FUTURE SUMMIT: Tackling terrorism
QUICK SUMMARY | FULL STORY
Australia needs to be more creative in its approach to terrorism and extend beyond political quick fixes, the Future Summit has heard.
University of New South Wales senior law lecturer Edward Santow said Australia’s response to terrorism needed to extend beyond the “knee-jerk reaction” of increasing resources for security agencies and strengthening anti-terrorism laws.
“I think we need to be a bit more creative about what are the most effective ways of combating terrorism,” he said.
“At some level we have to acknowledge that perhaps we have done all we need to do to terrorism laws and we need to ask the harder political question, which is ‘what if the problem is not our laws? What if the problem lays with the way the federal police, ASIO, or whoever is exercising the laws?' That is a more difficult question to ask, because it is far quicker and far cheaper to respond to a threat of terrorism by having stronger laws,” Mr Santow said.
Mr Santow said more money would not make ASIO work more effectively.
He said an organisation like ASIO would struggle to expand quickly with large increases in funding.
He also criticised ASIO's low level of accountability in ASIO and said security agencies in the UK are subjected to more onerous reporting processes.
Mr Santow also said the amount of money allocated to combating terrorism needed to be proportionate to the level of threat.
Rachel Ball, a lawyer at the Human Rights Law Resource Centre, said politics in Australia needed to re-frame the problem of terrorism.
She said we needed to address the underlying causes of terrorism.
“There is this other group that is suffering vast disadvantage and that is what’s feeding the problem," Ms Ball said.
Ms Ball was critical of terrorism laws, such as pre-emptive detention, and argued such restriction of civil liberties would not be tolerated in any other situation.
She said that violence against women caused a large number of deaths, yet we perceive terrorism as more shocking.
Deakin University law lecturer Claire Macken agreed that pre-emptive detention was wrong.
"At what point is a person considered a terrorist?," she asked. "When they talk about committing terrorism, when they start to write things down or when they buy materials?"
Ms Macken said anti-terrorism laws in Australia go too far.
Mr Santow questioned when we would see an end to the ‘war on terror’, but said it is difficult to measure success when combating terrorism.
“If success is measured by the total absence of terrorism, then I think we will be waiting forever,” he said.
Australia needs to be more creative in its approach to terrorism and extend beyond political quick fixes, the Future Summit has heard.
University of New South Wales senior law lecturer Edward Santow said Australia’s response to terrorism needed to extend beyond the “knee-jerk reaction” of increasing resources for security agencies and strengthening anti-terrorism laws.
“I think we need to be a bit more creative about what are the most effective ways of combating terrorism,” he said.
“At some level we have to acknowledge that perhaps we have done all we need to do to terrorism laws and we need to ask the harder political question, which is ‘what if the problem is not our laws? What if the problem lays with the way the federal police, ASIO, or whoever is exercising the laws?' That is a more difficult question to ask, because it is far quicker and far cheaper to respond to a threat of terrorism by having stronger laws,” Mr Santow said.
Mr Santow said more money would not make ASIO work more effectively.
He said an organisation like ASIO would struggle to expand quickly with large increases in funding.
He also criticised ASIO's low level of accountability in ASIO and said security agencies in the UK are subjected to more onerous reporting processes.
Mr Santow also said the amount of money allocated to combating terrorism needed to be proportionate to the level of threat.
Rachel Ball, a lawyer at the Human Rights Law Resource Centre, said politics in Australia needed to re-frame the problem of terrorism.
She said we needed to address the underlying causes of terrorism.
“There is this other group that is suffering vast disadvantage and that is what’s feeding the problem," Ms Ball said.
Ms Ball was critical of terrorism laws, such as pre-emptive detention, and argued such restriction of civil liberties would not be tolerated in any other situation.
She said that violence against women caused a large number of deaths, yet we perceive terrorism as more shocking.
Deakin University law lecturer Claire Macken agreed that pre-emptive detention was wrong.
"At what point is a person considered a terrorist?," she asked. "When they talk about committing terrorism, when they start to write things down or when they buy materials?"
Ms Macken said anti-terrorism laws in Australia go too far.
Mr Santow questioned when we would see an end to the ‘war on terror’, but said it is difficult to measure success when combating terrorism.
“If success is measured by the total absence of terrorism, then I think we will be waiting forever,” he said.
Comments