DANGER — More police state powers

Bob Briton

Since 11 September 2001, more than $2 billion has been spent and 
more than 100 examples of what have been called "protective 
measures" have been taken so far as part of the Federal 
Government's contribution to the "war on terror". The states have 
also spent up big and gone into legislative overdrive in response 
to the highly publicised terror threat.

During this time, ASIO has been transformed into a secret police 
force with powers to detain and interrogate individuals 
effectively without any time limits and without any right to 
contact anyone on the outside. The individuals need not be 
suspected of any terrorist activities. There are now jail terms 
of up to two years awaiting anyone revealing details of these 
ASIO activities or any of the broadly defined "operational 
information" involved in the cases of the detained persons. A 
detainee may be jailed for five years for refusing to answer 
questions.

Earlier this month, The Attorney-General (AG) was handed the 
power to brand any organisation as "terrorist" allowing Philip 
Ruddock to transform the members of proscribed associations into 
criminals. The Senate's approval of the Criminal Code Amendment 
(Terrorist Organisations) Bill 2003 means that members and 
supporters of organisations singled out by the AG could face 
between 10 and 25 years in jail. Ruddock will not even be 
restricted to the UN-prepared list of terror organisations under 
the new legislation. He will act on the advice of ASIO alone.

The Federal Government has made the most of the media attention 
on the murderous attacks on the people of Spain to signal that 
they are still not finished with curtailing civil rights in 
Australia — not by a long way!

Senior government figures joined with their state counterparts on 
the occasion of the recently concluded summit of Australasian and 
southwest pacific police commissioners to drive home the same 
message. Howard pledged another $400 million worth of 
Commonwealth funding for security measures to be shared between 
security agencies and the Australian Federal Police.

The carefully stage-managed public relations event did not go off 
without a hitch, however. Drawing a parallel between Australia's 
situation and that of Spain, Australian Federal Police 
Commissioner Mick Keelty made the observation that our military 
assistance to the US in invading and occupying Iraq has made us a 
greater target for anti-"coalition" terrorists. This is an 
obvious conclusion and is, no doubt, a belief held widely in the 
community and even in the upper echelons.

The problem with the remark is one of the unstated possibilities 
it opens up: that we could reduce our terrorist risk by ceasing 
to be such a lackey of the US. Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, 
accused Keelty of being duped by al-Qaida propaganda. Prime 
Minister Howard said that he disagrees with Keelty's assessment 
and that Australia has been a target of al-Qaida since the time 
of the intervention of Australian peacekeeping forces in East 
Timor in 1999.

Most Australians supported that UN-sponsored deployment. They had 
great sympathy for the suffering of the East Timorese people 
during the Indonesian occupation and came to understand the 
shameful role of successive Australian governments in the tragic 
events of recent decades. Howard craftily tried to advance the 
peacekeeping mission as the source of our security problems. 

Elsewhere, he suggested that we have long been targeted not 
because of what we do, but "who we are". This seems to reflect 
the Bush line that the US has been attacked because "evil doers" 
hate their prosperity and near perfect democratic institutions.

At the Sydney gathering, the police commissioners united to 
produce a wish list: wider use of forensic science and DNA for 
investigation and intelligence gathering; increased spending for 
security of critical infrastructure; new regulations for the 
management, storage and transportation of dangerous goods 
including fertiliser; and so on.

And while Australian Special Forces created some "atmosphere" 
with their night-time counter-terrorism exercises on Sydney 
Harbour, Victorian Police Commissioner Christine Nixon was 
canvassing how long the states should give themselves to detain 
and question people without charge. Given the Federal powers 
that already exist in this area, 24 hours should do it, she 
concluded.

States hop on bandwagon

From the sidelines, NSW Premier Carr reiterated his support for a 
US-style department of homeland security to unite the various 
police forces and spook agencies in the country. However, the 
Labor proposal would actually create a body with more powers than 
the US model. Carr also vowed to toughen all NSW anti-terror 
legislation like the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002, even 
though the existing post-Bali bombing laws have not been used 
once since their adoption.

In Queensland the Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) handed 
over its report on security matters to another "tough-on-terror" 
Premier, Peter Beattie. The CMC has recommended sweeping new 
powers for itself (!) and the state police including ones to tap 
phones, though subject to a warrant. The police and the CMC would 
be able to install hidden cameras and other surveillance devices, 
also after obtaining a warrant.

However, among the 50 recommendations is one to allow the police 
and the CMC to conduct covert searches WITHOUT a warrant. This, 
supposedly, would only be used in cases where authorities feel 
premises are linked to past or potential future terrorist acts. 
Terry O'Gorman of the Australian Council of Civil Liberties 
protested the unprecedented move: "There are already powers for 
emergency searches in a terrorist situation."

Beattie has undertaken to give serious consideration to the CMC 
report.

Philip Ruddock was the first to put his hand up for new powers 
following the Madrid massacre. He wants an amendment to the 1978 
Foreign Recruitment and Incursions Act to make it illegal for 
Australians to train or fight with terrorist organisations on 
behalf of foreign governments that the Australian Government does 
not approve of.

While the legislation being sought would not be retrospective, it 
is clearly a response to the cases of David Hicks and Mamdouh 
Habib who, it is alleged, were preparing to fight alongside 
forces of the Taliban government of Afghanistan.

He also wants the Law Reform Commission to examine ways of 
keeping secret even more of the details of trials of individuals 
caught by the various "anti-terror" laws enacted by his 
government — i.e. full blown secret trials.

Ruddock is calling for new legislation similar the old law 
against "consorting with criminals" to catch even more people in 
the "anti-terror" net. There has been comment in the media that 
he wants this in his armoury to use against outspoken critics of 
US foreign policy like Australian Muslim leader Sheik Taj el-dene 
Elhilaly who met representatives of Hezbollah during a recent 
trip to the Middle East.

Reports of the cleric's trip have it that he had made 
inflammatory anti-US statements of the sort that appear to 
support al-Qaida. The new laws could have been used to punish him 
for the comments on his return to Australia.

No doubt the AG would love to stand over the Muslim leader. 
However, the intention of the proposed legislation is to extend 
the reach of the Criminal Code Amendment (Terrorist 
Organisations) Bill 2003 passed earlier this month. A much lower 
burden of proof in these "consorting" cases would make it that 
much easier to imprison people accused of having any sort of 
contact with organisations on the government's list of terrorist 
organisations. Civil libertarians have decried this crude assault 
on the fundamental freedom of association. 

On Norfolk Island, where the Standing Committee of Attorneys-
General had gathered last week, Ruddock was keeping up the 
momentum. He wants money-laundering legislation standardised 
across the states to prevent terrorist organisations moving funds 
around the country.

"Defamation" laws

He expressed his impatience with his state counterparts over 
their failure to agree on uniform defamation laws after 25 years 
of debate. The Federal AG has chosen this year, at the height of 
the "war on terror", to do something about it. He wants the 
states to follow the lead of NSW, which has the toughest laws on 
media comment and which allows the fewest defences. However, 
Ruddock wants to go even further.

He is threatening to override state legislation if his state 
colleagues have not agreed on a standard code by July. His 
discussion paper released on Norfolk Island is full of proposals, 
some of which have been welcomed by the Australian Council for 
Civil Liberties.

Some suggested changes would make it easier for less wealthy 
individuals to obtain a prominent retraction from a media source 
if they were to be defamed. They might also prevent wealthy 
individuals "forum shopping" the various state and territory 
courts for the easiest damages against publishers of national 
media.

But these are side issues, there is a sinister side, which is far 
more reaching and and in keeping of the spirit of the times.

The common law defence of "fair comment" in defamation cases 
would be replaced by a narrower one that the accused person was 
expressing a view that a "reasonable person" would hold. Truth 
would not be a complete defence — "public benefit" would have to 
be demonstrated as well. Mr Ruddock wants to stop the media 
carrying what he calls "prejudiced, biased and grossly 
exaggerated opinions".

Clearly, this push on defamation laws is not an exercise akin to 
the standardising of rail gauges across the states. Its timing 
is no accident. It is an attempt to muzzle public opinion with 
the public broadcasters, the ABC and SBS , in the direct line of 
fire. The former Federal Communications Minister Richard Alston 
has already shown how intolerant this government is of what it 
deems to be unfavourable media comment with his pursuit of the 
ABC for its coverage of the build up to the war on Iraq. The last 
thing this government of fanatics should get is more legislation 
to throw against its critics.