http://www.smh.com.au/news/0008/16/features/features6.html
New martial law comes armed and dangerous
Proposed powers for the military mean troops could be mobilised against
ordinary civilians with orders to shoot to kill, writes Bob Brown.
IN THE lead-up to the Sydney Olympics and the World Economic Forum in Melbourne,
the Howard Government, with Labor support, has passed a bill in the House of
Representatives which will allow the military sweeping new powers to become involved
in civilian affairs.
The Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2000 authorises the
Prime Minister to call out the armed services where "domestic violence" is occurring or is
"likely to occur". This eliminates the provisions of the Constitution and the 1903 Defence
Act which require a request from a State government before such intervention can occur.
The term domestic violence is undefined. Many, if not most, legitimate peaceful protests
and political demonstrations can be perceived as involving the likelihood of "domestic
violence". The bill states that troops do not have the power to "stop or restrict any lawful
protest", but almost all protests can be declared unlawful simply by withdrawing the
necessary permission.
The gamut of this power should be measured against laws introduced in Queensland by
the former premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen which made any assembly of more than three
citizens illegal. And it would have enabled the then prime minister Malcolm Fraser to
heed the call of a Liberal backbencher in 1982 for the Army to be brought in against
thousands of peaceful protesters at Tasmania's Franklin River blockade.
Imagine what might have happened if this bill had been in place during the Vietnam
moratorium marches in Sydney. It could have opened the way for armed suppression of
demonstrators, even against the wishes of State Parliament. This bill will inevitably raise
the temptation for military intervention in civil protests in the future.
State and Territory police forces are equipped and trained to deal with civilian protests.
Military forces are not. That is why several States - NSW, Victoria, Western Australia
and Tasmania - have voiced opposition to the bill. The Director-General of the NSW
Cabinet Office, Roger Wilkins, has observed that the legislation "leaves open the
possibility of conflict between State police and Commonwealth defence forces, which
should obviously be avoided at all costs".
Even if police are unable to quell domestic crises, the legislation should say that troops
cannot be deployed without a call from the State government and must not be used
against unarmed protesters. Removing such safeguards sees Australia take a giant step
towards the Americanisation of our domestic security operations.
The bill provides for the military, once deployed, to have a range of powers not normally
available to police. Soldiers without previous experience would be empowered to search
premises without a warrant and detain people without explanation. They would also be
allowed to shoot to kill.
There are important safeguards built into police training for handling difficult protest or
even terrorist situations. But the guide has been that the State police are there to maintain
the domestic peace and the Commonwealth military to defend Australia from foreign
aggression.
In Brisbane on Sunday the Defence Minister, John Moore, said that the Olympics Games
were the main reason this legislation was required. This bill should have a sunset clause so
that it ceases to exist after the Games. There has always been the proviso that a State
could request the help of the armed services. Even so, the Commonwealth has been
expressly prohibited from using the emergency and reserve forces against strikers. The
Labor prime minister Ben Chifley used troops to load coal during the miners' strike of
1949 and Bob Hawke used the RAAF during the pilots' dispute of 1989. But armed
Australian servicemen and women have never directly confronted strikers. This legislation
opens up that possibility, even where a State government is opposed.
It is a little-known aspect of Australian history that between Federation in 1901 and
1928, Queensland, WA, Tasmania and South Australia requested military intervention
from the Commonwealth to suppress domestic upheavals where violence was feared. On
every occasion the prime minister refused.
It is a sign of the changing balance of power and responsibilities in Australia (and around
the globe) that the States are now a necessary check on any misdirected impulse of a
prime minister to call in the troops against fellow Australians. That check must be left in
place.
Senator Bob Brown is the
New martial law comes armed and dangerous
Proposed powers for the military mean troops could be mobilised against
ordinary civilians with orders to shoot to kill, writes Bob Brown.
IN THE lead-up to the Sydney Olympics and the World Economic Forum in Melbourne,
the Howard Government, with Labor support, has passed a bill in the House of
Representatives which will allow the military sweeping new powers to become involved
in civilian affairs.
The Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2000 authorises the
Prime Minister to call out the armed services where "domestic violence" is occurring or is
"likely to occur". This eliminates the provisions of the Constitution and the 1903 Defence
Act which require a request from a State government before such intervention can occur.
The term domestic violence is undefined. Many, if not most, legitimate peaceful protests
and political demonstrations can be perceived as involving the likelihood of "domestic
violence". The bill states that troops do not have the power to "stop or restrict any lawful
protest", but almost all protests can be declared unlawful simply by withdrawing the
necessary permission.
The gamut of this power should be measured against laws introduced in Queensland by
the former premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen which made any assembly of more than three
citizens illegal. And it would have enabled the then prime minister Malcolm Fraser to
heed the call of a Liberal backbencher in 1982 for the Army to be brought in against
thousands of peaceful protesters at Tasmania's Franklin River blockade.
Imagine what might have happened if this bill had been in place during the Vietnam
moratorium marches in Sydney. It could have opened the way for armed suppression of
demonstrators, even against the wishes of State Parliament. This bill will inevitably raise
the temptation for military intervention in civil protests in the future.
State and Territory police forces are equipped and trained to deal with civilian protests.
Military forces are not. That is why several States - NSW, Victoria, Western Australia
and Tasmania - have voiced opposition to the bill. The Director-General of the NSW
Cabinet Office, Roger Wilkins, has observed that the legislation "leaves open the
possibility of conflict between State police and Commonwealth defence forces, which
should obviously be avoided at all costs".
Even if police are unable to quell domestic crises, the legislation should say that troops
cannot be deployed without a call from the State government and must not be used
against unarmed protesters. Removing such safeguards sees Australia take a giant step
towards the Americanisation of our domestic security operations.
The bill provides for the military, once deployed, to have a range of powers not normally
available to police. Soldiers without previous experience would be empowered to search
premises without a warrant and detain people without explanation. They would also be
allowed to shoot to kill.
There are important safeguards built into police training for handling difficult protest or
even terrorist situations. But the guide has been that the State police are there to maintain
the domestic peace and the Commonwealth military to defend Australia from foreign
aggression.
In Brisbane on Sunday the Defence Minister, John Moore, said that the Olympics Games
were the main reason this legislation was required. This bill should have a sunset clause so
that it ceases to exist after the Games. There has always been the proviso that a State
could request the help of the armed services. Even so, the Commonwealth has been
expressly prohibited from using the emergency and reserve forces against strikers. The
Labor prime minister Ben Chifley used troops to load coal during the miners' strike of
1949 and Bob Hawke used the RAAF during the pilots' dispute of 1989. But armed
Australian servicemen and women have never directly confronted strikers. This legislation
opens up that possibility, even where a State government is opposed.
It is a little-known aspect of Australian history that between Federation in 1901 and
1928, Queensland, WA, Tasmania and South Australia requested military intervention
from the Commonwealth to suppress domestic upheavals where violence was feared. On
every occasion the prime minister refused.
It is a sign of the changing balance of power and responsibilities in Australia (and around
the globe) that the States are now a necessary check on any misdirected impulse of a
prime minister to call in the troops against fellow Australians. That check must be left in
place.
Senator Bob Brown is the