More funds for spy agencies
Fewer rights for the people
Bob Briton This week could end up being a very good week from the point of view of Australia's spy agencies and a very bad one for the democratic rights of Australians. The Prime Minister has already spoiled the Budget night surprise by announcing a major funding boost for the existing spy organisations and even the establishment of a new intelligence body. The Senate will also receive a report from one of its committees on a raft of new, so-called anti-terror legislation. By the end of the week, new legislation could be added to the recently reinforced ASIO legislation that converted that body into a secret police force with police state powers. It appears that the Federal Government — while remaining keen to blame intelligence agencies for flaws in its foreign policy arguments like the non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq — sees a bright future for the network. In fact, with the "war on terror" replacing the Cold War as the pretext for increased military spending and the curtailing of civil and political rights, these could turn out to be the "glory days" of these secretive bodies. A visibly cheerful John Howard put it this way for the media last week: "This is a struggle that will go on for a long time, and regrettable though it is to say it, we have to settle down for a very long struggle. I hope it doesn't last as long as the Cold War. I certainly hope it doesn't, but it's not something that's going to be easily dealt with." After months of bruising treatment from the government over the value of intelligence reports, the agencies finally got reassurances in the nicest possible form: money and the promise of more powers. ASIO will get an additional $131.4 million over the next four years bringing increases since September 11, 2001 to $332 million. Staffing will have increased by 80 per cent since that time by 2006. The overseas intelligence agency ASIS will get an extra $45.6 million and the Defence Intelligence Organisation will get an additional $47.5 million. The peak intelligence assessment body, the Office of National Assessments, will have another $7.6 million to spend on new technology. A new 24-hour a day, seven days a week agency has been established. The National Threat Assessment Centre will be the 7- Eleven of our spook outfits and will be another body entrusted with the linking of the various other intelligence agencies. It will assist in making travel advisory notices and determine "terrorism alert levels" of the sort that are issued in the US. No expense is being spared in the effort to keep the "terror threat" uppermost in the mind of the public. To this end, another organisation was added last week to the list of 16 "terror" organisations drawn up by the Attorney General's Department. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIH) was put on the AG's distinctive catalogue which includes groups not shown on the United Nations' list of terror organisations. The PIH has no record of activity outside the Middle East. Neither has it targeted "Western interests" other than making threats against the US Embassy in Tel Aviv in Israel if its personnel were to be moved to Jerusalem. This week in Parliament, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee will report on the Anti-Terrorism Bill 2004 referred to it by the Senate at the end of March. Included in the Bill are measures to transform the Crimes Act 1914, the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978, the Criminal Code Act 1995 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 into new layers of "anti-terror" legislation. If passed they could be, in fact, new nails in the coffin of civil and political rights in Australia. The amendment to the Crimes Act would allow for an extension of the period a person can be detained for questioning by the police from four hours to 20 hours. A judicial officer can grant the extension on application from the police in cases where the person is suspected of serious offences such as terrorism. At the moment, the Crimes Act recognises that any deprivation of personal liberty should be kept to the minimum. Groups like the Civil Rights Network see the changes as a grab for power and as unjustified and unnecessary in view of the capacity the state already has with its revamped Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act. This Act allows for the interrogation of people suspected of involvement in (or even just having information about) terrorist activities for rolling periods of seven days. Persons can be interrogated for 24 hours at a time (or 48 hours with an interpreter). Such persons have no right to silence and have only a highly circumscribed right to legal representation. They will be held incommunicado and the details of this must not be reported in the media. Changes to the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978 mean that the legality of Australians fighting for foreign governments will be at the whim of the executive of the government of the day. If an Australian in such a situation was also a member of a terrorist organisation — again, according to the Attorney General's list, not the UN's — that person would risk serious criminal liability. The organisation need not necessarily target civilians to qualify. The broadness of the terms and the resultant openness to abuse of this legislation is clear. Notice the present Federal Government's concern about Australians alleged to have fought alongside forces of the then Taliban government in Afghanistan and compare it with the absence of concern at our citizens fighting with the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army — a terror organisation committed to the break-up of the former Yugoslavia. The amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 are also designed to settle old scores. The new Act would allow the assets of a person to be confiscated if they were to be found guilty of a "foreign indictable offence". This is tailor made to fit Australians who might decide to write about their experiences in detention in the US concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay. It would recognise and legitimise the US military commissions that are set to try Australians David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib. While this is happening, the rest of the world is condemning the lack of due process and concern for justice that is embodied in these "military commissions". Remember, too, that the government is also trying to get a crime of "consorting with terrorists" on the statute books. "Caught in the ever-widening sphere of 'terrorist' activity would be the acquaintances of trade unionists and political activists who have engaged in a 'terrorism' offence", is how the Civil Rights Network explained the threat. The government wants secret evidence from intelligence agencies and the police to be admissible in "terror" trials — evidence that neither the accused nor their lawyer may see. It has the Surveillance Devices Bill 2004 before the Parliament at present. It would permit spying devices to be placed in the premises used by suspects of a wide range of offences without a warrant. And do not forget, the states have been busy, too. The latest from NSW is a proposal for new sanctions against "cyber- terrorism". Police would be given extra powers in the lead-up to and aftermath of a terrorist event. A permanent task force is to be established to analyse and update current laws. One would be forgiven for thinking that a lot of terrorists are simply slipping through the cracks of existing laws! The current wave of "terror" legislation and the increased spending on the infrastructure to enforce it are grave threats to trade unions and industrial action, to left and progressive political parties and any individual expressing dissent with the government's policies or actions. The government has democratic rights and political action in its sites. This week may produce another serious setback to the interests of the people and their ability to struggle for a more just society. Whatever the case, it must be taken as a wakeup call and a reminder that a strong movement against this push must be built.