Regulation, ‘Red Tape’ and the ‘War on Terror’: Exploring the regulatory aftermath of September 11th

Abstract

To date, public debate around human rights and counterterrorism within Australia has focused on changes to criminal law and enforcement that threaten civil liberties. Yet concerns also arise with general security measures concerned with reducing the risk of terrorist attacks at our ports, airports and major infrastructure. New regulatory responsibilities require sites to identify possible methods of attack and to put in place comprehensive risk reduction measures. At ports and airports, tailored security plans, access control regimes, accompanied by screening and monitoring technology, are considered most appropriate to protect both the public and the infrastructure itself. Such measures may well assist in allaying public anxieties about their security from unprovoked and deadly attack. However, this approach is costly and resources used in this way need to be weighed carefully against its effectiveness in increasing security. Despite their initial appeal, security plans and other regulatory initiatives may provide only a limited salve to public anxieties around security. Whilst some level of screening and emergency planning at our ports and airports is appropriate, ever increasing levels of intrusion and resources divert both attention and resources from other initiatives based on tolerance and respect for human integrity that arguably do more to enhance our overall security and wellbeing.