Senate shift leaves terror law force with Howard

September 11, 2005
The Sun-Herald

Public fears over the threat of an attack on home soil are helping to drive the Government's agenda, Michelle Grattan writes.





The Law Council of Australia and others have attacked the undermining of civil liberties. The measures may or may not be modified around the edges. But, unlike Telstra or industrial relations, the special climate means the debate won't take skin off the Government. Another Nielsen poll, in July, found strong support for tougher measures (although there was opposition to indefinite detention of terrorist suspects without charge).

There's been one huge change since earlier anti-terrorism laws passed the Federal Parliament. The Government now (more or less!) controls the Senate

Both the Opposition and Coalition backbenchers saw to it that sweeping changes were made to those bills to protect people's rights. The backbenchers' clout was boosted by the reality that the anti-Government Senate majority had the final whip hand. Now Labor and the minor parties are impotent. If the civil liberty issues are to be pressed, it will be up to the states (all Labor) and the backbenchers.

Immediately after the London bombing, the premiers pressed for the Commonwealth-state summit on terrorism (on September 27). In general they favour stronger action, although there are doubts about specific measures.

Peter Beattie is concerned about preventative detention and control orders. (The Government needs the states to legislate to allow preventative detention for a fortnight because Commonwealth constitutional power only permits 48 hours.)



Liberal backbenchers George Brandis (Qld), Petro Georgiou (Vic) and Marise Payne (NSW) gave the Government curry at the special joint parties meeting on the package last Thursday. A lot of the agitation was because the measures weren't taken to the backbench committee. But there were also worries about the lack of detail and especially about the principle of detaining people who had not done anything.


Attorney-General Philip Ruddock promises "considerable consultation" with premiers and backbenchers on safeguards. He says the legislation will definitely go to the backbench committee. Howard also indicated on Friday that a sunset clause might be considered, which would be a significant protection.

Previous security legislation ran the gauntlet of long Senate inquiries, and they were vital to the debate. That won't happen this time. (We saw the new Senate way on Friday in the one-day hearing on the Telstra legislation.) Ruddock says: "I'm not averse to having parliamentary committee scrutiny provided it can be done quickly". The Government hopes to have the legislation through by Christmas. The logical thing would be to send it to the parliamentary committee that scrutinises ASIO and other agencies.

Professor George Williams of the University of NSW, who played a big public role in the debate about earlier security bills, questions the timing and is scathing about their content.

He says new laws can "give unrealistic expectations about just how safe we are".

