• Andrew Lynch

25 September 2006An Amnesty International survey reveals that Australians care about their rights but overestimate the formal protections, writes Andrew Lynch

WHEN Australia recently joined the world in remembering the terrible events of 11 September 2001, many of us acknowledged that the threat of terrorism has changed the way we live and we may have to sacrifice rights for security. But this is complicated when we are not sure exactly what the rights are that we’re being asked to surrender.

Amnesty International Australia has released the results of a nation-wide community survey gauging the public’s awareness of how their human rights have been affected by the federal government’s anti-terrorism legislation. The results, compiled by Roy Morgan Research, reveal a strong belief in the importance of the legal protection of individual rights. While they also indicated a reasonable knowledge of the new laws, people’s level of concern about them increased with the more information they had.

Taking the first point, unsurprisingly a majority of voters surveyed (95 per cent) considered the protection of their own rights to be important and most (58 per cent) claimed to know “a moderate amount” about them. However, 61 per cent of those surveyed were under the mistaken belief that their human rights are protected under the Australian Constitution or by a charter or bill of rights. Interestingly, that view was more prevalent in higher income households.

The Constitution actually provides very few guarantees of individual liberty, and these have been interpreted narrowly by the High Court. Only the Australian Capital Territory has a formal method of rights protection; Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities has been enacted but does not commence until 1 January next year. Yet regardless of home state, many people thought there was some law in place which safeguarded their basic freedoms.

Over a quarter of respondents admitted they could not say how their rights were protected, leaving only 13 per cent appreciating the true position that most Australians do not enjoy their freedoms by virtue of the Constitution or a charter. There is a remarkable gulf between the extent to which we value our rights and our knowledge as to how fragile they are at the hands of governments.

That said, on the terrorism laws, there seemed to be quite a good awareness that certain rights had been sacrificed since 9/11. Seventy per cent of voters surveyed were aware that people can now be detained by authorities even if they are not guilty of committing a terrorist crime. Almost as many (67 per cent) were aware of the changes made to the law last year which allow detention of individuals for up to fourteen days, and 60 per cent correctly stated that people could be convicted of a terrorist act regardless of whether an attack had taken place.

Surprisingly, after the recent attention on control orders with one being imposed upon Jack Thomas, only 36 per cent of the community understood that it was now possible in Australian law for persons to be placed under house arrest for twelve months or longer. The survey highlights other worrying gaps in the public’s knowledge. For example, only 35 per cent of people surveyed knew that there was no right to silence when being interviewed by ASIO.

But more important still are the measurements of the community’s concern about how the terrorism laws impact on human rights. Even before some of the detail of the laws was explained by pollsters, only 28 per cent of people surveyed expressed no concern about this issue. The remainder expressed varying levels of worry about getting the right balance between rights and security. Those anxieties increased after some basic information was given to respondents. Remarkably, 9 per cent of respondents - of no particular ethnicity or religion - said they had friends, family or colleagues who could be affected by the legislation.

In summary, what the Amnesty poll reveals is that Australians care about their rights though many do not really appreciate how they are protected. While many know about some aspects of the terrorism laws they do not have a complete picture. Yet they are aware that some strategies may negatively affect human rights and many are concerned about how the proper balance is struck.

For the federal government, these results show that the community is aware of its stake in anti-terrorism laws. Sure, they want to be safe. But they also want to know more about how the laws work and how they impact upon their rights. Clearly the message has been getting through on some topics, but the government does need to do a better job of explaining to Australians which rights are being sacrificed to fight the war on terror.

Not only may that allay community uncertainty and concern but it just might enable the public to engage more meaningfully in the ongoing debate about how we should ensure national security without letting terrorists force us into giving up our freedoms. •

Andrew Lynch is director of the Terrorism and Law Project at the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law, University of New South Wales.

Photo: Mark Evans/iStockphoto.com