A key review of Australia’s counter-terrorism legislation, including state and territory laws, has been left in limbo by COAG nearly 18 months after it was scheduled to start.
The COAG review of counter-terrorism legislation was agreed under the Howard government in 2006 amid concerns about safeguards and possible abuse of counter-terrorism legislation. Commonwealth, state and territory leaders had held a special meeting on counter-terrorism in 2005 before the Howard government introduced draconian new laws that substantially curbed basic legal rights, with little time for Senate scrutiny. Then-ACT chief minister Jon Stanhope incurred the wrath of the government by releasing a copy of the draft laws.
The review is significant because it would examine not merely the hardline laws imposed by the Howard government and left in place by Labor, but state and territory counter-terrorism laws as well. The review was scheduled to start in December 2010 and be concluded by June last year. But has yet to commence.
In September, the Government told the Senate in response to a question from Greens Senator Scott Ludlam that “the Review will commence as soon as the arrangements have been agreed through COAG” and that “COAG needs to agree to the funding, terms of reference and membership of the Review Committee.”
Friday’s COAG communiqué contained no mention of the review.
Greens senator Lee Rhiannon has pursued the issue with Commonwealth officials. In October, a senior Attorney-General’s official conceded that “it has drifted. We are all ready and set to go. I think it is just a question of when appointments etc will be settled.”
One of the reasons claimed by A-Gs for the delay was “interaction with the legislation monitor”. The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor — currently Sydney barrister Bret Walker SC — was established in 2011 to provide an ongoing review of Commonwealth legislation; Walker provided his first report, which primarily identified issues to be addressed later, in March.
But when asked about his involvement with the COAG review, Walker told an estimates hearing in February that he’d had no discussions with anyone about it.
Attorney-General’s had been fudging excuses for why the review hadn’t started, Rhiannon complained. “If Australia’s excessive counter-terrorism laws are not independently and regularly reviewed we run the risk that they become normalised and their principles creep into other areas of criminal law.”
It adds to the decidedly cavalier approach A-Gs seems to adopt to explaining major national security issues to Senate committees. This reached ludicrous heights last year when ASIO directly and bluntly contradicted the rationale provided by the department for expanding ASIO’s powers.
But the intelligence review is by no means the first significant issue to go missing off the COAG agenda. In 2010, COAG agreed a large-scale series of reviews of housing supply and affordability to be conducted over the course of 2010 and the first half of 2011 with the last reports due by mid-2011.
The reports, if they’ve been done, have never seen the light of day, and since then, housing has vanished from the COAG agenda, as if it never existed. The only mention of housing has been recommendations to COAG about priorities in the National Affordable Housing Agreement. The only politician to mention housing since then has been Joe Hockey.
In the case of national security laws, it suggests politicians of both major parties like the draconian laws just how they are.
the import of this, the real neccessity of that, social order the other, move along, nothing to see here …. Drifted. Drifted ? Yes, Drifted. How expedient.Well done that Distraction.
And without articles like this on Crikey, reviews that become politically
awkward could be dissapeared without even a whisper from the rest
of the media. Very interesting piece Bernard, thanks.
When will it dawn on the electorate that ALL security claptrap is just “make work“? Like spreading woofle dust to prevent dragon invasion. “But there AFE no dragons!” – “Just shows how effective the woofle dust is and why we need MORE FUNDING!!”
For the only aspect that most citizens notice, when you go through the ludicrous theatre of airport scanning, bear in mind that there has NEVER, EVER been a t’rist caught at such nonsensical, invasive and time & money wasting pretensions.
Anywhere on this planet! EVER!
AFE would be ARE.
Similar to the above. In my area of greater knowledge “review” is a tactic inserted into fraught and weak policy that begats legislation that no one really has confidence in, but which is politically imperative.
A practical example is the NSW resource security for loggers in publicly owned native forests in a contraption called a “regional forest agreement”. The review was overdue if not postponed for years. These rfa dogs were created before the science of megafires and climate was really biting, let alone the GFC, mining boom and thus alternative regional employment, or Gunns falling over.
I expect you could generate a list of such buttressing “review” mechanisms as cynical planks to ease through bad policy into legislation. It seems to have the effect of calming stakeholders that they can return to the mess and fix problems that they strongly predict will happen.
In my above example we had the ludicrous situation on the NSW south coast of identified koala habitat – a really valuable local tourism asset given the rarity of wild koalas proximate to big population centres, and their capacity to attract paying tourists like bees to honey – being logged because it’s ‘in the deal’.
Another stupid outcome – an identified Aboriginal heritage area was being logged out of arrogance and illegally. Tens of arrests of protesters and expensive court cases later all virtually of the protesting public are acquitted given the illegality encouraged in the rfa deal.
So I would counsel caution when it comes to reviews being any kind of assurance mechanism. Logically yes, but politically it seems to be just to get the politicians over the next election cycle with no real commitment unless of course there is bad news on the front pages in which case it’s a go to for them, not the public. But reviews seem really to be a political sop you can expect to be on the never never.