Article from The Melbourne Age, August 27 2000
Rights trampled in an Olympic dash
By MICHAEL GORTON
Sunday 27 August 2000
The Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill
2000, now before the Federal Parliament, gives the Australian military
enormous powers to intervene in civil disturbances, including the use
of weapons, seizure of property, entry to premises and body searches,
including "an examination of the person's body cavities". The
legislation is in response to the threat of terrorism arising from the
Olympics and the Economic Summit in Melbourne next month. It assumes
that civilian authorities (the police) will not be enough.
However, the powers granted under this legislation are unprecedented,
and the safeguards, expected in a modern democracy, are clearly
inadequate.
Legislation should not be made for the day, but should be made for all
of the days and for all possible circumstances and contingencies. It
is worth noting that it is this type of legislation that oppressive
regimes (such as Burma and former Soviet governments) have used to
legitimise abuse of power, standover tactics and breach of civil
rights. How many times recently have we seen military intervention
(Indonesia, Timor, the Balkans, Africa) where the military are
unrestrained but are said to be acting under "legislative
authority"?
Australia has always had a history of civil protest, the right to
complain and march without fear of military intervention. Even in the
wildest days of the Vietnam Moratorium marches there were no
suggestions that the military, with arms, would intervene. Indeed, the
threat of military intervention in industrial disputes in the past has
always been hotly contested.
The power to use military force under this legislation need only be
authorised by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence and the
Attorney-General. While these three people must agree before force is
used, they will all be from the same government, and presumably will
all be of the same mind. This safeguard gives little comfort. In some
circumstances, the military can be used only at the invitation of a
state or territory, although there is power for use of military force
where Commonwealth interests are at risk.
Australia is not a totalitarian regime. Abuses of power are rare,
although some would say they have occurred. This legislation arises
from recommendations from the Hope Royal Commission following the
Hilton bombing. Even in those darkest days, when the threat of
terrorism in Australia was at its worst, it is difficult to imagine
circumstances in which civil police authorities would not be able to
deal with most issues. However, it must be conceded that there are
eventualities which, in the future, might require military
intervention. In those cases, most Australians would agree that it
should be only as a last resort, only in the direst of emergencies,
and only to the minimal extent necessary to restore order or deal with
the threat. This legislation does not contain those safeguards.
It is interesting to note that while legislative force is now given to
the rights of the military to intervene, and to give immunity for
their actions, there is no similar legislation protecting the civil
rights that will obviously be negated and removed as a consequence of
military intervention.
The government continues to tell us that our civil rights are best
protected by the common law. Malcolm Fraser has recently told us that
the civil rights of Aboriginal people were trampled on,
unceremoniously and without proper recognition. Aboriginal people were
detained, their property taken and their children taken without any
shred of due process or fair dealing. The common law did not protect
them. Malcolm Fraser says that a bill of rights should be revisited.
If this legislation was available, would the Federal Government have
been tempted to use it during the maritime strike? There have been
other occasions on which a government might have been tempted to use
the military rather than civilian police.
The threat of international terrorism is real. The need for such
open-ended legislation permitting military intervention and granting
immunity is not as clear. Certainly, we can envisage situations where
military intervention may be necessary. In those cases, the most
substantial of safeguards are required. Other parliamentarians have
suggested amendments to the legislation that would increase the
safeguards, and give the opportunity for others, including the courts,
to review the action of ministers and the military. Greater safeguards
to ensure that military forces are clearly under the control of
civilian authorities are necessary.
This legislation is being rushed through parliament with the support
of both the government and the Labor opposition. The need for speed is
attributed to the imminent Olympics. The need to protect our basic
human rights and civil liberties (a cornerstone of our way of life)
should not be lost or thrown aside in the rush for Olympic gold.
Michael Gorton is chairman of the administrative law and human rights
section of the Law Institute of Victoria.
sent in by MT of OZ
Back to Australia- New Zealand- Asia Menu
Back Main News Menu
Back to www.davidicke.com
About this Site, Our Parameters and
How to Submit a News Item to us
