Are Western civil rights diminishing in Australia?

Dewi Anggraeni, Novelist, Journalist, Melbourne, Australia

For some time now in Indonesia community leaders, intellectuals and other individuals are endeavouring to establish a civil society. In the meantime countries in the West, which usually provide the blueprint of this desired civil society, are taking increasing measures to potentially shrink it.

In the United States and the United Kingdom, the two generally perceived models of democracy and civil society, new laws have been passed which contain broad definitions of terrorism, enabling the government to ban organizations and penalize people who support such organizations. And non-citizens can now be detained without a court order.

At a glance, considering what happened on Sept. 11 in the U.S., these laws may have been meant to prevent a repeat of those horrendous attacks. However if we look further, the picture that appears may cause concern.

According to Damien Lawson of Western Suburbs Legal Services in Melbourne, the U.S. government is planning to establish secret military tribunals which can bring those suspected of terrorism, before a military commission. The commission sits in secret. The suspects thus arraigned have no right to legal representation, and hearsay evidence is admissible. Those convicted have no right to appeal and could receive the death penalty.

If this picture brings goose bumps to those in Indonesia who have close knowledge of how the system worked under the previous New Order government, the following piece of news may alert them to attention: Australia, Indonesia's near neighbor with a democratic government, is expected to pass two new laws next week when Parliament resumes.

The first, a new counter-terrorist law, will give the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO) new powers. It will enable ASIO, after obtaining a warrant from a Federal Magistrate or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, to arrest and detain for up to 48 hours and without legal representation, those suspected of terrorism and of having information about terrorism, including those who may not themselves be involved in terrorist activity. The right to silence of the suspects detained when under questioning will be removed.

Daryl Williams, the Federal Attorney General also stated that those arrested, which he said could include lawyers and journalists, could face up to five years imprisonment if they refused to answer questions.

According to Chris Maxwell, president of Liberty Victoria, the Victorian Council of Liberties, in practice this can mean that people suspected of any of the above, can disappear for 48 hours, without their families knowing what has happened to them. The Attorney General, in his media statement, justifies the proposed law with a hypothetical situation, "For example, a terrorist sympathizer who knows of a planned bombing on an embassy could be held incommunicado for questioning, so authorities could close in on the would-be perpetrators of this serious crime." The statement goes on to say that the power will have strict safeguards and will be used only rarely.

The safeguards however, do not reassure Maxwell and Lawson, who pointed out that both Federal Magistrate and the Administrative Appeals Tribunals were appointed by the present Federal Government. Lawson explained that the AAT members did not have the same independence, and were not, a judicial authority. Maxwell emphasizes that Australian intelligence and police agencies already have extensive surveillance powers.

"They have powers for preventive detention and covert surveillance which, if used efficiently, can be very effective. They don't need to broaden the powers," he said.

Another bill seen by community advocates and civil liberties leaders as further restricting freedom of speech is the Espionage and Related Offences Bill introduced by the Attorney General to the Parliament in September last year. The Attorney General argues that the new legislation is aimed at protecting Australia's national security, not at hampering public discussion.

Terry O'Gorman, president of the Australian Council for Civil Liberties however, regards the legislation as the government's means of controlling the flow of all official information to the public. The example he gave was powerful. During the election campaign in late October last year, the government told the media that the refugees who had arrived in the waters of Christmas Island had thrown their children overboard in an attempt to impose moral blackmail on the government. The government implied that Australia did not want this kind of people. A Navy officer who resigned from the force later, went on the record saying that the story was false, and that nobody had indeed seen such incident. O'Gorman said that under the legislation which carries an increased penalty for espionage of up to 25 years imprisonment, the former Navy officer would have been charged with espionage and threatened with imprisonment.

With the Western countries traditionally regarded as having democratic governments, closing in on civil liberties, will Indonesia still have the political will and courage to fight on for a civil society?