"Parliament" derives from the French verb "to talk" -- Who needs it?
"... as the only democratic nation in the world without a bill of rights, Australia looks set to pass British-style terrorism laws but without the same protections. The best we can do is trust our politicians and Government do not abuse their new powers - an unacceptable safeguard in any similar nation.
Another major difference is that Britain is engaging in the parliamentary debate Australia ought to have. The British terrorism bill was introduced into Parliament in mid-October and is being examined by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, whose members this week grilled the minister in charge of the bill, the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke. He was asked whether the bill was needed, given the extensive laws already in place; whether the definition of terrorism was so wide that it might criminalise legitimate acts of resistance; and whether banning speech that might encourage terrorism would shut down public debate.
The same questions need to be asked in Australia. Australia's new law, like its British counterpart, promises to give far more extensive powers to government to intrude into our lives and restrict freedom of speech. Central to public debate about such issues is the need for effective scrutiny by a parliamentary committee. Until the Government took control of the Senate on July 1, this was the accepted way of ensuring contentious laws were properly checked and debated.
This was the lesson learnt in 2002 and 2003 when major terrorism laws last came before the Federal Parliament. The bills were analysed and debated for months, which led to important changes - many with bipartisan support. It also gave us laws more likely to survive High Court challenge. Indeed, one year after September 11, 2001, Howard said that "through the great parliamentary processes that this country has, I believe that we have got the balance right".
If the aim is to get new powers in place by Christmas at the cost of having a proper committee inquiry and parliamentary debate, Australia risks passing the wrong law. In our haste, we may introduce and pass a new law before Britain has finished considering its law, enacting the original British proposals without picking up its improvements that better balance national security and individual liberty. We may end up with a second-rate law that, after the London bombings, not even Britain would pass."
Another major difference is that Britain is engaging in the parliamentary debate Australia ought to have. The British terrorism bill was introduced into Parliament in mid-October and is being examined by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, whose members this week grilled the minister in charge of the bill, the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke. He was asked whether the bill was needed, given the extensive laws already in place; whether the definition of terrorism was so wide that it might criminalise legitimate acts of resistance; and whether banning speech that might encourage terrorism would shut down public debate.
The same questions need to be asked in Australia. Australia's new law, like its British counterpart, promises to give far more extensive powers to government to intrude into our lives and restrict freedom of speech. Central to public debate about such issues is the need for effective scrutiny by a parliamentary committee. Until the Government took control of the Senate on July 1, this was the accepted way of ensuring contentious laws were properly checked and debated.
This was the lesson learnt in 2002 and 2003 when major terrorism laws last came before the Federal Parliament. The bills were analysed and debated for months, which led to important changes - many with bipartisan support. It also gave us laws more likely to survive High Court challenge. Indeed, one year after September 11, 2001, Howard said that "through the great parliamentary processes that this country has, I believe that we have got the balance right".
If the aim is to get new powers in place by Christmas at the cost of having a proper committee inquiry and parliamentary debate, Australia risks passing the wrong law. In our haste, we may introduce and pass a new law before Britain has finished considering its law, enacting the original British proposals without picking up its improvements that better balance national security and individual liberty. We may end up with a second-rate law that, after the London bombings, not even Britain would pass."
George Williams is the Anthony Mason Professor and director of the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law at the University of NSW.
I have come to the view, given there are inadequate institutional checks and balances in the Australian constitutional framework (http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/09/unrepresentative-swill-part-2.html), that there ought to be some unqualified protocol which requires, whenever any government has control of the Senate, that a minor party can require, short of a filibuster, free, fair and open debate of any matter before a final vote is taken. And likewise, regarless of Senate control, until there is a bill of rights, whenever there is a bill affecting fundamental human rights. I know, I know; this is a vague concept, but you get what I'm on about. Frankly, we'd be better of without such a protocol by having the proper checks and balances and bill of rights in the first place. In either case, I'd give chances of something like that happening as great as a snowball's chance on Guam.
Labels: Civil liberties, Public governance
posted by Guambat Stew at Thursday, October 27, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home