I was honoured to represent CAUT, along with executive director James Turk and associate executive director David Robinson, at meetings last month in Melbourne, Australia, hosted by the National Tertiary Education Union and Education International.

NTEU, which represents higher education workers throughout Australia, organized a seminar Dec. 6 entitled “Academic Freedom: Universities and the Response to the New Terror Laws.”

NTEU wanted to be better informed on anti-terrorism legislation in other countries after its national council passed a unanimous motion in September instructing the leadership of the organization to lobby universities and government in opposition to Australia’s proposed anti-terrorism bill. The aim was to do everything possible to protect the rights of university staff in light of worrisome provisions in the bill. Unfortunately, this bill was passed into law the same day as the seminar.

Australia’s Anti Terrorism Bill 2005 has a number of disturbing features.

The laws attack human rights and undermine fundamental legal protections that ensure freedom of movement, expression and association (including one’s lawyer). They ban named actions and ownership of named items, including actions and items necessary to earn a living. The laws allow a person to be put under house arrest, forced to wear an electronic tag, stopped from using telephones or internet, or communicating with certain people or groups of people. These measures are referred to as “control orders” and each control order can last for up to a year before review, with provision for successive orders.

In addition, the legislation allows police forces to detain for two weeks anyone they say is a risk.

Among other powers, the bill authorizes police to use lethal force to stop someone “fleeing” custody, who is suspected of being a danger to others.

It calls for punishment of those who would give money to terrorists, directly or indirectly. The bill also creates new sedition provisions for the Criminal Code.

The bill makes it unlawful for any person to encourage another to act in a way that could be viewed as assisting an organization or a country that is at war with Australia, whether or not war has been declared, or to be engaged in any form of hostility against the Australian Defense Force. This could, for example, apply to vocal critics of the war in Iraq.

NTEU, along with legal experts who spoke at the seminar, believes the legislation undermines fundamental human rights. The powers it bestows are not held in check. There is no effective procedure in place for judicial review if civil liberties are violated. In addition, the new terror laws create conditions for monitoring staff and students. The police and federal authorities can now prevent staff and students from undertaking research and/or teaching that could be interpreted as providing training (directly or indirectly) to a suspect. University administrators can also be required to monitor staff and students on behalf of the police.

There were also presentations related to the international scene. Steve Wharton, president of the Association of University Teachers in the UK, discussed the British Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and Rosli Mahat discussed the suppression of academic freedom in Malaysia.

CAUT’s James Turk made a presentation on academic freedom in Canada and the United States since 9/11. He talked about CAUT’s submission to the parliamentary and senate committees on the new Canadian anti-terrorism legislation, as well as pointing out a number of implications for academic staff and students. He also discussed the impact of the new surveillance environment, both in North America and around the globe.

The NTEU seminar took place the day before Education International’s biennial higher education conference at which representatives from 46 associations in 33 countries discussed issues from brain drain — from poorer to richer countries, to privatisation, commercialization, and education services negotiations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services.

I also attended a workshop on academic and non-academic staff led by representatives from Denmark and New Zealand. This was a significant workshop for me since CAUT now includes a growing number of general staff who are members of faculty associations at Bishop’s University and elsewhere.

These intense and interesting meetings culminated with a resolution that was taken to the World Trade Organization meeting a few days later in Hong Kong, at which David Robinson represented CAUT.

CAUT supports the struggles of NTEU and other organizations around the world to protect the rights of higher education personnel. We made our presence known on the international stage, in both oral and written presentations, over the course of the meetings and I think it’s worth noting that Turk and Robinson are highly respected internationally for their knowledge of academic freedom and trade issues respectively. Our counterparts will be consulting widely on this and other matters.