The Militirisation of Australian Society : Melbourne Indymedia

The militirisation of the Australian state and new ‘shoot to kill’ powers [written by Dale Mills 1 January 2005]

Original powers to intervene in civilian public order management were given to the ADF to be used during the 2000 Sydney Olympics, although the government probably always had power to use the military in certain emergency situations. Since that time, the military has been given more real and symbolic powers in Australian society.

The legal role of the ADF has been expanded in areas to include migration and customs. Its actual role has been expanded by deployment overseas, such as Iraq, Afghanistan and the Solomon Islands. At home, the ADF was used during Tampa incident, when the SAS was used to rescue refugees from a Norwegian vessel because the government had refused permission for the ship to come ashore. With Operation Rolex, the ADF was used – and is authorised to continue to use – powers to prevent refugee boats from entering Australian waters.

On a symbolic level, the ADF’s has a higher profile in civil society. The Governor-General, Michael Jeffery, is a retired Major-General in the Special Air Service Regiment (SAS), and has seen service in Malaya, Borneo, Papua New Guinea and Vietnam. The symbolic nature of Anzac Day, a celebration that almost died out in the 1960s, has been elevated and conflated with a tribute to all serving ADF personnel, rather than just soldiers who fought on a particular beach in Turkey.

Additionally, of course, the ADF is used to a greater extent in the ‘war on terror.’ It is involved in planning and joint counter-terrorism exercises with the police. This has led to a complementary process - as Melbourne academic Dr Jude McCulloch has pointed out – the increased ‘para-militarisation’ of the police, as a result of the ADF working with and training State and Territory police forces.

The proposed law in the Australian Parliament, which is expected to be passed in February 2006, is the Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2005.

Under the amended legislation, the federal government may use the ADF to protect ‘Commonwealth interests,’ even if the State or Territory concerned opposes it. The Prime Minister, Defence Minister, or the Attorney-General may advise the Governor-General, who is formally the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, to call out troops to deal with ‘domestic violence’ - as vague as that phrase is.

Many of the powers given to the ADF in these situations are wider than police powers.

One area of particular concern is the failure of the proposed laws to require that the public release Army Manuals in relation to ADF rules of engagement with civilians. One submission to the parliamentary committee reviewing the laws has pointed out that Greens Senator Bob Brown has read out extracts from the Australian Army Manual of Land Warfare, which was produced in 1983 and was linked to the press in 1993.

Even at this early time (1983), the role of the ADF seemed unnecessarily politicised. The 1983 Manual said that ‘civil disobedience, mass violence and terrorism have become common methods of dissent throughout the world in recent years’ and the Manual further spoke of the use of detention centres and the need to open fire on ‘unlawful assemblies.’

It is worrying, of course, that the words ‘terrorism’ and ‘civil disobedience’ are in the same sentence – almost giving equal weight to both.

Senators Brown’s reference to s543 of the Manual, instructs military personnel to adopt courses of conduct which seems designed to cover up the killing or wounding of ‘dissidents’.

In the absence of current and future copies of the Manual being made public, one can only assume that the widest rules of engagement have been given to the ADF to fire on demonstrators given the immediate social and political environment that has been produced by the ‘war on terrorism.’

The passage of the Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2005 seems almost guaranteed - given the political position of the Labor opposition in supporting the government on almost all issues involving ‘national security.’ At the time of writing, the December 16 Australian reports on revived discussion about the practicalities of a National Identification card for Australians. New laws, new restrictions, human rights taken away, are certain to occur throughout 2006.

Thanks for this info.

I have been observing the so called increase in powers of the military over Australian civilians in peacetime with incredulity.

When studying constitutional law at James Cook University , they told us that s 119 of the constitution and the defence power under s51 , are the powers that are relied on in these sorts of instances .

Now, s51 has been interpreted by the high court to "wax and wane" in power.

When we are at war, it has been said that the defence power gives almost a dictatorial power to the parliament (which is the english system) .

However, a few years after the peace that power is said to have "waned" to to the decreased threat.

Also, under the current arrangements , the commonwealth may not interfere with "the functioning" of the states.

A 1997 high court case (Henderson) said that the states may regulate the commonwealth in its capacities , for instance , the army must follow state road rules as a simple example .

s119 of the constitution says that the commonwealth must defend the states against invasion but must only defend the states against "domestic violence" upon the application of a state .

Also, the states can cede a power to the commonwealth, or request that a law be passed.

In recent times , COAG and like meetings have been used to defer powers to the commonwealth by agreement , however, whatever is done must be done according to the powers of respective governments .

Given that we are not in a declared war situation , and we do not have domestic violence (civil war) currently , it would be a good argument that the military may not have power to shoot people or to intervene in civil affairs and the respective criminal codes of the states regulate the commonwealth in its capacities.

What I mean by this is that no person (including citizen soldiers) may take the liberty or life of another without just cause. Though these lawxs are no answer to a bill of rights as there is currently no accountability. It should be tested whether the proposals are without power and the state laws remain in effect.

Now, on the other hand, the high court has held that under s122 of the constitution, the territories are "disjoined from the commonwealth" . What this means is that the coomonwealth has unlimted , despotic, and dictatorial powers to pass whatever laws they like (subject to freedom of communication and possibly movement under current law) .

That such laws and porposals go without challenge is a sad indictement of the public and an indication of the dangers of apathy. The RSL says that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. But where is liberty set in stone? Where are the rights they claim to have fought and died for ?

It is time to put these down in a new constitution.

Pat

Cetainly reads alarmist but I would think that it would be the death of any government that attempted to implement these laws in peacetime. In any event, implementation during a minor crisis would backfire.

But it's nice to know strong foundations for civil unrest are encoded into law. The active not pasive approach is answer enough in the face of military oppression. If the military started shooting at me or mine - I guess I woud have to respond in true Australian fashion - the Ned Kelly response not the colonial cringe response of Howardites.

No prizes for guessing that I'm a trad aussie - can nine years of cowardice eliminate two hundred years of Oz character? I doubt it!

has been Howard agenda all along, starting with the banning on firearms in port arthur.

Did anyone watch Today Tonight on friday the 6th?
Propaganda is being placed in current affairs programs for a draft; how great is for today's young to get the 'discipline'. they don't have in today society.

Citizen Coleman makes some interesting arguments, but I fear that they have been sidelined by the “War on Terror” and the amazingly expanded definition of terrorism being used by the Government, the “Opposition” and the media. The “War on Terror” is a handy concept, since it allows the State to use the defence power as if World War II were still going on, even without the existence of a battlefield, casualties, or even an identifiable enemy.

And certainly it would be good if we had a Bill of Rights entrenched in the Constitution, but getting that will be even harder than getting rid of Howard. The Australian Constitution isn’t changed by a member of a minor party waving a magic wand, but by a majority of votes in a majority of States - after the Commonwealth Parliament has voted to let the referendum happen. A brief survey of Australian history will show that Constitutional changes are almost as scarce as hen’s teeth.

Finally, “ready” says:

> Cetainly reads alarmist but I would think that it would
> be the death of any government that attempted to
> implement these laws in peacetime. In any event,
> implementation during a minor crisis would backfire.

People were similarly incredulous (or even more so) at the prospect of war in about June of 1914. When the imperialist States of Europe acted, however, most of the population fell into line and submitted to the war mania. Howard is no mug & would only use the military if he felt he’d go under without using them, but those circumstances would be a national emergency in his eyes (& those of the vast bulk of the capitalist class).

In Australia, after use of the powers during an emergency, the panic may pass quickly, but there's no telling how much the power of the State could be increased by that stage. The High Court is a thin reed when it comes to protecting the rights of the population at large and, given the predeliction of the Right these days for stacking the judiciary with people they think will vote the "right" way on important issues, we'd be fools to rely on it.

Go back & read the bits about dealing with “dissidents”. They’re chilling. Would Howard use the military against mass pickets & monster demonstrations of unionists determined to defy (as distinct from protest against) his anti-worker laws? If the coppers could deal with them, he wouldn’t. But what if the pickets & demonstrations were too much for the coppers? He still probably wouldn’t bring in the military - but, as I always told my kids when they wanted to do something dangerous, probably doesn’t mean definitely.

Ablokeimet.

This is a great article but I'm getting really fucking frustrated because I can see what's happening but can't do anything about it. Everyone is either sticking their heads in the sand or chasing their own tails.

So seriously... Any ideas?

I reckon UNITE from NZ may be on to something with their response to IR laws and organising casual and non-unionised workers. Also I think that their is real sentiment out there about the growing racism in Australia and it's link to the Terror-War and Iraq.

We really need to fight back NOW... I have my own plans but really would like to hear some other people's thoughts.