|
New australian terror laws { June 26 2003 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/25/1056449302485.htmlhttp://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/25/1056449302485.html
New law on terrorism raises spectre of agency abuse
June 26 2003
ASIO will now have greater powers than police officers but with less oversight, writes Simeon Beckett.
Consider this. A hard-working journalist breaks a story about terrorist organisations operating in Australia. ASIO doesn't have the information but would sorely like it.
An ASIO operative asks the journalist whom he spoke to, and what information he gathered. In the finest tradition of journalism, the reporter refuses to reveal his sources.
Utilising powers recently granted under the ASIO laws, ASIO seeks a warrant to detain the journalist for questioning.
The attorney-general approves the request for a warrant, because the information will assist the collection of intelligence about terrorism and, because of the reporter's ethical concerns, he may not appear if asked.
The warrant is granted and the Australian Federal Police turn up at the newspaper's offices and detain the journalist.
The journalist is later brought before a retired judge and is required to answer ASIO's questions. He has two options: either break his ethical code, or refuse to answer questions and face five years in jail.
Under the legislation, he may be interviewed for three periods of eight hours each, and detained for seven days. There is no requirement for ASIO or the police to tell his family where he is.
Those are some of the extraordinary powers contained in the ill-thought-out ASIO reforms.
The journalists from Four Corners who reported two weeks ago on al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah operations in Australia might legitimately ask whether ASIO will want to question them.
Similar arguments can be made for religious leaders hearing confessions, or psychologists treating patients where information about terrorism is revealed.
The key point is that this reform is not aimed solely at those who have committed a terrorism offence. The ASIO plan allows for people to be detained solely because they have information about a terrorism offence - a power even police officers do not have when questioning a suspected murderer.
The police are not given powers to detain people solely to gain information. As a society which respects human rights, this is seen as a power that is just too intrusive.
The issue is dealt with through criminal offences for concealing a major offence. There is no reason to think those laws will not apply to terrorism offences.
The Government says there are sufficient accountability mechanisms to avoid abuse. Notwithstanding that the abuse is the power to detain and compulsorily question, the accountability mechanisms are woeful.
For police forces, accountability comes in the form of exposing evidence to public courts, ministerial responsibility and permanent commissions of inquiry, such as ICAC.
Accountability and intelligence gathering, on the other hand, are anathema. This is reflected in the ASIO plans, which only allow for complaints to be made to the inspector-general of intelligence and security.
The attorney-general has an oversight role, but is unlikely to reveal intelligence-gathering processes to the public. Reports are made to the joint standing committee on intelligence services, but those processes are not public.
It is simply not true, as Paul MacKinnon, the former head of Olympic security, recently said that there are a cascade of watchdogs, watching watchdogs, watching watchdogs, watching the workers work.
The inescapable conclusion is that ASIO is being given greater powers than the police, but will be subject to less accountability.
Which brings me back to accountability through freedom of the press. The work of ASIO using its powers under this plan will not be subject to the gaze of the media.
The ASIO changes threaten to curtail that freedom by making journalists think twice before reporting on terrorism.
Simeon Beckett is a barrister and spokesman for Australian Lawyers for Human Rights.
|
|
