THE AGE A police state is not the answer By JOHN CORCORAN Tuesday 11 December 2001
Australians should be dismayed by the extreme powers the Federal Government is planning to introduce in the name of fighting terrorism. There are no difficulties with the moves for a new general offence of terrorism; nor with planning for terrorist acts. And the changes to the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 to allow terrorists' property to be frozen and seized seem sensible. But Attorney-General Daryl Williams goes much further. He wants ASIO to be able to detain people who are not suspected of terrorist activity and force them to answer questions or hand over documents. Under Williams' plan, if people refuse to help the authorities voluntarily they could be arrested and held without charge. "We would need to have access to people who may not be themselves involved in anything but who have information," he told ABC TV's Lateline. So, what sort of people might fall into this category of knowing about matters that ASIO is interested in? Williams said if someone had highly relevant information about proposed terrorist acts, or "were an associate or supporter of Osama bin Laden's network", they would qualify. Williams talked about holding people for 48 hours without the right to a lawyer. Asked why ASIO needs this coercive power over people not suspected of anything, he said: "Well, they may have information that will be very useful in countering any proposed terrorist act. And if they're not willing to provide it voluntarily, then we need a power to require it." So it seems to come down to this: the late-night knock at the door, the car with darkened windows, a figure is bundled in and driven off and held, who knows where, for at least a couple of days incommunicado because this person might have some information. Police would make the arrest and the detention under a warrant. A federal magistrate or a senior legal member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal would approve the warrant and supervise the interrogation. A copy of the warrant and detention details would go to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. These safeguards are not enough. As the president of the Australian Council for Civil Liberties, Terry O'Gorman, has pointed out, any system that keeps lawyers out of police stations or detention centres where powers can be abused is fraught with danger. What a frightening prospect. This is Australia 2001, not Russia 1921, or South Africa 1961. September 11 did introduce a new aspect of terrorism to the world. And Australia is not isolated from the virus of terrorism. But the Attorney-General must step back and consider carefully the implications of these laws. What if, for example, after 48 hours of such detention incommunicado, the detained person still refused to provide the information - is it proposed that a further period of detention be invoked? A magazine report said those detained may be jailed for up to five years for refusing to divulge information. Australia in the late 1940s and early '50s thought it was faced with communist terror. The Federal Parliament tried to outlaw the Communist Party. The High Court (in circumstances in which support for the government was, perhaps, just as high as it has been in the recent Tampa debate) found that the Commonwealth did not have the power to do this under our constitution. Prime Minister Robert Menzies then sought to amend the constitution at a referendum. Initially the proposal to give Menzies the additional powers that he sought was favoured by a huge proportion of the Australian population, but opposed by many sectors of the legal profession. The proposition eventually lost by a very small majority. And, as Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court has recently asked, has anybody been heard to suggest since then that the powers of the Commonwealth have been deficient as a result of the failure of the referendum? It is instructive to note that the president of the American Bar Association, Robert Hirshon, said in response to the appalling events of September 11 that, while it was futile to expect sanctuary in geographical or political boundaries, real security was only to be found in law and in justice, which are the fundamental purposes of lawyers. We in Australia, too, must not lose sight of the need for the law and justice. There must be some cooler heads in Canberra that can see the dangers in this proposal before it goes to parliament. John Corcoran is president of the Law Institute of Victoria. http://www.theage.com.au/news/state/2001/12/11/FFXMBAM41VC.html ************************************************************************* This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." -- -- Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archived at http://www.cat.org.au/lists/leftlink/ Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
