Introduction

Anti-terrorism laws form part of the ‘hard-power’ measures of Australia’s National Security Strategy.

Outline of laws As at 11 Sep 2001, Australia had more than

thirty federal acts of legislation under which terrorist acts could be handled, as well as much relevant state legislation.

Many regulatory and legislative amendments were made to these in the period from 2001-2003, leading up to the first new legislation in the form of the Anti-Terrorism Bill 2004.

This resulted in the legislation of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 legislation on the 6th December 2005.

Creation of the Act

1. Anti-Terrorism Bill, 2004

3. Anti-Terrorism bill (No 3),

2004

2. Anti-Terrorism bill (No 2),

2004

•Why was it created?

•Who prepared the legislation?

•The Attorney-General, Phillip Ruddock, described it as "a bill to strengthen Australia's counter-terrorism laws in a number of respects – a task made more urgent following the recent tragic terrorist bombings in Spain."

•He said that Australia's counter-terrorism laws "require review and, where necessary, updating if we are to have a legal framework capable of safeguarding all Australians from the scourge of terrorism."

4. Anti-Terrorism Act

2005

Changes to the Act

Potential for preventative detention (ASIO)

Control orders Significant restrictions on the right of

any citizen to express certain opinions: It becomes a crime, punishable by life

imprisonment, to recklessly provide funds to a potential terrorist:

Police can request information from any source about any named person

A legislative provision for 'hoax offences' will create a more serious charge for people who cause chaos for the public and emergency services by dreaming up devastating terrorist-inspired hoaxes.

Impacts

The AFP can detain individuals suspected of terrorism, without criminal activities or evidence, for up to 14 days.

The AFP and ASIO can order for the surrender of passports of normal citizens.

Any decision made by the Attorney-General on security grounds is exempt from judicial review.

Police can ask the court to place restrictions on anyone who “poses a terrorist risk”.

Random raids and searches on Muslim charities.

Impacts (Page 2)

Police can stop, question and search anyone in the street they suspect will commit a terrorist offence.

Police have “emergency powers” to enter and search a premise suspected of holding material related to terrorism without a warrant.

Certain “extreme” beliefs and speeches can be charged as criminal, without any criteria for what counts as “extreme”.

Case Study: Mohamed Haneef

Dr. Haneef was arrested in July 2007 alleged to have recklessly aided a terrorist organisation based on his giving a SIM card to a second cousin implicated in the Glasgow attacks of June 2007. He was detained without charge for 12 days under the 2005 Anti-Terrorism Act and kept in solitary confinement for 23hrs a day. The AFP even lied about his having no explanation as to why he had a one-way ticket to India.

Even after he was given bail because the case against him was extremely weak, Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock responded by cancelling his work visa on ‘character grounds’. In the end all charges were dropped because there was simply no evidence of the alleged crimes. A later inquiry showed that the evidence against Dr. Haneef was ‘completely deficient’, that ASIO had told government 2 days after arrest that there was no information of him being guilty of anything, and that the Prime Minister’s office became involved in the case within 48hrs of the arrest.

This is the deplorable reality of the way in which authorities apply the anti-terror laws.

Personal Opinion: Saeed Baig

These laws appear to be very-Muslim oriented, as:

17 of the 18 organisations proscribed as “terrorist” by the government are Muslim.

All those charged and persecuted by these laws were Muslims.

Multiple times, these laws do not require fair reason or even evidence to be carried out and are exempt from judicial review at times, and thus are not justified or fair.

These laws limit freedom of religion and free speech.

Personal Opinion: Hasan Mohammad

While some of these new laws and specific terrorism offences may be necessary, many others are not.

Indefinite detention without charge of foreign nationals if suspected of involvement in terrorism; 

Unsafe and unfair control orders imposing severe and intrusive prohibitions, including indefinite house arrest for up to 16 hours a day without charge, let alone conviction; 

Pre-charge detention in terrorism cases, currently allowing for 14-day detention without charge - the longest period of any comparable democracy; 

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allowing stop and search without suspicion, which was disproportionately used against peaceful protesters and ethnic minority groups.

Video Re-enactment