September 2005
NOTICE OF CONTENTS Page ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF THE NSWCCL Hitlist 3 NEW SOUTH WALES COUNCIL FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES INC. Speakers’ Corner 5 Dr Alison Broinowski To be held at 6.00 pm on Wednesday 26 October 2005 at the Lady Mayoress’ Room, Reports 7 Sydney Town Hall, George Street, Sydney.
Q & A A nomination form is enclosed for all those Donna Lieberman 13 NSWCCL members wishing to nominate Tony Kevin 16 for a position on the NSWCCL Committee for 2005/2006. Activities 19 All motions on notice for consideration at Comment 23 the AGM must be received by NSWCCL office no later than 3 October 2005.
Reviews 29
Print Post Approved PP/24359/00069 Bill of Rights Watch 31 CIVIL LIBERTY Journal of the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties Inc.
postal address: PO Box 201 GLEBE NSW 2037 telephone: 02 9660 7582 fax: 02 9566 4162 email: [email protected] website: www.nswccl.org.au
COMMITTEES 2004–2005 COMMITTEE MEETINGS Meetings are usually held at 6.30pm on the Executive fourth Wednesday of the month, at the Cameron Murphy President Council’s office, 149 St Johns Rd, Glebe. David Bernie Vice President Members are welcome to attend as observers. Pauline Wright Vice President Stephen Blanks Secretary David Leung Treasurer SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS Aaron Magner Assistant Secretary Subcommittees usually meet monthly. For Michael Walton Committee Rep further information, please contact the Executive Secretary who can put you in contact with the relevant convenor. Committee Fundraising/Finance Jeremy Adair Convenor: David Leung Martin Bibby Ken Buckley Civil Rights Matcham Caine Convenor: Doug Nicholson Susan Cleary Criminal Justice Kep Enderby Convenor: Michael Walton Leah Friedman Mark Hanna Complaints Michael Kennedy Convenor: Michael Kennedy Joan Kersey Publications Rita Mallia Convenor: Jeremy Adair Frances McGowan Doug Nicholson Legal Panel Kevin O’Rourke Convenor: Stephen Blanks Barri Phatarford ICCPR Shadow Report Convenor: Michael Walton Marketing Susan Smith Executive Secretary Convenor: Pauline Wright Australian Prisoners Abroad Convenor: Kevin O’Rourke
J.C. Cheadle Honorary Auditor Views expressed in this journal are not W.L.Browne & Associates necessarily those of the editor or of the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties Inc. Jeremy Adair Editor David Leung Designer Copyright © New South Wales Council for Vince O’Farrell, Cartoons Civil Liberties Inc. Sydney. All rights The Illawarra Mercury reserved. September 2005 Civil Liberty
The following are activities in which NSWCCL have recently been or are currently involved in. For more information, read the relevant subcommittee reports further in the journal, or contact the NSWCCL office ([email protected] & tel: 02 9960 7582) or log on to the NSWCCL website at: www.nswccl.org.au
1 Court victory: Court directs the acquittal of a student accused of aiding and abetting an escaped asylum seeker to obtain a false passport. See Legal Panel report later in the journal. 2 Surveillance and Privacy: NSWCCL appeared before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee on 15 June 2005 in relation to the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Telecommunications Interception and Other Measures) Bill 2005. The transcript is at: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/committee/S8384.pdf 3 Submission: to the Review of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) questioning and detention Powers. 4 Drug offences: NSWCCL to make submissions to an inquiry into the provisions of the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Serious Drug Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2005. 5 Death Penalty: NSWCCL organized a forum, Capital Punishment and Contemporary Issues, held in Canberra on 20 June. 6 Death Penalty: formulating a draft federal Bill to adopt the Second Optional Protocol into domestic law. Australia is a signatory to the Second Optional Protocol, a United Nations treaty which promotes the elimination of the death penalty. 7 Submission: made to Australian Bureau of Statistics in relation to the Census Longitudinal Dataset proposal. Submission is available on NSWCCL website: www.nswccl.org.au 8 Attorney‐General’s NGO Human Rights Forum: NSWCCL attended forum on 17 June. 9 Mental Health Conditions in Detention: NSWCCL members met with concerned psychiatrists on 1 June 2005 in regards to government liability for mental health issues in detention and agreed to act in suitable legal proceedings. 10 ICCPR Subcommittee: preparing shadow report to the UN Human Rights Committee under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. See subcommittee report later in the journal. 11 Australian Prisoners Abroad: Subcommittee established to look into the interests of Australians imprisoned overseas. For more information, see subcommittee report later in the journal. 12 National Meeting of Councils for Civil Liberties: took place on the 25–26 June 2005. For more information, see report later in the journal. 13 International Campaign Against Mass Surveillance (ICAMS): NSWCCL working on local submission. See report later in the journal. 14 Safety Committee for CCTV: Sydney City Council invites NSWCCL to sit on the committee auditing the use of the CCTV surveillance in Sydney CBD. 15 Smart technologies forum conducted by Department of Human Services: NSWCCL represented at forum on 27 July, by invitation of the Privacy Commissioner. Follow up meetings also attended. 16 Sniffer Dogs: NSWCCL to address Club Health 2005, a conference organized by The National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, on sniffer dogs and their impact on night‐clubbers. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you,then they fight you, then you win. – Mahatma Gandhi
3 Civil Liberty September 2005
NSWCCL is becoming increasingly busy as time goes by. While addressing new laws on both the state and federal level, the Council has its work cut out. With the withdrawal of federal funding a few years ago, NSWCCL has been forced to stand on its own two feet. In considering a number of options, steps have been taken to address the financial shortfall through establishing a marketing subcommittee. Two other new subcommittees are now in place with an international flavour. The ICCPR subcommittee and Australian Prisoners Abroad. Details of which can found in this issue below. It is worth noting to all members that NSWCCL has a new email address that is a little easier to remember. It is
Annual General Meeting 2005 Motion on Notice (deferred from 2004 AGM) Motion: That the members are in favour of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties borrowing an amount determined by the Executive Committee up to a maximum of $100,000 secured by a mortgage over its property at Glebe in order to meet the expenses of the activities of the Council. Background information (to AGM 2004): The Council's expenses over the last few years have not been covered by its income, and as a result the cash reserves of the Council presently stand at around $40,000, down from over $100,000 a few years ago. The Council's annual expenses run at about $50,000 per annum, and the committee's view is that these cannot be significantly cut without seriously impacting on the extent of the Council's activities. The Council has a major asset in its building, which is worth over $700,000. The Council's finances have been impacted by the withdrawal some years ago of funding from the Commonwealth Government, which used to be around $12,000 per annum, and the fact that no major fundraising events have been undertaken or are in contemplation. The Committee has sought to raise funds through letters seeking donations from members and others, but these have not had a major impact to date. The Committee considers it prudent to canvas the views of the membership as to the funding of the Council's activities. The Committee has considered options involving the sale of the Glebe property, but is not in favour of those options. The Committee considers the proposal of borrowing against the security of the property to be the most desirable option at this stage, and seeks the approval of the members of this position.
JOURNAL DEADLINE DATES
Material Deadline: 4th November 2005 If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for We may not be able to accept people we despise, we documents that are not sent on disk or don’t believe in it at by email attachment. Digital images will be accepted. all. - Noam Chomsky Articles: 1000–2000 words, reviews 500 words and letters 200–300 words.
4 September 2005 Civil Liberty
The Third Try: Can the UN Work? by Dr Alison Broinowski
On Friday 20 May 2005, Dr Alison Broinowski addressed a NSWCCL fundraising lunch at Parliament House in Sydney. A former Australian diplomat, Dr Broinowski has worked in Japan, the Philippines, Jordan, and New York (UN) and has written or edited eight books on aspects of the interface between Australia and Asia. She is a visiting fellow at ANU and UNSW. Her forthcoming book, with James Wilkinson, is ‘The Third Try: Can the UN Work?’ The following is a summary of her speech.
This being 2005, it is the 60th birthday of the United Nations. This year, we will hear more than usual from the friends and enemies of the UN; from people who want to go on with the organization we have; from people who would like to see the international organization done away with; and from people who want to replace it with something else. One thing on which everyone is agreed is that the UN could work better. There is much less agreement on how to make sure it does. When Japan was a poor country it was customary for old people, particularly women over 60, who could no longer work, to be taken up a mountain above the snow line and wait to die, in order to relieve the community of the burden of feeding them. The mountain was called Obatsuteruyama, literally, the mountain for throwing away grandma. Some leading Americans seem to want to take the 60 year‐old UN up the New York equivalent of Obatsuteruyama and leave it to die. Richard Perle, a close adviser of President Bush, wrote an article in 2003 at the time of the invasion of Iraq, in which he thanked God for the death of the United Nations, calling the UN headquarters ‘the chatterbox on the Hudson’. (In fact, it’s on the East River). John Bolton, a senior US diplomat, said that if ten floors were taken off the building it would make no difference. He also said that there should be only one member of the UN Security Council: the US. Mr Bolton is President Bush’s nominee as US Permanent Representative to the UN. Our own Foreign Minister, at the time when the Security Council refused to approve the invasion of Iraq, said the UN was dysfunctional and irrelevant. Since 1998, when the UN human rights committees began making negative reports about Australia’s record on indigenous people, migrants, and detainees, our Ministers have taken to insulting the UN, criticizing Its representatives, loudly demanding reform of the human rights system, and refusing to support even measures we helped draft, like the Optional Protocols on Torture and on Discrimination against Women, and the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases. People at the UN who know what a strong supporter Australia used to be are startled by our recent behaviour. The Prime Minister said, in response to a critical report on Australia’s human rights performance I mean in the end we are not told what to do by anybody. We make our own moral judgments…Iʹm not going to cop this countryʹs human rights name being tarnished in the context of any domestic political argument...Traditionally these matters are the prerogative of states. In fact, they are the prerogative of the UN, and have been ever since Australia and the other founding member states signed the UN Charter in 1945 and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in 1948. Knocking the UN is not new, and Americans are not the only people who love to do it. There are plenty of sarcastic jokes about the UN, in many languages. ‘How many people work at UN headquarters? Oh,
5 Civil Liberty September 2005 about half’. Brian Urquhart, a long‐serving Deputy Secretary General, once wrote a rhyme in a moment of boredom: We are the awesome organ, a wondrous sight to see We won’t unite, we cannot vote, what bloody use are we? Certainly, there are plenty of things to knock about the UN: its undemocratic structure, ponderous inefficiency, double standards, and even cases of corruption and abuse of human rights. The UN should behave better than its members, but the UN is only as good as its members agree to make it. A few rich and powerful countries control it, and they say in effect, to the rest, do as we say and we’ll do as we like. If they refuse the UN power, starve it of funds, promise it resources they don’t deliver, use it as a feed lot for fattening their own picked people, and won’t agree to proposals to change it, whose fault is it that the UN fails to live up to the world’s expectations? It is worth recalling what the Charter in 1945 said were the UN’s three basic objectives: • To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war – that means peace • To reaffirm faith and fundamental human rights – that means justice for all • To promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom – that means economic, social, and cultural development. What is wrong with that? Does anything there justify throwing the UN away? Even if the UN at 60 hasn’t got rid of wars, they are fewer and shorter and smaller than in 1945; even if it hasn’t delivered justice to all, there are more democracies and more protection of human rights now than in 1945; and even if poverty and illiteracy and disease haven’t been eliminated, the world is closer to that now than in 1945. The US is, for now, the world’s only superpower, and Americans have a long history of wanting one rule for themselves and another for everyone else. It is not surprising that it is often the UN, rickety old grandma that it is, that stands in the way of what the US wants to do. And then, when things go wrong, they demand the UN fix up the mess. When they and others on the Security Council fail to properly supervise the Oil for Food program in Iraq, they blame the Secretary‐General. Next year, the US will decide who succeeds him, and by punishing Kofi Annan for saying the invasion of Iraq was illegal, they are warning his successor what happens to those who cross them. And the US pays 21 per cent of the UN’s budget: when it pays. Australia has no such influence. We have much to gain from the international system, but only if we show ourselves to be constructive members. Behaving like a mini‐US by dishonouring our treaty obligations, by threatening pre‐emptive strikes against our neighbours, and by cutting back our contributions to the international system will leave us isolated. When we need the UN to do things for us in the future, our credibility won’t be great. It has already sunk so low that Alexander Downer, having announced that Australia would stand for the Security Council in 2006, last year quietly withdrew, to avoid a second embarrassing defeat. And our unilateralist US ally, with the UN‐basher Bolton as its Ambassador, won’t be a great asset to us in the UN. If Australia wants to be independently influential in a globalised world – and we have much to gain from that – we have no option but to work through the UN internationally and through the East Asia forum regionally. We should be wishing grandma UN, at 60, many happier returns, not joining those who want to let her freeze to death. © 2005 Alison Broinowski
6 September 2005 Civil Liberty
relation to the HIC Medicare Smartcard proposal. 3. HIC Medicare Smartcard project The Federal Department of Human Resources is holding consultative meetings with privacy and community organisations in relation to the so‐ called HIC Medicare Smartcard project. Secretary’s Report This is a project involving 14 federal government departments to develop a ‘whole of government’ 1. Australian Bureau of Statistics—Census identity card. The proposal has been developed Data Enhancement Project separately from the National ID card proposal, NSWCCL made detailed submissions to the which has recently received much publicity. Australian Bureau of Statistics on the Census The proposal raises many of the concerns which Data Enhancement Project opposing the a National ID card would raise. proposed project on the grounds that it would, over time, gravely compromise the essential The next event was a forum conducted by the anonymity of census data. Federal Privacy Commissioner on 31 August 2005. NSWCCL was represented. NSWCCL’s submission received significant exposure in the Australian Financial Review on 11 4. National ID Card July 2005, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics It would appear that in the wake of the London announced on 19 August 2005 that as a result of terrorist attacks, the National ID card is on the the concerns raised by community groups national agenda again. including the NSWCCL, it will be proceeding NSWCCL campaigned extensively against the with a substantially modified proposal for data proposal when it was last raised in the 1980s. I matching from one census to the next. The have pulled out the archive, which includes proposal to be adopted will not involve data letters from most Liberal and National Party matching using name or address, will be MPs stating that they would never ever support restricted to a 5% population sample, and will a National ID card. commence with the 2006 and 2011 censuses. 2. Intern from New York Assistance with campaign efforts on this subject would be appreciated. Contact can be made Michael Okoye, a law student from New York, through the NSWCCL office at: has completed a 10‐week internship with [email protected] and tel: 02 9660 7582. NSWCCL. His activities included: Stephen Blanks • regular visits to Villawood Immigration Secretary Detention Centre, in particular to assist with cases involving detainees of Chinese origin; • assisting with the writing of a submission to the Victorian government on the Bill of Australian Prisoners Abroad Rights proposal in Victoria; • attending the Australian Parliament ‘Australian Prisoners Abroad’ is a new Cross Party Death Penalty Working subcommittee formed in response to the Group function in Canberra in June 2005; increasing number of Australians being arrested and and imprisoned in foreign countries. NSWCCL • participating in meetings with the has much to contribute in this area, not least Federal Human Resources Department in because we were active in bringing about the first Prisoner Transfer Treaty to which Australia
7 Civil Liberty September 2005 is a party, being the treaty with Thailand. This treaty is to serve as the model for negotiations Civil Rights Subcommittee with Indonesia, which is highly relevant given the well‐publicised plight of Schapelle Corby Recommendations were placed in front of the and the Bali Nine. NSWCCL Committee for policies to be adopted requiring the request on a driving license to The subcommittee held its first meeting on 16 make available body parts for use in medical June 2005. There are numerous civil liberties transplants to be honoured, and for a policy of issues at stake: the fairness of overseas trials and containing the current panic about the sexual the pre‐trial process; the role of the Australian abuse of children to the extent that the normal Federal Police in liaising with their overseas rules of evidence and the rights of any person counterparts, especially in jurisdictions where accused are respected, and that a criminal the death penalty applies; and the role of the prosecution had to demonstrate real harm to a Australian government generally in upholding child or children. the rights and liberties of its citizens, wherever they might be located. The body parts recommendation was adopted by the committee. The sexual abuse of children The subcommittee proposes to take an active recommendation was accepted in principle but stand on these issues and, importantly, to referred back to the subcommittee for attention provide practical assistance to Australian to some details. prisoners abroad, as we did several years ago with Australians serving time in the notorious Work in the subcommittee continues on Bangkok Hilton. Two of those prisoners are now developing a consistent policy towards laws serving their time in an Australian jail much dealing with the use of recreational drugs. closer to their families. Doug Nicholson The new subcommittee has accepted its first Convener challenge and has agreed to act for 16‐year‐old Gordon Vuong, who was recently sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment in Cambodia for drug offences. So far as we are aware, Gordon is the only Australian juvenile serving time in a Complaints Subcommittee foreign jail, and his age alone should provide cause for the Australian government to act quickly. Gordon is sharing a cell with 27 others, An opinion‐led personal report by convenor including those convicted of murder and rape. It Once again, there is not a specific list regarding is difficult to comprehend how a 16‐year‐old how many complaints we have received and boy, who last year was a Year 10 student in have assisted with. However, there is still a Sydney, could be coping in an environment like steady flow of complaints regarding a broad this so far from home. range of issues. The complaints that have taken In respect of more high profile matters, the up the most of my time have been those dealing subcommittee has forwarded letters of support with court proceedings and the re‐location of sex together with offers of assistance to Schapelle offenders. Corby and the Bali Nine via the Australian NSWCCL is such a broad‐based organisation, Consulate in Indonesia. that the liberal view regarding sex offenders Kevin O’Rourke ranges from a libertarian or relativist position, to Convenor a position that only requires the treatment of offenders to fall within the rule of law. The difficulty in dealing with complaints in this area is that the concept of social exclusion that is 8 September 2005 Civil Liberty recognised by many liberal progressives, seems the complainant that should they ever require to carry with it the notion that the real problem the services of NSWCCL, I would be more than is one of an inadequate management of society. happy to assist them regardless of the This problem is again amplified for NSWCCL circumstances. To date, the return responses members because the broader public seems to have been extremely positive, except for one think that we all agree with each other on these individual who apparently lives in North issues. In reality, nothing could be further from Queensland and wants to bring back the death the truth. penalty. Should this ever occur, I have not, to date, offered to assist this North Queenslander if As the membership of NSWCCL seems to he is threatened by this draconian punishment. embrace the middle political ground, we are also embracing simplistic, cultural and fragmented Members, these days I am a lecturer at the standpoints that are sanitising some issues of University of Western Sydney. In essence, I am a deviancy in order that we appear liberal and Marxist and as such do not support many of the sophisticated. ‘progressive’ concepts of liberalism. However, I try not to use a moral standard when dealing I have been dealing with many of the complaints with the complaints that are received at re: sex offenders and paedophilia in the NSWCCL. I would ask all members to embrace a following manner: I concede that living next more tolerant standpoint regarding the states door to a relocated sex offender would likely not low‐levelled functionaries such as teachers, be my ideal choice of a neighbour. Having said nurses, police and prison officers. We should that, I point out that once individuals have instead begin to focus our attention on the layers served their sentence they are entitled to be of power that shape our society but seem to released and get on with their lives. In order to escape any significant levels of scrutiny. do this, they are entitled to employment and privacy. Usually I receive a reply almost Michael Kennedy immediately; and more often than not, it is quite Convenor offensive. I am referred to as a privileged bleeding heart liberal, who has no idea of what it is like to be subjected to the attention of criminals, in particular sex offenders. Criminal Justice Subcommittee I do not take offence and I give an almost standard reply. I explain that I don’t agree with The federal government has continued to everything that Cameron Murphy, our President, expand the frontiers of federal criminal law over has to say on the matter but, after all, it is his job the last few months. The newest federal criminal to give us a profile. I then point out that I grew offences prohibit the possession, obtaining or up in an orphanage with my three sisters and distribution of material that directly (or have a fairly good idea of what it is like to be indirectly) counsels or incites suicide or subjected to cruel and brutal treatment by promotes (or provides instruction on) a criminals. The most convincing part of my particular method of committing suicide. The argument is when I explain that for almost Bill is really aimed at restricting the activities of twenty years I was a detective in the NSW Police euthanasia campaigners, especially Dr Philip and I specialised in sexual assault and child Nitschke and his organisation Exit International. abuse investigations, where the victims ranged In fact, it might even be a criminal offence to from prostitutes to innocent children. I mention that Exit International has a website, investigated matters where offenders were which you can visit at sentenced to lengthy periods in gaol. I have also
In New South Wales, the new Premier has not Australia ratified the International Covenant on shown his hand on whether he will follow Bob Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in August 1980. Carr’s example of using law and order as a vote The ICCPR is one of the five UN human rights winner. Certainly, the Opposition has been quick treaties that make up the International Bill of to signal that it is still in the business of law and Human Rights. order auctions, promising to introduce majority The International Bill of Human Rights jury verdicts in criminal trials. • Universal Declaration of Human Rights Prior to the resignation of Mr Carr, the NSW (1948) Parliament rushed through legislation to allow • International Covenant on Economic, Social police to seek and execute “covert search and Cultural Rights (1966) warrants”. The warrants allow police to enter • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) premises when no one is there. The warrants • Optional Protocol to the International will inevitably lead to allegations of police Covenant on Civil and Political Rights planting or tampering with evidence. Given the • Second Optional Protocol to the vast numbers of police officers, video cameras, International Covenant on Civil and Political police cars, explosives sniffer dogs and other Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death paraphernalia, it is hard to imagine how a penalty source: http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/ ‘covert search warrant’ could be executed without the whole neighbourhood knowing. So, One of Australia’s obligations under the ICCPR for good measure, it is now also a criminal is to send to the UN Human Rights Committee a offence for neighbours to inform the occupiers report on how Australia is conforming to its that their house was searched by police. There obligations under the ICCPR. THE UN Human was no community consultation on the issue and Rights Committee requested that Australia send Parliament has once again traded away our civil its Fifth Report under the ICCPR by 31 July 2005. liberties. (Australia missed that deadline and have not indicated when the report will be ready.) 10 September 2005 Civil Liberty
Assuming that the official report is not too late, • refugee/asylum seekers/immigration the Human Rights Committee will probably policy consider Australia’s report in Geneva in October • right to privacy 2006. • terrorism legislation • womenʹs rights The purpose of our subcommittee is to prepare a ‘Shadow Report’ to Australia’s official report The background papers and report cards will be under the ICCPR. NSWCCL’s Shadow Report used to draft the ultimate product of this will offer an alternative view of civil and subcommittee—NSWCCL’s Shadow Report. The political rights in Australia. Assuming that the Shadow Report will be reviewed by a team of official report will be released in 2005, legal experts. NSWCCL will also seek NSWCCL’s Shadow Report will be ready by endorsements from other NSWCCL chapters March 2006. The report will then be presented to and community groups around the country for the UN Human Rights Committee for its the Shadow Report before it is sent to the UN consideration. Human Rights Committee in 2006. The subcommittee consists of twenty If you would like to know more about the enthusiastic volunteers, each of whom is writing subcommittee, or have any ideas on how a background paper on a civil and political NSWCCL should launch the collection of rights issue of their choice. The background background papers and the Shadow Report, you paper examines Australia’s practice in that area can contact the subcommittee at from August 1999 to July 2005 at both the state [email protected]. and federal levels. Australia’s practice is then Michael Walton compared with UN human rights theory. That Convenor analysis will lead to a ‘Report Card’ on Australia’s human rights record over the last six years. As one can imagine, issues like Tampa, mandatory immigration detention, increasing Legal Panel Report prison populations, citizenship, gay marriage and the abolition of ATSIC will loom large in 1. CDPP v Menon these Report Cards. Mr Sunil Menon was charged with aiding and Background papers are being written on the abetting an asylum seeker who had escaped following eighteen topics: from an immigration detention centre in 2001 to • lack of a national Bill of Rights obtain a false Australian passport, which he then • capital punishment used to depart Australia. • childrenʹs rights The DPP’s case relied on circumstantial • citizenship evidence: the asylum seeker had used Mr • criminal law Menon’s Certificate of Australian Citizenship in • disability rights support of the false passport application, and the • euthanasia DPP asserted that the jury could draw an • freedom of movement inference beyond reasonable doubt that Mr • freedom of religion Menon had provided the Certificate to the • freedom of speech and expression asylum seeker. • gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights Before the DPP’s case had even concluded, the • indigenous rights Court directed the jury to enter an acquittal, as • prisoners’ rights there was no evidence on which they could be • racial discrimination in Australia convinced beyond reasonable doubt.
11 Civil Liberty September 2005
Mr Menon said after the acquittal that he was Marketing Subcommittee pleased to be treated as a criminal under the criminal justice system, compared to the type of Following our marketing brainstorm in Balmain legal process which applied to refugees. on 16 April, the marketing subcommittee has been established and, with the generous help of a friendly designer, has come up with a fresh 2. Universal Music and Ors v Sharman new look for NSWCCL, including a new logo Licence Holdings and Ors that will carry through all of our publications, This is a case in which NSWCCL appeared including this journal as well as the NSWCCL amicus curiae (see the previous issue of Civil letterhead and website. Liberty). Judgment is still awaited. Our new information brochure has been written On 27 June 2005 the US Supreme Court has and designed, thanks to the expertise and efforts reversed the appeal level judgment in the of committee member Matcham Caine, and will Grokster litigation. It will be interesting to see be available very shortly both in hard copy and whether this is referred to in the judgment. on the web. Look out for the launch, which will be announced shortly! The new NSWCCL logo 3. Refugee cases will be unveiled at the AGM. Government policy in relation to mandatory The next step is the redesign of the NSWCCL detention has significantly changed, resulting in website, to incorporate the new look and some a number of asylum seekers whom NSWCCL exciting new features. Again, we are grateful for was assisting being released from detention. the generous support of a web designer and an However, many cases are yet to be dealt with. engineer, who have offered their services. A particular issue exists in relation to Falun We hope our activities will lead to increased Gong practitioners and Chinese dissidents, a membership and a higher media profile, both of significant number of whom are in Villawood which will strengthen NSWCCL and support its detention centre. overall objectives. Once the brochures are ready, members can contact the NSWCCL office for brochures to 4. Australian Wool Innovation hand out at functions, meetings and rallies they The case of Australian Wool Innovation Ltd v may attend, to help raise awareness of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals & Ors NSWCCL’s important activities. tests the boundaries of the right to boycott (see If you wish to become involved, the marketing previous issues of Civil Liberty). subcommittee invites any NSWCCL member to NSWCCL has arranged legal representation for participate in the group’s activities, either on the Animal Liberation NSW. committee or in other ways. Please contact the A further strike out application is to be heard by convenor, Pauline Wright or Matcham Caine, the Court on 19 August 2005. through the NSWCCL office: [email protected] and tel: 02 9660 7582. Stephen Blanks Convenor Pauline Wright Convenor
12 September 2005 Civil Liberty
with Donna Lieberman
Donna Lieberman is the Executive Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the New York‐based chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Civil Liberty caught up with her recently at the NYCLU offices.
Civil Liberty: What does the ACLU stand for? Donna Lieberman: The ACLU and the New York Civil Liberties Union are organised around protecting the Bill of Rights and the equality divisions of the United States constitution. Perhaps our core mission can be described as protecting the First Amendment: free speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion. But our core mission also includes defending equality, defending due process of law, fairness, basic principles of justice, principles of privacy and our plate is full these days because the United States government is really on a tear to roll back—in the name of protecting national security—many of the advances that we’ve made in the realm of individual rights and liberties over the past hundred years. CL: Can you tell us about the size and structure of ACLU? DL: Well the ACLU has several hundred thousand members and the New York affiliate has forty‐eight thousand members. Our membership has skyrocketed since 2001 and we have a New York City‐based office and chapters around the state in the main areas. In Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, Nassau‐Suffolk County and Westchester. We also have a regional office in Buffalo. We’re a membership organization and we’re probably most known for our litigation. We do cutting‐edge impact litigation to protect people’s rights and to push the envelope in that regard. And we do policy analysis and advocacy based on our legal analysis, which includes things like the Bill of Rights defence campaign, which we’ve been really in leadership of, here in New York and around the state and around the nation. And it includes public education. We believe that it’s really important for the American people to understand what we’re about, what the government’s about, when it’s right and when it’s wrong. So, making materials, particularly know‐your‐rights materials, so that people understand their rights in the theory that if you don’t get it, then you don’t use it. It is really important. So we do a lot of public education work through our website, through our materials and newsletter and through the media. CL: Do you think these are dark days in the evolution of civil rights? DL: I never thought I would see dark days this dark. Whatever the equivalent is, I guess, of the arctic winter, this is an arctic winter for civil liberties, but for the fact that people are not just rolling over and saying yes. Which is what the President had in mind. The President and his cronies have embarked on a campaign to intimidate the American people into handing over rights and while we have lost a lot and probably continue to lose ground, there is a very, very strong patriotic resistance to the erosion of civil rights and civil liberties. And that manifests itself perhaps most dramatically in the Bill of Rights defence campaigns, which have resulted in an enactment of resolutions in over four hundred communities around the nation. Resolutions, which basically boil down to, you know, “don’t take our rights away in the name of national security”. And even five states have passed such resolutions and while these resolutions don’t have the teeth of an actual law, they are an expression of public sentiment and it’s no
13 Civil Liberty September 2005 accident that a majority of the American people are really opposed to what the Administration has been doing in Iraq and with civil liberties. I think part of the reason for that, aside from the fact that the policies are so egregious, is that people like the ACLU and its affiliates around the nation have been organising and have been insistent on refusing to be marginalised. You know, “we’re not some crackpot, you know, of the far left or far right.” We’re mainstream America and though many people in the ACLU family like to think of ourselves as radicals, in fact we’re quite conservative these days. You know, it’s pretty conservative to say, “Well when you arrest somebody, you’ve got to charge them with a crime and give them a lawyer. You can’t just lock them up and throw away the key.” Which is what the radical right wing that’s running our country now has been doing, as in the case of Jose Pedia and Hamdi—who’s now been released, but there were a couple of cases. And there are others that haven’t come to light I believe. CL: What is your position on whether the US Supreme Court will follow the Canadian Supreme Court and declare that same‐sex marriage is protected by the Bill of Rights? DL: You know, you would think that in a pluralistic society like the United States, that we would be leading the world in recognising the equal rights of all people. Not just the ‘straight’. Laughs Not just the white, but sadly, that hasn’t been the case. The same sex marriages will indeed get up to the United States Supreme Court ultimately. The right wing would have us believe that the backlash cost the Democrats the election. I don’t think that that’s actually been proven or established with any certainty. And I think that it may be that we win the right to same‐sex marriage the first time around, but ultimately we will because American culture is changing. And as gays and lesbians become more and more ‘out’ and more and more accepted because there’s less discrimination—and are recognized by the vibrant leadership roles that this community plays in our society—the resistance will diminish. You know, it wasn’t all that long ago that we legalised marriage between people of different races and it’s almost ludicrous, but it’s painfully true that until 1967 it was against the law for people to marry across racial lines. Hopefully we’ll be looking back twenty‐five years from now and laughing at how ridiculously narrow‐minded we were in the year 2005 when gays and lesbians weren’t allowed to marry each other. CL: Can you bring us up to date on the ACLU anti‐death penalty campaign and whether a national moratorium likely? DL: It’s hard to imagine a nationwide moratorium. The forces of death have taken the White House. But what we’re seeing is two things: we’re seeing that the United States Supreme Court has become increasingly concerned about procedural ‘end runs’ around justice in death penalty cases and is actually reviewing a lot more death penalty cases and throwing out sentences of execution. Here in New York state, we won a huge victory when, just a year ago, our highest state court ruled our state death penalty unconstitutional and there was a massive push by the governor – which was a priority for him – to “fix the technical defect” in our state death penalty so that it’d be a ‘death state’ again and to their credit the state legislature – the assembly which is controlled by the Democrats – undertook months of state‐wide hearings. They went from place to place. Held hearings on the death penalty. And after those hearings, the leadership of the state assembly became convinced that there’s really no point. No matter what the vantage point from which you address it, the death penalty makes no sense. It’s not economical. It’s not a deterrent and, by the way, it’s barbaric and immoral and flawed. And mistakes are made and innocent people are inevitably going to get executed and you can’t fix the mistakes. So I think that the forces of justice and morality prevailed, if only for pragmatic reasons. We’re in a good place without the death penalty here in New York state and I think that we’ll see, increasingly, bad states, you know, pull away from it. There was a big push, you know, this law and order thing a decade ago, but as
14 September 2005 Civil Liberty we see crime rates plummet without a death penalty, as we see the enormous toll that the death penalty takes, there are a lot of reasons to ditch it and that’s fine too. CL: Is the Supreme Court likely to declare lethal injection as cruel & unusual punishment? DL: Oh, I think that this court probably wouldn’t do that. CL: Were you aware that the US Patriot Act is having an impact in Australia, where US military contractors have placed a lot of pressure on state and federal governments for exemptions under our racial discrimination legislation? (They have demanded—and, for the most part, obtained—exemptions to allow them to discriminate in employment on the grounds of race and, in some cases, religion.) DL: I’m shocked. The Patriot Act doesn’t give the federal government here in the States exemptions from anti‐discrimination laws in its government contracts, at least not to my knowledge. And it’s the ultimate in hypocrisy that the United States is using this as a shill to get around laws that prohibit it from engaging in discrimination. I mean that’s just the utmost in hypocrisy. CL: In the US, what sort of profile does Guantanamo Bay and it’s activities have compared with outside the US? DL: Well, I think Guantanamo Bay, you know, everybody knows about Guantanamo Bay and it stands for the torture centre. I think that most people see it as a place where the United States government is under no constraints and is doing things that we all should be deeply, deeply appalled and embarrassed about. Most of the people see it that way, a lot of Americans see it that way and many think it should be closed. CL: What is the ACLU’s position on how the Bill of Rights and (the US Constitution generally) impacts on Guantanamo Bay? DL: The Bill of Rights is honoured in the breach at Guantanamo Bay. Torture and the Bill of Rights should not be mentioned in the same sentence, except in the case of prohibition. And yet our current administration would have us believe that torture is just fine and they’ve tried to pull the wool over people’s eyes by saying they’re just using ‘environmental changes’. You know when they freeze people to death or burn them up with the heat. I’m not sure what they call chaining people into these ridiculous positions and beating them and threatening them and sexually harassing them. The Geneva Conventions are just grossly ignored by the United States government. You know, we’re the country that used to deny aid to countries because they didn’t respect civil liberties. You know, “we don’t trade with Castro because he doesn’t respect civil liberties.” Gimme a break. CL: Do you think that the Supreme Court will close Guantanamo Bay down? DL: The Supreme Court has chosen not to. Well, what they’ve chosen to do is they won’t let people be given a hearing, but that’s different from closing Guantanamo Bay down. I think the army could close it down, the military. The President could. I mean, in a proper case I guess, they could be considered, but I don’t know that that’s pending. I think that that is a political decision and there’s no case in the pipeline that I know of that’s seriously raising that. CL: There are a lot of people out there who are concerned about civil rights, and many ask themselves, “Just what can I do about it?” What can they do it? DL: Well, you know, nowadays you can get a lot done from home. It’s not the most communal and satisfying thing in the world, but there’s a lot of activism that can be done in the wee hours of the morning or from your desk by computer. The Civil Liberties Union has e‐activism networks and we send out alerts from time to time and we ask people to participate in this. I think this a time for people to join organizations like ours and volunteer to help us. Our Bill of Rights campaign has hundreds of volunteers engaging in all aspects of organising work: getting people to write to their senators and congressmen and
15 Civil Liberty September 2005 the President to abandon the most egregious violations of the USA Patriot Act and other policies that undermine civil liberties. And it’s also a time when our President and, I would say less this Attorney‐ General than the former one John Ashcroft, but the President doesn’t really like his critics and bashes them. Nonetheless our membership has skyrocketed and it’s a time when people need to understand that they need to stand up and be counted. They need to register their protest against these policies by supporting the organised entities that are carrying the water. And the ACLU is certainly carrying the water to hold the line against the further erosion of our rights and one wonders: without us, what would we do? So I urge people to join the civil liberties union wherever they are and to support other organizations that are doing a good thing to defend the rights of immigrants, to give the lie to the claim that we have to give up our freedom in order to be safe, to defend students against abusive and intrusive military recruiters in their schools. The military comes in to recruit, they know the kids better than the guidance counsellors do, you know. The only ‘after high school’ programmes they have in some schools is the military, college would be out of the question. You know there’s so many issues for people to advocate on and we need their voice. We need them to stand up and be heard. CL: Is there anything that organizations like the ACLU, CCL and Liberty in the UK can do for each other? DL: Well you know, I think that the more people of like views and values talk to each other and share information and resources and thinking, the better off we are as a world community. You know, Americans more than anybody in the world probably are so self absorbed as a nation. It’s important for us to hear how the rest of the world views our country, our government and its people because that helps us think critically, or more critically, about what’s a being done in our name. I think that more Americans now than before, realise that the policies of the Bush administration are perhaps the single greatest threat to our safety that there is and have generated enormous animosity to our country around the world. But it’s also important for people around the world to know that there is a movement for equality and justice and fairness and hopefully the policies that the rest of the world are suffering under now will be but a blip on the screen in the book of history. © Copyright Civil Liberty. 2005
Q&A with Tony Kevin
Tony Kevin retired from the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade in 1998, after a thirty‐year public service career. He served in the Prime Minister’s Department and was Australia’s ambassador to Poland and Cambodia. He wrote A Certain Maritime Incident, which gives a view on the sinking of the SIEV X that killed 353 asylum seekers on their way to Australia. Civil Liberty: Why should people who are concerned about civil liberties be concerned about the SIEV X incident? Tony Kevin: Because we need to be able to trust in the credibility and integrity of government agencies responsible for our security: agencies like the Australian Defence Force, Australian Federal Police, DIMIA, Prime Ministerʹs Department, Foreign Affairs, Attorney‐Generals, ASIO, ASIS, Transport, Coastwatch. If these agencies lied and covered up over SIEV X, as they clearly have done, how can we trust them on other matters of concern to us as Australian citizens/residents?
16 September 2005 Civil Liberty
CL: The story of what happened to SIEV X is a lot of more complicated than the basic public perception of a boat of asylum seekers accidentally sinking near Australia. How much of the full story do you think will make its way into the public domain? TK: Much of the story is already in the public domain, in three readily accessible sources. My book on the sinking of SIEV X is an easily read narrative of the story of the sinking and failed Senate investigation, with full endnotes to facilitate further research. Original source documents are reproduced on my website www.tonykevin.com and on Marg Huttonʹs independent archival website www.sievx.com. The problem is not that the information is not available. The problem is that most people would rather not know what it is already possible to know. CL: Your book raises many questions about the actions of the Australian government in this affair. How well do you feel these questions are answered? TK: Well answered, in the sense that it is already clear that a major deliberate whole‐of‐government official cover‐up of facts about the sinking of SIEV X, and associated efforts by friends of government to ignore or discredit my work and that of Marg Hutton, has already happened. Not well enough answered, in the sense that we still do not know what were the linkages between the Australian Governmentʹs covert people smuggling disruption program in Indonesia in 2000–2001, and the criminals who arranged for the deliberate overloading and sinking of SIEV X apparently as a deterrent. The sworn survivor testimonies, that were used in the recent Brisbane trial to convict Abu Quasseyʹs assistant Khaleed Daoed to 9 years in Australian prison as a people smuggler, further corroborate the survivor evidence assembled in my book, that critics have tried to dismiss as conspiracy theories based on speculations and poor evidence. Sadly, the people smuggling trial could not address my evidence‐based questions about the ADF claim to have had no knowledge of the boat entering the ADF Operation Relex surveillance and interception zone and about the AFP‐DIMIA people smuggling disruption program, because those matters lay outside the charges. A precious opportunity to get at the truth was wasted. CL: What sort of responses from people have you received since publishing the book? TK: Eleven positive reviews and many laudatory book launching speeches and radio interviews—and two lengthy negative reviews that I believe were government‐inspired efforts to discredit the book. I responded to negative reviews by Tom Frame and Jennifer Clarke, and invited further public debate. Those invitations were not taken up. All reviews and responses are accessible on my website. The book won a NSW Premierʹs Award at the 2005 Sydney Writers Festival and was shortlisted for an Age 2005 Book of the Year Award. It is still in the running for other possible 2005 book awards. CL: Have you heard what reaction the book received in official circles in Canberra? TK: John Howard dismissed the bookʹs and my credibility in a planted ʺDorothy Dixʺ question in Parliament in August 2004, a few days after it came out. (see my website). No other government official or politician has referred to the book since. Government strategy is to ignore it and hope people forget about it. Parts of the mainstream media support that strategy. It is very hard now to get SIEV X mentioned anywhere. CL: Do we have an international obligation to treat asylum seekers humanely? TK: Yes, of course we do, under many major international treaties to which Australia adheres. See Frank Brennan Tampering with Asylum and Peter Mares Borderline for authoritative analyses of this issue. CL: Have social attitudes in Australia changed towards boat people in recent years? Why is this so? TK: Yes, in the sense that the general public has turned against systemically cruel detention and deportation practices, since the Rau and Alvarez cases and the Georgiou‐Moylan groupʹs advocacy of
17 Civil Liberty September 2005 more humane approaches in the coalition parties. But questions of acts of cruelty and criminality towards boat people at or approaching our maritime borders are still sensitive areas where most people and organisations do not wish to go. We would rather not know and that is what has made the governmentʹs continued cover‐ups in this area much easier to achieve. Most of the media has turned its back on issues of illegal government activity in maritime border protection. CL: Has the climate of the public service changed much in Australia in recent years? TK: Yes. We can no longer rely on a public ʺpresumption of regularityʺ about government agenciesʹ official conduct. The rule now, especially in anything to do with national security and border security, is ʺwhatever it takesʺ and do whatever is needed to deny and cover it up afterwards. This is a major theme of my book. CL: Who or what is responsible for these changes? TK: Mostly, but not only, Howard, Ruddock, Reith, Hill, Downer and Vanstone. Howard as PM must take major responsibility. Labor set many of these harsher border control philosophies and systems in motion in the 1980s to early 1990s and there is residual sympathy for them in some areas of the Labor Party even now. But the systemic cruelty, xenophobia and fanaticism has come mostly from these Liberal Ministers. No leader of the ALP opposition ever really challenged this culture in moral terms. They left it to Georgiouʹs group to do so. CL: Are the general publicʹs opinions of the SIEV X incident formed as much from political leanings than humanitarian concerns? TK: I hope not, this should not be seen as a political issue, it is about our values of truth and justice and our national responsibility for the lives of all who come under Australiaʹs duty of care. I donʹt know—different people respond to the SIEV X story differently. For some the focus is humanitarian and I respect that. Clearly, there is no political mileage for any major party in pursuing truth and justice on SIEV X, as Senators Cook, Faulkner, Collins and Bartlett found. In the end it comes down to oneʹs personal ethics and vision for Australia. I have been a bit disappointed at the legal professionʹs lack of interest in SIEV X as opposed to detention abuses. Perhaps it was just too hard to engage with. CL: If justice is to be served, what should happen from here? TK: As the Senate has three times demanded, an independent full‐powers judicial enquiry into SIEV X and the people smuggling disruption program, with the power to send people who lie under oath to jail, no matter who they are. But which PM or potential PM from either party would commission such an enquiry? CL: If I am concerned about what happened to SIEV X, just what exactly can I do? TK: Write to your Senators and opposition party leaders. Let them know you care about this unfinished issue that shames our nation. If you are a teacher or academic, tell your students about it. Study my book as a case study of Australian government gone off‐the‐rails. Ask your law, politics, public administration, defence studies or history departments to put it on reading lists. Librarians, encourage people to read it. © Copyright Civil Liberty. 2005
A Certain Maritime Incident is reviewed later in the journal.
18 September 2005 Civil Liberty
National Meeting of Australian Civil we were able to arrange for the meeting to be Liberties Groups addressed by Glen Howard (Rights Australia), George Williams (chair, Victorian Human Rights A meeting of the various State civil liberties Consultative Committee) and Anna Johnston bodies was held on the weekend of 25–26 June (Australian Privacy Foundation). 2005 at NSWCCL’s offices. Rights Australia is a national group, which 14 representatives attended from civil liberty emerged from People for a Just Australia, and bodies in the ACT, Victoria, Queensland and that has as its primary concerns asylum South Australia as well as NSWCCL. seeker/refugee issues and mental health issues. Its message is “effective protection of human This was the first national gathering of civil rights” rather than a “Bill of Rights”. liberty groups for many years. The objectives of the meeting were to increase co‐operation and The Victorian Human Rights Consultative communication between the various state Committee was appointed in April 2005 bodies, and to formalise and invigorate a following the Victorian Cabinet issue of a national CCL body. Statement of Intent to introduce a Human Rights Act. The proposal does not include economic, It was resolved to incorporate the Australian cultural or social rights or any right to individual Council for Civil Liberties, to consider setting up damages. The committee has released a a national website, and to take various other discussion paper seeking submissions. Further steps to strengthen the national profile of the details are at: civil liberties movement. Immediate practical www.justice.vic.gov.au/humanrights. results of the meeting include the setting up of a Yahoo group for the CCL executives to more The Australian Privacy Foundation is a small easily communicate with each other. organisation with active board members in NSW, Victoria and the ACT. APF maintains a As well as dealing with organisational matters, website at www.privacy.org.au.
Meeting of Australian civil liberties groups on 25 June 2005, Glebe, Sydney. Left to right: Lucie O'Brien (Vic), Kris Klugman (ACT), Cameron Murphy (NSW), Stephen Blanks (NSW), Adam Pickvance (Vic), George Mancini (SA), Michael Okoye (NSWCCL intern, USA), David Bernie (NSW), Anthony Williamson (ACT), Michael Cope (Qld), Greg Connellan (Vic). Photo: Bill Rowlings (ACT). 19 Civil Liberty September 2005
Many of the issues on which NSWCCL has been present great cause for concern, including active on recently, have been issues on the APF findings that: has also campaigned, such as the NSW • Two separate United States Programs workplace surveillance legislation, the have registered first, male non‐citizens Australian Bureau of Statistics longitudinal from designated countries, and census data proposal, the HIC Medicare subsequently, all foreigners travelling to smartcard proposal, and the foreshadowed the US. Similar registration and data national ID card. linkage measures have been put in place Stephen Blanks in Europe with the introduction of the Secretary EU Visa Information System (VIS) and an EU‐wide foreigners’ register; • Nations are in various stages of adopting passports that contain biometric data, ICAMS Brief including digital photographs and fingerprints, and RFID chips capable of A large network of anti‐terrorism and security broadcasting that data to any person measures is quietly being constructed around with access to a ‘reader’; the world. Governments are taking measures to • Governments now have direct access to track the movement, communication and airlines’ passenger name records (PNRs), biographical profiles of individual citizens. which sometimes include up to 60 Many of these measures—adopted in the wake information fields, including the name of September 11, 2001—are in the process of and address of the traveller, the address being developed. They include the creation of a of the person with whom the traveller global ID system, the creation of data profiles for will stay, the traveller’s itinerary, the date entire populations and the international the ticket was purchased, credit card surveillance of movement and electronic information, seat number, meal choices, communications. medical information and frequent‐flyer In April, the American Civil Liberties Union and information; 100 other international non‐government • Governments have introduced legislation organisations launched the International designed to ease surveillance of private Campaign Against Mass Surveillance (ICAMS). and commercial communications. These The campaign intends to urge governments to measures have included enhanced cease any collection, storage, use, analysis, private sector requirements, expanded mining or sharing practices that contravene legal authority for surveillance (including human rights and privacy standards; to telecommunications interception), authorise individuals to correct personal data mandatory data retention, the expansion and challenge misuse; and to halt the of the ‘Echelon’ Program and tracking implementation of a universal biometric and reporting of financial transactions; passport system prior to informed public debate. • National and international databases The publication of the campaign’s first report, have begun to converge, so as to enable The Emergence of a Global Infrastructure for Mass more comprehensive surveillance and the Registration and Surveillance, coincided with its preparation of detailed dossiers on launch. That report detailed post‐September 11 individual citizens; privacy and surveillance developments in the • United States, European Union and Canada. The Businesses are now beginning to sell Report reached a number of conclusions that consumer databases to government, including profiles of customers; and
20 September 2005 Civil Liberty
• A uniform “risk assessment” model is taken up the task of preparing an Australian now being composed from information annex to the ICAMS Report. Among the themes obtained by these methods. being explored are developments in workplace surveillance, internet surveillance, the The Australian domestic scene provides little by ECHELON project, closed circuit television and way of reassurance. The Telecommunications telecommunications interception legislation. Interception Legislation Amendment Act 2002 enabled the interception of delayed access If you would like more information, or would messages such as electronic and voice mail like to participate in the project, please contact messages, by defining those messages as a form Leah Friedman through the NSWCCL Office: of ‘communication’. The amendments also eased [email protected] and tel: (02) 9660 7582. the requirements for obtaining warrants for For more information on ICAMS or the ICAMS interception in cases of suspected terrorist Report, see www.i‐cams.org. activity. The Surveillance Devices Bill 2004 extended regulatory provisions of the Leah Friedman Telecommunications Interception Act to include the Committee Member use of data, optical and listening surveillance devices, and prohibited judges from ordering the destruction of material thereby obtained. The Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 (NSW), which Same-sex Marriage Update contained no sunset clause, empowered the NSW police to search individuals without cause On 13 August 2004 the federal Parliament or specific warrant in designated areas. The passed the Marriage Amendment Act 2004 (Cth), Australian Bureau of Statistics has also been which enshrined marriage as an exclusively granted extended powers under the Census and heterosexual institution. The Coalition Statistics Act 1905 to gather and collate private government and Labor Opposition joined forces information. In addition, the ABS has now to ban same‐sex marriage and to ensure that decided to retain more information gathered foreign same‐sex marriages are not recognised in from citizens in the course of the census, and to Australia. retain it for longer periods. Under the Act, it is an offence for an individual to refuse to answer The move was a shock to many human rights certain census questions. Other developments advocates across the country, because the ALP have included repeated attempts to introduce had promised that it would wait to read a report, ‘smart cards’ and increased private sector then being prepared by a Senate committee, cooperation in the surveillance of web use and before voting on the legislation. Despite this email. promise, shadow Attorney‐General, Ms Nicola Roxon, told a meeting of 1000 right wing Technological advancement is characteristically Christians in Parliament House that the ALP rapid—and law reform generally struggles to would vote to ban same‐sex marriage.1 The Bill keep apace. ICAMS is attempting to challenge was passed within a fortnight. these developments before they are able to take hold. Notwithstanding certain grave changes in Why the moral panic? Holland introduced same‐ the Australian landscape in recent times— sex marriage in April 2001, followed by Belgium including the expansion of telecommunications in 2003. In 2004, provincial Canadian courts interception and internet surveillance powers— began to rule that the exclusively heterosexual other measures, including the establishment and definition of marriage is discriminatory and accession of a universal biometric passport unjustifiable in a free and democratic society. On system, are in their early stages of development. 28 June 2005, the Canadian Parliament passed With the objective of early prevention in mind, a 1 team of students at Sydney Law School has Meaghan Shaw, “Labor backs ban on gay marriage”, The Age, 2 August 2004, 3. 21 September 2005 Civil Liberty
from marrying is unconstitutional. A decision in ‘gays and lesbians … are not the case of Minister for Home Affairs v Fourie & first-class citizens’ Bonthuys is expected soon. legislation introducing same‐sex marriage. On 1 Of course, all the countries mentioned above July 2005, Spain introduced same‐sex have a Bill of Rights. In Australia, without a Bill marriage. of Rights, our courts are unlikely to rule that the constitutional word ‘marriage’ includes same‐ sex couples. This is because our Constitution does not guarantee Australians equal protection of the law. On 13 August 2005, one year after the Australian Parliament made it very clear to gays and lesbians that they are not first‐class citizens, thousands of people marched in the streets of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Hobart and Perth for marriage equality. Members of the NSWCCL Executive were there to lend support for this important civil rights issue. You can help by NSWCCL Executive Committee members, Michael donating to NSWCCL or by joining the Civil Walton and David Bernie, at the Marriage Equality Rally on 13 August 2005 Rights subcommittee. The story in the US is more complicated. In 1993 Michael Walton Hawaii changed its state constitution after state Committee Member courts ruled unconstitutional the exclusively heterosexual definition of marriage. In 1996, the US Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which, much like the recent Australian legislation, defines marriage as exclusively heterosexual in federal law. In 1998, Alaska made changes to its constitution after similar court rulings. On 17 May 2004, Massachusetts became the first US state to recognise same‐sex Education is the most marriage. powerful weapon which In July 2004, US President George W. Bush failed you can use to change in his bid to amend the US Constitution to ban the world. same‐sex marriage. Bush feared (probably - Nelson Mandela correctly) that the US Supreme Court, when the issue finally gets to it, will follow the example of the Canadian courts and strike down the Defense of Marriage Act and the similar “defence of marriage” provisions now enacted in the constitutions of the majority of the states. On 17 May 2005, the Constitutional Court of South Africa heard a government appeal from a decision of the South African Supreme Court of Appeal ruling that excluding same‐sex couples
22 September 2005 Civil Liberty
Hardline security is not a human right
Christopher Michaelsen
The recent terrorist attacks in London and Egypt have once again re‐ignited the debate about new anti‐ terrorism laws in Australia. Proposals to enhance security at home range from the introduction of ID cards and random bag checks to stripping ‘terrorist sympathisers’ of their Australian citizenship. What many of those advocating tougher measures seem to miss, however, is the fact that Australia has already adopted some of the most draconian anti‐terrorism legislation in the western world. Since 9/11 and Bali, the Howard government has enacted more than twenty new “security” laws. Persons not suspected of any offence can be detained without charge or trial. SMS and email messages of ordinary Australians can be intercepted without telecommunication warrant. Traditional due process guarantees have been slashed, too. In criminal cases involving matters of ‘national security’, for example, the accused and his/her entire defence team can be ejected from the court while the Crown gives secret evidence. The latest justification for these and other extraordinary measures has been offered by Attorney‐General Philip Ruddock. Speaking to the American Australian Association in New York City in late July, Mr Ruddock referred to Article 3 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights—the right to life, liberty and security of person—as a basis for Australia’s far‐reaching security laws. According to the Attorney‐General, Article 3 constitutes an individual right to protection from physical harm and creates a positive duty for the state to protect the safety of its citizens. Tough anti‐terrorism laws were further warranted by the ‘concept of human security’. Mr Ruddock’s propositions are misleading at best and bogus at worst. The Universal Declaration as well as the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights indeed protect the right to life, liberty and security of person. It is widely accepted, however, that this right does not relate to some broader right to safety or to any obligation for the state to protect the physical integrity of its citizens with positive measures. On the contrary, the right to life, liberty and security of person as enshrined in Article 3 of the Declaration seeks to confine the power of the state to coerce individuals through arbitrary arrest and detention. As has been confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg1, the expression ‘life, liberty and security of person’ has to be read as a whole and must be understood in the context of physical liberty. It cannot be interpreted as referring to different matters such as a duty on the state to give someone personal protection from an attack by others, or right to social welfare. It is equally problematic to invoke the concept of human security in order to justify intrusive anti‐ terrorism legislation. Often referred to as ‘people‐centred security’ or ‘security with a human face’, the idea of human security places human beings—rather than states—at the focal point of security considerations. While the concept’s definition and scope have been debated heatedly in recent years, most scholars agree that human security involves more than the absence of violent conflict. As UN Secretary‐General Kofi Annan has observed, ‘it encompasses human rights, good governance, access to
1 See e.g. Bozano v. France (9990/82) [1986] ECHR 16 (18 December 1986); Kurt v. Turkey (24276/94) [1998] ECHR 44 (25 May 1998). 23 Civil Liberty September 2005 education and health care and ensuring that each individual has opportunities and choices to fulfil his or her own potential.’ When Mr Ruddock focuses on the more traditional notions of security in his invocation of the concept in the sense of providing protection from physical harm, he is ignoring other, equally central aspects of human security which seek to ensure that every individual has the same legal rights and is not at risk of arbitrary or oppressive state action. To highlight one feature of human security at the expense of others is rather improper and deceptive. If the ‘war on terrorism’ is about defending our traditional liberal democratic rights and values, then Mr Ruddock should spend more time and energy on enacting an Australian equivalent to the United Kingdom and New Zealand human rights acts. This legislation could be called a ‘Fair Go Act’ and should codify the very basic human rights, civil liberties and fundamental freedoms Australians take for granted, perhaps too easily. Adopting a Fair Go Act in an age of terror requires political courage, of course. In the end, however, such legislation would enhance the security of every single citizen far more than any anti‐terrorism law ever possibly can. Christopher Michaelsen is a doctoral scholar at the Strategic & Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University, Canberra.
The Old Dog—Otto D’Arcy‐Searle by Deirdre D’Arcy-Searle
There has been much press of late on the case of Otto D’Arcy‐Searle, a convicted paedophile who was paroled to his family in NSW, only to be returned to prison in Western Australia after a sustained outcry from the media and general public. D’Arcy‐Searle’s sister outlines a turn of events not referred to in most media reports.
Imagine the old dog, lying on the verandah peacefully sunning himself. He is content as he lies there enjoying the sun. His limbs ache from time to time and his teeth have all fallen out, but he knows somebody loves him and is watching over him. He has no defences of his own; they all went away as he got old. It wasn’t always so. When the old dog was young he was brutalised by a heartless man. The old dog remembers his suffering and his scars are evidence of those days long ago. When he was young, he wasn’t quite as placid as he is today and, one day, long ago he bit back—he bit a child and he hurt that child. The child grew up to fear dogs, all dogs and the old dog understood he did a very bad thing and decided he would never bite anybody ever again. All those years ago, when a dog bit a child he was punished, he got a good kick in the ribs and he got locked up in the laundry for quite a while. That’s how he knew he’d done a bad thing. The child’s parents took legal action against his owner and had to pay a fine. The matter was closed and the old dog was free to live his days peacefully. Years later, the law changed and this harmless old dog sees men coming through the gate, shouting at him and chasing him. Under the new law, he is a dangerous dog and must be treated in a special way.
24 September 2005 Civil Liberty
He is toothless and his bones ache. His heart aches because the men want to take him away from his loving home and destroy him—that is the law, dogs that attack people must be destroyed. Even though he is incapable of biting again because he has no teeth, he is dragged off with straps around his jaws and he is locked up in a place for a while—and then they come and take him and put him to death. This dog hurt somebody very badly a long, long time ago. He is no longer capable of hurting anybody, but because the law has changed and the community’s views have changed, he must pay with his life. The reader may wonder what on earth I am going on about here. Nobody would make that poor old dog pay for his ancient crime, would they? He will be able to live out his days in peace, lying in the sun and being company for his master. Of course he would. Otto Shamus D’Arcy Searle committed horrible crimes more than 20 years ago. It could be said that these crimes were the direct result of his being discarded (along with his three siblings) by his parents and being raised by Nazareth Sisters, Marist Brothers, Christian Brothers and finally the Jesuits. With that background, what was “normal” in the life of Otto Searle? Was there anybody who would listen to him during the years spent with those people? If he tried to communicate what happened to him, he was told what a wicked boy he was to say such things about the good people who devoted their lives to helping and teaching young boys. He was branded a wicked boy, and when his parents told the good brothers and priests and nuns what terrible things the boy had said about them, he was mightily punished. For Otto Searle it was normal for bigger, stronger people to abuse him, to do what they liked to him— and he had no protection! There is no excuse for Otto Searle’s crimes. Not in those far off days when he committed them, and definitely not now in 2005, when people actually do listen to a child when they say an adult has mistreated them. Stalking and attacking our young these days will bring the wrath of the law and the community down on the offender—and that is how it should be! Even though it is such a long time since Otto Searle damaged those four young children beyond repair and caused their lives to be a living hell, it is right that he be punished today, under the system of checks and balances put in place in today’s world, by today’s standards. The people who damaged Otto Searle are probably dead, they got away with their crimes—they were never judged by today’s standards. Otto Searle lived on the Gold Coast with his wife at Elenora for years. The Gold Coast was his home. He worked here and he was exposed to children day in and day out for many years. He didn’t touch them— he didn’t photograph them, parents didn’t run away and hide their children, they knew Otto was a good bloke. Otto Searle gave his life to God in 1985. He was so filled with remorse that he went to his pastors and opened his most secret closet—and let all the skeletons fall out. He never tried to soften his past, he made no excuses for his past, he laid himself wide open and he let other men judge him. Although he begged forgiveness from God, he never expected forgiveness from man. He knew he didn’t deserve forgiveness. When he was finally arrested in 1999, having lived all those years quietly and decently, trying as best he could to atone for his sins—he pleaded guilty. There was no trial. Otto Searle confessed, knowing that his life was changed forever. Knowing that he would pay for his crimes to the fullest extent of the law. He welcomed the opportunity to pay for his crimes because he had not enjoyed one moment of inner peace, because he was tormented by visions of the people he almost destroyed. He was extradited to West Australia and went to prison there. He tried to be a good prisoner, helping other men who found it hard to adjust to their new circumstances. He counselled other prisoners, he even converted some to be “born again”, giving their lives to God, too. His faith in God was unshakable
25 Civil Liberty September 2005 in the face of mockery and he believed that God had the power to turn all things to good, even his horrible crimes. Otto Searle was naive in his belief that when he had served his time and left the prison on parole, he would be allowed to live quietly, taking a very low profile in the community and having fellowship with the people in his church who had quietly supported him through all the bad times. When he stepped off the plane at Gold Coast Airport on 9 July, 2005, he broke down in tears when he saw the 20 or so people who had turned up to meet him and welcome him home. People who knew the new Otto, the one ‘born again’ in 1985. After a time of fellowship at the airport and before everybody headed off in different directions, people laid their hands on him right there in the airport, next to the bar, and prayed loudly, and they prayed for his natural family. At Banora Point, his natural family supported him with a place to live, food to eat and a loving hand reached out when needed. This is not to say they condoned his crimes, no, they hate the crimes. In their humanity they cringed at the very thought of being related to a person capable of such evil, but they also knew Otto was reformed and was extremely unlikely to offend again. His natural family (as opposed to his Church family) promised his parole officer, long before Otto Searle was released—that should it even look like he was capable of offending again, should he start to justify his crimes, should he go anywhere near children deliberately, they would report his behaviour immediately. There can be no protection for a child predator and Otto’s family recognised that fact. But Otto’s heart didn’t change when he was paroled. Not a day passed without his remembering his horrible past and the terrible crimes he committed. He never allowed himself to forget, and although he accepted God’s forgiveness because it is promised in the Bible, he never for one moment forgave himself. What man or woman can open their closet and let the bones fall as they will? Who amongst us has absolutely nothing to hide? Who amongst us is totally free of shame? I know I’m not. I wouldn’t like my life thrown open for all to inspect and pull apart. I have done things I am ashamed of—of course I have, I am human. Those who claim they have never done anything wrong in their lives are dangerously delusional. Of course, the vast majority of people have only minor skeletons in their closets and would simply be uncomfortable if they became common knowledge. Otto Searle’s crimes were so horrendous one would think he would go to any length to keep them secret. What does it say about the man that he opened the door and made himself vulnerable so that his heart could be purified? Nevertheless, Otto Searle is only human. He is a son, a father, a brother and a grandfather and all of his family bear his shame. He served his time under law; he was paroled and released into NSW with full knowledge of the authorities there. His family took him in and promised those authorities they would be the policemen inside, the deepest layer of protection for the Community. In their natural selves they would have preferred to have nothing to do with Otto Searle, but if they wouldn’t have him, who would? The family fully understands the views of the people of Banora Point—nobody wants a paedophile in their community—not ever! We need to ask ourselves a question here—are we savages, living back in the dark ages when people were burned at the stake? We accept violent robbers, murderers and thieves back in the Community, based on the fact they have paid their dues and the belief they will not offend again. We know that 15% of paedophiles offend again—do we know what percentage of violent criminals offend again? We sneer at the “crim” who claims to have found God, but do we really know what is in his heart? Otto Searle spent the last five months of his five‐year prison term undergoing intense psychological evaluation and he was only released after that evaluation. Western Australia is not his home state; he was extradited
26 September 2005 Civil Liberty from Queensland, having lived on the Gold Coast for years. He lived in Western Australia during the period 1978 – 1982, the period during which his crimes were committed—and it was necessary for him to be processed in Western Australia. It is unconscionable that Otto Searle was released on parole and returned to his home base, only to be taken again and imprisoned in Western Australia. It is a travesty of justice that this man, who fulfilled every aspect of his parole conditions, who reported his movements to the police, who registered on the Sex Offender Register, who attended counselling on an on‐going basis and who reported to his parole officer as required, has been handcuffed and returned to jail in Western Australia. The police at Tweed Heads assured the community that Otto Searle was complying with all the conditions of his parole. The community was told that the police were aware of his circumstances and they were watching him. He presented no threat to the community, yet it was possible for a few hysterical individuals, equipped with inadequate information, to force the NSW Government to send this man back to jail. We need to ask ourselves what we will do when his parole period is over and Otto Searle is free to go wherever he likes, without surveillance, without monitoring and probably without his family to watch over him—because after their experience this time, why would they put themselves in harm’s way (harm from the community and the media) when they can just ignore Searle’s plight and let him become a homeless indigent. We need to ask ourselves what a man in those desperate circumstances could be capable of. At a deeper level, we need to ask why the people who damaged Otto Searle when he was a little boy got off scot‐free? Once again, it appears that the Catholic Church has a lot to answer for. One must also wonder about his parents, what sort of people were they, that they dumped their four very young children in Catholic institutions and left them there without love, without a home to call their own and without even a loving hug. Today those parents would be prosecuted. Otto Searle suffered a cruel and unusual childhood, yet nobody cares about what was done to him, they only care about what he did to others. We need to take a long, hard look at our politicians. It seems that it is acceptable to lie in order to get out of trouble. It seems it is acceptable to sacrifice hard working public servants who have only the community’s interest at heart. It seems it is acceptable to throw a man in prison again and again, even when he is trying his best to do the right thing. One has to wonder if the knee‐jerk reaction of the Government is the result of holding a very marginal seat here in the Tweed. It seems to this writer that this Government will do anything to cling to its tenuous hold on this electorate. The statistics are out Mr. Iemma, NSW accepts fewer paedophiles from other states than it sends out. You claim we are not going at accept any more paedophiles? That has to be good. But it also means that we will have to keep our own! That means we will have double the number of paedophiles in NSW in the future and the community will have to work twice as hard chasing them away. Or maybe Mr. Iemma, maybe NSW can bring back capital punishment and get rid of the problem once and for all.
© Deirdre D’Arcy-Searle 2005
The freedom to make a fortune on the stock exchange has been made to sound more alluring than freedom of speech. - John Mortimer
27 Civil Liberty September 2005
seemingly civilised, cultured and progressive society as Germany have been responsible for Comparing anyone or anything to Hitler and Hitler and everything else the Second World War Nazism is commonly seen as a copout in many wrought? How could the whole population be a an idealistic argument. The belief being that part of it? when in vehement disagreement with someone The answer is that not everyone approved, but in politics, trotting out the Hitler analogy is many went along with it with varying degrees of almost akin to putting up the white flag. That agreement and with varying degrees of this is the easy option, communicated in reasoning. Through fear, pride perhaps and frustration rather than informed argument. deliberate ignorance. It is certain that pretty However, there are times when the analogy is no much everyone in Europe knew about the camps longer a weak exaggeration. and although they knew little of the details, were The reason that Nazi Germany is commonly well aware that most people who went into the espoused as an example of anathema is that camps were not coming out. there is never any argument that it stood for It seemed so unfathomable, how it could all have principles that no civilized human being could come to pass; how they could have accepted possibly cop nowadays, and that it acted on what was going on. Kristallnacht. The ghettos. these principles with universally‐accepted The movement of so many people based on their catastrophic results. A far cry from the 1930s personal beliefs and their culture and their when, indeed, there were many who lifestyle. Surely anyone with half a brain would sympathized with Hitler and the totalitarian have realized—if they’d given it some thought— tactics of Nazism. That many of these that very bad things were happening. sympathizers put their heads in the sand when Yet, it is now completely apparent to me how addressing the more unsavoury elements of events transpired in Germany in the 1930s, as Nazi rhetoric, the steadfast exhortations for here we are in 2005, having witnessed a social nationalism and the rewards of unswerving change of similar import. devotion and hard work, reminds one of the conservative attitudes of today when ‘Ridiculous’ is the reactionary response. ‘How contemplating the international surfeit of can one compare then to now?’ while throwing government laws that consider human and civil forward the massive disparity of figures. rights a secondary consideration. But the numbers are not the issue. It is the So here we are again with the Nazi comparison. principles that count. ‘Unfair’, cry the critics, who find themselves Who would have thought five years ago that it disgusted by the imbalanced comparison of the was acceptable for the country that we live in to millions who died in World War Two with the not only lock up asylum seekers, but to allow considerably fewer who have met their demise them to be tortured with no redress? It is so at the hands of the current western war machine. obviously wrong, inhuman and barbaric not But numbers are not the issue here. The principle only to allow it, but also to defend it and and ideas behind them have greater import. espouse it as correct to the rest of the world. In So, is it just hindsight which affords us the addition, is the litany of other morally simplicity of the ‘just like Hitler’ analogy? For objectionable policies put forward by the current decades, this writer has been struggling with government that are too numerous to mention what appeared to be the most perplexing here. This is not a specific rant against this question of the twentieth century: just how did government. Both major parties are to blame in the holocaust occur? How could such a their own way.
28 September 2005 Civil Liberty
Despite the antics of Barnaby Joyce and the Those in Australia who have let the policy of efforts of the federal government to focus the detention centres go and do not speak out and media spotlight on the sale of Telstra, national proclaim it a travesty are in the same boat as those Germans (and others) who did nothing while the Nazis ran riot. They may not agree, but security and civil liberties are issues that refuse it’s not enough to put your head in the sand. to disappear. The recent shooting by English They are the same people who in ten or twenty police of a Brazilian electrician is a case in point. years, when we look back at the current barbaric The original police account implied the man shot situation, will cry ignorance and claim that they was a terror suspect shot trying to escape. That were misled. Well, they were not misled. The the victim was really an innocent unarmed man information is here and readily available. They shot seventeen times in the head while sitting in chose not to listen. As Bob Dylan once sang it, a train has helped re‐ignite public concern that ‘People do what is most convenient and then the powers of police and security organisations repent’. may have gone too far. So, yes, the situation in Baxter and Villawood is It is into this environment that Tony Kevin has indeed comparable to Nazi Germany and none released his book, A Certain Maritime Incident— of us should shy away from saying so. the sinking of SIEV X. The book reviews facts and allegations surrounding the sinking of the SIEV X in October 2001 and the drowning of 353 persons onboard trying to reach Australia to claim asylum as refugees.
‘A Certain Maritime Incident—the sinking of SIEV X provides a compelling and engaging examination of an Book Review incident whose importance in Australian political and social history should not be underestimated’
To a few, this incident may seem old, tired, or of little relevance to current political or social debate. Tony Kevin thinks otherwise. His view is that the truth has been hidden, intelligence manipulated and the deaths of 353 men, women and children shamelessly twisted for political advantage and used to expand police and security powers in Australia. He believes that uncovering the full facts is vital to the integrity of the political, social and legal fabric of Australia and can only be achieved through an independent judicial inquiry. Scribe Publications Reviewed by Mark Hanna
23 Civil Liberty September 2005
poses questions and uses a number of writing Kevin is well credentialed. He worked 30 years stratagems to keep the reader engaged. What as a senior Australian diplomat and worked in may be questionable is whether the author is a both the Prime Ministers and Foreign Affairs sufficiently objective. He makes his position departments. In fact it is he who invented the clear from the preface and, surprisingly for name “SIEV X” for the otherwise unidentified someone who has been a career diplomat, fishing boat that sank in questionable appears to sometimes overstep the mark in circumstances somewhere between Indonesia making conclusions and assigning complicity and Christmas Island [suspected illegal entry rather than letting the reader decide. vessel unknown]. The lack of cold facts available would be a ASIO, the Australian Federal Police, other handicap for any author seeking to expose the security and police forces have greatly increased issue of SIEV X. Kevin’s method of overcoming powers since 2002... A Certain Maritime Incident – this is to use “the highest‐probability hypotheses the sinking of SIEV X dispels the notion that 9/11 that best explain the accumulations of facts that was the catalyst for the changes and outlines an cannot be reasonably explained in any other earlier beginning. It charts the covert war the way.” It may be that a few readers find this Australian government had been waging for two unacceptable. Personally I enjoyed the style the years against people smugglers in Indonesia at author employed to outline the events the time of the sinking, the intricate Government surrounding the sinking and the consequent cover‐up of the true facts of the incident and government cover‐up. Readers may find why this may have occurred. It also details how themselves examining not just a series of events Howard twisted the affair to popularize national surrounding a somewhat grubby and security as an issue in order to get re‐elected and ignominious moment in Australian political how and why the Federal Government used the history, but wondering just how systematic of a sinking to increase police and security powers. general malaise in Australian democracy it is. The author’s aim in writing the book was to Despite the obvious difficulties the book has to reignite the issue, force a judicial inquiry into overcome, I believe A Certain Maritime Incident – events surrounding the sinking of SIEV X and to the sinking of SIEV X provides a compelling and bring the truth of the issue to light. He contends engaging examination of an incident whose that under Australia’s legal system and importance in Australian political and social parliamentary system, the separation of powers history should not be underestimated. between executive and legislative is unclear and that there was little difficulty for the government Mark Hanna is a member of the NSWCCL Committee in concealing damning facts of the incident and their handling of it. He feels that without voluntary disclosures from those in the national security system, only a judicial inquiry has any hope of shedding light. A state that does not Books of this nature are not usually easy to read hesitate to lie to its and often discarded midway. The discussion of own people will not conflicting facts and hypotheses can easily hesitate to lie to other become confusing and monotonous to a reader, states. especially without sufficient pictorial or - Vaclav Havel diagrammatical assistance. I found Kevin’s style passionate and engaging. Rather than detail endless argument and supporting facts chapter after chapter, he uses liberal quotes, headings, 24 Civil Liberty September 2005
NSWCCL is committed to Australia establishing a national bill of rights. ‘Bill of Rights Watch’ monitors any developments or publicity in this area.
Did you know that Australian PM John Howard supports a Bill of Rights…for Iraq? Read more on NSWCCL’s website: www.nswccl.org.au/issues/bill_of_rights/australia.php.
Human Rights Act for Australia: Campaign Launch The online magazine New Matilda will launch its Human Rights Act for Australia Campaign on Wednesday 5 October at 6.30pm in Sydney Town Hall. Australia is the only Western country that does not have a Human Rights Act. This campaign sets out to change this. A range of prominent human rights advocates will address the launch and introduce the draft Bill. All welcome. To find out more, or register your interest to attend, please visit www.newmatilda.com. Places are limited, so register early to avoid disappointment.
Victoria considers a Charter of Human Rights The Victorian Attorney‐General has appointed a committee of distinguished citizens, chaired by Professor George Williams, to determine if Victoria should have a Bill of Rights. The committee is currently consulting the community on what it wants from a Bill of Rights. NSWCCL made a submission to the committee, essentially recommending that Victoria follow the Canadian model of a Charter that allows Parliament to override rights but only explicitly and only for a fixed amount of time. You can read NSWCCL’s submission and more about the committee on the NSWCCL website: http://www.nswccl.org.au/issues/bill_of_rights/other.php.
Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.
- Abraham Lincoln
32 September 2005 NSWCCL Journal NEW SOUTH WALES Help protect our rights COUNCIL FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES PO Box 201 (149 St Johns Road) GLEBE NSW 2037 or DX 1111 SYDNEY Join the Phone: 02 9660 7582 Fax: 02 9566 4162 email: [email protected] MEMBERSHIP FORM Council for Civil Liberties Given Name: Surname: Company: & make a difference Address: Suburb: State: Postcode: The Council for Civil Liberties was DX No. DX Exchange: formed in 1963 to ensure: Phone (w): Phone (h): Fax: Mobile: ♦ Freedom of speech and thought Email: I wish to join/renew my membership for the year ending 31 October 20__. ♦ Freedom of movement and association Please indicate the type of membership you wish to join below: ♦ Fair trails and freedom from arbitrary $60 Ordinary $160 Ordinary—3 years $100 Household $260 Household—3 years arrest $120 Benefactor $25 Concession (Student/Pensioner) $1 000 Affiliated Organisation $60 Journal subscription for Libraries ♦ Freedom of political preference I wish to make a donation of $______. ♦ Freedom of adult sexual preference PAYMENT DETAILS: visit us at www.nswccl.org.au I enclose a Cheque/Money Order made payable to NSW Council for Civil Liberties Who watches them Please debit my Bankcard/Mastercard/Visa (please circle the correct card type) for $______. I authorise NSWCCL to automatically debit my credit card nominated below for future membership renewal when it falls due. I understand a receipt for monies debited will be mailed to me. Signed:______Dated: Card No. while they’re watching you? Name on card: Exp. date: Signature:
Office use only: Journal / / Listed File Rec #