Summary
In
September 2005, Australian Prime Minster, Mr. John
Howard, proposed a number of changes to Australia’s
anti-terrorism laws. After the approval of the Council of
Australian Governments (COAG) on 27 September 2005, state
and territory leaders have subsequently agreed to draft
legislation based on the meeting result.
While the Anti-Terrorism Bill is presently being tabled
in Federal Parliament, an early
“draft-in-confidence” version of the Bill which
contains the substance of the proposed new powers was
made public by the Chief Minister of the Australian
Capital Territory (ACT). According to the International
Commission of Jurists (ICJ), a Geneva-based rule of law
organization, the provisions of the draft Bill would
abandon the most fundamental principles in a liberal
democratic society and create an imminent potential for
abuse. It departs from the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Australia is
a party.
Despite its controversy, the finalised draft of the Bill
being introduced is likely to be referred to Senate Legal
and Constitutional Committee for reporting on November
28. This leaves the Senate with limited time for adequate
scrutiny of the Bill. The public will have around only
one week to lodge submissions on the complex legislation.
With the Government holding a majority in both Houses of
Parliament, it is likely that it will be pushed through
with limited review before Christmas.
|
Action Requested
Please write polite letters requesting
the Australian authorities to:
ensure a comprehensive and open
examination of the controversial bill by
extending time for reading and the preparation of
submissions from the public; and
ensure that, in striving to
detect and address any potential terrorist
threat, the Australian Government protects the
civil and political rights of all Australian
citizens, particularly those of minority
religious and cultural groups who may be
vulnerable to the proposed new powers.
| Send
letters to: |
|
|
The Hon. Philip Ruddock
Attorney-General
House of Representatives,
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600, AUSTRALIA |
Fax: Email:
|
(+61) 2 6273 4102 Ag@Ag.gov.au
|
| Send
copies to: |
|
|
Mr.
Arch Bevis
Shadow Minister for Home Security
P.O. Box 83, Grange QLD 4051,
AUSTRALIA |
Fax: Email:
|
(+61)
7 3356 6711 arch.bevis.mp@aph.gov.au
|
Committee Secretary
Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee
Department of the Senate, Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
AUSTRALIA |
Fax: Email:
|
(+61) 2 6277 5794 legcon.sen@aph.gov.au
|
| Diplomatic representative of
Australia in your country. |
|
|
|
Sample
Letter
We are concerned with the Anti-Terrorism
Bill 2005 which will be discussed in the
Parliament during November. We understand that
the Bill has provisions that undermines human
rights, which Australia has established
reputation in protecting.
It is observed that the Bill has departed from a
large range of rights stipulated in International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. For
example, the extreme case of control order may
affect rights to be free from arbitrary detention
(article 9), freedom of association (article 19),
freedom of movement (article 12); the authority
of Australian Federal Police to issue initial
detention order to detain suspect may affect
rights to liberty and security of a person
(article 9).
Australia has been a good example in upholding
human rights protection and has condemned the
negligence of human rights of some Asian
countries. To uphold your country’s
reputation in human rights protection, we kindly
urge your good government to:
- ensure a
comprehensive and open examination of the
controversial bill by extending time for
reading and the preparation of
submissions from the public, and
- ensure
that, in striving to detect and address
any potential terrorist threat, the
Australian Government protects adequately
the civil and political rights of all
Australian citizens, particularly those
of minority religious and cultural groups
who may be vulnerable to the proposed new
powers.
|
|
Background
According
to the “draft-in-confidence” version made
public by the Chief Minister of Australian Capital
Territory (ACT), Mr. Jon Stanhope, the Anti-Terrorism
Bill principally proposes these arrangements:
introduces
a regime for control orders to control the
activities of people believed to be training with
a terrorist organization or likely to engage in
terrorist act;
introduces
a regime for preventative detention orders which
allow the police to detain people believed to be
likely to engage in a terrorist act or prepare
for such engagement;
enacts
provisions for obtaining information relating to
investigation of terrorists;
introduces
new offences of sedition and financing a
terrorist;
enacts
regime for more extensive reporting of financial
transactions, especially international
remittances.
These
powers would add to the ones already in operation under
the previous legislation.
Civil society has raised concern over the potential abuse
of these legislations, especially by the Australian
Federal Police (AFP). Groups like the Civil Rights
Network have raised particular concerns about: an
increased executive discretion to target individuals and
organisations because of their political views; detention
and other restrictions on liberty without any crime being
charged or proved; and new powers for the police to stop,
search and demand documents without warrant.
Studies by different sources, such as the Australian
Capital Territories Human Rights Office and the
Regulatory Institutions Network of The Australian
National University, have demonstrated that the Bill
failed to meet Australia’s obligation under
international laws, in particular, clauses on
preventative detention orders and control orders. The
following observations have been made on the earlier
released draft of the Bill:
| Anti-Terrorism Bill
2005 |
Contradictions to
International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) |
| Section 105.4: Initial
detention order may be granted by a senior member
of the AFP on the basis that there is
"reasonable ground to suspect the subject
will engage in terrorist act",
"possesses a thing that is connected with
the preparation for or the engagement of a person
in" or "has done, or will do, an act in
preparation for, or planning for" a
terrorist act.
|
These terms, because of overly
broad coverage, may be classified as arbitrary,
and contrary to article 9 of ICCPR. Moreover, the
AFP in the case of initial preventative detention
orders, is both the applicant for the orders and
the issuing authority that grants or extends the
orders. The UN Human Rights Committee in 2000 has
made adverse comments in Concluding Observations
on article 9 about laws enabling the arbitrary
arrest of a person "on suspicion of being
about to commit an offence" (UN doc A/55/40,
para 422-451, para 15) |
| Section 105.23: Contemplates
the use of lethal force against a detainee where
an AFP member believes this is necessary to
protect life or to prevent serious injury to
another person.
|
By removing the part on
"the need for an immediate threat to
life", this section on lethal force appears
to be an attempt to go beyond the proportionate
common law protection for self-defense and is
likely to breach article 6 of the ICCPR, which
protects the right to life. It echoes the
"shoot-to-kill" policy in the United
Kingdom which led to the fatal shooting by police
of innocent commuter Mr. Jean Charles de Menezes
in July 2005. |
| Section 104.4: Control orders
may be made for up to 12 months and successive
orders may be made against the same person.
|
It is a concern that in extreme
cases, this amounts to a form of home detention.
Control order could affect a range of guaranteed
fundamental rights: Right to liberty and security
of the person (article 9); Right to movement
(article 12); Right to association (article 22) |
| Section 104.16: The sunset
clause provides that the law would remain in
force for 10 years.
|
According to the International
Commission of Jurists (ICJ) Australia, a 10 year
period of application will only entrench a
climate of fear. International law does not
permit violations of basic rights to persist
longer than is strictly necessary in circumstance
of emergency. Domestic laws should be held to the
same standard. |
According
to ICJ Australia, a country is only entitled to derogate
basic civil and political rights after it has declared a
state of emergency in accordance with article 4 of the
ICCPR. However, the government has not declared a state
of emergency and appears to have no intention of doing
so.
The Australian Catholic Social Justice Council (ACSJC)
has made a public statement on 28 October 2005. The
Chairperson, Bishop Christopher Saunders viewed that the
legislation will have far-reaching consequences for the
civil and political rights that Australians presently
enjoy. He concluded that “The ACSJC calls for more
time for Parliamentary review of the proposed legislation
with the opportunity for extensive public debate.”
(The ACSJC media statement on this issue can be found at:
http://www.acsjc.org.au/Content/media_releases/2005_10_28_1130464940.html)
As of today, the latest Anti-terrorism Bill has not been
made public officially by the government.
Source:
Sydney Morning Herald
Parliament of Australia: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/LAW/TerrorismLaws.htm#background
Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/inquiries.htm
ACT Chief Minster homepage:
http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/
International Commission of Jurists Australian Section:
http://www.icj-aust.org.au
Australian Catholic Social Justice Council:
http://www.acsjc.org.au
Civil Rights Network:
http://www.civilrightsnetwork.org/
For further detail of the human rights implications of
Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005, please go to:
http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/docs/Human_Rights_advice.pdf (ACT Human Rights Office)
http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/docs/Stanhope_advice_20051018.pdf (Australian National
University)
|