http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1492446.htm
An informal survey of 25 of Australia’s leading security analysts has found the majority believe the Federal Government’s proposed anti-terrorism laws go too far.
The survey, conducted by Lateline, found that while some of the analysts back the new laws, the majority think the laws will not clearly deter or prevent terrorism inside Australia.
The experts contacted include some well-known names, like one of Australia’s first counter-terrorism experts, Brigadier Malcolm MacKenzie-Orr, former deputy director-general of ASIO Gerard Walsh, former deputy secretary of defence Professor Hugh White, former SAS commander Jim Wallace, three former heads of intelligence for the Federal Police, and the former head of intelligence for the Sydney Olympics.
They were asked two questions: whether they believe the proposed anti-terrorism laws were proportionate to the threat against Australia; and whether the laws would help deter or prevent terrorism in Australia.
Of 25 experts, 15 said they believe the laws were not proportionate to the terrorist threat against Australia.
They include Gerald Walsh a former director-general of ASIO for 10 years, Professor Hugh White, former deputy secretary of the Defence Department, Dr David Wright Neville a former terrorism analyst for the Office of National Assessments, Peter Jennings a former strategic adviser to Prime Minister John Howard, and Sandy Gordon, a former director of intelligence for the Federal Police.
Professor White said he thinks the threat of terrorism against Australia is very serious.
“But I’m unpersuaded that these laws are a cost-effective way of responding to that threat,” he said.
“By cost-effective I mean the sacrifice of civil liberties is justified.”
Clive Williams, former director of security for the Defence Department, said the laws go too far.
“I think that they will alienate at least some individuals who might then be motivated to do something, and I think the last thing we really need is to drive wedges between our various communities,” he said.
Proportionate
Nine of the 25, said the laws were proportionate to the threat. They included Dr Carl Ungerer, a former ONA analyst and former adviser to Simon Crean, Jim Wallace, a former commander of the SAS and special forces, and Geoff Penrose, also a former head of intelligence for the AFP.
Dr Ungerer said the London bombings highlighted the threat posed by home-grown terrorists.
“I think it’s proportionate because we need to have measures for our police and our intelligence agencies that can deal with that particular threat,” he said.
Nearly two thirds of those surveyed were not convinced that the a laws would be effective. Ten of the 25 experts said they believe the laws would not work and a further seven said it was unclear whether the laws would work.
Former Sydney Olympic intelligence chief Neil Fergus is one of those who says it is unclear whether the new laws will work.
But he says similar laws have made a difference in the United Kingdom.
“There were undoubtedly people taken off the streets in the United Kingdom that a brief could not be put together for a successful prosecution who were intimately involved in Al Qaeda-related activities,” he said.
“By taking them off the street I think it made a very positive contribution to national security in the United Kingdom.”
Concerns
But Neil Fergus has concerns.
“I don’t think anybody could seriously argue that despite their most valiant and distinguished efforts either ASIO or the AFP get it right 100 per cent of the time,” he said.
“And the fact is they only have to get it wrong one time out of 100, it’s still a pretty good record, and with the application of these laws it is possible that an innocent member of the community might virtually have their life destroyed.”
About a third, or eight out of the 25, had no doubt the laws would help protect Australia.
Mr Wallace, former SAS commander, was among them.
“What you are looking at doing is trying to deter terrorism, to detect it and obviously to protect against it,” he said.
“And if you’re going to do that, you have to disrupt the preparations of the terrorists.
“And these sort of laws, right down from the additions to the criminal code and also the control orders and preventative detention, are all aimed at doing that.”
One of the strongest voices against the new proposals is one of Australia’s earliest counter-terror warriors – Brigadier Malcolm MacKenzie – who established the first counter-terror regiment in the SAS.
“I think they’re grossly over the top. Australia has a very, very small, low terrorist threat,” he said.
“We’ve had virtually no terrorist activity in Australia. The little bit there has been has been outsiders getting involved.
“And in my experience in Northern Ireland where we had similar laws, they didn’t work anyway.”
The laws are due to be introduced into Federal Parliament next week.
Related Links
Lateline asked 25 security analysts for their thoughts on the Federal Government’s proposed anti-terrorism laws.