BY ALISON DELLIT
Most Australians do not expect to have to answer to the military. So it took some confidence for Prime Minister John Howard to announce on October 24 that the government was considering involving the Australian Defence Force (ADF) in law enforcement, as part of "strengthening Australia's anti-terrorist capacity".
This is just one of a raft of proposals to boost the power of Australia's military and secret police that have been raised since the October 12 Bali bombings. The proposals also include increasing annual military spending by $1 billion.
The Howard government is trying to replicate the experience of the United States, where shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, US President George Bush was able to win a massive increase in the military budget and more police powers in the name of "fighting terrorism". Bush won popular support for the US attack on Afghanistan and the looming war on Iraq.
Washington has attempted to help Australians understand the "inevitable consequences" of the mass murder in Bali. US Secretary of State Colin Powell told the October 20 ABC Insiders program: "As we have seen repeatedly, if you ignore these problems elsewhere, they sooner or later will come home to roost and you'll have to deal with them at a later time, in perhaps more difficult and dangerous circumstances."
Symptom of a divided world
The bombings in Bali, like similar violence around the word, are a symptom of a world increasingly divided between those who own a lot and those who own nothing. Howard and Bush want us to accept this division. Underlying their "protect the civilised world" rhetoric is a message that First World privilege can only be maintained by brutal force against the poor, the desperate and the needy. The inhumanity inherent in accepting this view is made more palatable by racism and religious vilification.
So far, the Australian government has been spectacularly unsuccessful in exploiting the Bali tragedy to justify war. Opposition to the planned US war on Iraq has not diminished — it may even have increased. Most Australians understand, perhaps more than before, that a war will lead to more death, suffering and hatred.
However, this has not stopped the Howard government from attempting to win support for other forms of state repression.
In the wake of 9/11, the US government won popular support for the passing of the USAPATRIOT Act, which enabled, among other things, detention without trial. Since it was passed, 12,000 people have been detained under its provisions. Many were deported for immigration violations — none for terrorist-related offences.
Attacks on civil liberties have little to do with protecting "innocent civilians". Rather, these laws give governments more means to suppress dissent in an increasingly polarised world, and within increasingly polarised countries.
The first attempt to test the post-Bali bombings water in Australia was the fast-tracking of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) amendment bill through parliament. This bill was first formulated in March, as part of the government's "anti-terrorist" legislation.
The bill would enable ASIO agents to detain people, not necessarily suspects, who ASIO thinks may have knowledge of terrorist activity. Detainees would not have access to their lawyers or family. The detention period, initially 48 hours, could be extended by a court order.
The Senate established two inquiries — one into the ASIO bill and another to look at five other bills in the package, which introduced new terrorist offences and provided for the banning of "terrorist" organisations.
Inquiries critical
Both inquiries — despite participation of both government and opposition parties — were critical of the legislation's attacks on civil liberties. After some minor redrafting, all the "terror laws" except the ASIO bill were put before parliament and passed in late June.
Despite the government's reiteration that this legislation was "urgently needed" to protect Australians against terrorist attacks, the al Qaeda organisation had still not been banned at the time of the bombing in Bali — another indication that the laws have more to do with dealing with future dissent than terrorism.
The government managed to get the "anti-terrorist" laws passed — with the ALP's support — because the mainstream media ran very quiet on the issue rather than because it had convinced most people that they were necessary.
Both Senate committees reported that the overwhelming majority of submissions received from the public had opposed the package of legislation, even in amended form. Both the Coalition parties and the ALP were divided over how far the legislation should go. Many Labor backbenchers conceded that their constituents were unhappy with the legislation.
The intensity of this pressure on the Labor Party is what has delayed the passage of the ASIO legislation. After a fierce caucus battle in late August, Labor announced that it wanted another Senate review, this time to examine whether the powers of detention without trial could be given to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) rather than ASIO.
Labor under pressure
It is doubtful that this proposal would make things better for those detained — the AFP is notorious for phone tapping, spying and harassment of left-wing migrant groups. But it is an indication that the Labor Party is under pressure from those opposed to the strengthening of the powers of the secret police.
In response, the federal government has proposed a set of amendments to the initial legislation which would prevent children under 14 from being detained and give detainees access to an ASIO-picked lawyer (qualified by ASIO's "right" to supervise all meetings between the lawyer and the detainee). The government is refusing, however, to consider a sunset clause on the legislation which would result in its automatic expiry in three years' time.
This refusal is one of the strongest indications that this legislation is intended as a weapon for the government against peaceful dissent. These laws could sit on the books to be used in any big, divisive dispute, such as a polarising strike or social justice campaign.
The government thinks that the Bali bombings may have given it another shot at getting the laws passed. This may be premature. The ALP stuck to its guns on the ASIO legislation: firmly deciding to equivocate. The bill has been sent back to the parliamentary committee stage, and the ALP still doesn't have a position on it.
The ADF, backed by defence minister Robert Hill, has joined the post-Bali bombings furore by demanding an extra $1 billion to help it recruit and buy more "fire-power", including shoulder-launched guided missiles and electronic warfare equipment. In particular, the ADF is complaining that it is not equipped to operate in regions some distance from Australia.
Like the attacks on civil liberties, there is nothing new about the Australian military wanting more resources to operate throughout the Asia-Pacific region. That was foreshadowed in the government's defence white paper, released almost two years ago.
The same goes for proposals to involve ADF personnel in domestic law enforcement. This is part of a trend that began in the lead up to the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, when laws were introduced to enable the military to assist police. In Western Australia, the threat of "bikie violence" has been used to give an SAS unit a police role.
Although it would be politically untenable at the moment to use troops to break a strike or a community blockade, the government, with ALP support, has been slowly laying the legal groundwork for some time.
Also, since October 12, the immigration department has been given an extra $27 million, and diplomatic staff have been asked to tighten visa approvals. The Australian Customs Service has also been given the green light to test a biometric video system to screen incoming passengers.
Howard has introduced legislation offering a reward of $500,000 for information that leads to a conviction under the "anti-terrorist" laws. This could place significant pressure on many communities to "inform" on suspected sympathisers of organisations classified as "terrorist" by the United Nations.
At the request of most ALP state premiers, a counter-terrorist agreement was signed between the states and the Commonwealth on October 24. Discussed, but not voted on, were proposals raised by NSW Premier Bob Carr and Victorian Premier Steve Bracks to use armed defence personnel to protect "key infrastructure", including the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor and the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
From 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly, October 30, 2002.
Visit the