Dissenting report by Greens Senator Bob Brown
1.1
Senator Brown
recommends that this bill be opposed.
1.2
The Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian
Authorities) Bill 2005 will allow the Government to:
-
further circumvent safeguards in the
Constitution which limit the use of the defence force in domestic conflict;
-
expand the powers of the defence force when
called out to suppress domestic unrest: and
-
give greater immunity to members of the defence
force if they misuse their powers.
Protests and industrial
disputes at risk
1.3
The Government has argued the new powers are necessary
to fight terrorism, however the laws have significant broader implications including
the capacity to use the defence force against peaceful civil protests and in
industrial disputes.
Bill may exceed constitutional power
1.4
The Government claims this bill is primarily codifying
existing practice, while meeting the new and unprecedented threat posed by
contemporary terrorism. However the bill will also legislate powers that may
exceed the Constitution and certainly will create legal immunities that should
not be provided to the military in a domestic context.
Policing should be left to
the police
1.5
Senator Brown
believes that the primary role of policing should be performed by police. If
the military are to be used in a domestic context their powers should be
tightly circumscribed and they should not have greater immunity than that
currently granted to the police.
Too much power in hands of
government
1.6
This bill places few limits on members of the
Australian Defence Force called out by the Prime Minister or two of their
senior Ministers. Under this bill members of the ADF are provided significant
legal immunity if they act illegally in following orders and are shielded from
prosecution by state authorities.
1.7
While the bill outlines the processes for the call-out
of troops it places few limits on the ministers, chief of defence or the
troops. The explicit limits in s.119 of the Constitution, requiring a state
executive to request a call-out, are effectively circumvented.
1.8
The bill provides inadequate definitions of terms upon
which its whole premise and justification are based. The call-out is based on
the broad term “domestic violence” which encompasses a wide range of disorders.
The use of the term “critical infrastructure” means a call-out of the troops
could occur in a wide range of circumstances.
1.9
History shows that the use and abuse of military power
by governments is a common feature of authoritarianism. Democracies must place
limits on the use of the military by governments.
1.10
While Senator Brown
is opposed to this bill the following two recommendations would significantly
improve accountability as well conformity of the bill with international law.
Accountability to Parliament
1.11
Senator Brown
accepts that there are circumstances in which the military may be needed to
assist civilian authorities. In those circumstances a prompt decision by the
executive may be needed.
1.12
However, there is no reason that such decisions should
not be subsequently ratified or overruled by the Parliament representing the
people of Australia.
Such protection could be an important bulwark against the inappropriate, or at
worse, authoritarian use of the military by any future government.
1.13
The bill allows the Prime Minister, without reference
to either his colleagues or the Governor General to call out the troops to
suppress domestic disorders. The Parliament should not place in the hands of
one person such enormous power.
Recommendation 1
1.14
That all orders made under Part IIIAAA of the Defence
Act 1903 trigger a recall of Parliament and be subject to disallowance by
either House of Parliament.
Conformity with the
International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights
1.15
Evidence to the inquiry from the Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission outlined how the bill may contravene the right to life
contained in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.
1.16
In particular the Commission noted that proposed clause
51T(2A) and 51T(2B) 'impermissibly widens the circumstances in which the
Defence Force are authorised to use lethal force' beyond the limits set by
international law.[91]
1.17
These clauses allow the use of force, including lethal
force, if a member of the ADF believes it is necessary, on reasonable grounds,
to 'protect critical infrastructure against a threat of damage or disruption to
its operation.'
1.18
Senator Brown
shares the concerns of a number of submitters to the inquiry, including the NSW
Council for Civil Liberties, that such broad grounds for the use of lethal
force could be used against groups of people or individuals who, while posing a
threat of disruption or even damage to infrastructure, would not pose a threat
to life. For example, protesters or striking workers could be subject to these
shoot-to-kill powers.
Recommendation 2
1.19
That proposed s.51T(2A) and s.51T(2B) be removed from
the Bill.
Immunity from prosecution
1.20
The bill provides for a defence of superior orders for
members of the ADF who are subject to prosecution for actions taken during a
callout.
1.21
Senator Brown
agrees with Dr Ben
Saul of UNSW’s Centre of Public Law who
stated in a submission to the inquiry that '[t]here is a danger that such a
defence would result in impunity for serious violations of the rights of Australian
citizens and residents.'[92]
1.22
The bill also removes members of the Australian Defence
Force deployed during a call-out from the jurisdiction of state and territory
criminal law. This prevents any State Director of Public Prosecutions from
instituting proceedings against members who may use their powers illegally
during a call out. The power to prosecute should not be left in the hands of
the Commonwealth DPP who could be subject to the direction of the same
ministers who made the call-out order.
1.23
Dr Ben
Saul of UNSW’s Centre of Public Law
suggested a solution to this problem in his submission to the inquiry:
State and Territory prosecutors could, for example, be empowered
to investigate and prosecute in circumstances where the Commonwealth DPP is
unable or unwilling to prosecute, under a complementarity regime similar to
that applicable under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.[93]
1.24
Senator Brown
would support such an approach.
Inquiry inadequate
1.25
The truncated inquiry into this bill operated over a
very short period of time. Senator Brown
is concerned that the public has not had sufficient time to become aware of the
significant new powers for the government and the military proposed in the
bill.
1.26
Examination of such an important piece of legislation should
not be conducted in such a perfunctory manner.
1.27
The bill should be opposed.
Senator
Bob Brown
Australian Greens
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page