<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/dingo.news\/voice\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/11\/SAS-training.jpg?resize=814%2C500&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n
SAS file photo.<\/span> Credit: AP Photo\/Firdia Lisnawati)<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Under the new laws, government ministers can issue call-out orders if they consider there is a \u201cthreat\u201d of undefined \u201cdomestic violence,\u201d even if the relevant state or territory government objects. Military personnel will have unprecedented peacetime powers, including to use lethal force, detain civilians, issue directives, search people and premises and seize property.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n As with the previous bills to deploy the military on home soil\u2014in 2000 and 2008\u2014the Coalition and the Labor Party have worked closely together to limit parliamentary debate and ride roughshod over alarms raised by lawyers\u2019 and civil liberties groups about the overturning of fundamental civil and democratic rights.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The bill further repudiates a centuries-old principle\u2014derived from overthrowing the absolute monarchy in Britain\u2014of barring those in power from unleashing the military against the people.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull originally foreshadowed the latest measures in mid-2017, supposedly in response to a coroner\u2019s report on the December 2014 Sydney caf\u00e9 siege, conducted by lone gunman Man Haron Monis.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The government and the media falsely labelled the event a terrorist emergency and claimed it demonstrated the need for the Special Forces regiments to intervene with lethal force. In reality, like similar incidents around the world, the caf\u00e9 hostage-taking was perpetrated by a mentally-disturbed individual who had been under close surveillance<\/a> <\/span>by police and intelligence agencies.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Moreover, the legislation is not at all confined to dealing with terrorism. In \u201cspecific circumstances\u201d\u2014another undefined term\u2014the government can order the military to respond to any threat to \u201cpublic safety\u201d or vaguely-defined \u201cCommonwealth interests,\u201d that is, anything that imperils the existing capitalist order.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Backed by Labor, the government refused to amend the bill to define \u201cspecific circumstances.\u201d Instead, it changed the bill\u2019s explanatory memorandum to declare: \u201cWhat constitutes specified circumstances will depend on the situation in question.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The memorandum was revised to claim: \u201cPeaceful protests, industrial action or civil disobedience would not fall within the definition of \u2018domestic violence\u2019.\u201d However, this proviso, contained in section 39 of the bill, does not apply if there is a \u201creasonable likelihood of serious damage to property.\u201d In other words, alleged danger to property can be cited to set troops against strikers or demonstrators.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cDomestic violence\u201d is a term contained in the 1901 Australian constitution, referring to serious civil unrest that endangers the ruling establishment. At present, because the constitution left police powers in the hands of the states, the ADF is supposed to be called out only if states and territories \u201care not, or are unlikely to be, able to protect themselves or Commonwealth interests against domestic violence.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n This limit will be junked. The prime minister or two \u201cauthorising ministers\u201d\u2014now including the home affairs minister\u2014will have the power to mobilise the ADF support if they decide it \u201cwould be likely to enhance the state or territory\u2019s ability to protect itself or Commonwealth interests.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In effect, the military can take control of entire urban areas, overriding state and territory governments and police forces. According to the bill\u2019s memorandum, \u201cthe ADF will be required to consult with every state and territory affected by a call-out, to the extent possible in the circumstances\u201d<\/em> and act in accord with the relevant police force \u201cas far as is reasonably practicable<\/em>\u201d [italics in the original].<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Alternatively, ministers can order a \u201ccontingency call out\u201d that pre-authorises the ADF chief to deploy troops. Currently that power is limited to aviation and the protection of \u201cCommonwealth interests.\u201d The bill will extend it to cover state and territory interests, whether in the land, air, or maritime domain.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In a Senate committee submission, the Attorney-General\u2019s department revealed that: \u201cSuch orders have been regularly made as part of security measures to protect major Commonwealth events (for example, the G20, Commonwealth Games, and the ASEAN summit) from circumstances involving air threats.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Although no call-out orders have been issued since the power was first formalised in 2000, these \u201ccontingency callouts\u201d have been dress rehearsals for military mobilisations, designed also to accustom the population to ADF operations in major cities.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The bill expands the military\u2019s powers, including to kill people, far beyond situations where commanders claim it is necessary to protect a life. Lethal force can be used to protect \u201cdesignated infrastructure\u201d or stop someone escaping from military custody, or end \u201cthreats to public health or public safety.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In addition, military personnel will be further protected from legal liability by adding a new blanket defence of \u201cacting in good faith.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n For all the talk of combating terrorism, when the bill was first tabled in June, Attorney-General Christian Porter told journalists the military could be used to restore order in case of \u201cwidespread rioting<\/span><\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Greens MP Adam Bandt nervously told parliament last month: \u201cAllowing this wide-ranging ability to bring the Defence Force out onto our streets is something that most people in this country would not agree with if they knew it was happening.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n But the Greens have no basic opposition to the domestic use of troops, instead issuing a dissenting Senate committee report calling for token modifications to the bill. Together with the media, the government and Labor, they have done nothing to alert the public to the real purpose of the expanded powers: preparations by the entire ruling establishment for convulsive struggles against austerity and war.<\/p>\nBy Mike Head
23 November 2018<\/h5>\n