BY MARGARET ALLUM
The Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civil Authorities) Bill is being debated in the Senate. It passed through the House of Representatives without amendment, with the support of the Labor Party. It is no coincidence that the bill will become law before the World Economic Forum meeting in Melbourne, beginning September 11, and the Sydney Olympic Games opening on September 15.
The ALP in the Senate has proposed minor amendments, but the essence of the bill remains the same. It will increase the power of the federal government to use Australian troops in cases of domestic civil disturbance without waiting for authority from the relevant state or territory governments, and it will authorise the military to use shoot to kill "where reasonable and necessary".
At present, the federal government has no unilateral power to deploy troops in a domestic situation. Under section 119 of Australia's constitution, state governments can request federal assistance in cases of "domestic violence". This section was a response to the great rural and waterfront strikes of the 1890s and was designed to allow the use of troops against striking workers if a state and federal government agree.
In such situations, the military remains subject to the civilian legal system and is therefore liable for any deaths, injuries or damage caused. The new law will change this, allowing troops to search and detain people, seize and search premises and vehicles without a warrant, cordon off areas and stop all movement within areas.
Labor's proposed amendments would requirement federal parliament to be notified before the troops were deployed within Australia, and a parliamentary committee would have to review the decision within six months of military action at home. The ALP also wants the use of the military in industrial disputes limited to occasions where there is a "direct and immediate threat of serious injury or death to a person".
Amendments have also been proposed by the Australian Democrats and the Greens. One proposal from the Democrats, supported by the Greens, is for a sunset clause (presumably to make the bill lapse after the Olympic Games).
The idea that the bill can be amended to make it acceptable is a mistake.
Democrat senator Andrew Murray told the Senate: "We need a bill, but not this bill ... it is too rushed ... far too broad." But do we need a bill like this? Justice John Dowd of the NSW Supreme Court said on August 28, "This legislation is not the Australian way of doing things and must be withdrawn. Obviously the proposal for a sunset clause is preferable to the existing proposed legislation, but the case for the bill has not been made out."
In Australia's economic system, in which the protection of property and profits take precedence over the welfare of people, any law which gives more power to the most repressive arm of the state is a step backward. Any legislation which reduces, even in a minor way, the present meagre accountability of the military has to be rejected, not amended and passed.
The fact that the ALP, without a murmur, passed the legislation in its original form in the lower house speaks volumes about the role it believes the state should play during civil protest or unrest. It was only after condemnation by community groups, left activists and civil liberties groups that Labor in the Senate felt the need to put up a few token amendments to the legislation.
The Victorian Labor government has made its opposition to the S11 protests in Melbourne crystal clear, and the NSW Labor government is enthusiastically supporting the legislation so that, if necessary, it can be used to quell dissent during "our" Olympics.
[Visit Green Left Weekly's "Why we'll protest at the Olympics" web page at <http://www.greenleft.org.au/globalaction/olympics.shtml>.]