Australian anti-terrorism legislation, 2004

Three anti-terrorism bills were enacted in the Australian Parliament in 2004 by the Howard Coalition government with the support of the Labor Opposition. These were the "Anti-terrorism Bill 2004", the "Anti-terrorism Bill (No 2) 2004" and the "Anti-terrorism Bill (No 3) 2004".
Anti-terrorism Bill 2004.
The Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, introduced the "Anti-terrorism Bill 2004" on 31 March 2004. He described it as "a bill to strengthen Australia's counter-terrorism laws in a number of respects – a task made more urgent following the recent tragic terrorist bombings in Spain." He said that Australia's counter-terrorism laws "require review and, where necessary, updating if we are to have a legal framework capable of safeguarding all Australians from the scourge of terrorism."
The main provisions of the Bill were:
Ruddock said that the government recognised the need to "ensure that appropriate safeguards are put in place to maintain the balance between security and individual rights and freedom." Existing safeguards in part 1C of the "Crimes Act" continue to apply to terrorist suspects being investigated in accordance with the "Crimes Act" regime. These safeguards include:
The Bill amended a number of Acts:
The Bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee, which recommended some amendments to strengthen safeguards in the Bill. The Labor Opposition then indicated that it would support the Bill if it were amended in accordance with the Committee's recommendations. The Bill was passed by the House of Representatives without opposition on 13 May. In the Senate the government accepted most, but not all, of the Committee's amendments. The Australian Democrats, the Australian Greens and independent Senator Meg Lees opposed the Bill in the Senate. The Bill was passed by the Senate with the support of the Opposition on 24 June, was assented on 30 June and came into force on 1 July 2014 as the "Anti-terrorism Act 2004".
Anti-terrorism Bill (No 2) 2004.
Ruddock introduced the "Anti-terrorism Bill (No 2) 2004" on 17 June, to amend a number of pieces of legislation to bring them into conformity with the "Anti-Terrorism Act" described above. "Under the new offence," Ruddock said, "what must be proved is that the person communicates or meets directors, members or promoters of a listed terrorist organisation and in doing so provides support intended to assist the expansion or continued existence of the organisation."
The Bill amended a number of Acts:
The Bill passed Parliament and was assented to on 16 August 2004 as the "Anti-terrorism Act (No. 2) 2004".
Anti-terrorism Bill (No 3) 2004.
Ruddock introduced the "Anti-terrorism Bill (No 3) 2004" on 24 June which reintroduced the provisions of the "Anti-terrorism Bill (No 2), 2004", relating to the amendment of Part 1D of the "Crimes Act", the "Passports Act" and "Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act" (described above), which had been separated from that Bill at the request of the Opposition to allow a speedy passage of these non-controversial sections of the Bill.
The Bill was supported by the Opposition and was passed by the House of Representatives on 24 June without opposition. The Bill was then referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee and was debated in the Senate after the Committee reported. The Bill passed Parliament and was assented to on 16 August 2004 as the "Anti-terrorism Act (No. 3) 2004".
Criticisms of the legislation.
The Australian Democrats and the Australian Greens opposed the bills on the grounds that they unacceptably abridged the rights of persons and organisations. Some civil liberties organisations also opposed all or parts of the bills. The Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University said: "No evidence is offered to support this claim that the investigation of terrorist offences is sufficiently complex as to warrant a doubling of the total permitted time of detention from 12 to 24 hours. Indeed, given the breadth of the definition of 'terrorism offences', it is difficult to see how such evidence could be produced. The potential subject matters of investigation are simply too varied."
The New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties said: "The Council is in general concerned about any extension of the power to detain people as proposed by this bill." The Civil Rights Network said: "We are concerned that this proposal does not seem to have arisen from any real, practical difficulty which has been experienced. Further, there has been a complete absence of debate as to the reasons for and necessity of this amendment. When changes to Australia's legal system which have the potential to severely impact on individual's liberty and rights are proposed it is fundamentally important that the community is properly consulted and informed before our elected representatives act."
The Law Council of Australia also expressed concerns about some aspects of the bills. "The Law Council is not convinced of the need for this legislation," the Council's submission to the Senate inquiry said. "Indeed in our submission the new laws have the potential to operate harshly and will unfairly target members of minority groups, especially those of the Islamic faith."