Australian Anti-Terrorism Law Could Stifle Protest

By Bob Burton

CANBERRA, Australia, June 27, 2002 (ENS) - Environmental groups are alarmed that provisions in anti-terrorism legislation passed by the Australian Parliament Thursday may be used against environmental groups involved in civil disobedience protests.

After 26 hours of debate in the Australian Senate over four days, a coalition of community groups succeeded in forcing concessions to the most draconian provisions of a package of anti-terrorism legislation drafted in the wake of the September 11 attacks in the United States.

Still, provisions enabling the minister for foreign affairs to freeze the assets of organizations and individuals and a definition of terrorism that could include peaceful protests, were adopted.

The legislation has environmental groups worried. “The definition of terrorism remains so wide ... that we can envisage a situation in which the government wouldn’t be sorry to freeze the assets of groups who they took a dislike to,” said Shane Rattenbury, a spokesman for Greenpeace Australia Pacific.

Demonstrators wear Australian flag scarves tied over their mouths in protest of new anti-terrorism legislation. (Two photos courtesy Greenpeace Australia)

The original 120 pages of legislation was tabled in the House of Representatives in March and rushed through unamended the next day. The following day the legislation was introduced to the Senate which warily referred the bills to a committee of inquiry.

Faced with a groundswell of opposition from community and legal groups, even a hastily convened inquiry by the Senate Legal and Constitutional committee balked at the proposals and recommended substantial amendments.

Minister for Justice and Customs Senator Chris Ellison (Photo courtesy Government of Australia)

The Opposition Labor Party agreed that the original definition of terrorism as constituting any actions to advance a "political, religious or ideological cause" that involved "coercing or influencing by intimidation" was unacceptable. Instead it negotiated with the government to amend the definition to exclude all actions unless the intent was to “create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public.”

Australian Greens Senator Bob Brown argued in the Senate that peaceful protests were still vulnerable to on the grounds of claims that they were a risk to public health or safety.

“People protesting in the trees against the logging of forests in Australia have frequently been claimed to be endangering life and limb by the logging corporations," he said. "It is surely not the intention of the government to put conservationists who are acting in that fashion [blockading logging] into the category of terrorists, because they are not terrorists,” Brown maintained.

Senator Bob Brown wears handcuffs outside the office of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to dramatize what could happen to environmental protesters under the new law. Unidentified supporter looks on.

Other proposals in the Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002 that provided for the attorney general to ban any groups deemed to be “terrorist” organizations were also amended. The final legislation allows organizations identified by the United Nations as terrorist organizations to be banned by regulation - which can be disallowed by a majority vote of the Senate.

However, a provision in the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism Bill 2002 - one of a package of five bills proposed by the government - provides for the assets of individuals, companies or organisations to be frozen at the discretion of the foreign affairs minister.

While the government claims there are safeguards, Lawson points out that in January the attorney general froze the bank accounts of a Melbourne businessman, James Milne, and had the bank accounts of his Shining Path Records frozen. Milne says he had never heard of the Peruvian Shining Path guerrillas until he discovered his bank accounts had been frozen and checks began to bounce.

Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs Alex Downer can freeze the assets of individuals and organizations under the new law. (Photo courtesy Government of Australia)

Brown was dismayed when the Opposition Labor Party voted with the government to enable the measure to pass. “The only criteria by which a future government has to use to freeze the bank accounts of organizations is that the organization is deemed to be a threat to public health and safety,” Brown said.

The protracted debate on the initial bills has also forced the government to reluctantly defer consideration of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill until the mid-August sitting of the Senate.

Proposed provisions allow life sentences to be imposed on those directly or indirectly involved with “terrorist” organizations and allow “suspects” to be held without charge or access to a lawyer for potentially extended periods.

Lawson is confident that the ASIO legislation can be defeated. “There is significant disquiet in the backbench of both the Liberal and Labor Party ... so I think there is an opportunity over the next month and a half that the Labor Party can be convinced to oppose it completely,” he said.