BY RUSSELL PICKERING
& ALISON DELLIT
The Australian government is attempting to introduce legislation giving secret police agencies more powers, and enabling state persecution of dissidents. The legislation includes granting the attorney-general the power to ban political organisations.
On March 12, the government introduced the Security Legislation (Terrorism) Amendment Bill 2002 into parliament. This bill has three main sections:
- It extends the definition of "treason", punishable by life imprisonment, to assisting in any way any country or organisation engaged in military struggle with the Australian Defence Force (this would provide a law under which alleged Taliban fighter David Hicks could be prosecuted).
- It introduces a new section of offences related to terrorism, all punishable by life imprisonment.
- It enables the attorney-general to outlaw organisations, which, once proscribed, it would be an offence to be a member of, or support.
The bill defines as terrorist any action or threat of action which "involves serious harm to a person" or "serious damage to property, or endangers a[nother] person's life ... or creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or seriously interferes with, seriously disrupts, or destroys, an electronic system". To qualify as "terrorist", the action or threat must also be "[done or] made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause".
Not only is carrying out, or threatening to carry out, such action punishable by life imprisonment, but so too are: providing or receiving training "connected" with such action, possessing things connected with such action, collecting or making documents "likely to facilitate" such actions or anything done in preparation for such action.
One of the scariest parts of the bill is the reference to disruption of electronic systems — which could include web sites, even a public library catalogue.
In a concession to democratic public opinion and union strength, the bill specifies that terrorist acts do not include "industrial action" or "lawful advocacy, protest or dissent". There is, however, no definition given for "lawful" dissent.
It is certainly conceivable, for example, that the May 1, 2001, stock exchange blockades protesting corporate tyranny, could be classified as a "terrorist act" (attempting to disrupt a financial system). If so, protesters who attended the blockade, those who produced (or even received) flyers for the event, those who lived in houses where megaphones used at the blockade were kept, and those who were officials in organisations supporting the blockade, would run the risk of being sent to prison for life.
Equally disturbing is the proposal to "ban" organisations. This can be done as long as the attorney-general believes the organisation is "likely to endanger the security or integrity of the Commonwealth or another country". Proscribed organisations will be published in the government's Gazette. Once published, to be a member of such an organisation will be an offence punishable by 25 years imprisonment, even if the "offender" is unaware of the illegal status of the organisation.
An organisation will be able to challenge the ban in the Federal Court, but will have to prove that it doesn't meet the extremely vague criteria.
This provision has aroused widespread condemnation. ACTU national president Sharan Burrow has described it as "an absolute fundamental attack on civil liberties" creating "a set of executive powers that even [conservative prime minister Robert] Menzies couldn't get in the McCarthy era".
Whether the government could use such powers against the left will depend upon the level of public support it enjoys. It is unlikely, at this stage, that such powers could be used against peaceful protesters. Their existence on the statute books, however, provides a constant threat. More vulnerable groups, such as Palestinian, Tamil or Iraqi support groups, may have more to fear.
The discussion around the bill by politicians and the corporate media is in itself an attempt to win support from the public for curtailing dissent. The greater the atmosphere of fear the more likely it is that the government will use this sort of legislation against the left.
After a botched attempt to introduce the bill on March 12, the government has announced it intends to introduce legislation in the coming weeks to strengthen the powers of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.
The govenment's intention is to allow ASIO, when investigating terrorist offences, to detain people incommunicado for 48 hours based only on the suspicion they may be able to provide information relating to politically motivated violence. Those interrogated would have no right to legal representation and could be imprisoned for five years for asserting their right to silence. However, the deferral of the bill may result in a watered-down version being presented.
Other bills currently before, or about to be, introduced into parliament, will introduce significant penalties for providing money, or being "reckless" in allowing funds, to be used for "terrorist" acts and allow secret police to access unread emails.
It is unclear whether the bills will be passed, mostly intact, by the Senate. While the Australian Greens are opposed to banning organisations, and giving more powers to ASIO, the Democrats and the ALP do not yet have a clear position. Both parties have said they will consider the legislation more carefully, and send it to committee.
Changes to the regulations for the Defence Signals Directorate telecommunications spy agency made late last year allow it to spy on the communications of Australians with people overseas.
The government is also planning to strengthen the powers of the Australian Federal Police and the military in crime and terrorism investigations. Proposals that may come out of an April 5 meeting of Prime Minister John Howard and state premiers include granting the AFP powers to override the right to silence (similar to powers now held by the National Crime Authority) and placing an SAS unit in Sydney to participate in domestic law enforcement.
From Green Left Weekly, March 20, 2002.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.