Having had a chance now to see some of the detail of the proposed anti-terrorism legislation, I must admit to having more concerns that at first thought. The stuff that really seems to be going overboard is to do with the offences, punishable by 5 years gaol, concerned with informing others about someone who is placed under preventative detention or subject to a control order.
For example, a parent whose child is detained, is not allowed to inform their partner of that fact. What exactly is the point of that? Also, the laws against sedition, which say in part:
seditious intention means an intention to effect any of the following purposes:
(a) to bring the Sovereign into hatred or contempt;
(b) to urge disaffection against the following:
(i) the Constitution;
(ii) the Government of the Commonwealth;
(iii) either House of the Parliament;
(c) to urge another person to attempt, otherwise than by lawful means, to procure a change to any matter established by law in the Commonwealth;
(d) to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between different groups so as to threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.
pose a potentially serious limitation on our ability to criticise government. Why shouldn’t I be able to call the British royal family a bunch of clowns who ought to be removed from office (which they only have because their ancestors were better thieves and murderers than rival families), or ridicule our political figures when they deserve it?
The laws about preventative detention and communicating with other people will effectively mean people can be disappeared by government officials - if the people carrying out such laws are as competent as DIMIA or some of the health departments around the country, we have a lot to be worried about. You could be detained in error, and disappear from your normal life for months, and not be able to tell people about it and have severely curtailed, if any, rights to legal representation about the wrongs done to you. Very scary stuff!
Ex-PM Malcolm Fraser made some excellent points in a recent lecture. He raises valid questions about the usefulness of preventative detention and control orders as a tool in fighting terrorism, and about the arguments for why terrorism can’t be fought satisfactorily under existing laws. Why indeed do we need draconian laws?
Is the threat of terrorism so great that we are prepared to sacrifice some rights that we have had for years? As I’ve argued previously, I don’t think the risk in Australia is huge - your chances of getting killed in a car smash are no doubt thousands of times greater than of being killed by terrorists (unless you hang out in Iraq or Afghanistan and a handful of other places) but we aren’t seeing bad drivers locked away without trial or charge.
The other thing I find disturbing is the secretive way the Federal Government is trying to sneak these laws through with little public or parliamentary debate. I think something this fundamental needs to be carefully considered, and we should not be treated in the “don’t worry, trust us, we know whats good for you” manner that seems to be the government’s preferred modus operandi recently. Shame on the Government for being so sneaky!!!
What comes next in the fight against terrorism? Room 101? (or is the model for that already in existence at Guantanamo Bay?)