Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Losing our balance in 'Fortress Australia'

By George Williams - posted Wednesday, 28 September 2005


The checks and balances in Australia against the misuse of government power are also slight. Counter-terrorism laws highlight the weaknesses in our system of government and how we, more than ever, need strong protection against the abuse of our basic rights. We have in the past relied upon parliament to hold the government to account, but this is not enough. Ministerial responsibility is not the check that it once was, with greater capacity today for ministers to reject calls for their resignation by blaming failures upon their departments or a lack of knowledge.

As the deportation of US peace activist Scott Parkin shows, our government can take actions with a significant effect on freedom of speech and protest and on individual liberty, and it can do so without having to give adequate reasons. While criticism can also be levied at past governments, the stakes have never been so high. Past governments have not had the range of powers now at the disposal of the federal government, let alone the authority that would be gained under Howard's proposals. Indeed, the powers now in force are far more extensive than anything enacted during the Cold War to deal with communism.

With each new terrorist attack, it is possible that governments will seek harsher and harsher national security laws. Other nations are in the same cycle, in what appears to be a race to the bottom, although their laws are at least tempered by their explicit protection of fundamental rights.

Advertisement

Driven by fear and the need to act, we run the risk of a series of overreactions. This is the very dynamic that terrorists rely upon. What they cannot achieve by military might, they seek to achieve by stimulating our fears. Indeed, it is by our own actions that we are likely to isolate and ostracise members of our community who might then become targets for terrorist recruitment. It is also by our own actions that we travel further from our ideal of what a democratic and open society based upon the rule of law should be.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

First published in the Australian Financial Review on September 23, 2005.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

25 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

George Williams is the Anthony Mason Professor of law and Foundation Director of the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law at the University of New South Wales.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by George Williams

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of George Williams
Article Tools
Comment 25 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy