John Howard, the state premiers and the federal ALP are playing politics with terrorism, giving rise to little public confidence that a forthcoming summit on new measures against terrorism will strike the right balance between defence of the community and the protection of individual rights. Indeed, both the Prime Minister and the premiers are showing impatience with civil liberties arguments, implicitly suggesting that the risks are now so great that such considerations have to be cast aside. They may be right, and will certainly be so if, or when, a terrorist incident occurs. But they have advanced little evidence to suggest that draconian measures offer much in the way of extra protection, and, given their records in national security matters, none deserve to be taken on trust.
The summit—proposed by the premiers but embraced by the Prime Minister so as to suggest that it was his initiative—involves both sides attempting to position themselves as concerned about terrorism and willing to take all measures necessary to nip it in the bud. Labor premiers, and Labor politicians, including the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, are determined that they will not be wedged by the Prime Minister on this issue, whether by suggestions that they are ‘soft’ on terrorism, or obsessed by civil liberties balances, or perhaps because of their lack of enthusiasm for Australia’s role in Iraq they ought not be trusted with the protection of members of the community against terrorist attacks. In short, they are trying to manoeuvre to Howard’s right, making him, his Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, and the already large apparatus of the security state look as if they are not doing enough, nor taking the threat seriously enough, or are handicapping police and security services.
This political calculus means that there may be no one at the summit asking for evidence of an increased threat, or for proof of a lack of existing powers to respond adequately. Further, what evidence is there to suggest that the problems can be addressed by more restrictions on freedom of speech, harsher penalties for terrorists and those who use seditious language, or longer and more arbitrary periods of detention for terror suspects? What evidence is there to support the creation of a national identity card system, big brother surveillance and, perhaps, controls over freedom of movement in the community?
Such measures may make the Government look firm and determined, and put sceptics at