TY - JOUR
T1 - Refining the Australian Counter-terrorism Legislative Framework: How Deliberative Has Parliament Been?
AU - Dalla-Pozza, Dominique
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - This article examines the legislative process by which three post-Howard era alterations to Australias counter-terrorism laws were made. Using deliberative democratic standards, the article assesses the extent to which the Commonwealth Parliament functioned as a deliberative democratic assembly, concentrating on the National Security Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (Cth), the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Act 2014 (Cth) and the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Act 2015 (Cth). Two conclusions are identified. First, the Parliament is likely to make major changes to counter-terrorism laws when legislating in the shadow of a crisis. In those circumstances, there are pressures frustrating Parliaments ability to utilise its deliberative capacities. Secondly, the enactment of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Act 2015 (Cth) demonstrates that it is possible for Parliament to function deliberatively. However, this deliberative process resulted from unexpected developments in the political environment. These insights affirm that the Australian counterterrorism legislative process is deficient due to its lack of institutional mechanisms obliging the Parliament to utilise its deliberative capacities when altering these important laws
AB - This article examines the legislative process by which three post-Howard era alterations to Australias counter-terrorism laws were made. Using deliberative democratic standards, the article assesses the extent to which the Commonwealth Parliament functioned as a deliberative democratic assembly, concentrating on the National Security Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (Cth), the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Act 2014 (Cth) and the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Act 2015 (Cth). Two conclusions are identified. First, the Parliament is likely to make major changes to counter-terrorism laws when legislating in the shadow of a crisis. In those circumstances, there are pressures frustrating Parliaments ability to utilise its deliberative capacities. Secondly, the enactment of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Act 2015 (Cth) demonstrates that it is possible for Parliament to function deliberatively. However, this deliberative process resulted from unexpected developments in the political environment. These insights affirm that the Australian counterterrorism legislative process is deficient due to its lack of institutional mechanisms obliging the Parliament to utilise its deliberative capacities when altering these important laws
U2 - content/tempcache/TMP593614123201794115934.pdf
DO - content/tempcache/TMP593614123201794115934.pdf
M3 - Article
VL - 27
SP - 271
EP - 289
JO - Public Law Review
JF - Public Law Review
IS - 4
ER -