Terrorism laws: prevention is better than cure

The Government’s recent announcement of proposals to further refine and strengthen Australia’s counter-terrorism laws has raised some legitimate questions. Why are more laws needed when the existing laws are rarely used? Will the changes make Australians safer? Why are they only being considered now?

The case for seeking to ensure our legislative regime remains responsive in the war against terror is a simple one. Just as the nature of the terrorist threat is constantly evolving, so too is the need to ensure our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have every legislative measure they need to keep one step ahead of the terrorists.

We know much more now than we did then about the methods of terrorists and their intentions. I have always regarded our counter-terrorism laws as an unfinished canvas. It is entirely appropriate that they be further refined and improved as our knowledge and experience of the terrorist threat increases.

To borrow the words of the 18th century scientist Georg Lichtenberg - “Ask yourself always … how can this be done better”.

Australia’s counter-terrorism legislative regime was comprehensively reviewed and significantly updated following the devastating terror strikes in the United States on September 11, 2001. This was done in anticipation of attacks on our home soil we all hope will never occur.

The Government acknowledged at the time it hoped the new laws would not be needed. Nonetheless, critics suggested these laws did not make Australians safer and they could or would be misused.

Four years on the reality is very different. Individuals have been charged under these laws with planning terrorist attacks; others with links to terrorist organisations who travelled here to organise attacks have been identified, and groups of people sympathetic to such organisations have been uncovered.

It is true that our existing terrorism laws have been rarely used. I wish they never had to be used. That was our hope in 2002 and it remains my hope today.

ASIO’s powers have been used to reveal information about plots to attack our cities, kill and injure our citizens and to strike fear into the very heart of our society. While sparingly used, these laws have proven to be effective. ASIO powers have already been used to question people who were later charged with terrorism offences.

The fact ASIO has used its questioning powers on only eight occasions since they were introduced in 2002, and has never used the detention powers, in my view points to their responsible use. At the same time, if the need for the power arises, it is there. It is no good waiting for an attack to occur before we put in place control orders and preventative detention powers. After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Terrorists have shown they are adaptable and do not require centralised organisation or external direction. The proposed new laws are about confronting the “franchising of terror” already becoming evident in other countries. This was a feature of the London attacks and could happen here in Australia.

We already have offences dealing with training, financing, assisting and associating with terrorist organisations. Now there is a need to stop organisations from advocating terrorism by encouraging it. The glorification of terrorist activity can cause as much harm as those who supply the bombs and guns. That is why the Government is extending the criteria for banning terrorist organisations and modernising the offence of sedition.

Last year, laws were passed which doubled the detention period available for police questioning. This addressed concerns police needed more time to follow up leads discovered during questioning which might lead to further questioning, particularly with the prospect of large scale attacks in multiple locations.

At the time, less weight was given to circumstances where the person associated with a proposed or actual attack might not be someone about whom anything is known to justify questioning. The London attack has heightened awareness the danger could come from someone who is unknown to the authorities. It has also led to more attention being paid to those who urge violence and spur on others to join their cause.

Terrorist plots are often complex and can involve many people. Potential participants need to be identified and isolated so the dynamics of their associations can be properly examined in a time critical way.

If a risk exists, the police need preventative detention powers or controls over movement and communication. The discomfort involved in restrictions of this nature if imposed upon an individual is nothing compared with the lifetime of pain and suffering for the innocent survivor of a terrorist attack.

Accountability mechanisms are a central feature of Australia’s terrorism laws. They ensure innocent people are not caught up in such an operation. Watchdogs such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security are there to respond on behalf of individuals if there are any such problems.

The biggest mistake anyone can make is to underestimate the enemy. The enemy is dynamic, always trying out new strategies and deploying whatever resources can be sucked into the cause of terrorism.

Our ongoing legal response has to be equally as dynamic, within the complex environment of parliamentary processes and shared responsibility with state and territory governments. In a democratic system we strive to make laws that are acceptable to the community. It follows that we have to work hard to ensure those laws are sufficient to deal with an ever-changing terrorist threat. Anything less would be a dereliction of our duty to protect the safety and security of all Australians.