In a state like Queensland, there are very close controls on police abuses of power because of the legacy of the Fitzgerald Inquiry. Even then, a populist police minister and bureaucratic infighting have loosened the reigns, but the understanding of the need for scrutiny, accountability and protections for the liberty of citizens is strong. The AFP, by contrast, has little oversight.
The Federal government is increasingly reaching into more and more areas of state responsibility (coming soon to an underfunded hospital near you?). It’s the level of government which because in the past its actual scope to regulate criminal law and the daily lives of citizens has been quite restricted and because of its minimal role in service delivery as opposed to policy formulation lacks many of the restraints and checks and balances built up over time in State legal systems and political culture. That’s particularly the case at the moment with a government controlled Senate. As discussed at Hoyden and Surfdom unprecedented new legislation will be brought before the Parliament allowing secret searches of individuals’ homes, monitoring of communications and police deception where there is suspicion of any federal offence attracting a sentence of more than ten years. There is basically no judicial oversight. This will all end in tears, and the experience of massive politicisation of the police and rampant abuse of power and corruption in Joh’s Queensland should give people pause for thought before they loudly cheer “but the police say it’s necessary to catch bad guys”! We are tearing up our common law traditions and legal liberalism in this country, and a craven opposition vowing not to be wedged isn’t helping in the slightest.
Constitutional law Professor George Williams argues the necessity for strong protection of human rights in the case of terrorism laws (which is not inconsistent with support for appropriate terrorism laws), and points out that such protections exist in the UK because of the EU Charter of Rights. We’ve been told repeatedly by John Howard and learned Doctors of Law such as Janet Albrechtsen that we have no need of a bill of rights because parliament and the courts will protect citizens from abuses of power. Now that the Commonwealth parliament seeks to oust judicial review and increase police powers in areas outside terrorism, that argument is becoming even more threadbare and useless. Somebody should remind them of Lord Acton’s dictum about power.
The government’s behaviour over recent weeks seems to be more and more of a gamble that they can carry the security-seekers with them to the polls in greater numbers than will be carried by indignation against the threat to civil liberties.
I might take that bet for a place. Not for a win.
Don’t you love this defence from Dolly.
“You know how it is. If people get killed everyone will want to know why we didn’t have tougher laws to stop attacks happening,” he told Southern Cross Broadcasting.
“Now, the laws we have and the work that’s been done by the federal police and our intelligence agencies and some of the state police forces up until now have protected us from terrorism, at least within Australia.
“But we need to listen to them (the police and intelligence agencies).
“If they wany more powers, they need more scope to investigate terrorism or alleged terrorist activities, well we need to listen to them and then in the end the parliament will have to make a judgment about whether laws should be changed or not.”
I think thnis legislation is more about covering Keelty’s arse than stopping Terrorists.
In related news, the CCC here in WA are investigating the Botched murder investigation of Pamela Lawrence, which saw Andrew Mallard being wrongfully imprisoned for 12 years.
Imagine if these laws were around then ?
http://blogs.news.com.au/perthnow/mallard/index.php/perthnow/C602
Mark:
You are right about many Queenslanders being alert, in recent years, to potential or actual abuses of police powers.
There MUST be independent oversight of how the AFP’s police powers are exercised …. but that oversight must not hinder normal day-to-day policing. What’s more, the overight must be constant, consistent, informed, trustworthy, confidential, relevant and utterly impartial; the oversight must be there 24/7.
A model worth thinking about is that of the old Cane Prices Board in the Queensland sugar industry, where government check chemists were present on every shift in every mill laboratory where they took random samples from each batch of samples taken for farmers’ payment. Because they were a constant unobtrusive presence and were so completely impartial, they were seen as being as much a help for the mill company or co-operative as for the individual farmers and thus were trusted by all.
Officers of an independent organization unobtrusively present at every interrogation, detention and investigation would do much to keep things on track. Mistakes would still occur but fewer than at present — and political interference in an investigation would become rather difficult.
Downer’s argument is simplistic and stupid but effective to the unaware. It is similar to the better safe than sorry argument.
Better we lock even remotely suspicious people up then kick them out regardless. This sort of argument if applied to daily life means dont go out the front door, never let your kids out etc…better to be safe than sorry.
Downer is really saying that in order for the Police to protect everyone’s liberty, freedom and human rights we need to take them away. The more we take away the more we can protect them. So – if you give up all your human rights then we can really protect you.
This is how terrorists win, not by blowing things up, but by over the top knee jerk reactions by governments that cut civil liberties. By creating a climate of fear, suspicion and reduced rights the terrorists win. A mature approach by government and society would keep civil rights.
Independant Judicial oversight must always be a part of the system.
Only despotic and authoritarian regeims go in for secretive policing and justice and punishment. This is the way this is heading and Lo, who is our PM? Say no more.
We have to remember also that under Downers watch Habib got rendered to Egypt and tortured [all finger nails were pulled out etc] and the Australian security services knew [Downer says he had no knowledge, like the AWB fiasco]. Downer seemed not to care about this episode even when the USA security services put Australian services right in it.
So Downer is not big on civil liberties – probably he would like them grovelling and eating dirt. To a lot of Howard’s ministers Civil Liberties is simply a dirty word. Gee… I wonder how Australia will look after another 3 years of Howard?
Mark:
What opposition? This is why I keep referring to Australia as having one-faction-two-parties.
Frank Calabrese:
So Downer and his pals shout to the whole world that they haven’t got a clue about the difference between toughness and bullying. Anyone who seriously believes that fairy-tale about a trade-off of security against liberty really is a simpleton.
This is on top of all the Howard regime’s thrashing and smashing in the past few weeks that has ensured that several thousand Australians are now susceptible to recruitment by al Qaeda and its associates. What’s their next trick in the War On Terrorism?.
Kina:
Agree.
Another 3 years? Recolonization. Military occupation with several powers protecting their own nation’s assets. Widespread poverty and shortages. Stagnant economy with very low unreliable wages and inflation – possibly hyperinflation. Severe restrictions on every aspect of daily life. Collapse of essential services. Uncontrolled crime. Armed conflict by gangs and militias. And fear – continual numbing fear.
Good to see the ALP speaking out against these new laws.
“They go beyond what we think is fair,” Mr Bevis said. “It clearly needs to be changed and Labor will be moving amendments.”
The warrants allow police to secretly search a residence or building, plant listening devices and scour computer and communications records for six months without telling the affected person. That period can be extended, potentially indefinitely.
Mr Bevis said such powers must be restricted to serious terrorism or organised crime investigations, not the offences envisaged by the Government. A sunset clause should also be introduced.
Expect the usual line from the Govt acusing the ALP of supporting Terrorism etc.
In case you missed the Frontline program ‘Spying on the Home Front’ last night (Cutting Edge, SBS), you need to check it out…it can be viewed at:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/view/
wedge, wedge, wedge, wedge
Aborignal Affairs, Hospitals, School Bus Seatbelts
now the various principal associations (well known as liberal party fronts) talking about currciulum.
wait for Julies takeover plans.
Already she is ‘surveying’ Principals about ‘autonomy’…
as for Hannef
ALP ‘non reaction’ reaction is perfect politically. Morally tho…
the general lack of reaction from Rudd on howards power grabs is also probally ok to. ie ‘Just pork barrelling’, which it is.
Let howard and the states fight it out for the ugly stuff, leaving Ruddster to be positive.
Will the Nationals stand for a centrist power grab tho?
Nasking:
That program “Spying on the Home Front” on SBS was indeed enlightening.
This was the only brilliant move ever made by America’s ruler, George II The Ruiner.
Stalin, the Cheka and the NKVD would all be proud of what he has done – at the stroke of the pen, he turned EVERYBODY in the United States – except those in his own inner circle – into suspects. Never mind the Declaration of Independence, the Bill Of Rights, the U.S. Constitution, you are automatically a criminal or a terrorist. If you can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are not, well, that doesn’t matter because you might be thinking of becoming one.
….and we’re next ….
I AM THE ORACLE!!
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22180822-601,00.html