Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

22920Trouble for Howard on "terror" laws

Expand Messages
  • bobgould987
    Oct 30, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Howard's "anti-terror" wedge politics runs into obstacles

      By Bob Gould

      John Howard obviously thought his cynical wedge politics "anti-terror"
      legislation was an effective response to the Government's difficulties
      with the industrial relations laws, which are becoming increasingly
      unpopular.

      He wedged the Labor premiers brutally but effectively at the recent
      COAG meeting and they caved in, by and large, with the honourable
      exception of the Australian Capital Territory Chief Minister John
      Stanhope, who wasn't happy with the civil liberties implications.

      He published the draft "anti-terror" bill on the ACT government
      website and from that point the whole project began to come apart.

      Daryl Melham, the chairman of the federal Labor parliamentary caucus,
      and Lindsay Tanner, MP, began to campaign against the proposed
      legislation and the obvious police state aspects of the laws, brought
      into the cold light of day by Stanhope, began to produce misgivings
      among the other Labor premiers.

      These misgivings increased with legal advice by state
      attorney-generals to the premiers that the proposed laws were probably
      unconstitutional. In addition, the obvious police state character of
      laws started to make the federal Government's backbench uneasy.

      Outcry from lawyers, civil liberties groups and teachers of law also
      had an impact, although populist sections of the media have tried to
      present the proposed laws as popular.

      I'm reliably informed that there has been heated debate about the
      necessity of the laws in the NSW Labor cabinet.

      A number of Labor branches have condemned the proposed laws.

      I spoke strongly against the proposed laws at an industrial relations
      protest meeting called by three Labor branches and the Sydney Labor
      electoral council, and got a good response when I pointed out that so
      far, with the honourable exceptions of Melham and Tanner the Labor
      left had made no public statements against the proposed laws.

      That has now been rectified. The national Labor left met over the
      weekend and decided to reject the proposed laws. This all leaves Kim
      Beazley in an extremely difficult position as a result of trying to go
      even further than Howard in supporting some aspects of the police
      state laws.

      In a political situation like this it's hard to predict the outcome
      because fear of terrorism is real in the community at large and Howard
      and the bourgeois media are using this frantically in support of their
      wedge politics manoeuvre.

      Nevertheless, there's a reasonable chance that an energetic defense of
      civil liberties, in the first instance in the labour movement and on
      the progressive side of society, and in the second instance in the
      community at large, may be successful in defeating, or at least
      blunting, Howard's proposals.

      There is an interesting and careful article by Daryl Melham in this
      morning's Australian Financial Review. Unfortunately, it's pay per view.