A major obstacle to a more clear-sighted debate and response on anti-terrorist law and policy stems from the rhetorical power of the term ‘terrorist’ itself. It was partly by relying on this that the Howard government was able to disdain the reports and recommendations of the PJC and deflect calls for meaningful listing criteria and processes of consultation and deliberation. The PJC reports expose grave inadequacies in the administration of the listing provisions and it is only self‑declared deference to the executive on matters of national security that appear to have prevented outright rejection of the case for listing in many instances. In the political and popular climate created by the ‘war on terror’ the listing of an organisation by the government has inevitably carried its own politically‑driven momentum to confirmation and, in practice a strong, perhaps irresistible, presumption against disallowance.

Existing safeguards cannot protect against this but they do offer some advantages compared with executive proscription in other countries. Decisions to list are based on open source materials and the PJC reviews the process in relation to each listing and re-listing. The two-year sunset clause on each listing ensures that there are regular reviews if an organisation is to continue to be listed. Parliamentary processes may be of limited utility once an executive decision has been taken to list an organisation, but the cumulative impact may be more positive, producing benefits over time to the quality of public debate and the policy process. This can affect the political climate so as to encourage more cautious use of the listing power.

The problems exposed by the PJC are a major, legitimate source of concern given the serious implications proscription powers have for individual rights and democratic freedoms. Of equal concern, however, is whether the exercise of these powers has been governed by a coherent conception of Australia’s security interests. There is little evidence of it in the reviews of the PJC. The much vaunted trade-off, or ‘balance’,^[106] between security and freedom, therefore, may be no such thing. Australia’s proscription laws and their administration may be putting both in jeopardy. It remains to be seen whether the new government will adopt a different approach to the proscription power.