Media Statement - 26th October 2005
Winning the War on Terror requires tough, practical measures.
Kim Beazley outlined essential measures to prepare Australia for the
threat of terrorist attack in his first Blueprint speech in August this
year, and we have continued to put forward further practical proposals
since then.
From what is known of John Howard's proposed anti-terrorism bills the
emphasis is quite different - it is all about legislative changes.
Kim Beazley called for nationally consistent counter-terrorism laws before the meeting of COAG in September.
Following COAG we made it clear that we welcomed progress, but that we
awaited further detail and the opportunity to review enabling
legislation.
Labor is now increasingly concerned that the Howard Government is in
danger of trampling on the very freedoms we are fighting to protect.
If we allow that to happen, the terrorists win.
John Howard must take the time to get the balance right: to protect
Australians, without trampling on basic freedoms and importantly
without risking failure in the High Court.
There are fresh questions about whether this legislation could be overturned in the High Court.
This is what happens when a Government tries to rush legislation through Parliament without proper debate and scrutiny.
The public is entitled to a full explanation of the practical impact of
each new measure proposed in this legislation - what will it deliver?
Why is it needed?
For every new or extended power, what check is there on such power?
Is there regular and effective reporting to parliament on the use of these powers?
Is there an independent review process to handle allegations of abuse or misuse of such new powers?
Is it reviewable in court?
Is there sufficient judicial supervision - rather than reliance on bureaucrats and politicians?
And are new powers time limited - subject to sunset clauses and proper review?
While the Federal Opposition is not formally consulted as part of the
COAG process, and we will not be sure of the precise detail of the
Bills until they are tabled, based on current information we have a
number of concerns:
- The Bill does not provide real judicial
oversight. The safeguards are far too weak in the Bill as
drafted. Judges should not be used simply to rubber stamp police
action. Control orders should be subject to substantive review
(with onus on the AFP) within set time periods. A target of the
preventative detention regime should be able to apply for immediate
substantive review of the order, with an opportunity to be heard, after
they have been taken into custody. As in the ASIO Bills, where
security reasons prevent evidence being shared with the target, a
security-cleared lawyer could receive evidence and make arguments on
their behalf.
- The so-called "shoot-to-kill" provisions cannot be
defended in their current form and should be withdrawn. The
proposed powers give rise to the real prospect of mistaken identity
leading to the killing of a person fleeing police as happened in the
recent UK case. There is no good argument for the law governing
the exercise of lethal force by law enforcement officers to be changed
as part of this Bill.
- It appears that the five-year review of the Bill,
agreed by COAG, is not contained in the legislation. This should
be part of the Bill, and should be based on the review provisions of
the ASIO Bills.
- It also appears that the ten-year sunset clause
agreed by COAG only applies to parts of the Bill. This is not
good enough. The whole of the Bill, including the financing
provisions, the orders to provide information and the revised sedition
clause, must be subject to the sunset clause. Indeed a sunset
clause shorter than ten years should be considered.
- The revised sedition offences have significant
problems and should be redrafted. They go too far in limiting
non-violent activity, which is already adequately dealt with under
existing laws and has no connection to terrorism. At the same
time, the Government has not adequately addressed incitement to
violence within the community.
- Finally, the provisions for independent and
parliamentary oversight are quite inadequate. At the 2004
election the Coalition promised to introduce an integrity commission to
oversee the AFP. This has not been done. There are no new
provisions for parliamentary scrutiny and no additional resources for
the Inspector-General for Intelligence and Security - despite the much
expanded size and powers of the intelligence agencies he is required to
oversight. We will have more to say about this in the course of
the debate.
We will continue to examine the Government's legislative proposals
carefully while we await the final draft. Ultimately the Federal
Parliamentary Labor Party's position will be determined by the Shadow
Ministry and the Caucus, taking into account the Government's response
to the concerns we have raised.