“Our new terror laws too much like South Africa’s” - opinion essay by Bruce Haigh, in Canberra Times Opinion, 3 October 2005 - with thanks to Bruce Haigh, and to the Canberra Times for running this important piece for readers in the national capital, by this former Australian diplomat who served in apartheid-era South Africa. This essay deserves to be more widely read, which is why I am copying it here. I hope others may pick it up (The italics are mine).

Very alert and very alarmed, Bruce Haigh outlines his fears for Australia under Howard.

John Howard plays his politics incrementally. He acquires power and influence bite by bite. He is a hoarder of power and influence against the day when he might need it.

He stores information and is economic in disclosing it. He talks in the broadest of terms and will not be tied down. He always has an exit strategy, even when it tests credulity.

Defence, foreign affairs and immigration policy and decision making have gradually been concentrated in his department. Economic prosperity, isolation, insularity, insecurity, immaturity and inexperience have undermined the ability of the media to examine and expose the critical issues before us.

The Latham diaries and the interviews around their publication highlight, among other things, just how supine the media has become in exposing Howard’s agenda.

His latest acquisition has increased Commonwealth powers to fight what he calls terrorism and he does this with the unbelievable compliance of State Premiers.

Modern forms of terrorism preceded September 11 by at least three decades. But the Howard/Bush interpretation of history has “the war against terror” starting four years ago. Howard has played it for all it is worth. The measures proposed will not stop attacks. They are more likely to promote a hostility toward Howard’s non-inclusive “democracy”.

Silly old Kim Beazley and some of his parliamentary supporters don’t see Howard for what he is – a calculating and cynical acquirer of power. And why would they, when they support 70% of the Coalition’s policies?

After having lived for 25 years in some rotten democracies and dictatorships whilst serving as a representative of the Australian government I am worried, very worried, about the path down which Howard is taking us.

The focus on nationalism, played out by this Government around military and sporting achievements, “the war on terrorism”, the increasing use of the phrase “un-Australian” to marginalize opposition, and a supine media, should all be cause for concern as we move toward a one-party state.

What is the point of no return on the path of the breakup of democratic institutions? Does anyone ever recognize when it has been passed? Was that point recognized in Argentina, South Africa or Sri Lanka?

Howard has used the London bombings to extend his power; would he use another bombing on Australian interests or institutions to further extend his definition of terrorism and thereby his reach and control over our lives? And why hasn’t New Zealand felt it necessary to enact similar laws?

The most telling point against Howard’s grab for further power is that there was no public demand for any change to the laws to make us safer.

In the name of preserving State institutions and the economy, the South African government from 1950’s to the end of the 80’s identified anyone who sought to bring about change to apartheid as an enemy of the state. A whole range of activities, statements and associations were branded acts of terrorism. Laws against terrorism were passed by the parliament and upheld by courts.

Sedition support and encouragement of “terrorists” were included in these laws. The South African Defence Force was given a free hand to put down internal unrest and dissent.

Communists were identified within South Africa and laws were passed to prosecute and gaol anyone identified as such. This again was interpreted to mean anyone or any organization which criticized the activities and institutions of the state or who sought to bring about change. So South Africa got the Terrorism Act, the Suppression of Communism Act, the State Security Act, not all at once but incrementally ranging over thirty years or so.

Under these laws one of the greatest men of our time, Nelson Mandela, was gaoled for 27 years as a terrorist.

Another, Steve Biko, was murdered whilst being held for police questioning under laws which mandated powers to arrest and detain for periods up to a month without access to a lawyer, family or friends.

How long will it be under the Howard Government before statements critical of anti-terrorist measures and of the people charged to implement them, including the Minister, are equated with encouraging acts of terrorism or helping to create an environment conducive to terrorism?

All the laws in South Africa did not stop people seeking and agitating for change.

All those laws achieved was to sanction acts of state terrorism which resulted in the deaths of thousands of people.

Bruce Haigh is a retired diplomat. From 1972-1994 he lived and worked in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Sri Lanka.