Totalitarian powers:
New laws to ban organisations

The Federal Government has been handed more totalitarian 
powers with the Senate last week giving the Attorney General 
broad, fascistic laws to unilaterally ban organisations. Anyone 
who is a member of a banned organisation, or gives financial or 
any other form of support to one faces a jail sentence of between 
10 and 25 years (maximum). The Criminal Code Amendment (Terrorist 
Organisations) Bill 2003 was passed by the Senate on March 4 
after the Australian Labor Party (ALP) rolled over contrary to 
previous promises to oppose proscription.

"This bill gives Philip Ruddock, without reference to parliament 
or the courts, the power to name organisations as 'terrorist' and 
have members therefore categorised as criminal on the advice of 
ASIO alone", said Greens Senator Bob Brown.

The new provisions were originally contained in the Security 
Legislation (Terrorism) Amendment Bill, which also gave a broad 
definition of a terrorist act, created new offences and broadened 
the definition of treason. The ALP supported the Bill when the 
government agreed to restrict its banning powers to organisations 
listed as terrorists by the UN.

At the time Labor Senate leader John Faulkner said: "Labor 
insisted that domestic proscription — giving an attorney-general 
the power to ban organisations — was too dangerous a proposal 
and should be resisted at all cost.

"Historically, proscription has been used for political 
repression. It has rightly been resisted by the Australian 
people", Senator Faulkner said.

The definition of "terrorist" is so wide-ranging that it could 
include peace groups, trade unions, anti-globalisation activists, 
solidarity organisations (e.g. Australia Aid for Ireland, 
Bougainville Freedom Movement, Australia West Papua Association) 
and political parties.

Once the Attorney General has proscribed an organisation, it will 
be a criminal offence to recruit for, finance, be a member of, 
receive training from or possess things or collect or make 
documents that might be connected with the organisation.

The government already has considerable powers to cripple 
organisations and individuals through a backdoor form of 
proscription. Under the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism 
Bill 2002, also passed with the ALP's support, the Foreign 
Minister has the power to list and have the finances and other 
assets of organisations and individuals frozen.

"The loose and wide-open provisions of this bill mean that there 
is nothing to stop a future government from freezing the bank 
accounts of trade unions and community organisations on the 
flimsy basis that their activities were a threat to public health 
and safety", Senator Bob Brown warned when the Bill was before 
the Senate. "Activists and protesters added to the list would 
have their credit cards confiscated." 

In other draconian laws, also passed during the last two years, 
ASIO has been given wide-ranging police powers to detain and 
interrogate people indefinitely with no right to contact anyone 
outside. There are a whole range of "criminal" offences carrying 
huge penalties for anyone who reports anything about such 
detentions.

Justice Higgins of the Federal Court, speaking to the National 
Press Club last week, referred to one of these laws saying: "In 
the fight against terrorism, truly draconian legislation has been 
passed which allows anyone to be detained on the mere suspicion 
held by the Attorney-General that such detention will, and I 
quote, 'substantially assist the collection of intelligence'."

How does Labor justify its latest capitulation over the 
proscription of organisations? Labor spokesperson Robert 
McClelland claims that the now amended bill provides robust 
safeguards against any misuse of the banning powers. And what are 
these robust safeguards?

The leader of the opposition must be briefed on the government's 
intentions prior to an organisation being proscribed. Note that 
the opposition nevertheless still has no power of veto over any 
such action by the government. Having briefed the opposition, the 
government can simply ignore any objections.

Proscribing an organisation can be subject to review by the 
Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD, but given 
that its membership comes from the two major parties, and that 
government has the numbers, the chances of an unfavourable review 
are slender.

If all else fails, a banned organisation can appeal to the High 
Court. However, the financial costs in such a move would be 
crippling for most organisations, and the chances of the court 
overturning a decision approved by the major parties would be 
relatively small. And even if the courts were to countermand a 
proscription order, the damage done to the organisation during 
the period of proscription could be critical.

For the government of the day, the procedure for proscribing an 
organisation is relatively simple and quick, as the banning order 
is carried out by regulation rather than by legislation.

The Australian Democrats, who along with the Greens opposed the 
legislation, have pointed out that existing laws provided ample 
protection against people planning terrorist acts, without 
resorting to legislation that would undermine the civil rights of 
Australian citizens.

Democrats Senator Brian Greig commented: "The Democrats are 
opposed to the very concept of proscription. It does not enhance 
Australia's security but deviates seriously from the way in which 
our community has traditionally defined criminal behaviour.

"We do not need proscription laws, given that there are already 
mechanisms within criminal law to prevent and punish terrorist 
activities. As a community we should seek to punish criminal 
behaviour, not thought or association."

The ALP's position is an indication of the direction in which 
that party is now heading under the new leadership of Mark 
Latham. Crawlers rarely merit praise from those to whom they 
toady. Rather than exhibit any gratitude to the ALP, the Howard 
Government contemptuously dismissed the ALP leadership's about-
face as a "cave-in".

The ALP is proposing a new federal Department of Homeland 
Security along the lines introduced in the US by the Bush 
Government. This mega-department would blend ASIO, the Australian 
Federal Police, Emergency Management Australia, the new 
coastguard service, and various divisions of the Australian 
Customs Service, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural 
Affairs, and the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and 
Fisheries.

The US Department of Homeland Security has been widely criticised 
for its terrible impact on those seeking asylum in the US. The 
latest example is its proposal to arm Customs Department 
helicopters with machine guns, which, it is said, "would further 
turn the Arizona-Mexico border region into a literal war zone — 
a war that is killing men, women and children for the simple act 
of trying to improve their lives or unite with family members."

The Australian organisation proposed by the ALP would be even 
more powerful than its US counterpart, which does not include a 
law enforcement component (i.e. the FBI). The combination of this 
new mega-agency and the ALP's proposed new proscription laws 
constitutes a major new threat to democratic rights in Australia.

As Greens leader Bob Brown stated last week, the ALP has sold out 
"a major safeguard for a democratic society".

The task now is to publicise and defeat the legislation before it 
is used against the very organisations that are capable of 
defeating it and challenging government policies in other areas.