The New Anti-Terror Laws in Australia

[ShiningPlain]

The New Anti-Terror Laws in Australia

Anyone supporting the insurgency in Iraq or Afghanistan faces possible jail sentence

by Maz Bukhari

October 14, 2005

GlobalResearch.ca

Email this article to a friend

Print this article

Anti-Terror Laws or “TERRORIST” Laws

Jail Term for ILL WILL & OBJECTORS

Anyone supporting the insurgency in Iraq, Afghanistan or any country where Australian troops are deployed could face a penalty of 7 years' jail under the new terrorism laws.

Control orders of unlimited duration, secret preventive detention, the monitoring of lawyers, and life imprisonment for funding terrorist organisations are also suggested under the new laws.

The draft legislation, disclosed by Greens yesterday, details the far-reaching security regime proposed by John Howard for "very dangerous and difficult and threatening circumstances" in the wake of the London bombings.

New sedition offences will put big constraints on anti-war protests, familiar since the Vietnam era, and come down hard on those advocating violence against any religious, national or political group.

Those charged with sedition can argue they were acting "in good faith" but it is unclear how the courts will interpret this.

The bill sets out new federal police powers to detain terrorist suspects for up to 24 hours, and up to 48 hours with the approval of a judge or magistrate. Suspects will get access to a lawyer to challenge the detention order in a court or complain of maltreatment

Police do not need to give suspects or their lawyers reasons for the detentions and can monitor lawyers. All conversations lawyers have with their clients must be in English or translated into English for the police. Police are prohibited from questioning the detainees but that ban does not apply to ASIO officers.

Last month the states agreed to allow extensions of up to 14 days for detentions when a terrorist act is believed imminent. The suspect must then be released if no terrorist act occurs.

Detentions are secret but suspects are allowed to contact a family member or employers to say they are safe but, "not able to be contacted for the time being". If they disclose the detention they can be jailed for up to five years.

Under the bill, the Government can apply to a court for control orders on terrorist suspects who have not been charged. These orders include house arrest, preventing them using the telephone or internet and restricting their social contacts and work opportunities. Suspects can also be fitted with tracking devices.

The suspect's lawyer can be shown the control order but not necessarily the evidence or reasons behind it.

The orders can last up to 12 months and can then be renewed any number of times.

Persons under control orders may be given "counselling or education" if they agree.

The bill does limit to three months control orders on those aged between 16 and 18.

Also contained in the legislation are wide-ranging search powers that will compel the production of any documents relating to "any serious offence", regardless of any laws protecting privacy or legal privilege.,

The new laws are to be debated this month, after the Labor premiers agreed to their broad outline at the recent terrorism summit in Canberra.

The proposed laws have been strongly criticised by human rights lawyers and some Muslim leaders, who have described them as draconian.

Sweeping new anti-terror laws include a plan to jail people for up to seven years for promoting feelings of "ill will" or hostility between different groups that would threaten the peace.

As John Howard yesterday defended the measures, the federal Government was angered by ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope's decision to publish the 107-page draft bill on his website.

Surprising legal experts with the scope and definition of terrorist acts, the laws would also make it a criminal offence to support a terrorist act, directly or indirectly.

However, elements of the terrorism advocacy provisions are expected to be watered down after a backbench revolt over the draconian laws.

Speaking at a Canberra mosque yesterday, ACT Chief Minister Mr Stanhope explained his decision to support the legislation but also to publish the draft laws in defiance of a directive from Attorney-General Philip Ruddock.

"Today I invite Canberra's Muslims to see for themselves the draft legislation the Prime Minister has presented to the states and territories for their consideration," he said.

"I do not wish to deceive you. The laws to which I have agreed are unpalatable laws. They are laws I never anticipated I would be called upon to consider.

"I believe it is wrong and counterproductive for us to keep insisting that this behaviour has no causal links to our invasion of Iraq. I also believe that the anxiety and dislocation felt by Muslims can no longer be seen in isolation from the West's behaviour in relation to Palestine."

The Prime Minister defended the laws, arguing that a one-day Senate inquiry into the sweeping laws would be supported by a longer period of parliamentary scrutiny.

"The essence of this legislation has already been approved by all state governments ... all of which I remind you are controlled by the Labor Party," he said.

The chairman of the backbench committee on Attorney-General matters, Liberal senator George Brandis, confirmed yesterday the concerns of some Coalition MPs and indicated that talks were continuing.

"The Attorney-General has already met the government backbench committee for six hours in the course of two meetings to discuss the draft bill and has shown a spirit of co-operation in attempts to meet the concerns raised," Senator Brandis said.

"Those meetings have not completed so I don't know what Mr Stanhope has published, but it shouldn't be thought that the process of consultation has finished."

Asked yesterday by the Howard Government to remove the draft laws from their website, Mr Stanhope's office simply replied: "It's not coming down".

President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, John von Doussa QC, also expressed concerns at the Government's plans to rush its new anti-terrorism legislation.

"We have heard much from the Government about safeguards that are to be placed upon these draconian powers, but it is only when the detail of these protections are examined through the committee process that potential problems may be identified," Mr von Doussa said.

"In my view, proper public scrutiny stands to assist the Government by ensuring that the legislation is properly drafted, thus reducing the likelihood that it will be challenged in the courts."

The Australian Democrats and the Greens say the Federal Government's new anti-terror laws go much further than previously anticipated.

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie has also raised concerns that the draft copy does not include key provisions that were agreed upon by Prime Minister John Howard and state and territory leaders.

A Senate Inquiry will have just one day to consider the legislation, which is expected to go before Parliament at the end of this month.

Australian Democrats Leader Lyn Allison says the draft copy of the legislation is more extreme than she expected.

"It's extraordinary, this bill provides a whole lot of extra powers to the police that were previously not contemplated," she said.

Greens Senator Kerry Nettle says the draft copy of the anti-terror legislation proves the need for a longer and more in-depth inquiry.

"The state premiers are aware of the need to look over more closely this legislation," she said.

"Agreements that John Howard made to them in their meetings have not been met in the detail of the legislation that we have seen to date, and that's just one more reason why there needs to be proper scrutiny."

Non-Government Senators are in uproar over the new anti-terror laws to be introduced to Parliament in a fortnight.

After the London bombings, the Government announced it was working on new laws, including giving police the power to detain people for up to 14 days and to use 12-month control orders and tracking devices.

While they haven't seen the legislation, the State Premiers and Muslim leaders have already given their approval for the stronger powers.

Non-Government Senators say the Government is abusing its power, because they've been denied the chance to properly scrutinise such important changes.

Democrats' Senator Andrew Bartlett said “It is an unprecedented abuse of basic parliamentary procedure. Mr Howard promised the Australian people that he would not abuse his majority. Today we have clearly seen a flagrant breach of that promise by the Prime Minister.

Labor's Senator John Faulkner was furious, because while the Government had proposed a week-long Senate inquiry into the terror laws, most of that would have been taken up with the Senate Estimates process and really there would have been only a day or so for the hearing. “ One of the most contemptible and despicable things I have ever seen in the time that I have been a Senator. That's the sheer bastardry of the Government”.

He calls it an abuse of process, because of the way the Government used the Senate rules to give non-Government Senators no chance to amend the timing of an inquiry, and when they did try they ended up with an even shorter time - just one day in total.

The Greens' Senator Bob Brown responded to the Government tactic by vowing that he'd get tough, “ Retaliate, in defence of democracy. The fight is on”.

References

http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/print...05/s1482072.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1482931.htm

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/commo...255E601,00.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/terror...8796712300.html

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

To become a Member of Global Research

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not modified. The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address to the original CRG article must be indicated. The author's copyright note must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected]

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global Research's News and Discussion Forum

For media inquiries: [email protected]

© Copyright Maz Bukhari, GlobalResearch.ca, 2005

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUK20051014&articleId=1079

[Amulte]

oh FFS!

[Anodyne]

Oh fuck. 2 months and they've already gone this far. It's going to be a long 4 years. Might be time to set up that independent country we keep talking about.

[trixxy3]

Oh fuck. 2 months and they've already gone this far. It's going to be a long 4 years. Might be time to set up that independent country we keep talking about.

Might seem like 4 years, but its likely to be just over 2.

[ShiningPlain]

TEN DISTURBING FACTS ABOUT THE PROPOSED ANTI-TERROR LEGISLATION

This came in an email from the local refugee action group:

The Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005 departs radically from established and fundamental rights and freedoms, including:

- the presumption of innocence

- freedom from arbitrary arrest

- freedom of political association

- the right to privacy

All those who have fought for the rights of refugees are aware of the kinds of abuses that can occur because of the arbitrary misuse of power, exercised behind closed doors. Too many of our refugee friends disappeared behind the razor wire for too long, and it was only the vigilance, persistence and raised voices of refugee advocates which finally exposed the horrors they have been subjected to.

We believe that the Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005 will adversely impact on Muslims, both refugees and others, on human rights activists and political dissenters.

The proposed Act seems grossly disproportionate to the potential threat. There has been no explanation as to why the existing anti-terrorism laws introduced since 2001 - themselves wide-ranging and draconian - are inadequate.

The Government is rushing this legislation through the Parliament. The House of Representatives will deal with it in the week beginning October 31. The Senate, which resumes on November 7, has been given just one day to consider it.

TEN DISTURBING FACTS ABOUT THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION

* Greatly increases powers of preventative detention. A person believed to be 'involved in terrorist activity can be held for 14 days without charge. This step bypasses the judicial system in an unprecedented way.

* Broadens the definition of a 'terrorist organisation' to the extent that support for liberation movements such as East Timoerese Fretlin or South Africa's ANC could be proscribed.

* Creates new laws against 'financing terrorism'. What ASIO will deem to be a terrorist organisation will be as open-ended as the definiton of terrorism itself. Under similar legislation in the UK, legitimate Iraqui orphanage charities have been banned and their funds seized.

* Introduces draconian 'control orders'. Federal police powers will be increased to electronically track citizens, order journalists and others to hand over documents without a court order and undertake random bag searches.

* Increases police powers to stop, search and question any citizen who 'might have committed, might be committing or might be about to commit a terrorissm offence'. - ie. potentially police can stop and search people for what they might be thinking

* Creates new sedtion laws. There would be a broad new crime of 'inciting violence against the community'. Journalists and internet writers who 'communicte inciting messages aginst Australia's forces overseas' and 'groups who support Australia's enemies' are liable to a seven-year gaol term. Conceivably it will be become a crime to oppose the war in Iraq. There need be no reference to the likelihood of clear and imminent danger for this provision to take effect.

* Imposes a five-year gaol term for a citizen who reveals that a person is being held in preventative detention.

* Enables the Australian Federal Police to request and obtain virtually any information on any citizen under the banner of 'national security'.

* Allows Federal Police to shoot to kill if the officer believes a suspect is trying to escape or refuses to surrender. The police will be able to shoot to kill - not when they feel personally threatened but when they merely SUSPECT that someone may be a terrorist. This is what happend to the unfortunate Brazilian man killed by British police BY MISTAKE.

* Allows ASIO to spy on citizens for longer periods and remove and retain items from citizens homes - making ASIO more closely resemble a secret police force.

There are many other areas of the legislation to seriously disturb Australians who value established rights and liberties. lnform yourself by going to the following useful websites:

http://www.piac.asn.au

http://www.nswcccl.org.au

http://www.safecom.org.au

ACTIONS

We urge you to write or call your local MP urging them to press for longer time to consider this legislation.

Also, the following parliamentarians who have helped our cause in the past and who may have an important voice:

Petro Georgiou [email protected]

Judy Moylan [email protected]

Bruce Baird [email protected]

Senator Marise Payne [email protected]

Also, three other crucial MPs:

Senator Steve Fielding from Family First [email protected]

George Brandis, chair of the Govt's backbench security committee [email protected]

Arch Bevis, the opposition spokesman on homeland security [email protected]

It is also important to put pressure on State Premiers, to encourage them to revise their previous support for the legislation.

Points to raise in letters:

The need for more time to discuss this important legislation.

The need to protect fundamental rights that are part of the Australian way of life e.g. the four above.

The importance of freedom of expression, and of political and religious belief.

The danger of giving excessive power to police and institutions such as ASIO.

The grave danger of arbitrary and secret detention.

Once this Bill is passed it will remain in force for ten years. And because Australia does not have a Bill of Rights, the courts will not be able to stop civil righs abuses under this Bill.

Some quotes:

"We must also recognise . . .the need to draw a distinction between 'terrorists' and those who are simply objecting to injustice as they see it. In his day, Mahatma Gandhi was certainly called a terrorist. So was Nelson Mandela . . .

" . . . in responding to violent antagonists, democratic communities must do so in a way, as far as possible, consistent with the defence of civil liberties."

Justice Michael Kirby

" . . . all measures to counter terrorism must be in strict conformity with the relvant provisions of international law, including international human rights standards."

UN General Assembly, Human Rights and Terrorism (13 February 2002)