The Coalition and ALP supported “exclusion orders” law is now before the Senate. It gives Minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton unprecedented powers over the lives of individuals who the government says have been fighting against Western interests in countries like Syria and Iraq in recent years.
But one clause in the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019 appears so broadly drafted that it could be used to prevent whistleblowers, journalists and others who reveal the secrets of the US, Australia and other allies in the so-called war on terror from entering Australia.
Clause 10 of the bill gives Dutton the power to prevent a person aged 14 or over from coming back to Australia for up to two years at a time on a number of grounds. One of those grounds is that “the person has been assessed by [ASIO] to be directly or indirectly a risk to security … for reasons related to politically motivated violence”.
This provision is extraordinarily broad. How exactly might ASIO think that a person is “directly or indirectly a risk to security”? Does it include a whistleblower who reveals US and Australian misconduct in the context of ongoing military operations? Or what about a journalist and publisher who lets the world see cables, emails and other forms of communication related to terrorist activity to and from Australian security and defence agencies?
The answer is yes, it could apply in both cases. When whistleblowers, media organisations and journalists have published this kind of material — such as that of WikiLeaks, the Iraq War Logs, or the trove of materials that former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden smuggled out in 2013 — such exercises have been labelled as assisting terrorism.
Back in 2010 then-US vice president Joe Biden called WikiLeaks, and its founder Julian Assange, a “high-tech terrorist”. His colleague Hillary Clinton, then-secretary of state, said WikiLeaks was waging a war on the world.
In 2013 there was also the case of David Miranda who was working with celebrated journalist Glenn Greenwald in publishing material from the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Miranda was carrying computer materials supplied by Snowden and this material was seized when he was at London’s Heathrow Airport. As Clive Walker from the University of Leeds noted:
The journalists viewed their mission as one of disclosure in the public interest of a vast web of governmental illegal surveillance programmes. However, the UK Security Service (MI5) contended that Miranda was concerned in ‘terrorism’ (as defined in the UK Terrorism Act 2000, section 1) because his mission sought to influence the government by promoting a political or ideological cause.
The allegation was that disclosure of the data to a hostile state (Russia) or to terrorists might imperil the identities of secret agents or the methods used for electronic surveillance of terrorists. Thus, the material was placed in the realms of terrorism (as well as official secrecy).
A year later US congressman Peter King blasted the fact the Pultizer Prize was given to Greenwald, Miranda, The Guardian and The Washington Post for publishing the Snowden material.
“The Pulitzer Prize, The Post, The Guardian, all of them, they’re working for al-Qaeda, or at least they completely sympathize with what they’re doing, and that’s what this award is about,” King said.
When the next Snowden or Chelsea Manning emerges, will any Australian living overseas who assists them — either by facilitating the leaking of material or through the publication of news about classified military materials — be labelled by ASIO as a person who is “directly or indirectly a risk to security”?
If ASIO answers yes (and of course its verdict can’t be challenged because they are secret) then the loose wording of clause 10 of the exclusion orders bill suggests that Dutton would be prepared to issue an order preventing those individuals from entering Australia.
Once again freedom of speech and freedom of the press are under direct attack.
Greg Barns is a barrister and spokesperson for the Australian Lawyers Alliance. He is a member of the Australian Assange campaign.
The slippery slope is becoming even more slippery. The government will decide who poses a risk, and ultimately it will be anyone who dares oppose, critique or speak out against them.
The movement towards a dictatorship is slow and sneaky, otherwise it would not succeed.
Slowly, but surely our right to know, what our government is doing in our name, is being taken from us or suppressed under orders from a group of judges, mostly based in Victoria.
Without the knowledge, how can we be sure that the acts by our government even comply with normal laws and common decency.
Does anyone, remember the Indian doctor, arrested at Brisbane Airport in possession of a one way ticket to India? The only reason he got a lawyer, was that the people in the watch house, where he was being kept, in solitary confinement, thought that “It was over the top” to keep him like that for a fortnight.
With a lawyer (Peter Russo) and the AFP officially told to take a chill pill. It comes out, that the big connection to terrorism, is the guy’s cousin, who he had shared a house with in London, 18 months before, had a SIM card given to him by our Indian Doctor as it wouldn’t work in Australia.
Yes, that was it!
Why was the Doctor, Mahommed Haneef leaving on a one way ticket? His wife had had to have an emergency Cesarean and he was just trying to get home to be with his wife and child and he didn’t know when he was coming back.
And so, does anyone doubt the malicious nature of Peter Dutton, his head of department and anyone else appointed by him?
At the risk of stealing you thunder, klewso, I agree, it is like giving a monkey a loaded AK 47 to play with, with the safety off.
Honestly, it is time, that even if the Labor Party loses in the house of representatives, it is time to “Just Say NO” to Petey and Mikey’s Dictatorship portfolio and hope that the senate cross benches are watching.
I recall the Haneef matter clearly but, sadly, am probably in the minority. Dutton’s sympathies would be directed to a couple of au pairs rather than the hapless (& innocent) Haneef.
Our nation is transforming into a sea of airheads distracted by the cost of living, sport & reality TV. Meantime we are the frog being slowly boiled to leach our freedoms.
The slope is also becoming steeper. Even were it not slippery it would be difficult not to slide further down, down to unknown depths.
Who else would give a monkey a loaded sub-machine gun to play with?
What exactly does Peter Dutton and his hard-right coterie expect is going to happen to the fighters and families who were deluded enough to join ISIS? Right now, they are mostly in Kurdish prison camps, and the ones who aren’t psychotically fundamentalist are at the mercy of those who are. It’s not the Kurd’s problem, either. The Kurds are struggling to rebuild their homeland, and they’re being harassed and bombed by the remaining ISIS members at large, keen on revenge. They can ill afford to keep thousands of ISIS families in captivity while the West postures on ‘national security’.
So what happens here? Has anyone in power come up with a solution? Did I miss it?
Quote: “contended that Miranda was concerned in ‘terrorism’ (as defined in the UK Terrorism Act 2000, section 1) because his mission sought to influence the government by promoting a political or ideological cause.”
Dumb question, is there any chance that these type of provisions and logic could at some stage be used against the leadership or membership of opposition parties in any western countries?
I briefly saw someone saying a law preventing Australian citizens’ access to return could be struck down by the High Court.
Do you think so too Greg ?
I remember hearing something like that too, Mark. Isn’t there a question about this being unconstitutional? How can we deny entry to Oz for our own citizens? Shouldn’t they be brought home, and charged with whatever Potato Head can dream up that they may…or may not…have done?
I just worry about the children in those Kurdish camps…they haven’t done anything wrong, and I doubt that most of their mothers have either. That Sydney grandmother who managed to have her grandchildren and great-grandchildren released is a hero. Although I haven’t heard whether they are now back in Oz…does anyone know? If not, I suppose Potato Head will be working diligently to keep them out as well!!
Exile was quite a popular punishment in Czarist Russia.
High Court appeals have the problem of cost, time, and perhaps only partial win. Remember that “our” High Court approves of indefinite immigration detention, for those who are not even accused of a crime!