Dear Readers,

Professor Williams is right to make the obvious point that 'control orders' of the nature he has described are unprecedented in Australia.

Perhaps the threat of terrorism is too?

The issuing of a control order is plainly a very serious matter. The power is reposed in a Federal Magistrate and it is plain from the events of last week that the judges are not timid, but will be rightly critical of the Australian Federal Police for seeking an order that is too wide.

I share Professor Williams' opinion that there is a 'fundamental rights' issue here - liberty should not be deprived without due process of law - but the solutions George offers elsewhere in his political commentary are grossly inadequate. A statutory Bill of Rights, such as the one operating in the UK, will not be enough to prevent politicians from engaging in politically expedient actions that reduce those human rights. A statute can be repealed and when national security challenges (or even plain law and order challenges) emerge the fidelity of politicans to human rights will be sorely tested. Indeed, I predict that the politicians will fail us.

The only genuine solution is a constitutionally entrenched regiume of human rights. In that regard, readers should not be hoodwinked into believing that the adoption of such an approach would unduly limit Australia's capacity to protect Australia from terrorism. The maintenance of public order is a specific objective of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and there is no reason why suitable surveillance techniques cannot be authorised within a human rights framework.

Control orders are a politically ostentatious form of surveillance and could be abused, but are very likely to be upheld by the High Court on national security grounds. That should give us cause for concern if the net is widened.

We can only meet that challenge with a constitutionally-entrenched bill of rights that prevents all governments from breaching our human rights: the rights we have because we are human.

Agreed Skeptic, but are terrorists, war on terror and terrorism, so well defined, so frequent as to need special laws? How much are they a product, yes immoral but so is carpet bombing such as Israel just indulged in, of our actions. (Self Defence? Yes?) How much of the trumpeted Islamo-fascist, whatever that is sounds horrible and suitably frightening for irrational, should we believe?

Yes there are terrorists but more frightening than say war with its demonstrated marked increase in civilian casualties? USA hegemony?

Is hyped up fear the rational way, new draconian laws or what would be anathema to ourleaders, dispute resolution.
Oh dear I forgot those who want to blow us up hyped by their leaders or believers, do not want to talk to us we are the Christian West, they are Hizbollah.
Born Again Christians or frustrated individuals.

The Government would have us believe danger, it is to their advantage hyped on 9/11 which apart from rudely attacking a country without warning?, used modern technology in a novel way causing our prime minister much agony. 3,000 plus deaths, 100,000 Iraqi!

Ah, Yes - but successive Australian governments have shown a marked reluctance to adopt a Bill of Rights - and in todays climate such a notion is even further from the agenda - so, in the not too distance furture expect 'control orders' to be expanded, for all the right reason of course, to encompasses a whole range of activites (environmental terrorists - animal rights terrorists - trade union terrorists) well, you probably can add some of your own ......

If the High Court does strike down these laws, and I hope it does, I look forward to the rabid right pollies and commentators attacking the High Court judges for upholding the Constitution.

Does anyone remember plane and train hijacking? IRA atrocities? Why weren’t they “Terrorist Acts”?
The so-called ‘War on Terror’ is a furphy. The internet has opened too many eyes and politicians are no longer either believed or respected. To avoid civil unrest a war was needed. Afghanistan and Iraq merely compounded the problems, so some clever sod thought of a war on terror… which makes as much sense as a war on beauty, or poor taste. A War on Truth and Sanity more likely. The ploy is proving so successful they are able to entrench their hold on power through new laws so that within ten years elections will no longer be a requirement. Successive ‘states of emergency’ will ensure permanence.
We do indeed meed a Bill of Rights enshrined in a constitution. But our debased form of democracy can never deliver that. Only proportional representation can halt the slide to dictatorship.

A secret court, or a court that hears evidence in secret, should not be trusted. This is particularly the case where the court consists of military officers; and especially the case where the members of the court feel that they, their values, or their identification group are under some sort of threat. This is not to claim that the people in such a court are bad; rather it is to recognize that the thinking and actions of generally normal people can be grossly distorted by the circumstances in which they find themselves – or believe they find themselves. Lack of scrutiny by others – particularly by others who may be critical – is extremely conducive to group-think, and courts are not immune to this. See more at: http://www.jeffschubert.com/index.php?id=32