Dissenting Report by Senator Bob Brown
Defence Legislation Amendment
(Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2000
Introduction
In the lead up
to the Olympics and the S11 protests in Melbourne for the World Economic Forum,
the bill marks a radical shift from the status-quo by authorising the call-out
of troops in a new range of circumstances.
Section 119 of the Constitution provides that the
federal government shall protect each state against domestic violence, but only
on the application of the state's government. Section 51A of the bill goes well
beyond the existing s. 51 of the Defence Act 1903 which is based on
s. 119 of the Constitution. The new section will allow a military call-out
where the three ministers are satisfied that domestic violence is occurring
"or is likely to occur" that will affect "Commonwealth
interests" without a request from the relevant state or territory
government.
“Commonwealth
interests” undefined
The legislation allows a call-out whenever ‘Commonwealth
interests’ are threatened. Commonwealth interests could conceivable cover
almost every eventuality and should be defined.
Protecting peaceful protest “Domestic violence” in the
legislation is undefined. Many legitimate peaceful protests and political
demonstrations could come under the banner of ‘domestic violence’ which is
‘likely to occur’. The provisions in the bill that prevent the military being
used to “stop or restrict any lawful protest” are no safeguard as almost all
protests can be deemed unlawful by permission for the protest being withheld.
Domestic violence should be defined in the legislation to be
violence that involves weapons or arms. The bill should be amended to ban a
call-out for use against peaceful, unarmed protests.
States
concerns ignored
Some state Governments have raised serious concerns about
the legislation. NSW, Victoria, Western Australian and Tasmania have all voiced
opposition to the bill. The bill should be amended to ensure that troops cannot
be called out without the agreement of the states, to maintain the vital
balance in our constitution which allows the commonwealth to raise defence
forces and the states to administer domestic law. For example it is important
to eliminate even the remote possibility of Commonwealth forces being deployed
against state forces.
Industrial
disputes
The bill should be amended to ban the use of defence forces
in breaking industrial disputes. The committee’s suggested amendment that would
ban the use of emergency and reserve forces for industrial disputes is
inadequate as such an amendment would allow any non-emergency and
reserve forces to be used against an industrial dispute.
Sunset
clause
Even if the
bill were necessary for security during the Olympics, it should have a sunset
clause so that it ceased to have effect after December 31, 2000.
Military
powers excessive
The
legislation would mean that the military, once deployed, would have a range of
powers not normally available to police. For example, the defence forces would
be able to search premises without a warrant and detain people without arrest.
The public should be afforded the same protections and safeguards in regards to
the military as they have with the police.
This is ‘post
Seattle’ legislation seeking new powers against a supposed threat from ordinary
people. But really it is all about protecting corporate interest. The
legislation would have allowed troops to be called out during the Franklin
protests which would have potentially turned a peaceful blockade into something
more violent.
Conclusion:
The bill should be opposed. Amendments will be moved to:
- guarantee that troops
could not be called out for industrial disputes
- guarantee that troops
could not be called out against peaceful protests
- add a sunset clause
- define domestic
violence and Commonwealth interests
- to ensure that
Commonwealth troops can not be called out without the state’s agreement.
Senator Bob Brown
Australian Greens
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page