Liberal rift opens over war stance

By Greg Roberts, John Garnaut and Caroline Overington for The Sydney Morning Herald

January 20 2003

Tensions are mounting within the federal Liberal Party over the prospect of Australian troops being committed to a United States-led attack on Iraq without the backing of the United Nations.

Senior Liberal identities said the issue of whether troops should be dispatched if the UN Security Council did not endorse a resolution authorising the use of force was deeply dividing the party.

While the Prime Minister, John Howard, has repeatedly said Australia still hoped for a peaceful solution, he has, in line with the US position, declined to rule out military action even if it is not sanctioned by the UN.

A Herald poll, published on Saturday, found 92 per cent of Australians would not support such involvement.

The Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, while not backing away from the Government's policy stance, last night said: "The public are right to prefer a United Nations solution and we hope that can be achieved without conflict of any kind."

On Saturday, the acting Prime Minister, John Anderson, said: "I strongly agree with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan when he made it clear that he believed that the backing of diplomacy with a clear, resolute willingness to deploy troops is more likely to make a diplomatic solution happen."

The Defence Minister, Robert Hill, conceded there was dissent in Liberal ranks over Iraq.

"In an organisation the size of the Liberal Party, I would expect there to be a range of views," Senator Hill said.

The federal Liberal MP for the Queensland seat of Moncrieff, Steve Ciobo, said any action against Iraq should have the endorsement of the UN.

"I believe we live in a global community and each country needs to recognise it has a responsibility not only to its people, but to the broader world community," he said.

The Queensland Liberal Leader, Bob Quinn, said he believed a Security Council resolution should precede any Australian troop deployment.

A former Victorian Liberal premier, Sir Rupert Hamer, said there was widespread opposition in the party to military engagement.

"War is a very serious matter and there absolutely should not be a commitment without international support, and that is a widely held view in the Liberal Party," Sir Rupert said.

A former Liberal defence minister, Sir James Killen, said it would be a mistake for Australia to send troops to Iraq without UN backing, describing any move to do so as "entirely reprehensible".

Sir James said Australia should ask the US President, George Bush, to provide the evidence he claims for asserting that Saddam Hussein continues to have weapons of mass destruction. "The American attitude toward the conduct of international affairs raises a very large question mark over any involvement by Australia," he said.

Another former federal Liberal minister, Peter Baume, the chancellor of the Australian National University, said: "If we are going to go with war with Iraq, then somebody should explain exactly why."

Copyright © 2003. The Sydney Morning Herald

#

NSW repressive terror laws passed

Peter Mac

The Guardian (Au), December 11, 2002

The NSW Carr Government, supported by the state Liberals, has passed legislation that effectively strips NSW citizens of fundamental democratic rights.

Most people are now aware of the Howard Government's attempts to give ASIO police powers, including the possibility of arrests, indefinite incommunicado detention and no rights to legal representation, for potential witnesses as well as suspects.

But while eyes were turned on the Feds, the NSW Government has slipped through even more draconian legislation. Under four new "terror" laws approved recently no judicial warrant is required for police break-ins, strip-searches or arrests, in cases which, according to the police, involve terrorism.

It would not be possible to demand a review of the detention, and there would be no requirement for the government to publish information or answer to parliament regarding its actions in this respect.

The legislation gives police powers to search children as young as 10 years old.

Clause 13 of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Bill states that:

"An authorisation (and any decision of the Police Minister under this part with respect to the Authorisation) may not be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called into question on any grounds whatsoever before any court, tribunal, body or person in any legal proceedings, or restrained, removed or otherwise affected by proceedings in the nature of prohibition or mandamus."

The government proposes to establish a new police special branch known as the anti-terrorism unit to support the legislation, and the activities of this new organisation would be solely the responsibility of the NSW Police Minister.

Opposition leader John Brogden supported the legislation, even though the Liberals sought an amendment under which the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) would have had the power to scrutinise the Police Minister's actions.

Unlike their Federal counterparts, the NSW Liberal backbench members have gone along with the Carr/Brogden legislation.

The Greens have strenuously opposed the legislation. Greens Upper House member Lee Rhiannon pointed out that the legislation is unconstitutional because of the unprecedented powers it grants to the state Police Minister.

The Greens propose taking the matter to the NSW Supreme Court, and Ms Rhiannon has written to all Australian Greens MPs, warning them of the dangers of similar legislation being introduced in other States and in the federal arena.

As she pointed out, the Federal Attorney-General, Daryl Williams has expressed criticism of the NSW Bill, albeit with barely-concealed envy. He notes:

"When you look at what we have in our (ASIO) bill and compare it to what the NSW Government is proposing in its bill you'll see that there are an enormous range of safeguards in ours that are not present in the NSW bill."

In short, the people of Australia are facing a situation in which conservative Labor and Liberal governments, at both state and federal levels, compete with each other to introduce the most repressive legislation in the name of fighting terrorism.

It is small wonder that the electoral results of the Greens are continually rising. It looks as though both major parties are in for a shock at the NSW state elections next year.

#

Edited by author 12-13-2002 04:04 PM
Crean's gambit: time to Tampa with terror

Comment by Margo Kingston in The Sydney Morning Herald

December 14 2002

Today obliterated the new givens in Australian politics. With one decision, Simon Crean has set the political clock back to the Tampa, and decided to go to war with John Howard on Australian values.

Simon Crean is transformed from grey shadow to crazy brave warrior. John Howard set the same trap for him as he set for Beazley last year and Simon Crean said no. Kim Beazley backs him in spades.

After Tampa, Howard rushed into Parliament the most vicious, anti-democratic legislation ever brought before it. It removed any accountability for anything the government and its officials did in dealing with boat people. As an enraged Beazley pointed out, it would have allowed officials to murder boat people without redress.

Kim Beazley said no. John Howard cleaned up the bill a little, and Beazley - in fear of losing the imminent election on a wave of anti-boat people sentiment - said yes to the Pacific Solution. He became an uncomfortable me-too boy, giving Howard permission to lurch further and further out of control, culminating in the false election claims that children were thrown overboard, the false election claim that SIEV-X sank in Indonesian waters, and the false claim that terrorists were on board the boats.

Labor has been running scared ever since, culminating last week in Crean's decision to reaffirm the Pacific Solution despite the certainty that it would split the ALP.

But this morning, after an endless night of frantic negotiations, Crean called Howard's bluff.

The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002 would allow detention without arrest of any Australian the government thinks might have any information about terrorism. Innocence of any crime is irrelevant. The debate this year has been about safeguards to this extraordinary new power - a power which is traditionally a hallmark of a police-state.

There have been many inquiries. Liberals on those inquiries have sharply criticised its excesses and forced amendments, only to see the Government want to go even further after the Bali bombing.

Last night the Senate passed its version of the bill, adding safeguards to protect the innocent. Overnight, Howard accepted a couple of its amendments and rejected the rest. He sent it back to the Senate, which rejected it, and the House of Representatives rejected the Senate again.

Howard announced he had now fulfilled the first half of the Constitution's requirements to force a double dissolution election in three months. He will send the bill back in the exact form in which the Senate last rejected it in three months, and if Crean holds his nerve and rejects it again, Australia will go to a civil liberties election in the context of the war on terror.

The last time John Howard threatened a double dissolution election was on the eve of Christmas 1997, when the Senate rejected his Wik bill. There were four sticking points. That time round, the Senate called his bluff around Easter 1998, and Howard backed off on a race election only after Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party won eleven seats at the Queensland election in June.

This time there are three sticking points:

* Howard wants children as young as 14 to be subject to the new law, Labor wants people under 18 exempted,

* Howard wants detention for up to seven days, Labor detention for up to 20 hours, and

* Howard wants no lawyer allowed to sit in on the interrogation for the first 48 hours of detention, then a lawyer chosen from a pool chosen by the government. Labor wants legal representation from the beginning of detention, chosen by the detainee.

The detail will soon get lost. Howard will run the populist themes which won him the 2002 election. He will feed people's fear to argue that drastic curtailment of our liberties is necessary in a time of war, and to feed fear of other Australians who don't look like the majority. The assumption on which his campaign will rest is that Australians can and must trust the government to do the right thing in these dark times.

Crean, just like Beazley would have had if he hadn't succumbed to Howard, will have a herculean task., He must convince the Australian people that our terrorist enemies will have won the war if in fighting it we lose the very freedoms we are fighting to maintain. He will argue that John Howard cannot be trusted with these powers. One of the weapons he can use - if he dares - if that the government lied to the Australian people about children overboard to win power, and will do anything to maintain it.

Crean will have to explain to the Australian people that the essence of our way of life is the rule of law - that the certainty of abuse of State power against the innocent, proved over and over again by history, is addressed by insisting that we are ruled by laws, not men. The judiciary - independent of government and owing its duties to the law and the citizen, not government - are the bulwark of the rule of law. The right to legal representation when detained by police or other instruments of state power is essential to our freedom.

These are complex arguments, easily overrun by scare campaigns, false propaganda, appeals to prejudice and the screams of shock jocks.

And Crean must, in the end, convince Australians that he can be trusted to lead the nation in this time of crisis - to fight the war on terror as hard as Howard, but to do it in a way that enhances out trust in him by fiercely protecting as far as is possible our liberties and freedoms.

The risks are so high they are almost incomprehensible. If, God forbid, terrorism strikes in our country over summer, John Howard is almost certain to claim - regardless of truth - that it's all because he didn't have his ASIO bill the way he wanted it. Crean's answer will be that he could have had his bill, with proper safeguards, but chose to endanger Australian lives to win an election.

If the challenge was not great enough already, Crean carries a crippling burden inflicted by the most senior Labor Premier in Australia. Bob Carr has just rushed through draconian new police powers with no safeguards whatsoever to protect citizens against their abuse, and justified them on the basis that anything goes in the war on terror.

John Howard - who can rightly say that his bill contains some safeguards - was super-quick to taunt Crean with Carr's betrayal of core Labor principle. "Under the Labor bill, passed in NSW, the NSW police have the power to stripsearch children between the age of 10 and 18 years without a warrant ... (but) with the authority of Michael Costa, the police minister," he said. "If the Labor Party were really serious and consistent, why didn't it attack and disown the Carr government, that happened in NSW without a murmur."

Carr wants to win an election in March with fear and loathing. So does Howard. Crean must fight on two fronts.

It is almost unimaginable that Simon Crean would cave in. If he did, it would be the end of his leadership. Get set for the most important, high-stakes election in the lifetime of most Australians.

***

By the way, an election next Easter means Howard, if he wins, will have to put off his retirement decision for at least one more year. For the sake of the country, of course.

#

ASIO Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill

Bills Digest No. 128 2001-02
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002

WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the Bill.

CONTENTS

Passage History
Purpose
Background
Main Provisions
Concluding Comments
Endnotes
Contact Officer & Copyright Details

#

Howard, Crean go to war on terrorism

By Cynthia Banham in the Sydney Morning Herald

December 14 2002

Political brinkmanship over Australia's security led the Federal Government to shut down Parliament yesterday, denying ASIO controversial new powers to fight terrorism.

The abrupt closure came after an acrimonious 27-hour debate during which the Government and Labor accused each other of wearing the blame for any blood that might be split in a terrorist attack.

The marathon, overnight sitting ended with the Prime Minister, John Howard, refusing to accept Labor amendments that would crimp ASIO's ability to hold and question people.

This tactical retreat leaves the Government without the legislation it claims is necessary to protect Australians from terrorist threats.

But it also puts it within reach of a potential trigger for a double-dissolution election fought over security, with a new Middle East conflict looming and Australia becoming a focus of militant Islamic anger.

Ordering the Government to pull the plug on the debate at 1pm yesterday, Mr Howard said the lack of robust ASIO powers over a summer of increased terrorist risk would be on "the head of the Australian Labor Party".

The Opposition Leader, Simon Crean, accused Mr Howard of playing on the fears of Australians by refusing to let a compromise bill - which would offer some new intelligence-gathering powers - pass now, and "build on it later".

There are three big sticking points over the legislation.

Labor wants those detained for questioning but not directly suspected of terrorism to have immediate access to a lawyer of their choice, subject to ASIO's objections on security grounds. The Government wants no lawyers for 48 hours - and then only security-cleared lawyers.

The ALP also wants a 20-hour limit on questioning, after which people could only be brought back after seven days. The Government wants detention for rolling 48-hour periods up to seven days.

The Government says the bill must apply to children aged 14 and older, but Labor wants under-18s to be exempt.

The deadlock followed a dramatic night involving 3 o'clock meetings between the Government negotiators Daryl Williams and Robert Hill and Labor's team of Kim Beazley, Daryl Melham, John Faulkner and Robert Ray.

Debate had to be suspended shortly before midnight when a power failure plunged Parliament into darkness.

When morning came, Mr Howard told the media the Government had agreed to some amendments but would go no further.

"If this bill does not go through and we are not able to clothe our intelligence agencies with this additional authority over the summer months, it will be on the head of the Australian Labor Party and on nobody else's head," he said.

Mr Crean retaliated at his own news conference: "It is only John Howard that won't provide the solution. He will play on the fear, but he doesn't want a solution.

"He can have the solution today, and he knows it. The bill can still pass, and it can happen within the next couple of hours."

The legislation went back to Parliament for the last heated time. Mr Crean accused Mr Howard of "crocodile tears".

"The nation does deserve the security over Christmas time. What you are doing to this nation, by going out there with your rhetoric, is playing on their fears."

Mr Howard returned fire: "The Labor Party realises that they are going to be judged as soft on this issue by the Australian public."

#

Terror alert campaign gets trial run

By Deborah Cameron in the Sydney Morning Herald

December 9 2002

A confronting terror awareness advertising campaign sponsored by the Federal Government is being tested on audiences around the country, to mixed reactions.

The screenings, conducted during the past week, include images of balaclava-clad SAS officers storming a house. Australians also are being asked for their reaction to the idea of a mass-circulation booklet or pamphlet to coincide with the advertisements.

The Government is "looking at a wide range of options", said an official. Many ideas were being examined for the campaign, which was being supervised by the Prime Minister, John Howard.

The idea for a pamphlet, which may be distributed to 7.2 million households, coincides with reports of a British plan to issue a survival guide in case of a major terror assault, including attacks with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

Scenes in the awarenesss campaign include lookouts on the Harbour Bridge, uniformed police in suburban streets and army and other emergency and security personnel at work.


The SAS house raid, said to be a frightening sequence, is the final image.

Audiences are believed to have expressed concern about the timing of the campaign, the sensitivity of the subject, the alarming tone of the message and the likelihood that it will terrify people not at risk.

The test audiences were asked to rate the credibility of eight suggested voices for the campaign - all of them television presenters, including the host of Channel Nine's A Current Affair, Mike Munro.

Others being considered are the recently retired Nine newsreader Brian Henderson and the retired ABC newsreader Richard Morecroft. The Seven Network's Anne Fullwood is said to be the only woman on the list.

It is not known whether any of them has been approached.

It is understood that some test audiences have suggested that a respected national figure from outside the media should do the job, such as the former governor-general, Sir William Deane, or the head of the armed forces, General Peter Cosgrove.

The broad market research surrounding the campaign includes city and regional audiences and people across a wide age group.

The director of the Lebanese Muslim Association, Keysar Trad, said Muslims should be included in the audience testing and he was astonished that so far there had been no approach.

"This is an issue of such paramount concern to us that it is disconcerting, worrying and a matter of deep regret that we have not been consulted," he said.

The campaign is planned for early next year and, although the budget has not been revealed, it appears to be comparable to the Federal Government's 2001 anti-drug advertising campaign, which cost $27 million.

It is understood that there will be three phases to the campaign.

First is an advertisement that sets the scene in the post-Bali era and depicts the readiness of Australian security forces to detect and deal with domestic threats.

The second asks the public to be alert - showing pedestrian malls, shopping centres, airports, sporting venues, suburban streets and parks - and inviting people to ring a number if they are suspicious of anyone or anything.

The third phase is the booklet or pamphlet.

The campaign, although still in the planning stages, is understood to be on a fast track.

Britain's leaflet to 24 million homes will advise people to stockpile food and water and, in the event of an attack, stay inside and keep televisions and radios on for public announcements, The Sunday Times reported.

It was unlikely to include evacuation details, to prevent people from leaving the area without knowing the nature of the attack.

#

Pre-emptive strike policy will backfire: Labor

Sydney Morning Herald

December 2, 2002

Labor today warned Prime Minister John Howard against talking up pre-emptive military action against terrorists, saying it could hurt relations with Australia's Asian neighbours.

Opposition Leader Simon Crean said the prime minister's suggestion that international law be changed to allow strikes against terrorists in other nations sent the wrong message to the region.

"The prime minister only ever wants to talk war," Mr Crean told reporters.

"I'm for saying we've got to engage our regional neighbours, we've got to talk (talk) a collective responsibility, a common solution to fighting terror together, not starting to threaten them."

Mr Crean said Mr Howard's talk of terrorism and hints of tax cuts to come were designed to distract voters from Labor's landslide election win in the opposition leader's home state of Victoria.

"John Howard is ever the diversionist," he said.

Asian nations including Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines have already expressed concern about Mr Howard's comments, and Labor foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd said it was understandable.

He said by canvassing the prospect of military action on foreign soil, Mr Howard was effectively talking about war.

"That is an act of war, and if the prime minister means that he should say so," he told reporters.

Mr Rudd said Mr Howard should know better than to talk publicly about military action.

"He cannot convey a hairy-chested message to the Australian domestic electorate on one hand and hope that that message is not read loud and clear by the governments of south-east Asia on the other," he said.

"Does going to war with our neighbours in South East Asia enhance Australia's national security or does it do the reverse? I would suggest it does the reverse."

But Liberal MP Warren Entsch said Mr Howard had only mentioned a pre-emptive strike if Australians were at risk and there was no other alternative.

Asian governments had to understand Australia's first obligation was to the welfare of the Australian people.

"I think countries in the region should be looking at their own internal affairs rather than pre-judging us," Mr Entsch said.

"We could also express our concerns about countries in the region and the way some of our nationals have been treated over time too, and of course the terrorist threats that are in those countries and the organisations that have continued to exist there for years."

AAP

#

PM's invasion threat angers Asia

By Mark Metherell, Cosima Marriner and agencies for the Sydney Morning Herald

December 2, 2002

Australia's Asian neighbours attacked a "dangerous" claim by the Prime Minister yesterday that he would be prepared to launch a pre-emptive strike on terrorists in a neighbouring country if there was no alternative to prevent an attack on Australia.

Indonesia warned Australia not to "flout international law", the Philippines said John Howard's remarks were unwise, and Thailand stressed the importance of national sovereignty.

Mr Howard said he believed any Australian prime minister "would be failing the most basic test of office" if they did not order pre-emptive action if there was no alternative to stopping an attack, "either of a conventional kind or of a terrorist kind".

Mr Howard said many people were saying international law "has to catch up with that new reality" of international terrorism.

An Indonesian Foreign Ministry spokesman responded: "In the fight against terror, no country can act above the law and norms. The change has to be decided by the 190-odd members of the UN and this is not easy."

Thailand's government spokesman, Ratthakit Manathat, said any Australian request to conduct operations on Thai soil would require "highly cautious consideration".

"Nobody does anything like this. Each country has its own sovereignty. That must be protected."

Philippine National Security Adviser Roilo Golez said governments must work together, not act unilaterally. "It's not wise and it doesn't follow ... the doctrine of peacekeeping and sovereignty," he said. "Sovereignty is not decided by fight, it's decided by right."

Indonesian legislator Alvin Lie said Mr Howard's statement was "very dangerous".

"Howard should learn to control himself," he said. "Indonesia and Australia are both victims. I strongly support increased co-operation among neighbouring countries to fight terrorism, but not attacks."

A spokesman for a left-wing Philippines group, Bayan, said his members would now protest against Australia, instead of the United States, and described Mr Howard as a "bully".

"That's a very arrogant statement," Renato Reyes said. "It's no different from those coming from the United States."

Mr Howard told Channel Nine's Sunday program that the trigger for a pre-emptive strike had not arisen. But he said when the United Nations Charter was written the idea of attack was defined as an army rolling across the border. Now it was different. "What you're getting is non-state terrorism, which is just as devastating and potentially even more so."

However, Mr Golez yesterday dismissed as "rubbish" an intelligence report of an imminent terrorist assault on the Australian embassy in the Philippines.

A spokesman for the Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, suggested Mr Golez "may not even be aware" of the information which prompted the shutting of the embassy last Thursday.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade also advised Australians to defer all non-essential travel to the Philippines, which Mr Golez called "grossly incorrect". If it got its travel advice so wrong, he asked, how could it have good intelligence "on something as complicated as a terrorist threat"?

Mr Downer's spokesman would not say if Australia gave the Philippines the specific intelligence that prompted its actions, saying only: "There have been briefings at senior levels as to why we've taken this decision."

#

The party's over

By Tom Allard, Deborah Cameron, Andrew Stevenson and Robert Wainwright

Sydney Morning Herald, November 23 2002

The pulse of suspicion in Sydney has quickened. Security guards have assumed the right to question anyone with a camera and neighbours have started watching each other. On Wednesday morning one man saw six containers dumped in a park near Kirribilli. Rather than complain to his local council he rang the police, describing the incident as highly suspicious.

Half an hour later two large bags were found left behind a noticeboard outside St Stephen's Church in Macquarie Street. Not long before noon, Manly police were called out because a Middle Eastern male was spending a long time filming the wharf.

At Petersham station a man was waiting for his train. He looked dishevelled, carried a small bag and was bothering no one. But it was enough for him to be searched and questioned by two police officers. Yesterday morning city train services were interrupted while police searched for an "object" in Town Hall station.

The times are being compared with the Cold War. More police are on look-out duty and public alerts have been issued on the city's signature structures. Comfort zones have narrowed and, in response, psychiatrists have predicted more anxiety and depression. The end of optimism is how historian Geoffrey Blainey sees it.

Today the picture gets darker amid reports of new intelligence indicating that Australia is a primary target for al-Qaeda and that a wave of terrorist attacks is planned across the region.

The chairman of the NSW College of Psychiatrists, Dr Louise Newman, says that government warnings about security have shrunk the distance between Australia and world-scale tragedy. "Bali made it clear but the warnings have reinforced that we are directly involved," Newman says. "We had felt ourselves to be in a safe haven and many people have never had to confront world politics the way that they are having to now."

The mood is subdued. When people talk, even light-heartedly, about bracing themselves for a Harbour Bridge crossing, it is a sign that something has clicked in the city psyche. Summer crowds - at the cricket, at concerts and malls - now look like places to be avoided.

Sensing this the Prime Minister, John Howard, has said that he wants Australians to live their lives normally and has promised to lead by example, saying he'll attend all five days of the Sydney cricket Test.

But at the same time when a worried 12-year-old tells her father, "I don't think you should be working in those twin towers," as he's heading off to his CBD office, the very idea of a "normal life" is up for review.

Putting a chill into the spine of the community is the first law of terrorism, according to Professor Richard Bryant, of the University of NSW School of Psychology. "An agenda in terrorism is to instill doubt, worry and anxiety in a community," Bryant says.

Fear found its voice in Australian politics on September 11 last year. It got stronger during the boat people crisis, after the Bali bomb and with Osama bin Laden's taped message. The terrorism alert this week pushed everything else into the wings .

David Mutton, a forensic psychologist at the University of Western Sydney, says that the national anxiety levels has been primed by Bali, the anniversary of September 11 and constant discussion.

"Event has piled on event and kept on priming and re-priming our anxiety," Mutton says.

"Apart from the terrorism we have had the Monash University shootings, the Washington sniper ... Yes, the security measures are making our country safer but it is also making people more concerned about that safety.

"Making people secure has in some ways enhanced anxiety. It is a funny situation because it breaks through natural denial. You can no longer comfortably be in denial."

In Sydney's Islamic heartland, the concerns are exactly the same. Muslims make up about 4 per cent of Sydney's population but face a disproportionate level of attention. Racist graffiti, hot-headed media coverage, taunts in the street and criticism of the religious practice of head-covering by women have added to insecurity.

The chairman of the Federation of Ethnic Community Councils, Abd Malak, who manages mental health clinics in western Sydney, says he is concerned about the persistent level of tension. A mental health hotline run by the Transcultural Mental Health Network has been busier than usual mainly with calls from people with existing mental health problems, Malak says.

"I hope that this negative period will pass. We need to remember that it is a small number of people doing these bad things and we all want to catch and punish them. The Muslim community with its language skills and networks is one of the most powerful tools in our hands to find the guilty parties."

But all of the signs are bad for Muslims. Pollster Rod Cameron from ANOP Research is turning up something unmistakable - Australians are less tolerant and racial tensions are rising.

"The growing intolerance is palpable and I think that Howard's response to the Rev Fred Nile shows the Government senses it," Cameron says.

"That's a far greater reality than any new sense of unease about personal security. Most people are going about their daily lives as normal."

According to members of the Left, Howard is already "dog whistling" - sending out narrow-cast messages to key constituencies and exploiting racial tensions. They also point to Howard's less than unequivocal denunciation of Nile's call for the chador, the Muslim covering for women, to be banned on security grounds.

"It was Pauline Hanson all over again," says one western Sydney MP worried about racial tensions in his own electorate. "Every man with a beard and women with a headscarf is going to be fingered as a terrorist. Soon they'll be after Santa Claus."

But the reason for the current heightened tension - the security alert - was endorsed by both parties, especially after concerns of inadequate regional terrorist warnings before Bali. However that's where the consensus ends. Divisions over Iraq remain deep.

A conflict in Iraq, especially a pre-emptive strike by the US on Saddam Hussein, raises the prospect for the first time ever of Australian troops going abroad without wholehearted bi-partisan support. Labor still says that Iraq isn't part of the war on terrorism.

And though the Prime Minster's popularity is high, he faces public opposition to military deployments in Iraq.

Against this background he again linked Saddam Hussein to terrorist groups and spoke of the "ultimate nightmare" of al-Qaeda getting its hands on weapons of mass destruction. It's a genuinely held position - as is Howard's belief that Australia must stand with the US - but it also shows how the fear factor can be harnessed to increase public support for the Government's foreign policy objectives.

Labor is banking on community concerns that the anti-terrorism priority is at home and the region, though history suggests that the public will swing behind its troops.

Defence analyst Ross Babbage, of the Australian National University, has analysed polling on public attitudes to overseas conflicts and says that opposition won't stick if people feel directly under threat.

What's more, he says: "If they see the troops are going and down on the wharf, the public will overwhelmingly swing behind their boys."

On the homefront, the Government has struggled to inform citizens - the Minister for Justice, Chris Ellison's awkward instruction for people to be alert for anything "untoward" was spectacularly unhelpful.

The Government is considering an education campaign, most likely television ads, telling people "what to look out for".Whether useful or not, the ads will reinforce the fear factor that is such a powerful advantage for governments.

The coupling of this crisis and political fortunes has also not escaped the NSW Premier, Bob Carr. Times of trouble are a gift to incumbent politicians provided they can seize the limelight and take action. It leaves the Opposition with little option but to follow meekly.

This has proved to be Carr's strength. Within two days of the Bali bombing he called for Australian Defence Force staff to help guard potential Sydney targets. He said he had drawn up a list and ordered a review of all security.

Four days later he repeated the call for military help, suggesting that the navy should patrol Sydney Harbour as part of the massive increase in domestic security arrangements.

He also warned that the public had not grasped the seriousness of the situation including the very real potential of terrorist activity on Australian soil: "We are trying to work with the community to absorb the immense grief, the challenge to our harmony and the challenge to our security."

On October 24 Carr announced in Parliament that he was considering a proposal to give NSW police special powers to stop and search vehicles as well as boosting surveillance and tapping powers.

The state's first anti-terrorism unit was announced on October 30, comprising 70 specialist police and civilians and boasting a budget of $17 million for equipment such as a helicopter and clothing to combat radiological or biological threats.

Carr had not finished. This week he introduced what he called "one of the most significant bills introduced into the NSW Parliament" - the Terrorism (Police Powers) Bill - which gives police, acting on credible information, the authority to stop, search and demand the names and addresses of anyone who fits the broad description of a potential terrorist.

On the debate's other war front - multi-culturalism - Carr has also played a political hand. He directed the overhaul of what was known as the Ethnic Affairs Commission, dismantling much of the community-based structure and even abolishing the term and replacing it with what some criticised is a sanitised Community Affairs Commission.

In early August last year, when his Government was facing the embarrassing fallout from the Cabramatta police inquiry, he said the Federal Government should take "a more finely calibrated approach to migration" to stop potential criminals and terrorists coming into the country.

"When I speak to police about some of the people they are seeing [and] some of the problems they've got I am amazed at how these people got into Australia in the first place. They haven't got skills and they didn't come here under refugee status," Carr said. Clever politics? Probably. Likely to feed a growing sense of suspicion and unease? Definitely.

#

PM rejects chador ban after backlash

By Mark Riley, Political Correspondent

Sydney Morning Herald, November 23 2002

A day after he said he could not issue "a flat yes or no" to whether the Islamic chador headdress should be banned, the Prime Minister, John Howard, yesterday found a way to say "No".

"When suggestions like this come up, the best way of dealing with them is to ask yourself the commonsense question, 'Is that the sort of thing a democratic society can and should do?', and the answer has to be 'No'," he said.

The comments followed a fierce backlash from the Islamic community and his political foes over Mr Howard's imprecision on the issue on Thursday.

The Rev Fred Nile called for a ban on the wearing of the chador this week because he believed it could be used by female Muslim extremists to hide weapons.

Asked on Thursday whether he supported Mr Nile's view, Mr Howard said: "I don't have a clear response to what Fred has put. I mean, I like Fred and I don't always agree with him, but you know Fred speaks for the views of a lot of people."

Mr Howard appeared to have found that clear response by the time he was interviewed on radio 2GB yesterday afternoon, as public criticism of Mr Nile's statements reached a peak.

"You can't, in a democratic society, pass laws telling people how to dress," Mr Howard said.

Mr Howard's decision to make clear his position on the issue, came as political opponents accused him of fuelling a divisive religious controversy.

The Opposition Leader, Simon Crean, diverted from a policy speech to the Fabian Society in Melbourne last night to weigh in on Mr Howard's initially non-committal response.

"National leaders have responsibilities to respond to these statements immediately and unequivocally; to speak up for the nation and the need for tolerance; not to promote division, blame or scapegoating," Mr Crean said.


"His equivocation at the time of the rise of Hansonism showed what damage [can be] caused to the social fabric of the nation by poor leadership of this kind."

The Greens leader, Bob Brown, also drew analogies with Mr Howard's response to Ms Hanson's emergence on the political landscape, accusing Mr Howard of fostering anti-Muslim sentiment by default.

"The Prime Minister is a consistent, clever offender when it comes to dealing with issues of multiculturalism," he said. "For months, he wouldn't take on Pauline Hanson when she started her attacks on multiculturalism.

"Now his first-up accommodating comments in relation to Fred Nile's call for a ban on the chador shows the Prime Minister is again willing to foster anti-Muslim sentiment by default."

Earlier yesterday, on Channel Seven, Mr Nile had further inflamed the debate, saying: "It's only extremists who wear the chador ... I'm just saying normal Muslim women don't wear it."

#

Edited by author 11-22-2002 07:45 PM
Australia now a 'prime target'

By Mark Baker in Singapore

Sydney Morning Herald, November 23 2002

Australia is a key target in a new wave of attacks being planned by al-Qaeda, with Australian intelligence agencies warning that the Bali investigation had caught only the "footsoldiers" in a global terror network.

Fresh intelligence in the past few days suggests that al-Qaeda has advanced plans for strikes that involve a series of linked attacks in Australia, South-East Asia and elsewhere.

Based on the new information, the Federal Government made its dramatic revelation this week about credible evidence of a possible terrorist attack within the next few months.

It indicates that Australia and its interests abroad are now primary targets - along with the United States and Israel - of al-Qaeda and its regional subsidiary, Jemaah Islamiah.

The warning is believed to have been based on information from regional telecommunications surveillance and supporting intelligence by the United States and Britain.
"The information is generic but it is sufficiently credible to give us real concerns," a senior regional security official said. "There are even time frames being talked about.

"There is significant activity being monitored internationally and there is a possibility of groups and individuals linking up. It's not just a regional thing."

The official told the Herald that the rapid progress by police in the Bali bombing, culminating in the arrest late on Thursday of the alleged mastermind, Imam Samudra, had done little to dent JI's power. Key figures in the organisation, and its al-Qaeda head, were still at large and active.

"The people who have been arrested so far are mostly just the footsoldiers," the official said. "The key people are still out there and they are dangerous.

"We don't know when they are going to pop out and launch more attacks. These are the real strategists, who have turned out to be pretty superb operators ... we are dealing with a very capable group at the top."

Indonesian police, while clearly pleased to have captured Samudra, conceded that the Bali team had been much bigger than originally thought.

In another major development, the Herald learnt that Australia's foreign spying agency, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, is to get a new chief, David Irvine, who is at present ambassador to China and has wide experience in Indonesia and other Asian countries.

The regional security official said that the substantial intelligence chatter now indicated "a very real prospect of something happening fairly soon".

"There are fears specific to the region but there is also a wider series of concerns. The situation is particularly worrying because there is too much activity going on at the same time. We could see a series of attacks in South-East Asia, in Europe, in America and in Australia."

Evidence gathered during the Bali investigation and a plot uncovered a year ago to bomb Western targets in Singapore, including the Australian High Commission, has convinced intelligence agencies that Australia is now a primary target for al-Qaeda and JI.

That view has been strengthened by last week's audio tape, attributed to Osama bin Laden, which declared: "We had warned Australia about its participation in Afghanistan. It ignored the warning until it woke up to the sound of explosions in Bali."

#