Terror Australis

THE anti-terror laws appear to allow police and security agencies to pick up and detain anyone they deem is suspected of, or associated in, some act of terrorism, even if it hasn’t been fully articulated or planned by the ‘guilty’ parties.

Authorised agencies can detain people on ‘intelligence’ rather than evidence. People approached for detention may be shot to death if they resist or try to evade arrest, and they can be held incommunicado for 14 days, longer if the agencies can build a case that satisfies them. Both during and after detention, detainees will not be able to communicate to anyone to tell them where they are, or why, or when they’ll be released.

Immediate weaknesses

An evident weakness in all of this is who defines ‘terrorist’ and how do they make that definition. Given a little thought, almost any act could be interpreted as hostile consequently agencies could rework the definition to suit their own ends.

It was reported that security agencies estimated that as many as 800 people in Australia could be involved in active terror threats to our country and the new laws have been enacted, at least in part, in response to that perceived threat.

While new powers may be required by security agencies to deal effectively with terrorists, it is entirely reasonable for innocent citizens, who number around 20 million, to ask for reasonable protections from corruption, incompetence and mistakes by Australia’s various security agencies, as well as from terrorists who may use the secrecy inherent in the new laws to detain people themselves.

Amplifying our problems is that State government departments and others may perceive that appearing to act on information received could increase their budgets.

Secrecy: a stimulant for dishonesty

Individuals may well invent ‘intelligence’ against those they dislike in order to ‘settle scores’ or to otherwise gain advantage.

Rival business people, political enemies, neighbours, house buyers, gamblers, any and all will be able to fabricate ‘intelligence’ and use it to try to disadvantage others. This type of phenomenon is only amplified when departments are trying to justify ever bigger budgets and are therefore very open to anything that helps to justify more money.

Citizens who are detained and who are prevented from saying where they were, are liable to massive disadvantage. For example a citizen may miss a court appearance, or a critical appointment for a job, or just miss work for a couple of weeks, all without being able to give a true and accurate description of events. People may be unable to access key medicines, look after their loved ones, or otherwise meet vital social and physical obligations. Because the secrecy provisions cannot be penetrated by ordinary means, people can also dishonestly imply that they were held in detention, with little chance that their employer (or whoever) would be able to check.

Another problem is the lack of formal means for detainees to assure themselves that their detention is legitimate. How will anyone know that they are being picked up ‘officially’, and if they are, what rights will they have? Unless these points are clear, anyone may pose as a ‘secret agent’ and kidnap people from the streets. In fact, this level of secrecy exposes us to terrorists who can create chaos by impersonating the authorities. Since no questions or open-ness is allowed, then their actions will be protected by the very laws that are meant to make us safer. These problems exist even for those who need bodyguards for protection, for how will the bodyguards be able to assure that a ‘detention’ is not a ‘snatch and lift’?

Overall, the secrecy provisions in the new anti-terror laws appear to stimulate dishonesty, particularly as there appears no right of disclosure or redress, even through one’s own Member of Parliament.

Ambiguities in the rights of those detained

The laws as described, appear to give those detained no rights whatsoever, in fact detainees simply have new obligations not to reveal where they were or why, on pain of onerous jail terms.

Without rights, including the last resort of full disclosure, how can security agencies ever be held accountable for their actions.

And without that accountability, centuries of human experience tells us there will be abuses, and many of them. Looking at groups with untrammelled powers in general, we see growing abuses of the citizens by powerful groups. Such abuses can only be stemmed by assuring and enforcing the rights of those detained.

Without rights, are the detainees subject to water, food, sleep and other deprivations? Is torture acceptable? Can detainees be charged for their time in detention? What happens if a detainee dies. What processes protect their memory and in what ways will agencies be held accountable?

Public unease justified until rights are clear and unambiguous

Surely members of the public have a right to feel uneasy about these new laws absent convincing rights for those detained or accused. For the public to have faith in the honesty and quality of government services would fly in the face of massive evidence to the contrary from reports in the press.

Without protection, or articulated and policed rights, the public can suffer from the many weaknesses that we humans bring with us to our every endeavour as well as the additional weaknesses created when our monies are taken from us to fund authorities whose actions cannot be inspected, or even questioned.

The proportion of 20 million versus 800 (supposed terrorists) and the fact that the labour of many of the 20 million serves to fund government activities, surely that entitles us to reasonable, and known, protection before these new laws are fully implemented.

Mike Bolan
Citizen
Launceston