The Terrorist Debate from a Green Party Liberal Perspective

:: Reframing the terrorist debate::

How to be a positive advocate of human rights while being tough on terror

Engaging positively in the current public debate about terrorism is a challenge for the Greens.

To put forward a view that is different from the Government inevitably draws the response that one is ‘soft on terrorism’ - even if it is to oppose the most extreme and unjust aspects of the terrorist legislation, conservative commentators use it as a license to suggest Greens are terrorist sympathisers.

Such attacks from the extreme right can discourage many from participating in the debate or result in reflexive opposition to all Government measures - no matter what their merits.

But luckily the Greens have not been falling in to these traps.

Our Greens Senators were rightly strong in their opposition to the political manipulation involved in the recall of parliament to change a single word in terrorism law.

However they were sensible not to confuse this position with their views on the actual legislation.

The bill made a minor uncontroversial - if perhaps ineffectual - change to the law. So the Greens voted in favour of the legislation, while maintaining their opposition to the Parliamentary recall - an important distinction in maintaining credibility on this issue.

And of course the Greens have been the strongest opposition to the main package of terrorism legislation proposed by John Howard. Legislation that amounts to a fundamental assault on our democracy. The notion of innocent until proven guilty, an independent judiciary, freedom of speech are all under assault. Yet Kim Beasley and all the state ALP Premiers have agreed to pass the laws.

Consistently the Greens point out that we already have strong laws that can tackle anyone involved in a gross criminal act like terrorism or anyone conspiring to commit such an act. Despite the radical, draconian nature of the new laws the Government seems able to get away without offering any detailed case for why the existing law isn’t working.

Although rarely reported, the Greens have been providing another constructive contribution to the terrorism debate, at a time when knee-jerk responses seem the order of the day.

The Greens have, for example, been advocating the need to address some of the causes of terrorism and have been pointing out how the Government’s politicisation of the terrorist debate is actually undermining the work of Australia’s security services.

And when John Howard puts politics above their work, we should say so.

This can be tricky ground for Greens, who traditionally – but incorrectly - are not recognised as a defender of the legitimate work of the police.

Possibly for that reason, there seems to be reluctance in the media to report the Greens views in this area – we simply aren’t seen to have a legitimate voice on the topic.

Comments by the Greens regarding the alleged terrorist who may have fled Australia have gone virtually unreported. Yet this alleged terrorist may have been effectively ‘tipped off’ by the Prime Minister’s recall of parliament and destroyed valuable evidence as he left the country.

The Greens have always strongly opposed any terrorist activity – either abroad or in Australia - and we support our law enforcement agencies being properly equipped and supported to do their job.

And it has been right for the Greens to speak up about the increased terrorist threat that a nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights brings to Sydneysiders. This is not exploiting the terrorist issue for political ends – but sensibly joining the debate from a long standing Greens’ opposition to the risks of a nuclear reactor.

It is important to remember that we can tackle the Government on its own terms. We don’t need to let ourselves be intimated from engaging in constructive criticism about how the security services are working to protect us.

Last month I wrote to Australia’s Inspector General of Intelligence Security about the leaking of security-sensitive information to the media.

When peace activist Scott Parkin was deported the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister repeatedly told the community that we could not hear the reasons for Mr Parkin’s removal for ‘security reasons’. Yet once Mr Parkin had left, the ‘reasons’ for his deportation were splashed all over the front page of the Australian newspaper under the by-line of one their leading rightwing commentators. The information appeared to be directly sourced from ASIO.

I raised this issue with the Inspector General. Not even Mr Parkin’s lawyers were provided with the reasons he was deported, while select journalists at a Government-friendly newspaper were given the full brief - effectively smearing Mr Parkin’s name, with no opportunity for him to defend the claims.

The Inspector General has referred my letter to the Australian Federal Police for consideration. I am still waiting for a response.

When John Howard politicises the terrorist debate and refuses to address the long term causes that drive the problem, it is he who is soft on terrorism.

back to my analysis