Secret Police State

'...it helps if the politicians and bureaucrats are watched, carefully, closely, constantly, by a print and electronic media always anxious to hold them to account. Because there are always politicians and public servants willing to indulge in a legislative sleight of hand intended to make their jobs easier. This is certainly what appears to be happening with elements of the proposed terror laws. Certainly, the very real risk of terror attack justifies allowing police the power to detain and hold terror suspects for 14 days without charge. But there are other aspects of the proposed laws, which Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has bundled with public safety measures, that appear to grossly infringe our rights. For a start, the legislation includes updated provisions on the ancient offence of sedition. There has been a great deal of guff talked about the risk of critics of government policy being slammed in the stocks under this law. But there is a vast difference between criticising the government for deploying Australian troops in Iraq and calling for the violent overthrow of the commonwealth because of the policy. Mr Ruddock appears to intend the latter, not the former, to be caught by the law. However, he also says the sedition section of the legislation can be amended. Then why not wait and get it right the first go? Once government's have legislation enacted into law they lose interest in amendments.

But other powers the Government wants even more will give it the ability to censor the press. Mr Ruddock wants to be able to stop the media reporting on arrests and detentions in terror cases. There may be occasions when this is justified because an operation is under way, but to create a blanket prohibition, enforced by prison sentences if breached, is a conscious and deliberate attempt to muzzle the press. So is the proposal to give the Australian Federal Police power to demand documents, which may help with investigation of a serious non-terrorist offence. This exceeds the existing authority available to ASIO. Even more extraordinary, it will also be an offence for the news media to report that the AFP has made these demands, with prison sentences possible for any journalists who defies the police. This extraordinary assault on the free flow of information in the community appears to contradict the Government's position on another issue involving journalists reporting information that embarrasses powerful people. In a Melbourne court case, two journalists have refused to identify their source of leaked government information, running the risk under existing laws of going to jail. But commonwealth Solicitor-General David Bennett says the federal Government plans laws to protect journalists from identifying their sources. But with the terror laws on the way, why he is bothering is a puzzle.

Because the terror legislation will make it easy to use the law to to threaten journalists. The legislation will give the AFP an ability to stop the media reporting things politicians and officials do not want us to know. It is exactly the sort of grab for power the community expects the media to tell them about. And rightly so. It is the job of the press to report injustice. But this brazen grab for power will make this much, much more difficult. No matter how innocent Mr Ruddock's intent, this legislation gives the AFP power to secretly direct journalists, and prosecute those who do not obey. It is hard to imagine a more subtle way to silence the press so the government can ensure all of us know only what ministers and officials want us to know on any issue they like. It is the sort of thing that happens in a police state