
trade as "an assessed threat".
He
said a person might have information about a terrorist act but was not prepared
to reveal it, and there was nothing the authorities could do to force that
information to be disclosed.
Australia
is also facing international commitments made since September 11 to crack down
on terrorism, especially the financing and running of formal groups linked to
terrorism. The US, Britain, New Zealand and many Western European countries
have introduced, or are planning to introduce, much tougher laws and stricter
controls.
But
lawyers and civil libertarians say Australia wants to go further - even in the
US, where the attacks occurred, constitutional guarantees of freedom mean some
Australian proposals have not been tested (although the US also has plans for
controversial secret military tribunals).
Liberty's
Maxwell says there is no need to introduce changes or even a new crime of
terrorism. He says Australia's existing criminal laws, such as murder,
attempted murder and conspiracy, are comprehensive enough to cover potential
terrorist situations.
"There
is no need for new powers. If there is a gap, let the government say publicly
what it is. If the Director-General (of ASIO) has been asking for more powers,
it should be possible to say what they are," he said.
Damien
Lawson, spokesman for the Federation of Community Legal Centres says "the
only gap they have identified in the existing criminal law is in relation to
training and preparation for terrorism".
Many
of the groups who have made submissions to the two parliamentary committees,
including the Federation, Australia's Law Council, Free Speech Victoria and the
Australian Council for Civil Liberties, are angry the government has not
allowed more time for debate.
While
Howard and Williams first flagged the anti-terrorism laws, including detention
without charge, last year, many details were not revealed until March. Many of
the proposed offences are also much wider than the government initially indicated.
The
definition of a terrorist act - which carries a maximum penalty of life
imprisonment - now focuses on a threat or action "made with the intention
of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause". The threat or
action could involve serious harm to person or property or the disruption of
electronic, postal, banking, insurance or telecommunications systems. It could
also simply be a threat "made using an electronic communication".
Organizations
linked in any way to this description of terrorist behaviour can also be banned
by the decision of the attorney-general alone, although there are grounds for
judicial review of such a decision.
ACTU
president Sharan Burrow says the definition is so broad and so dangerous that
it would mean groups dedicated to the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa,
East Timorese independence or saving the Franklin River from being dammed could
have been outlawed if the laws had been in place at those times.
Lawson
says there have already been problems in other countries, where innocent
individuals have been incorrectly named on lists linked to terrorism.
He
says Arab and Muslim individuals and groups will come under target first, and
then other ethnic or social justice groups in the community who oppose
government policies could follow later. The Australian Arabic Council and
Islamic groups say they are concerned that they will be the focus of any new
laws.
Lawyers
say several key offences will also now carry strict liability, which means a
person must be found guilty, regardless of whether or not they were aware of
any link to terrorism. One example: a new offence of "possessing a
thing" connected in any way with the preparation of a terrorist act. This
offence carries a maximum penalty of a life sentence.
The
government has not said what would qualify as "a thing", but lawyers
and academics warn it could include any possible document or object, such as a
map or a vehicle, that is later used by terrorists.
But
the most controversial proposal remains the plan to detain people indefinitely
and incommunicado, even when they are not suspected of committing a crime.
Anyone
aged 10 or over whom ASIO believes has information about a possible terrorist
act - that could include a journalist, an academic or a relative as well as an
actual suspect - could be detained for a 48-hour period that can be renewed
again and again. This means that anyone as young as 10 can be strip-searched.
ASIO
officers must first go to the attorney-general, who must be convinced there is
no other method of obtaining the information. Then they will apply to a federal
magistrate or a legal member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (some
tribunal members are appointed for set periods by the government) for a
warrant.
Williams'
spokeswoman insists numerous safeguards are in place to ensure that the new
powers would not be abused. Any hearings must be recorded on videotape,
prisoners are to be protected from "cruel, inhuman and degrading"
treatment during detention and prisoners can make complaints to the ombudsman.
The
next few weeks will be crucial in deciding whether the package of bills becomes
law. One of the two parliamentary committees investigating the bills will hold
public hearings in Melbourne today, and issue a report later this month. The
other committee will issue its report tomorrow.
The
Democrats and the Greens have already signaled their plans to block the bills,
which means the ALP's position will determine the result.
Labor
has been relatively silent so far - a deliberate strategy, according to one
senior MP - to ensure "we are not boxed in" by the government as it
was on the Tampa dispute last year.
"We
won't be rejecting the bills altogether and let them say we are 'soft on
terrorism'," the MP says. "I think you will see we will move
substantial amendments, intelligent amendments, because there is a lot of loose
language in these bills."