A bill is before federal parliament to enable the ADF, Reserves and foreign military forces and police to be used in Australian emergencies. It gives them immunity from civil or criminal prosecution for actions arising from these emergency duties.
“Emergencies” are undefined. Could they include industrial actions or large scale climate change protest actions?
There are very worrying implications in a Bill being considered in Federal Parliament.
It is called the “Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of Defence Force response to Emergencies) Bill, 2020”.
Clause 123AA:
(4) The Chief of the Defence Force, or the Secretary, may, in writing, authorise a person, or each person in a class of persons, to perform duties in respect of the provision of assistance mentioned in subsection (1), if the person, or each person in the class of persons, is any of the following:
(a) an APS employee or other employee of the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority or agency;
(b) a member of the naval, military or air force of a foreign country, or a member of a foreign police force (however described).
Assistance is described as follows in clause (1) of 123AA:
(b) the assistance is provided to prepare for a natural disaster or other emergency that is imminent, or to respond to one that is occurring or recover from one that occurred recently; and
(c) the assistance is provided at the direction of the Minister under subsection (2).
It enables the ADF and Reserves to be used in “emergencies” but “emergencies” is undefined.
Bush fire assistance is one emergency which might be justified but could certain so-called “disruptive” industrial actions or “disruptive” mass climate change protests be considered “emergencies”?
These are legitimate actions in our democracy but being confronted or suppressed by the Defence Forces or Reserves would not be a legitimate use of these Forces in a healthy democracy.
One wonders whether the government preparing for a militarised response to climate breakdown.
Further the legislation includes the use of foreign military forces and foreign police to assist in “emergencies”. Surely we Australians are, with appropriate resources and organisation, capable of addressing emergencies without the need for foreign troops or foreign police. And we certainly don’t want these foreign forces confronting and suppressing legitimate protest actions by Australian citizens.
In addition the legislation provide immunity from civil or criminal prosecution to the defence forces including foreign military, for their actions in these “emergencies”.
Clause 123AA:
- A protected person (see subsection (3)) is not subject to any liability (whether civil or criminal) in respect of anything the protected person does or omits to do, in good faith, in the performance or purported performance of the protected person’s duties,….
A protected person is defined under 123AA :
3) Each of the following is a protected person:
(a) a member of the Defence Force;
(b) an APS employee in the Department;
(c) a person authorised under subsection (4) to perform duties in respect of the provision of assistance mentioned in subsection (1).
Foreign military forces and foreign police are included in subsection (1) are so are also provided with immunity from civil and criminal prosecution arising from their actions in performing duties in these “emergencies”.
Our political representatives in Federal Parliament should be urged to halt this legislation until it is closely examined by civil rights and constitutional law experts to ensure our civil and democratic rights are not under threat or our sovereignty compromised by this legislation.
(Bevan Ramsden is a long time peace activist and a NSW representative on the National Coordinating Committee of IPAN, the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network)
Bevan Ramsden is a former telecommunications engineer, TAFE teacher and member of the NSW Teachers Federation. He is a long-time peace activist and advocates for Australia’s independence. He is a former member of the coordinating committee of the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network) IPAN) and current editor of its monthly e-publication, Voice.
Comments
6 responses to “A Bill to enable use of foreign troops or foreign police in Australian “emergencies””
Mr Ramsden: thanks – the Bill has hardly been advertised.
That, and the Bill itself, is no surprise, the ideas basically being flagged since January when the Prime Minister was abused for not declaring a ‘climate emergency’ – with almost no one in the chorus giving any thought to what the consequences – in terms of powers to act unilaterally – of such a declaration might be..
More recently it was reported the Government would introduce this type of legislation, but only after the Natural Disasters Royal Commission report was made. Some background and recent history is at https://www.thejadebeagle.com/tinpot-update.html. Note the Commission made a big thing out of potential liability of Commonwealth officials in disasters. Typical for these power hungry Government graspers, they couldn’t wait for a report – perhaps because the Commission’s discussion papers cast doubt on the legality of the scheme proposed..
Others know lots more about the Constitution, but my understanding is: Commonwealth Government (and legislative) competence is limited for emergencies basically to: defend its property, laws and the Constitution. This is in addition to its specified powers eg. trade and commerce, defence against external threats. Until recently, general protection of life and property may not have been a basis, but anti-terror laws being held valid may have breached that threshold somewhat.
I think the most concerning thing is the current abuse of power at the apparent behest of some State Premiers.in the name of dealing with Covid will set low benchmarks, and expectations, for Commonwealth actions in emergencies. https://www.thejadebeagle.com/covid—july-2020.html Coupled with an increasingly powerful argument for greater Commonwealth emergency roles – arising from the cynicism, crassness and mess created by States such as Queensland – this spells big and enduring trouble.
What amazes me is the failure of the Opposition to mount the argument: no more Commonwealth (Government) power until the responsibilities already assigned to it e.g. quarantine, legal testing of State border closures – are competently exercised. Inexcusable in my book..
Thanks again
We are currently in a national state of emergency that was declared on 18 March 2020 under the Biosecurity Act and then extended through to 17 December 2020. This proclaimed need for this legislation suggests that the use of ADF forces in dealing with that emergency does not provide coverage for current actions by the ADF. In itself, that is perhaps a further indication, if any were needed, that the hotpotch of arrangements between the Federal and State authorities over pandemic and quarantine arrangements needs a lot of work. With the involvement of multiple government authorities at both Federal and State levels it is not really surprising that decisions on the division of responsibilities amongst these authorities has had potential for disaster or near-disaster, whether that involved cruise ships or hotel quarantines. In particular, the unwillingness of Federal government to take up its constitutional powers and responsibilities (Section 51(ix)) while covertly second-guessing State authorities looks more and more like an abdication of health care in favour of economic progress and the saving of a few million dollars in a Federal budget. For example, do we need a CDC? Looks like it.
Oh-oh! When living in Japan early years of this century a law was passed turning every civilian airport into a US -controlled airbase – in the event of conflict with NKorea/China. The Japanese did not learn about this until some time afterwards (as is the way of the armtwisting “friendship” the Japanese “enjoy” with the US. Living a mere six kms from one such airport – I did not feel especially safe – each time the US ramped up its own rhetoric against the paranoia they suffer from – while at the same “volunteering” the Japanese government to step forward to take most of the glare! As for personnel in this proposal above being protected from prosecution for any negative outcomes – this is the same extraterritoriality long imposed by the US on its “colonies” – ie. those forced to host US bases (like Australia with the so-called rotational marine base on the edge of Darwin. This is one part of any agreement which must at once be thrown out – whether Australian or Foreign (i.e. read – the US)! Give it the boot!
As for extending powers and coverage to foreign troops: WHAT?
The Chinese government wouldn’t allow foreign troops or police onto its soil no matter how great the emergency. Surely our civil and democratic rights are better than China’s?
Democracy and Human Rights really are being eroded in Aus.