The Lindt siege inquest, the Manchester bombing and the London terror attack have all put terrorism front and centre in recent days.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
It is hardly surprising therefore that immigration minister, Peter Dutton, on the one hand, is trying to make it easier to boot suspected terrorists out of Australia while, on the other, ASIO wants expanded powers to monitor their activities.
It is, after all, sensible and appropriate to offer practical solutions to perceived problems at times of heightened public concern.
That said, given the relatively low scale of our terrorist threat which has seen more Australians killed abroad than in attacks on our own soil, and the implications many of these measures have for all citizens, it is equally sensible to subject all such proposals to close scrutiny.
The last 16 years have seen a significant erosion in civil liberties across Australia with 54 specific pieces of anti-terror legislation enacted by the Commonwealth between September 11, 2001 and September 11, 2011, alone.
It is now fair to ask just how much privacy does any Australian have from the watchful eyes of their own government? And, more significantly, why is it that ASIO believes it is justified to be able to detain any Australian over 14 for questioning. if the authorities deem they may have information relating to a terror plot.
This is of particular concern to journalists, refugee advocates and others who may inadvertently come into contact with suspects.
While terrorists and criminals are invariably cited as the reasons for any new measures to increase the power of the police and the security services, the fact remains that once enacted these laws can be applied fairly broadly.
Most fair minded members of the community accept that there will likely be some inevitable erosions of privacy and liberties in order to pursue those who seek to launch terror attacks on our cities. But there remains a risk of overreach as the government seeks solutions to the fiendishly difficult problem of detecting and preventing attacks.
The powers that ASIO is now seeking to have written into law, which include the right to compel those as young as 14 to answer questions about security threats, even if they are not terror suspects, were initially granted on a temporary basis. They are due to expire under a "sunset clause" in September next year.
ASIO wants to pre-empt this by having them tightened up and made permanent. This is despite the fact the controversial power to detain people for questioning has never been invoked in a single instance.
It is a given that whenever a state agency is granted additional powers, even if only on a temporary basis, it will be reluctant to relinquish them. This appears to be the case in this instance.
If ASIO is unable to establish that the additional authority it was granted in the wake of September 11 and the Bali Bombing has played a demonstrable role in making this country safer then those powers should be rescinded, rather than expanded.
