I agree with George's arguments. Underlying safeguard principles need to be clearly expressed in legislation and/or the Constitution.

The system of terrorism legislation review relies largely on the secretive, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/pjcis/reports.htm . With deliberations relying on only a handful of politicians. There is input from long term experts but there is little attempt to make the whole process, and cause and effect, easier to understand.

For further views on legal complexity and intelligence organisations (relevant to Haneef type situations in ways the Government can't publicise) I recommend people look at the sections of this paper http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2007jul21_cover.html on "Civil Liberties" and "Safeguards".

Pete

i've seen what terrorists can do, and i've seen what corrupt, violent, amoral politicians can do when allowed near government. anyone who worries about terrorists should do a body count and rearrange their priorities.

there can be no independent review in a society where the head of government is the chief malefactor. who will bell the cat?

I've written an email to Senators Ellison and the current Justice Minister, David Johnston. Both are Liberals from WA.

senator.ellison@aph.gov.au
senator.johnston@aph.gov.au
*
Senators Ellison and Johnston,

As Justice Minister in 2004, Senator Ellison said in the Senate,

"Should the Senate pass this updated dead time mechanism, I make the undertaking that the Government will conduct an independent review of the new investigatory framework for terrorism investigations approximately three years after they become law. Such a review would provide an opportunity to exhaustively analyse the operation of the new provisions and remedy any evident operational or legal shortcomings."

It became law on June 30, 2004; we are thus overdue for the independent review.

Senator Ellison's maiden speech in 1993 (http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/homepages/first_speech/sfs-9X5.htm) made reference to the liberalism of Burke as influencing himself and his party. Burke noted that "bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny"; it's for this reason, I would say, that laws need to be reviewed from time to time, to see if they're bad or not. A good time to review them is when you've promised to review them. Of course I understand that Senator Ellison is no longer Minister for Justice & Customs, but he remains a member of the same Government, and so would presumably have some interest and influence in making good the promise he made more than three years ago.

I call on Senator Johnston to have the independent review undertaken, and on Senator Ellison to use his influence as a Minister in this Government and as a Senator to help this happen. The recent Haneef case and its controversy shows a review is needed, to suggest necessary changes, and to restore public confidence in the Government's ability to deal with terrorism. In addition, it never harms your image to keep your promises.
*

I suggest that anyone who agrees that the laws need review ought to copy and paste this, and email the two guys. If you're from WA, you definitely should email, write or call them. Both are up fro re-election in the next one, and Johnston only just scraped in last time...

The thing that stands out as unfair and unjust here is not that a man with terrorist family links was held for a mere 12days until facts could be assessed. It is that people from muslim countries who pose a potential threat to my children and family are still being allowed into this country. The fact that they are here is what is causing the need for all this security and draconian laws in the first place. Thats unfair and unjust to the rest of us who have to live under these laws.

sharky, when oz military uniforms start patrolling iraqi streets, your children become endangered. iraqis like this about as much as you would like seeing indonesian soldiers manning checkpoints on australian streets.

i assume you are a patriot. so are they. i assume you would get angry. so do they. terrorists are, in general, not madmen. they are people who have had enough of seeing their country run for the benefit of foreigners. if you saw your children killed before your eyes by foreign soldiers, you would be a terrorist too.

your children's enemy is the politician who sent oz troops to someone else's land, as george bush's henchmen.

Come on now. Who seriously thought there would really be a review? The only review will be for Ruddock to make bail impossible for any suspect. Innocent, guilty, matters not. Just lock em up.

To believe what these people say is to believe in fairies. Although fairies do actually deliver sometimes. Politicans don't

Well said Demos.

Kyle. Haven't you got it yet? Writing to politicians only encourages them. Blog mate, blog. If you write to them they firstly rarely ever read what you send. If it is read at all it will be by a staffer. Then you may get a reply which is usually cut and paste from their policy doco. Then it bears no relationship to what you wrote. And then you get angry as they have ignored you.

Start from the point that they ignore you mate. Because they do. Don't be polite or courteous to them. Attack them at every opportunity as they do us. Every chance you get, expose their faults and cheats.

There are some good ones of course but they don't get a say do they? Any of them that try being "good" and helping are howled down by their mates. Great mates too.

The Howard government failing in its legislative responsibilities is par for the corrupt course. Lack of AWB-funding-terrorism prosecutions, Reiths phone card fraud, Howards Tampa/Seiv X/IRaqs WMD lies, Dr Haneefs immigration imprisonment, its no news that the aged white men who rule don't give a %^&* about truth or the law.

But its nice to see that some (like Mr Williams) are keeping count of the illegalities. If the legal system ever recovers at least it'll make for a brisk trial, hopefully followed by a televised hanging - isn't that what happens to war criminals?

That's a fashionable cynicism, DavoP, but it doesn't match the reality.

The reality is that if you write abusing someone, they'll ignore what you have to say however reasonable. "The sun will rise tomorrow, you swine!" means they ignore the first part and focus on the second. In any case, politicians are abused all the time. It's water off a duck's back for them.

Writing them reasonable letters, in my experience, has the following results:

Of every 5 letters,
3 receive no reply at all.
1 receives a pro forma reply, "your opinion has been noted", or something taken - as you said - straight from the policy document.
And 1 receives a proper reply, where they've obviously read what you've written, and responded to it.

In general, opposition MPs and candidates never reply, while those who are currently Cabinet Ministers give a reply within 7-28 days. They don't engage in arguments or discussions - you say what you think, they reply and that's that. If you reply telling them they're wrong, they won't reply to that. Well, fair enough. The person is not my debating partner, they're an MP.

It does have an effect. They do listen - it's just that most of us never speak except in the ballot box. MPs want to keep their jobs just like everyone else. If 30,000 members of the Bennelong electorate wrote to Sheriff Johnny telling him to paint his house fluro pink he'd do it

"Come on now. Who seriously thought there would really be a review?"

- too true.

The whole terror shebang, especially the sedition laws, is primarily for the comfort of the politicians themselves. Why? Because they are worried about the day when a critical mass of Australians see them for what they really are - war criminals. War criminals, plain and simple!

These "laws" are the excrement of frightened, guilty men. Isn't that too obvious?

We threw in our lot with the war-for-profit gang, and it looks like we might lose our shirts in that little venture. A few soldiers is a sensible down-payment, but only if they are the children of someone else's family. And hey, if anything bad happens, then "we will remember them", remember? Every year. Every war. Every bout of amnesia.

And Mr Ruddock, I seem to remember when you were a somewhat idealistic and compassionate young man. A bit nerdy perhaps, but then, who wasn't back then?

What happened?

(fade to black)

I'd like to thank my mum and dad for having me, and a special thanks to Lambrusco @ $7.99 / 4 lt

fin

Sharkfin. What have you done that has made you suffer under the anti-terrorism laws? Let us know how they have affected you. Give us some example or other, please. I'm interested

Demos. My father-in-law left Italy in the 50s. He lived under an occupation by foreign troops, after Mussolini was deposed, for a number of years. Despite your assurance that this (and the civilian deaths caused by wayward allied bombing etc) would enrage anyone invaded by foreigners, he has a great affection for the invaders ( US, Britain and.....New zealanders; yikes!)

Possibly being a simple man, not endowed with your insight into reality, he thinks he was LIBERATED by the foreigners. Would you explain, since this is apparently not the case in Iraq (ie they are NOT being liberated) why only 10-15% of insurgents there are actually locals? I look forward to discovering why most Iraqis are so much more easily duped than you, when it comes to this matter. Cheers.

This is a great opportunity to reform the"Legal Disease".We have have our Public Servants comatose with fear making all sorts of regulation that destroys business innovation and inhibits personal freedoms.

It is time we had a balance between rights and responsibilites.The legal disease have tipped the scales too much in the favour of rights.