The Howard Government's ASIO Bill still infringes indispensible
democratic principles.
On Thursday, the day that Australians joined Americans and Britons in
attacking Iraq in what their governments have, with increasing passion,
insisted is a war of liberation, the Federal Government reintroduced the
ASIO Amendment (Terrorism) Bill. The Age supports this war on the
basis of the threat that Saddam Hussein's despotic regime presents to
life and liberty, in Iraq and the wider world. There is a danger that
terrorists might acquire Iraqi weapons. The Age has also accepted
that the threat of terrorism justifies a careful tightening of
legislation to ensure security agencies can do their job properly.
The ASIO Bill, however, goes too far; some key provisions actually
threaten rather than protect the liberty of law-abiding citizens. The
Senate recognised this in rejecting the bill late last year and we see no
reason why the bill, despite some concessions, should pass while
objectionable elements remain intact.
The bill provides for the detention, incommunicado at first, of not only
terrorist suspects, but non-criminals who may have information of use to
ASIO. Even once access to a lawyer is granted (this must be immediate in
the case of children), the lawyer must be "approved". Those who
refuse to answer questions risk jail - a potential threat to journalists
who are ethically bound to protect their sources.
Although there are provisions for retrospective review of detentions, the
bill has obvious implications for the role of the media as a democratic
check on abuses by government agencies. Thus The Age has
editorialised against the bill, argued before the Senate Legal and
Constitutional Committee that the bill's provisions could muzzle and
intimidate a free press, and applauded when the committee concluded, in
the words of its chairwoman, Liberal Senator Marise Payne, that the
bill's "departure from fundamental principles of criminal law"
had not been justified.
Some of the powers that would be conferred on ASIO, which is constituted
as an intelligence-gathering organisation, are more akin to those of a
secret police force. The legal guarantees that ensure Australians are not
detained secretly and without charge, have legal representation and may
remain silent are venerable rights that in large part define our
democracy, setting us apart from nations such as Iraq.
The Government should take care not to scorn those who dissent against
the bill's provisions. We live in traumatic times, and the Government's
desire to take strong action to protect the nation is understandable. We
also have little reason to believe it intends to abuse the powers it
seeks.
Despite the Government's stated reluctance, the bill's sunset clause is
appropriate, otherwise such laws will be with us long after this
Government is gone. There can be no assurances about the conduct of
future governments should we surrender long-standing protections for
individual Australians. No democratic government should have such powers
over its citizens in the first place.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/21/1047749941804.html
