91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳

BY ALISON DELLIT

The Greens and the Democrats oppose the “anti-terrorism” legislation and will vote against it in the Senate. Attorney-General Daryl Williams has been under considerable criticism within the Liberal Party for the botching of the legislation, and the government will itself support some amendments. The ALP has also said it will amend the bills.

But while both major parties are making a lot of noise about amending the bills to safeguard civil liberties, the amendments discussed so far will leave the legislation substantially intact.

The amendments under discussion in both major parties up to May 19 were:

• Tightening the definition of terrorism. The ALP wants to add “the use of violence to intimidate the government”. The Coalition-controlled Senate committee's suggestion was similar, but didn't include the word violent. The ALP proposal will reduce, but not eliminate, the number of protests classified as “terrorist acts”.

• Removing the proscription power. The Coalition is still divided on this issue: Williams has proposed retaining it, but giving the power to Parliament instead of himself. Leaks from the Liberal Party room, however, indicate many Coalition MPs want to remove it altogether. The ALP wants to abolish it, and replace it with an offence of supporting a “terrorist organisation” which would be prosecuted through the courts with the court deciding whether the organisation in question fitted the bill.

• Abandoning “strict liability”. This is supported by everyone in the Coalition party room except Williams, and by the ALP.

• Altering the treason definition to protect aid agencies is an ALP proposal supported by at least some Coalition MPs.

• The ALP also wants to force the police to get an intercept warrant before accessing private email.

From 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly, May 22, 2002.
Visit the Ìý