TODAY'S world is preoccupied with terrorism. How we in democracies respond is critical to the maintenance of our own values and to the ideals of liberty. There is a danger that Islam, which is essentially a peaceful religion, will be blamed for the actions of terrorists and that we will be increasingly divided by religion and race.

We need to understand that terrorism is as old as the human race. The Crusaders from Britain who fought against Islam in the Middle Ages; the Spanish Inquisition; the IRA and the Protestant militias in Ireland all practised terrorism; all were fundamentalist in their beliefs. The Chechens wanting independence are terrorists. People in some parts of the Philippines who want independence, were once called communists, then freedom fighters and now terrorists. The Basques in Spain; the Belgians in the Congo; the Portuguese and Spaniards in Central and South America; the Red Army and the Red Brigades in Germany and Italy in the late '70s and early '80s were all terrorists.

Many believe the war in Iraq has provided a new motivation for terrorists, to end the occupation of an Islamic country by an infidel army. To understand that there are different causes of terrorism is not to condone but is essential if we wish to overcome and end terrorism.

Because civilisation as we know it was so nearly destroyed during the Second World War, leaders of all major states believed they must strive and work to achieve a better world. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was agreed in 1948. In the years since, protocols and conventions established under it were designed to build a law-based world. The International Criminal Court finally came into force on July 1, 2002. It is more than unfortunate that our response to terrorism has reversed much of that progress and leaders in too many countries do not seem to understand that that is happening.

These are powers whose breadth and arbitrary nature, with lack of judicial oversight, should not exist in any democratic country.The ASIO legislation of 2002 underlines Australia's official indifference to "due process" and to what until recently would have been regarded as universally accepted Rule of Law. We're the only democratic nation, I am advised, to legislate for the detention of people whom the authorities do not suspect of any wrongdoing or even wrong thought.

In Australia, any of us can be detained merely because authorities believe we might know something that we don't even know we know. The authorities do not have to believe we are guilty of any crime, or are planning any crime, or have consorted with any suspicious persons. How could such a law be drafted by the Government and supported by the Labor opposition?

You can be detained for one week but then on a new warrant, another and another and another week. Unless it is approved in the original warrant - and why would ASIO do that? - you are not allowed to contact your wife, your husband, your child, your mother, your father and, of course, not a lawyer.

If you don't answer ASIO's questions satisfactorily, you can be charged and subject to five years in jail. But the law is reasonable, it goes on to say that if you don't know anything, then it's not an offence not to tell ASIO anything. But you have to prove you didn't know anything and so the "onus of proof" is reversed.

You can be asked to produce a paper and if you don't, you also go to jail on prosecution for five years but the law goes on to say, being fair-minded again, if you don't have such a paper, it's not an offence not to produce it but you have to prove that you didn't have it. How do you prove you do not have something that you do not even know exists. Again, "onus of proof" is reversed.

If a journalist heard that you had been detained and sought to report it, he would go to jail for five years. If a detained person were released and talked to anyone about his or her experiences, subject to prosecution, five years in jail.

This seems to be a law for secret behaviour by authorities, for making somebody disappear. It is a law that one would expect in tyrannical countries and not in Australia. Do we do nothing about it because we believe it will not apply to ourselves? Do we believe it is only going to apply to people of a different religion who look a bit different?

United States authorities and others have, time and again, denigrated those in Guantanamo Bay. We have been told they are the worst of the worst, that they are terrible people, that they do not deserve the normal protection of the law.

People who make such comments clearly do not understand or believe in the Rule of Law as it has evolved through the ages. They have taken such views because they believe those in Guantanamo Bay and others are not "people" like ourselves. In a different day and a different time, but within the memories of many, we have heard those words before.

The presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the presumption that all people should have access to "due process" in a properly constituted legal system is no longer valid in Australia. It is not reasonable just to blame the Government alone for such laws. The Labor Party approved such laws. As a consequence of the Government and the Opposition basically agreeing, Australian law already provides for the abolition of "due process", of habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence. All this is already law.

Australian law, or lack of it, has already failed many individuals and groups. Among these we can include: Aborigines; people held in the Department of Immigration detention centres; an Australian citizen deported; Australian citizens wrongly held in detention centres without medical attention; a US citizen deported without "due process" and an Australian citizen being tried before a military tribunal. By the detention of the innocent, by the questioning of people known to be innocent by the authorities, by the right confirmed by the High Court with a majority of four to three, to keep a failed asylum seeker in jail for the term of his natural life, if he could not be returned to his land of origin.

Authorities in Australia already have the capacity for the exercise of extreme and arbitrary power without adequate judicial safeguards. Much of this involves the gravest failure of administrative and ministerial responsibilities. As shown in the Palmer and Comrie reports, the Department of Immigration has been at the centre of much of it. Two ministers have been in charge, neither minister is responsible. As far as one can tell, nobody has been held accountable. The people involved appear not to have mattered to the administration or to the Government.

Australia now has new proposals in front of it providing even greater power to the police and to the Government. Attention should, in particular, be turned to those provisions that allow for "preventive detention" and the use of "control orders" to arrest and to limit and monitor the activities of individuals. No cogent case has been made for the expansion of these powers, except a general one that it is necessary to fight terrorism. It would be reasonable to ask why, it would be reasonable to expect a considered answer. Do we really believe these powers will be effective in the fight against terrorism, or do we believe that the powers themselves are likely to lead to a sense of grievance and of alienation? These are powers whose breadth and arbitrary nature, with lack of judicial oversight, should not exist in any democratic country. If one says that they will not be abused, I do not agree. If arbitrary power exists it will be abused.

All this has happened in a country which has not experienced a significant terrorist incident for many years. What would be our Government's reaction if this great city were tied up and disorganised by terrorist attacks similar to those which recently occurred in London?

The Government is really saying on these issues, trust us, but no part of the history of the Coalition's invasion and occupation of Iraq gives any member of that coalition the right to say on these issues: "Trust us." We were told there were weapons of mass destruction. There weren't.

More recently published British cabinet papers have made it clear that President George Bush had made the decision to go to war seven or eight months before the American people were told.

More particularly, after the Tampa, after the children overboard, the experience and treatment of asylum seekers, the abandonment of Guantanamo prisoner David Hicks, all suggest that any right to trust has been long destroyed. Concerning the Tampa and children overboard, the Government knew they were playing to the more fearful and conservative elements in the Australian community and with great success. The Government also knows in relation to terrorism that the public is concerned, even fearful and can be made more fearful.

It may be brilliant politics but will such laws make Australia secure? By its actions, the Government has long abandoned and lost the middle ground. The rule of law and "due process" has been set aside.

These new proposals should be opposed. No strong case has been made that they will be effective in the fight against terrorism. There are no real safeguards. There is no adequate judicial review.

The laws should be opposed because the process itself is seriously flawed. Instead of wide-ranging discussion the Government has sought to nobble the field in secret and to prevent debate.

The Government and the Labor Party have both assumed that we cannot fight terrorism and adhere to the basic principles of justice and democracy. They have assumed that certain people are outside the law and do not deserve justice. They are saying "Trust us" when they have given us every reason not to trust them on peace and war and on security for our people.

If we stand silent in the face of discrimination and in violation of the basic principles of humanity, then we betray our own principles and our way of life. I regret that many believe they must throw basic rights overboard to defend those same rights. Such views are wrong and will make it harder to overcome terrorism.

Malcolm Fraser was prime minister from 1975 to 1983. This is part of the Stephen Murray-Smith memorial lecture last night at the State Library of Victoria.