<< back to archive index

6th December 2005

NSW Terror Bill Passes

The NSW Terror Bill went through on Wednesday 30
November, and we are the poorer for it. The qualities that define a democracy have been utterly degraded in NSW, due to the activities of the State and Federal Liberal and Labor parties.

Only twelve people in the NSW parliament stood up against the bill, despite the fact that many members in both the Liberal and Labor parties were seriously troubled about it. Let's name some names. Standing against it in the upper house were myself, Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, with Lee Rhiannon, Sylvia Hale,
Ian Cohen of the Greens, Peter Wong of Unity and Peter Breen. In the lower house all the Independents opposed it: David Barr, Peter Draper, Dawn Fardell, Rob Oakeshott, Clover Moore, and Richard Torbay. These people have served NSW well. Conversely, many people who have every reason to stop such anti-democratic, anti-humanitarian legislation did nothing, though many of them deplore the same kind of policy in other
countries.

The federal legislation has been given much attention in recent months, with the NSW version supposedly put up as a way to mitigate its effects. However, as a number of organisations pointed out, it is probably a good idea to see what you are dealing with before you lock yourselves into reforms that may prove unnecessary, irrelevant or worse than those they sought to tone down. These prophecies have largely come to pass.

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) also raised a large number of issues with the NSW legislation, including concerns that the Act:

Provides a loophole to allow for the potential of rolling detention orders to be made (I.e. you get two weeks, then another two weeks, then another)

Does not provide for the Supreme Court to impose
specific conditions such as place or conditions of detentions, time permitted for personal visits from family members, provision of support or health care, provision of particular facilities, access to appropriate services to enable the person to maintain their beliefs or values such as dietary or religious supports.

Is inappropriate and a breach of international human rights law [in that it will seek] to detain a person who has not been convicted of any criminal offence in correctional facilities.

PIAC raised similar issues for the federal legislation, and now seems satisfied that many of these issues have been largely implemented. It is a tragedy that not one of PIAC's recommendations was incorporated into the NSW legislation. The true horror of what the government and opposition have wrought is most obvious when you consider that where the federal legislation allows people to be detained for 48 hours, the NSW legislation goes much further and allows for a period of two weeks.

While the NSW legislation does provide for oversight by the courts rather than leaving it to the discretion of the police or intelligence agencies, there are many murky areas that could hurt many innocent people.

Interestingly the Age newspaper on the day after the bill had been passed published research undertaken by Monash University and the Victorian Police. This indicated that the combination of cultural marginalisation and the routine assignment of particular groups as targets of laws could
actually increase the likelihood of a terrorist incident.[1]

The detention without trial in Northern Ireland was also said to have been very important in getting youth to join the IRA (Irish Republican Army). Similar conclusions have been drawn in Europe, and many will be aware of the discrimination and policy failure that has sparked recent riots in Paris.

In slightly more than a year's time I ask you to remember that it was the Democrats, the Greens, Unity and the Independents who tried to prevent this legislation from being a weapon against Muslims and those who defend them. History tells us that inhumanity cannot be contained, cannot be used on one group without implications for others, as this exact text of Reverend Martin Niemoller's address to the U.S.
Congress shows:

"When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned.
And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned.
And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned.
Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church --
And there was nobody left to be concerned."[2]

These laws are not going to make us safer. Our self-appointed position, as George Bush's 'deputy sheriff' cannot be undertaken without risk to our own way of life. We have overlooked this fact because there has only been one Australian death in Iraq at this time. Now is a good time to soberly assess our foreign policy, not our civil rights. We are giving in to Howard's
bullying in two ways, and it is time we resisted.

[1] The Age, 1st December 2005, article by Ian Munro.
[2] appears in the Congressional Record, October 14, 1968, page 31636