''Anti-terrorism'' legislation proposed by the Australian government would undermine international human rights standards and should be rejected, a range of human rights and community groups told a Senate committee inquiring into the draft bill this week.

Among others, Amnesty International has expressed alarm that the proposed legislation  the Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002  would undermine international rights standards by reversing the onus of proof to those accused of ''terrorism'', so that they must prove their innocence and also remove the right to silence.

Australia is one of several countries that are debating or have passed laws aimed at terrorism in recent months, especially after the Sept 11 acts of terror in the United States.

''These measures contravene internationally recognised human rights standards, including the right to be presumed to be innocent and the right to a fair trial. It is of further concern to Amnesty International that these measures would also apply to children,'' Amnesty International spokesperson Nicole Bieske said.

But the director-general of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Dennis Richardson, defended the proposed legislation to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee on Friday.

''One line of argument would go that unless there is a major act of terrorism there is no need for this legislation'', he said. Asked if ''terrorism'' is a value-laden term, Richardson conceded the point: ''I suppose that's right''.

Broad definition

The peak legal industry body, the Law Council of Australia, which appeared before the committee on Thursday, described the proposed definition of terrorism  which is modelled on the British Terrorism Act passed in November 2000  as ''unacceptably broad, imprecise and unwieldy''.

In particular, it is critical of actions qualifying as terrorism if they are done with the intention of ''advancing a political, religious or ideological cause''.

''The effect of such a definition is to remove from the definition of terrorism any element of intentionality to terrorise the government or the public through intimidation, coercion or the evocation of extreme fear,'' the Law Council wrote in its submission.

After three days of hearings on the legislation this week in Melbourne and Canberra, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee  which is evenly balanced between government members and members from the opposition Labor and a progressive minor party  is likely to be split on the legislation.

When it issues its report to the Senate on May 3, the fate of the legislation will hinge on the position adopted by the Labor Party which, with minor parties, can block the legislation in the Senate.

''It is intellectually dishonest to exploit public fears about terrorism by introducing laws for which no justification has been or could be made,'' Anne O' Rourke of the civil liberties lobby group Liberty Victoria told the committee at its Melbourne hearing on Wednesday.

''History has demonstrated greater powers invariably lead to greater abuse,'' she said.

The proposed legislation gives the attorney-general the power to ban organisations that are deemed ''terrorist'' organisations. Other provisions allow life sentences to be imposed on those directly or indirectly involved with ''terrorist'' organisations and allow ''suspects'' to be held without charge or access to a lawyer for potentially extended periods.

While the legislation has potentially far-reaching consequences, the scope for public comment has been severely constrained.

Following the release of the legislation on March 21, only two weeks  including the Easter holiday period  was allowed for public review.

Even the Law Council of Australia was stunned. ''The timeframe'', it wrote in a paper, '' is grossly inadequate and has severely curtailed public participation and consultation''.

Despite the limited period for public comment, 250 submissions poured into the committee secretariat, when most Senate inquiries would struggle to attract more than a few dozen submissions.

Democratic debate vs terrorism

At hearings in Sydney last week, representatives from the Attorney-General's Department confirmed that the cutting of bolts on a security fence  as occurred at recent protests at the Woomera detention centre for refugees  would be deemed to be an act of terrorism under the proposed legislation.

''Creating a separate offence of terrorism seeks to criminalise the motive of 'advancing a political, religious or ideological cause', rather than the acts involved,'' the president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), Sharan Burrow submitted.

''Rallies such as the (aboriginal) reconciliation marches, peace vigils and (women's groups') reclaim-the-night marches would all be caught within the bill,'' she said.

Community groups are amazed that the proposed legislation would allow the attorney-general to ban organisations if satisfied that the organisation or a member on behalf of the organisation was involved in supposed terrorist acts.

''Had this been law in the Australia over the last two decades, it is possible that membership of organisations that supported the East Timor independence movement, or the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, could be deemed as endangering the security of another country and be banned,'' Burrow added.

Underlying opposition to the proposed legislation is the concern that Australian security agencies fail to distinguish between participation in democratic debate and ''terrorism''. ''Debate and protest are not antithetical to democracy but are an essential element of a thriving democracy,'' the Liberty Victoria group told the committee.