| Business |
Australian terror laws under scrutiny
Queensland’s Gold Coast has twice
this year been the unlikely setting for stories that have
reverberated around the globe.
The first came in late February, when Dr Alan Greenspan, the
former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, suggested to a Gold
Coast business summit that the American economy might be “moving
into a recession” – four words that wiped 416 points off the Dow
Jones index.
The second featured the more diminutive figure of Dr Mohammed
Haneef, the 27-year-old Indian doctor charged in connection with
the failed UK bomb attacks.
After arriving in Australia last September, he worked at the Gold
Coast Hospital and lived in an apartment complex nearby, complete
with palm trees and a pool.
Just as Dr Greenspan’s comments focused global attention on the
resilience of the US economy, Dr Haneef’s arrest, questioning,
charge and now immigration detention have put Australia’s new
terror laws under close international and domestic scrutiny.
The announcement on Monday from Australia’s immigration minister,
Kevin Andrews – that Dr Haneef would remain in detention despite
being granted bail by a magistrate in Brisbane – fuelled an
already fiery debate.
Angry that magistrate Jacqui Payne did not attach the same
seriousness to the charge of providing resources to a terrorist
organisation as the Australian Federal Police do, Andrews
announced Dr Haneef had failed the “character test” laid down
under immigration laws, and would continue to be held behind bars,
whether he posted bail or not.
The move was viewed by civil liberties and legal groups not only
as a threat to the independence of the courts, but as highly
prejudicial to Dr Haneef’s future trial.
Similar concerns have been voiced by the Indian government, which
earlier this week summoned John McCarthy, Australia’s High
Commissioner in Delhi, to the ministry of external affairs.
“This is a cynical exercise
of power, a slap in the face to
the judiciary and a dangerous precedent,” was how Stephen Estcourt,
the president of the Australian Bar Association, puts it, making
little attempt
to conceal his disgust.
Australia is grappling with that great post-9/11 dilemma – how to
balance security against liberty.
Headlines this week from two of the country’s leading broadsheets
neatly capture the mood: “Bailed then Jailed: Justice in the new
age of terrorism”, from the Sydney Morning Herald, and “Excessive
anti-terrorist zeal puts rule of law at risk” from The Australian.
On Sept 28, 2001, just 17 days after the attacks of 9/11, the
Howard government announced an overhaul to its anti-terror laws.
Since then, legislation has been amended to create new terrorist
offences and trial procedures, and to give police and intelligence
officers broader investigative powers.
More controversially, perhaps, it has also brought in new rules
regarding control orders and preventative detention.
Because this is by far the most high profile instance where the
laws have been practically applied, Dr Haneef’s case has become
emblematic.
He was ultimately held for 12 days without being charged, which
included long stretches of what is called “dead time” – a period
during which he could be held without questioning.
To extend periods of detention and “dead time”, the Australian
police had to keep on seeking magisterial approval – which was
always granted.
These legal manoeuvrings were played out in front of a national
television audience, with the lawyers besieged by reporters and
camera crews as soon as they stepped in or out of the court.
This legal to-ing and fro-ing, claims Clive Williams, a
counter-terrorism expert at Macquarie University, has actually
undermined public confidence in the anti-terror laws.
“Every time they went to court, there was all this publicity, and
that put enormous pressure on the police. In Britain it’s much
easier, when suspects just disappear into Paddington Green (police
station in London). The Australian system is a real pig’s ear.”
Williams has called for a strengthening of Australia’s anti-terror
laws based on the British model – the power of 28 days of
pre-charge detention.
Having to rely on immigration laws to keep Dr Haneef detained is
“outlandish” and has exposed the flaws in the current laws,
Williams says. – BBC
 
|
