Malcolm Turnbull and George “Orwell” Brandis’s plan for mandatory data retention is soon to become law.

We are told by both the ALP and the Liberals that it is needed to stop terrorism. But if history is anything to go by, it will prove to be just another unnecessary attack on our rights and civil liberties.

In the years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, successive Australian governments have introduced and maintained some of the most restrictive “anti-terror” laws in the Western world.

As documented in a new book, Inside Australia’s anti-terrorism laws and trials, by Andrew Lynch, Nicola McGarrity and George Williams, ASIO has been given powers that have “not been granted to equivalent intelligence agencies in other Western democracies”.

From the beginning, the laws were designed to be as expansive as possible. A terrorist act is defined as a threat or action with the intention of “advancing a political, religious or ideological cause” and which inflicts physical harm or endangers the life of people or property, creates a serious health risk to the public or interferes with the electronic systems of essential services.

There is a specific clause to exempt protest and industrial action from being considered terrorist acts, on the provision that they don’t cause serious harm to people or are not a “serious risk to health or safety”.

But, as Lynch et al point out: “This could be said of many legitimate political protests, such as nurses striking (which may create a serious risk to the health of their patients) or large demonstrations on city streets (which may pose a serious risk to the safety of motorists and other passers-by).”

The vast majority of the anti-terror laws, however, are focused on the prediction that an attack may be carried out at some point in the future. Of the 46 people (all men and almost all Muslim) who have been charged, none have been charged with the actual preparation of an attack.

The closest charges are “doing an act in preparation” or “possessing a thing connected with preparation”, or “conspiring to do an act in preparation”. This is thought-crime at best and far from all the government and media hype about “impending” domestic attacks.

Civil liberties stripped

The round of anti-terror laws passed in 2005 after the London bombings gave the state new powers. The Australian Federal Police were given the power to detain people preventively for up for 14 days without charge. If detained, you are entitled to let one family member know where you are, but if they tell anyone else, they can be jailed for up to five years.

Control orders were introduced. The right to access the internet, work and travel can be taken away and enforced by daily curfews and tracking devices.

ASIO agents were given the power to suspend your passport and, as of last year, can search any computer in the country – with a single warrant. They can monitor not just your communications, but anyone you communicate with. They can even detain people who are not suspected of a crime, on the pretext of extracting information. This is unheard of anywhere else in the Western world,

New laws introduced by Abbott in 2014 criminalise the advocacy, promotion or encouragement of terrorism. This is deliberately broad and has serious ramifications.

Lynch et al explain that Nelson Mandela “would be classified as a terrorist under Australian law, for the law applies to terrorism both in and outside of Australia and makes no allowances for someone who causes harm as part of a struggle for liberation.

“By contrast, the South African definition of terrorism enacted in 2004 includes an exemption for acts, ‘waged by peoples … in furtherance of their legitimate right to national liberation [and] self-determination’.”

Further, journalists and whistleblowers face up to 10 years’ imprisonment for making “unauthorised disclosures of information related to special intelligence operations”.

Lynch et al say that “in all the terrorism trials conducted in Australia, the prosecution has identified the cause as being to advance the Islamic religion”.

Whilst it is been almost exclusively Muslims in the firing line of these laws, their broad nature means they can easily be expanded to criminalise dissent and industrial action.

An attack on one is an attack on all. These laws should have no place in our society.

The author can be contacted at [email protected] using this public key if encryption is required.