Scrutinising our counter-terrorism laws

Also in 2006, the controversial sedition offences were reviewed by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC). It recommended 30 changes to the law in order to draw “a bright line between freedom of expression - even when exercised in a challenging or unpopular manner - and the reach of the criminal law”.

But what has happened to all these recommendations? The Government assures us they are “under consideration”. Yet we do not know when, or even if, we can expect action.

It is, of course, the prerogative of Parliament to implement or refuse to implement the recommendations of independent reviewers as it sees fit. But when the recommendations of major reviews are met with inaction and silence, it is hard not to be sceptical about the practical impact a new review body might achieve.

It is therefore imperative that legislation for the establishment of a counter-terrorism watchdog make it obligatory that the Attorney-General respond to the Independent Reviewers’ recommendations in Parliament within 90 days.

Decisive government action needs to be taken in response to the recommendations made by these three major counter-terrorism reviews for improvement of Australia's counter-terrorism laws.

Implementing these recommendations will not remove the need for an Independent Reviewer. But it will mean that the Independent Reviewer will not have to waste time repeating recommendations that address problems for which we have already been offered solutions.