After 150 years, Eureka flag still stirs rebellion
By Frank Walker
The 28th of November 2004
The Sun-Herald
Prime Minister John Howard has refused to fly the Eureka flag for the 150th anniversary of the storming of the rebel miners' stockade and is snubbing ceremonies to mark the occasion.
Even though every state and territory Parliament and hundreds of town halls will fly the Eureka flag for the anniversary on Friday, Mr Howard won't allow the flag to be flown in the national Parliament.
A battle is shaping in the Senate where the Liberal Senate president, Paul Calvert, has suddenly blocked a resolution passed by the Senate earlier this year to fly the Eureka flag outside the Senate chamber.
Senator Calvert said last week the Eureka flag was not an officially authorised flag and therefore could not be flown at Parliament.
The mover of the original resolution, Labor senator Gavin Marshall, said he would try to use the Opposition's numbers to force the Senate president to fly the flag.
"Howard is an arch monarchist and clearly they are running from what the Eureka flag represents; independence and people determined to fight for their rights," he said.
It was under the blue Southern Cross flag, stitched together by miners' wives, that the rebels made this oath at Bakery Hill in Ballarat: "We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other and fight to defend our rights and liberties."
Three days later, hundreds of troops stormed the stockade, killing more than 30 miners, and tore down the flag.
Mr Howard will not attend this week's Eureka ceremonies in Ballarat, saying he was unavailable as Parliament was sitting.
He won't even send a minister to represent the Federal Government at the week-long celebrations.
But Mr Howard acknowledged the historic importance of the Eureka rebellion in a letter to the journal Eureka Echo, released by his office last week. He said the miners' rebellion was central to the development of Australia as an independent democratic country.
Mr Howard wrote: "As we reflect on our nation's heritage, we should also celebrate the traditions and values that identify us as Australians such as optimism, tolerance, perseverance and mateship, the importance of family, a fair go, our willingness to pull together in times of hardship and adversity. Most of these qualities can readily be found in the story of the Eureka stockade."
The flag was later adopted by left-wing unions, the republican movement and some extreme racist right-wing groups.
Prominent historian Geoffrey Blainey said Eureka continued to arouse more debate than any other event in Australian history.
Mr Howard will be confronted with the meaning of Eureka all week. Several seminars will examine the legacy of Eureka and Ballarat will stage a spectacular re-enactment on Thursday night. All six Labor-controlled state parliaments and the two territory Labor governments will fly the flag.
It will fly outside NSW Parliament in Macquarie Street on Friday. "We should celebrate Eureka's contribution to the spirit of Australian democracy," Premier Bob Carr said.
Bruce Murphy, of Eastwood, whose great-great-grandfather, Michael Canny, was wounded at Eureka but escaped the troops, was proud the flag would fly in NSW.
"The Eureka flag is a symbol of the need to stand up for your rights," he said. "It was an uprising against authority, but I don't know if that is what is on Mr Howard's mind."
Mr Howard won't be able to escape the Eureka flag this week as the ACT Government is flying more than 200 flags around Canberra, including along the avenues leading to Federal Parliament.
"This flag has a strength and pride which reflects those very same characteristics of our people," said ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope.
A coin and stamps will be issued showing the flag and rebellion leader Peter Lalor.
WHY IT MATTERS
·
·
·
·
·
SMH 28-11-4
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/After-150-years-Eureka-flag-still-stirs-rebellion/2004/11/27/1101495457395.html
Freedoms lost are hard regained
By Cynthia Banham
The 17th of November 2004
Scenario one: a documentary maker, a publisher and an academic have their computer hard drives erased by a government "cleansing" squad because each has been emailed a politically sensitive manuscript. Fiction? No, it happened in Australia.
Scenario two: without your knowledge, police obtain a warrant to enter your house. They rifle through your belongings, seize some items and substitute them with others, copy documents and plant listening devices. They are under no obligation to tell you about it until six months later.
The stuff of George Orwell's novel 1984? Wrong again. The NSW Government plans to give its police such powers.
Australia's legal landscape has undergone a dramatic shift since September 11, 2001, and the rise of terrorism.
Governments, both state and federal, have significantly bolstered the powers of security agencies, giving them greater abilities to detain and interrogate people and carry out surveillance, all under the veil of unprecedented secrecy.
Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court noted in a speech last week that "17 items of legislation restricting civil freedoms" had been adopted by the Federal Parliament alone since 2001.
Whether the lawmakers have gone too far and stripped civilians of the civil freedoms once considered fundamental to the country's liberal democracy is a subject over which governments and lawyers are sharply divided.
Kirby said courts were, in today's environment, the "last line of defence for human rights, fundamental freedoms and individual liberty".
Dr David Neal, from the Victorian Bar Council, puts it this way: "The real substantive issue is whether we are giving away so much in this that the very things that we are trying to protect [will] be made the subject of governments which have an absolutely excessive power over their citizens."
Stephen Southwood, QC, the new president of the Law Council of Australia, believes governments
should have looked more closely at the police powers that existed before the avalanche of post-September 11 counter-terrorism laws. "We'd probably find they were more than adequate," he says. "We've kind of abandoned too readily our existing criminal procedures and [are] potentially doing enormous damage to fundamental principles ... We are in effect substantially changing the nature of our society."
The federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, dismisses the dissidents from the bar as "the squeaky wheel". He
points to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which "imposes upon governments a responsibility to protect people's right to life, their safety and their security".
Among the laws introduced since September 11, 2001, are terrorism offences, making it a crime to commit, train or prepare for a terrorist act or be a member of or support a terrorist organisation. The attorney-general has a new power to unilaterally proscribe terrorist organisations; the former presumption in favour of bail has been reversed for people charged with terrorism offences; and minimum non-parole periods have been introduced for convicted terrorists.
Consorting laws making it an offence to associate with a terrorist organisation were passed despite a bipartisan Senate committee saying they were unnecessary and could trap journalists. And the intelligence agency ASIO was given the power to detain and interrogate for up to a week people aged 16 and over with information about terrorist activity.
And there are more laws on the way. Ruddock plans to introduce three more counter-terrorism bills, forcing defence lawyers to undergo vetting by the government before acting in terrorist cases, and allowing the prosecution to withhold evidence from accused terrorists and their legal team.
The Carr Government is planning to introduce covert search warrants, and increase the maximum time police can conduct bugging operations from 21 to 90 days.
Professor George Williams, of the University of NSW, is concerned that most of the new laws, apart from the ASIO detention regime, do not have a requirement that they be periodically reviewed to see if they are still needed.
He also worries that some traditional protection of the Australian criminal justice system, such as press freedom to report on investigations, has been removed. "The inability to bring to light abuses [of power is] a significant infringement on freedom of speech, and if bad things are happening it undermines your ability to find out about them," he says.
SMH 17-11-4
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Anti-Terror-Watch/Freedoms-lost-are-hard-regained/2004/11/16/1100574470662.html
US laws could open Aust tax records
Sunday, the 31st of October 2004.
The Civil Liberties Council says Australian governments must urgently draft laws to protect citizen from the demands of the US laws.
The Patriot Act allows American authorities access to normally protected US company information, even from foreign subsidiaries.
Three Canadian provinces are already considering measures to specifically counter the US law over concerns about companies such as EDS, which in Australia manages federal tax records and all South Australian Government records.
Civil Liberties Council spokesman George Mancini says it is not just the Canadians who should be concerned.
"I'm sure just as Canada would be concerned, Australians would be concerned, Europe would be concerned," he said.
"It's something that you don't want to give up your sovereignty and principals because that...the limits may go beyond that."
EDS in Australian was not available for comment.
ABC 31-10-4
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1231602.htm
Index slams Australia's media freedom
The 27 th of October 2004
Australia has ranked dismally in a global index on media freedom released by Paris-based watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF).
Australia could only manage 41st position in RSF's third annual index of press freedom, lagging behind some former Eastern bloc nations, including Hungary (28), Czech Republic (19) and Poland (32).
Regional neighbour New Zealand placed a respectable ninth and was one of only three nations outside Europe to rank in the top 20.
But Australia's lowly ranking came as no surprise after it came under fire in the RSF's 2004 annual report released earlier this year.
In particular, the watchdog criticised Australia's policies restricting press access to refugees.
It said in the report that the Australian government "continued to prevent journalists from covering the situation of refugees held in camps on Australian territory or in neighbouring countries".
The report pointed to the January 2002 arrest of ABC TV reporter Natalie Larkins, who was carted off and charged with trespassing on commonwealth property while trying to report on 300 hunger striking refugees at the Woomera Detention Centre in South Australia.
The report also criticised a number of other attempts by several groups to stifle press freedom.
It mentioned a case in which the NRMA launched legal action to try to force Australian Associated Press (AAP) reporter Belinda Tasker and journalists Anne Lampe and Kate Askew from The Sydney Morning Herald to divulge their sources in their coverage of a boardroom battle.
The case has since been dropped by the NSW motoring body.
And it criticised attempts by the federal government to free up cross media ownership laws and make the Australian Broadcasting Authority responsible for maintaining editorial independence.
European nations dominated the top positions in the rankings, with the eight countries sharing top spot: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia and Switzerland.
Countries in east Asia and the Middle East have the least media freedom in the world, with North Korea coming at the bottom of a global index on media freedom in 167th spot.
RSF said that in states such as North Korea, Burma and China, and in Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq, "an independent media either does not exist or journalists are persecuted and censored on a daily basis".
"Freedom of information and safety of journalists are not guaranteed there," RSF said in a statement.
It said a recent fact-finding mission to North Korea found journalists there were forced to serve the personality cult of dictator Kim Jong-il.
"Dozens of reporters had been 're-educated' for often minor supposed professional 'errors'," RSF said.
Meanwhile, Iraq proved to be the most deadly place for journalists in recent years, with 44 journalists killed since fighting began in March last year and ranked 148th.
The United States came in 22nd on the index, RSF said.
"Violations of the privacy of sources, persistent problems in granting press visas and the arrest of several journalists during anti-Bush demonstrations kept the United States away from the top of the list," the group said.
RSF said Cuba was the worst violator of press freedom in Latin America, coming in 166th. That was just above North Korea.
"All criticism of President Fidel Castro's rule is officially a crime. Twenty-six journalists arrested in March last year along with some 50 dissidents are still in prison," RSF said.
© 2004 AAP
SMH 27-10-4
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/27/1098667794574.html
Libs silent on unlisted number election calls
Monday, the 25th of October 2004.
The federal Liberal Party has been given more time to explain how it obtained and used unlisted phone numbers during the election campaign.
The Australian Communications Authority (ACA) is conducting an inquiry into why silent phone numbers were called by both the Prime Minister's and Treasurer's automated, prerecorded election phone calls.
Under a code of practice, silent numbers are not to be used or passed on for commercial purposes.
The ACA had given the Liberal Party until last Friday to provide a written explanation as to why silent numbers were used.
But a spokesman for the ACA says the Liberal Party has asked for and has been given an extension.
ABC 25-10-4
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1227044.htm
NSW Police given greater anti-terrorism powers
Thursday, the 21st of October 2004
New South Wales police will be given the power to conduct covert searches of suspected terrorist's homes.
Police in the counter-terrorism unit will now be able to search the homes of terrorist suspects without their knowledge.
However, they will need the Police Commissioner's permission before applying to a court.
They can also extend the warrants for up to two years.
Premier Bob Carr says police will be able to gather information without revealing their investigation but says there will be safeguards.
"The Attorney-General, for example, will also conduct a statutory review after 12 months and of course the Police Integrity Commission will be able to investigate any complaints," he said.
In other changes, bugging operations will be able to be carried out for 90 days and there will be a new classification for prisoners involved with terrorist groups.
They will be housed in high security prisons and will not be allowed contact visits unless it is decided it is safe for them to do so.
But Cameron Murphy, from the Civil Liberties Council, says the new measures go too far.
"These sort of powers have been used in the United States, called sneak and peek warrants, for more than 12 months and they've been widely discredited," he said.
"They pave the way for police corruption because there's little or no accountability over their use."
ABC 21-10-4
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1225276.htm
A nosey park plan to poke in your bags
By Tim Dick
The 20th of July 2004
Rangers may soon be allowed to search people's bags, picnic baskets, eskies and even drinking bottles in some of Sydney's most popular parks.
Civil libertarians are horrified by the proposed laws, which could give the park rangers more power than police to search citizens in the 360 hectares of land covered by Centennial Park, Moore Park, Queens Park and Fox Studios.
Unlike most police search powers, there is no requirement in the draft rules for rangers to suspect criminal activity before conducting a search - and if park visitors refuse, they could be removed and fined $175 if they try to come back.
The draft rules state anyone must "open any bag, container or other thing" they have and "permit inspection of its contents" if asked by an "authorised person". The Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust has proposed the powers and released them for public discussion.
When asked why rangers might need such powers, spokeswoman Julie Hunter-Wardoffered the example of searching suspected ticket scalpers. They would target "persons acting suspiciously in connection to any illegal activity", she said, insisting that "they are not going to go up to an ordinary person and say, 'What's in your bag?"'.
But the proposed regulation would give rangers the power to do just that. While most might not misuse the power, others could, particularly if unaccustomed to searching people, according to Cameron Murphy, president of the the NSW Council for Civil Liberties. He condemned the plan, and was adamant that "people's bags should only be searched where there's a reasonable suspicion that they've committed a criminal offence".
"I think it's an important point - people have the right to go about their business," he said. "All it's going to be is a fishing exercise ... that will humiliate people."
Mr Murphy said that while police and law-enforcement authorities may need the power to search bags when investigating criminal offences, park rangers did not. "Where do you stop? Today it's searching bags, next it's searching houses."
Ms Hunter-Ward said the trust would "absolutely respect" people's civil liberties, and may change the provision after receiving public comments, which close on July 28.
"That's why it is out for review," she said.
Rangers working in City of Sydney parks, the Royal Botanic Gardens or the Domain have no power to search people's bags, although a botanic gardens spokeswoman, Stevie King, said searches were conducted at some, usually private, events.
Retailers have long asked to inspect bags as customers leave, but according to guidelines endorsed by the NSW Department of Fair Trading, they risk assault charges if they look in bags without consent.
A spokeswoman for the Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Trust, Karen Grega, said bag searches were a condition of entry to both the SCG and Aussie Stadium.
"It's quite simple, [if] people don't want to show us their bags, they can't come into the ground," she said. "There's very few issues any more. It's not really something that's terribly new."
SMH 20-7-4
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/19/1090089098890.html
Terrorism trial lawyers face curbs
By Cynthia Banham
The 28th of May 2004
Defence lawyers in terrorist trials may be forced to undergo security clearances and security-sensitive evidence may be withheld from an accused person and their legal team, under laws proposed by the Federal Government.
The proposals have raised concerns from the Law Council of Australia, which warned that they threatened to undermine the principle of open justice.
The Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, who has for months indicated his intention to introduce secrecy measures into trials involving national security, unveiled the new laws yesterday before the release of the Australian Law Reform Commission's report into the issue.
His spokesman said it was done out of a concern to have the laws in place by the end of the current Parliament, before the election is called later this year.
The proposed laws would apply to trials involving terrorism, espionage and treason.
They would give the Attorney-General the power to issue a certificate when it was considered that evidence about to be introduced into court could prejudice national security.
That certificate would then be ruled on by a judge in a closed hearing. The accused person's lawyer might be excluded from that hearing.
If the judge approved the certificate, the evidence - whether a document or a witness's answer - could be censored, and part of it withheld from the defence team.
The proposed laws would also allow the Government to order a defence lawyer to undergo a security clearance. If the lawyer refused, he or she would be denied access to information affecting national security.
The recent trial of the former spy Simon Lappas had made the new laws necessary, Mr Ruddock said yesterday. Without them, the Government could be forced to abandon a trial if proceeding with it meant disclosing security-sensitive information.
Labor's spokesman on homeland security, Robert McClelland, said the Opposition "recognises the need for legislative reform in the area of protecting classified and security-sensitive information in court proceedings".
He said Labor would examine the bill and "make a final decision on the merits and in the national interest".
The Law Council's president, Bob Gotterson, QC, objected to the proposal to make defence lawyers undergo security checks.
"What this security clearance proposal means is that you will not be able to choose your own lawyer if your case has national security overtones - you can only see a lawyer approved by officials appointed by the government of the day," he said.
"The potential for discrimination here is grave - every citizen should be able to choose their own lawyer, and every lawyer should be free to act."
Mr Gotterson said denying a defence team access to evidence which could be used against the accused "strikes a blow at the principle of open justice".
He said there was "an element of over-reaction" in the proposals.
Under the proposals, any lawyer or party who disclosed information covered by a certificate to another person could be jailed for two years.
The Government also introduced draft laws yesterday allowing police and security agencies to read or listen to "stored communications", such as email and voicemail, without the need for a telecommunications warrant.
SMH 28-5-4
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/27/1085641653304.html
Amnesty report criticises Aust, US
Wednesday, the 26th of May 2004
Amnesty International has accused Australia of using national security to justify the erosion of human rights and says the United States has proved "bankrupt of vision and bereft of principle" in its fight against terrorism and invasion of Iraq.
The London-based organisation's 2004 report has targeted the Washington-led war on terrorism for sanctioning abuses in the name of freedom.
It says the unilateral nature of the conflict to unseat Saddam Hussein in Iraq had "virtually paralysed" the United Nations's role in guaranteeing human rights on a global level.
In its report on Australia, Amnesty says: "National security was invoked to justify the erosion of human rights safeguards in draft laws on 'anti-terrorism' measures and refugee rights.
"Domestic violence against Aboriginal women and children and indefinite detention of child asylum seekers were prominent themes in the domestic human rights debate."
The 339-page document, which detailed the human rights situation in 157 nations and territories, reserved the most column inches for the United States but criticism was also meted out to global giants Russia and China.
Other perennial violators were also highlighted, such as North Korea, Cuba and the central Asian state of Turkmenistan, where Amnesty summarised the human rights situation simply as "appalling".
While the report only briefly dealt with damning allegations that US and British troops tortured Iraqi prisoners, it had harsh words about the nations' overall record in Iraq.
"Coalition forces failed to live up fully to their responsibilities as occupying powers, including their duty to restore and maintain public order and safety, and to provide food, medical care and relief assistance," the report's section on Iraq said.
Elsewhere, Amnesty detailed a long list of abuses in Russia, noting that the country's security forces "continue to enjoy almost total impunity for serious violations of human rights and international law" in the breakaway republic of Chechnya.
China, despite the accession of a new political regime under President Hu Jintao during 2003, had made "no significant attempt" to end the use of torture and other abuses, which "remained widespread", the report said.
In the Middle East, both Israel and the Palestinian Authority were taken to task for alleged rights violations, with Amnesty saying that some actions by the Israeli army, such as the destruction of property, "constituted war crimes".
One of the most damning assessments was handed to Cuba, which saw a "severe deterioration in the human rights situation" during 2003, most notably through the jailing of dozens of dissidents after "hasty and unfair" trials.
-- Reuters/ABC
ABC 26-5-4
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1116730.htm