by Peter O'Brien

The Wood Royal Commission uncovered a culture of police corruption and systematic misuse of power. Since then, it has been used by the Police Association, the Police Service and the State Government to expand police powers and discretions. This has been done by changing the law to legalise practices which police formerly engaged in illegally, unfairly and routinely.

The Drug Misuse and Trafficking (Ongoing Dealings) Amendment Act 1998 is the latest example of this phenomena which cloaks police operational decisions from public scrutiny. The law is based on comments by Justice Wood responding to the evidence of many police officers caught acting illegally and corruptly in relation to drugs. The Commissioner's report said:

"There were many such examples in the course of the Commission's hearings. The frustration for police arising from these circumstances is such that they may "solve" the problem by "loading up" the dealer with a larger quantity of drugs, or alternatively engage in theft or extortion to "punish" the dealer."

The response by the Government was the introduction of a law which virtually condones this type of activity. The law, introduced in July, creates a new, wholly indictable offence of dealing in any amount of any illegal drug (other than cannabis) on more than 2 occasions. A person will be guilty of an offence if the person is observed supplying a prohibited drug for financial or material reward on 3 or more separate occasions over any period of 30 consecutive days. It does not matter whether the same drug is supplied on each of those occasions, and the amount is not relevant either. The penalty under the law for this new offence is imprisonment for up to 20 years and/or $385,000; an identical penalty to that for the offence of supplying illegal drugs in 'commercial quantities' under existing legislation.

In this way, it abolishes the quantity distinction in the offence of supply illegal drugs. An example shows the brutal potential of this law. Under the old laws, to receive 20 years imprisonment and $385,000 in fines an accused must be caught selling 250 grams of heroin. Under this Act, an accused can face the same penalty for three $25 cap deals, if they're done within a 30 day period. (In an amendment which was narrowly defeated, the Liberal and National Parties wanted to include marijuana in the law.)

Prohibitionary laws, especially drug laws, have always been a major source of police corruption and abuses of civil liberties. A 1997 study of Indo-Chinese heroin users in Cabramatta found that 55% of those surveyed had been found in possession of illegal drugs (mainly heroin) and police had seized the drugs and released them without charge.

72% said that money had been seized by police during a search. One 18 year-old said:

"We're out there trying to support our habit and then they [the police] come and tax us for drugs or take the money. It's fucking wrong. It's bad enough without them cause the 5T and them stand over us and take stuff off us. Now the police are worser than 5T"

Rather than reducing the scope for corruption, this new weapon in the 'war on drugs' is likely to increase it. COPWATCH, a community organisation which monitors police abuses of powers, is spot on when it said that, because the new law legally endorses entrapment, police will act as agent provocateur, tricking suspects into selling drugs to police officers. It is also likely to increase their use of video surveillance to gain evidence:

"The way the Bill will work is like this: police set up more cameras, catch the person selling drugs on camera three or more times, then make an arrest. The scope for police abuse of powers are increased significantly; entrapment and police set-ups are more likely because the action of selling is more important than the quantity sold. Police can turn a blind eye to as many sales as they like to secure a conviction, increasing police discretion and possibilities for corruption. The ultimate effect of the law will not be to reduce the overall supply of drugs but to move it around, increase the profit margins in drug trafficing and consequently increase the expense and frequency of drug related crime."

A key feature of this new law is that it is aimed directly at user-dealers, like the 18 year old from Cabramatta. It is street-cleaning legislation and is unlikely to have any impact on the actual supply of drugs.

It targets the small, most visible suppliers. This is clear by the removal of the quantity distinction which has traditionally distinguished commercial dealers from personal users. Redfern Legal Centre's statement regarding the law makes the point that:

"It requires very little thought to see that the people most likely to be caught are either users cutting or taxing small quantities and selling to support their own habit, or recreational users who may supply to friends. Because most street deals are done by users, the legislation can be criticised for targeting the demand rather than the supply of drugs."

Justice For Young People has said that the law is yet another piece of youth scapegoating:

"It targets young people more than any other group because most street dealers are young, taken advantage of by older and wealthy drug suppliers. This law will see more young people jailed and only to be replaced by others on the streets. It does nothing to address the issues associated with drug use and the problems caused by drug laws. What about drug education, poverty, decent work opportunities and other factors which make drug dealing for young people so accessible, despite the serious criminal consequences?"

The consequence of this law is going to be an exacerbation of social issues which are related to crime and drug dependency. Involving those who are drug dependent and vulnerable in the criminal justice system, and eventually the prison system, has no beneficial effect on the individual or on society as a whole. Targeting addicts and the drug-dependant has minimal, if any, deterrence effect in the general community. As the Director of Public Prosecutions said, "The so-called 'war on drugs' is going the way of most wars. It's costing time, it's costing money, it's costing lives [and] it's achieving nothing other than creating more crime which I then have to prosecute."

The 'war on drugs', recognised as a complete and miserable international failure by those with any understanding of drug use and misuse, became more deadly in July this year.

Specialising in METHADONE TREATMENT also providing services in

ASSESSMENT

COUNSELLING

REFERRALS


COURT REPORTS

FAMILY COUNSELLING

Doctors available Mon - Fri for Methadone Assessment
For appointments and enquiries ring 9553 8230.
2 South Street Kogarah

by Brett Collins (Justice Action. Aust)

Prime Minister Howard's recent grab to remove prisoners' voting rights has focused attention on prisoners' status and raised some fundamental contradictions. The issue has divided the politicians down the middle. Prisoners have the full support of the progressives. We have vitalised activist links nationally, negotiated nationally with all prison administrators, and politicians are now discussing their policies with prisoners.

Prisoners have been used to a slave-like existence where they have few effective rights and little respect. They are regarded as the evil of our society put out like the garbage. Luckily for everyone, the social situation is not so simple. Prisoners are a constantly moving population, mostly imprisoned only for a period of months, linked to families and cultures outside and holding substantial residual rights. They are supposed to lose no rights except that of physical freedom, but there are few effective levers for prisoners to pull either on an individual or group basis.

THE VOTE
The universal right to vote is fundamental to the holding of authority and making laws of general coverage. It is the cornerstone of a democracy. The state is given the mandate by the voting population to make laws that affect all of us. For example, a state could accept the widely supported proposal that drugs are a personal issue and decriminalise them. Instantly the majority of the prison population could go back to their families, and police could do community service work instead of invading our personal space.

To remove someone's voting rights cannot be just another punishment as Howard simplisticly presented it. It removes the legitimacy of their laws. Prisoners would get widespread support for saying "hands off - that's your law". Prisoners would then become "political" prisoners supported by UN covenants.

OUR RESPONSE
Justice Action lobbied both the public and political parties. The Senate had a Committee of Inquiry but didn't notify those affected by the proposed new law - prisoners themselves - and tried to exclude us from presenting our arguments. We hired a bus to go to Canberra and, eventually, were granted standing after a confrontation - described as "storming" the enquiry. We came away with an almost-certain majority to stop the legislation. The Greens, Democrats and ALP gave us support.

THE '98 ELECTION
Within days of the election being called, Justice Action galvanised support through the Australian Criminal Justice Activists Network (ACJAN) to get the full enrolment of prisoners in Australia under the current laws that retain voting rights for those serving under five years. A sample group of ex-prisoners who had served over 100 years combined had never seen anyone offered an enrolment form in any jail. This was confirmed by Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) figures from '96 showing some enrolments down to 2%. However in one little jail the figure was 33% so the variation depended on prison administration. What had been happening on the ground had been disenfranchisement; prisoners had been excluded anywa! Despite it being law that every citizen must vote - prisoners are constantly charged for petty internal matters - this law they ignored. Slaves never vote!

We prepared a voting rights information sheet approved by the Australian Electoral Commission, describing the context of the vote and encouraging enrolment and involvement. We sent and faxed them all over Australia, enough for every jail noticeboard, and in some areas 1 for every 20 prisoners. We faxed and phoned ministers, commissioners and jail governors in some areas to get guarantees of our notice being displayed to prisoners. None refused, most said that they were already put up and all was documented. However the first responses from prisoners are that they were not enrolled despite efforts by them. We have legal support to challenge the behavior.

Pre-election meetings of the prison community with local MPs and candidates have been refused. This is being challanged.

THE GAINS - STILL TO COME
Australian prisons have been silent and dangerous dungeons. Bringing them into the sunlight, giving prisoners a clear stake in the community and its direction can only be useful. Rights of communication with prisoner committees, and the standing of these committees need to be resolved. These issues are of ongoing importance for peer support.

JA celebrated International Prisoners Justice Day on Sunday 9 August 1998 with a picnic outside the MRRC, Silverwater. The focus for International Prisoners Justice Day 98 in Australia was "Hands off Prisoners Vote", after Howard's attempt earlier this year to remove the right of all prisoners to vote.

Around Australia there were activities both inside and outside prisons. Outside the new 900 prisoner jail in NSW, the MRRC, supporters greeted visitors with prisoner enrollment forms attempting to reverse the old adage "there are no votes in prison", and the children with lollies and balloons.

Last year a group celebrating IPJD , handing out balloons and gifts to visitors entering the new MRRC, were assaulted by prison officers. The officers had two dogs, almost pushed over a 20 month baby and strangled a 17 year old woman with a camera strap.

International Prisoners' Justice Day August 10, marks the anniversary of the 1974 death of Eddie Nalon, a prisoner who bled to death in a solitary confinement unit at Millhaven Maximum Security Prison, Canada, when the emergency call button in his cell failed to work. An inquest later found that the call button in that unit had been deactivated by the guards.

The following year prisoners at Millhaven marked the anniversary of Eddie's death by fasting and refusing to work. By May, 1976, the call buttons had not yet been repaired. Bobby Landers was the next to die in one of those cells. With no way to call for help, all he could do was scribble a note that described the symptoms of a heart attack. What started as a one-time event behind the walls of Millhaven Prison has become an international day of solidarity.

August 10 has been the day officially set aside for prisoners and their supporters to honour the memory of those who have died unnatural deaths in prison and express solidarity with the thousands of women and men on the inside of prisons who are demanding changes to a Criminal Justice system that dehumanizes and brutalizes them.

On the 2nd of October, 1996, at the Supreme Court in Bendigo, Victoria, a jury found Heather Osland guilty of murdering her violent husband, Frank Osland.

Heather Osland, 51, experienced 13 years of physical, sexual and psychological abuse from her husband. Frank Osland thrived on the abuse he administered to his wife and her four children from a previous marriage. The physical abuse ranged from constant pushing, slapping, being dragged by the hair or ears, to full force punches to the face and body. Sexual abuse was ongoing; forced vaginal, oral and anal penetration which resulted in recurring infections. The psychological abuse included Frank's control over all activities, and strict rules to adhere to. Rules which included; the need to have Frank's permission to shower, to walk from one room to another, to watch television, to eat and, at times, even to enter the house. The psychological abuse also included inhibiting Heather speaking to her children and forcing her to observe the abuse of her children and their pets.

Over the years, Heather made several attempts to leave her violent husband. She sought assistance from police on many occasions and took refuge with friends and neighbours. There were numerous separations, which involved Heather shifting out of the house and moving to new premises. After years of abuse, with no possibility of escape, Heather and her eldest son, David, took measures to save themselves. David had been living with his mother and Frank in order to minimise the harm to his mother. He, and the other children, feared their mother would be killed by Frank. When Frank ordered David to leave the house, on threat of death, the mother and son killed Frank to protect themselves.

Heather was sentenced to 14 and a half years in prison. At the same trial, the jury were unable to reach a verdict for David, 29, and he was consequently retried. At the retrial, David was acquitted of all charges. Despite the fact that David struck the lethal blow to Frank, and Heather did not herself use violence in the incident, an appeal against Heather's conviction and sentence has subsequently been unsuccessful.

Heather's case, and the injustice of her sentencing, prompted a campaign which has been gaining momentum and support since its inception in November, 1996. The campaign was initiated by Heather's advocate, Chris Momot, from the Brimbank Community Centre.

The campaign has become two-tiered. One component is called the Women Who Kill in Self-Defence Campaign. This group addresses issues such as the legal definitions of self-defence and provocation, the inconsistencies in their application and the limitations of the legal options available for women in domestic violence. The campaign aims to achieve reform of the laws relating to murder and manslaughter. It also seeks to provide community education about the experiences of women in domestic violence and the inadequacies of the criminal justice system. Firstly, in failing to assist women who are being abused and, secondly, punishing women for saving their own lives.

The second part of the campaign is the Release Heather Osland Campaign. This group focuses specifically on Heather's case, and aims to support Heather, to fundraise for the campaign and to secure her release from prison. The group approached Dr. Jocelynne Scutt to represent Heather in a High Court appeal.

Heather was unsuccessful in obtaining Legal Aid funding to appeal to the High Court. The group have been busy fundraising and, with the assistance of the Victorian Women's Trust (Moira Rayner Equal Opportunity Fund), received a grant to enable a submission for a High Court appeal to be prepared.

On Friday 13 February, 1998, the High Court granted Heather Leave to Appeal against the decision of the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal.

The High Court appeal was heard in Canberra on Thursday 23rd and Friday 24th of April 1998. Whilst Heather was not permitted to attend the High Court, as there are no provisions for attendance of prisoners at their own High Court appeal; many of her supporters travelled to Canberra for the hearing.

About 30 supporters went on the Freedom Bus Ride to Canberra in support of Heather. The bus went via the Metropolitan Women's Correctional Centre at Deer Park, to wave goodbye to Heather. With banners and helium balloons we ran along the fence line chanting "Free Heather"! We could see Heather and her friends inside, and are sure that it was a big morale boost for her at a time when she was no doubt very anxious.

A rally in support of Heather was held outside the High Court. We held up three banners "Free Heather", "Justice for Women Who Kill in Self-Defence" and "Stop Domestic Violence" and chanted "Free Heather" and "Justice for Women Who Kill in Self-Defence". We also set up the Silent Witness art display, produced by the Bendigo Domestic Violence Support Group, in memory of all the women and children who have lost their lives to domestic violence. The Silent Witness display and the Release Heather material remained set up outside the High Court over the two days of the hearing.

There was a lot of interest in Heather's case with many journalists sitting through the whole two days of the hearing. The High Court was comprised of Her Honour Justice Gaudron and His Honours Justice Kirby, Justice McHugh, Justice Gummow and Justice Callinan. Heather's legal team, led by Dr. Jocelynne Scutt, did an excellent job in putting Heather's case to the Court.

The legal grounds of appeal were:

• The issue of inconsistent verdicts. David, who struck the lethal blow, was acquitted on the grounds of self-defence, whereas Heather was found guilty of murder.
• Issues surrounding the long term application of the laws of self-defence with respect to women who have been subjected to domestic violence.
• Issues surrounding the long term application of the laws of provocation with respect to women who have been subjected to domestic violence.
• Issues around the application of hearsay rulings in self-defence and provocation cases.
• Misdirection of the jury by the trial judge in relation to the issue of lies.
• Issues around the inadmissibility of certain evidence, namely, tape recorded conversations.
• Misdirection of the jury by the trial judge in relation to the 'motive', or 'interest' of the accused as a witness.

The orders sought in the High Court appeal were:

• That the verdict be set aside and that a judgement of acquittal be entered. If this was ordered then heather would be free.
• In the alternative that the verdict be set aside and a retrial held.

In her address to the Court Dr. Scutt painted a clear picture of the abuse Heather suffered, and the effect that the abuse had on her and her family. To explain to the Court the battered women's reality, Dr. Scutt compared Heather's life with Frank to being locked in a closet, and to a hostage situation. Dr. Scutt clearly indicated that this case was not asking for women in Heather's situation to be exempt from murder laws or for women to be given special treatment, just that the laws of self defence be open to women's experience as well as men. It was a historic achievement to have these issues argued in the 'highest court in the land'.

Heather's legal team was well supported by legal and non-legal volunteers who provided information, transcript references and research knowledge throughout the case. This case showed the value of team work, and our level of preparation was noted favourably by the court.

We are confident that every relevant issue was put before the Court for their consideration.

The High Court has reserved its decision. We do not know when a decision will be reached, however, as soon as we know, the campaign group will respond to the decision publicly, and will notify all of Heather's supporters.

Whilst it is always difficult to guess the outcome we can say that the High Court Justices were interested and receptive to Heather's plight, and the legal arguments put on her behalf and on behalf of all women. We now have our fingers crossed that Heather will be FREE.

Release Heather Campaign

by Ray Jackson

On Sunday, August 30, 1998, the NSW gaol system held 6685 prisoners. Two or three days prior to the Sunday I was speaking with a high ranking custodial officer about the horrors of such high numbers of prisoners. He informed me that the situation would become much worse as the Department fully expected to have over 7000 prisoners within the gaol system by the end of '98. The Department is already struggling to alleviate the problems caused by excessive overcrowding in the gaols.

On Sunday, August 30, 1998, there was a death in custody at the MRRC, the 900 bed unit (as it is called) that is roughly over one year old; the gaol that was boasted as being 'user-friendly'.

One and only one of the current horrors of the overcrowded system is a death in custody. There have been 16 deaths in custody this year already, with four months still to go. Eight months 16 deaths; twelve months, 24 deaths? Or more? In 1997, there were 32 deaths in custody in New South Wales. Overcrowded gaols put stress on the total system; a system that was never meant to incarcerate so many. Prisoners are stressed because of longer times spent in cells but, conversely, are also in a situation of feeling safer. Safer from both other prisoners and officers. Safe from the system, or are they?

The officers are stressed due to too much overtime because of understaffing and low morale. Overcrowding leads to a reduction of resources. What limited resources there are need to be shared with more and more prisoners. Budget cuts lead to still less resources, compounding the ever growing day-to-day stresses of the prison system.

To whom or what do we aim the blame? To whom or what do we argue that common sense and logic must be injected into a very sick system?

Do we blame the prison system and all who suffer within it? There are some who would. The inbrednecks, the intolerant, those who believe that the gaoled are somehow not human and, perhaps, as an extension of this, so are their gaolers and the system.

I would not. I blame a system that is corrupted by the "flat earth" thinking of economic rationalism (an oxymoron if ever there was one); a system which is overproducing victims.

We could blame the judicial system for pushing more and more defendants, human beings, into a system already suffering massive overload. The magistrates know the system is stuffed in more ways than one but their 'masters' speak of 'law and order', of 'zero tolerance', and suffer from moral blandness. Remandees are overflowing into areas never meant to hold remandees.

We could blame the police but they too are dancing to their 'masters' tune. Perhaps, the only real difference is that they love dancing.

I am a firm believer that all of us, prisoner or otherwise, must accept the concept of 'zero tolerance'. We must accept the concept with great passion and energy. We must have 'zero tolerance' for a system that is corrupt and without compassion, or recognition of the absolute fuck-ups their system creates. We must have 'zero tolerance' for politicians who bend the rules and rort the system; those who are in greed, not need.

We must have 'zero tolerance' for Big Business that recognises only profit, without any care of how such profit is obtained!

We must have 'zero tolerance' for a police and judicial system that panders to their corrupt 'masters'. The crime is the State or, at best, the way it is run.

We must also not forget those who continually oil the system with absolute bullshit, misinformation and innuendo. I speak, of course, of the media misfits and their christo-fascist supporters who demand more, and still more, draconian measures to 'return the streets to ordinary people'! What about returning something to the dispossessed?

We all must have 'zero tolerance' to the levels of youth unemployment and crime. We want jobs, not gaols. The poor are getting poorer, and become increasingly targeted when all other options are taken. Legalise the drugs and the addicts. 'Zero tolerance' to those who killed off the ACT Heroin trials!

The only answer to the current gaol situation is for the community to take a 'zero tolerance' stance against those power packs who liberally snuff out the life and hope of the powerless.

For the poor and displaced of the communities, the system proves to be one of 'zero tolerance' of their rights. We must turn this 'zero tolerance' around. They are under an arsehole system and together we must wipe it.

For Koori Justice
Ray Jackson
Indigenous Social Justice Association

Dear Mr Anderson

After reading the Winter '98 issue of Framed magazine and in particular your article on reducing violence in NSW jails. I have decided to write to tell you how impressed I was of your intimate knowledge of the causes of violence in our antiquated prison system. To add to your article I would like to inform you that not only are these conditions still prevalent, they are being reinforced as if in direct defiance of the United Nations declaration on human rights.

I also think that it is my duty as a concerned inmate to inform you of the treatment of a large number of inmates who seem to be on a roller coaster ride from prison to prison throughout NSW. This roller coaster I am talking of started with the closure of Maitland jail. At the time of this closure inmates were told they would only be moved to Lithgow CC for a period of not more than ten days. The then Governor of Maitland jail stated categorically that at the expiration of that ten day period all prisoners would be returned to Maitland, and the temporary removal of prisoners was to facilitate urgent renovation.

Once we were at Lithgow we were told by officers in charge of our wing that they (THE OFFICERS) "didn't want us in their jail and we would be given nothing". As we had to surrender all our warm clothing at Maitland, being told that warm clothing would be available on arrival at Lithgow, we were forced to spend the next eight months in near freezing conditions begging for warm clothing which was not forthcoming.

The irony being we were employed, on minimum wage, making warm clothing for prisoners in NSW. To compound this problem was the non-conforming property policy from one jail to the next. This meant that most prisoners lost several items or more of personal property, that being allowed in one jail yet not tolerated in the next. That being the case between Maitland, Lithgow, Goulburn.

After establishing ourselves in Lithgow by way of employment, education, visitation and correspondence, we felt some security in our placement within Lithgow prison. However come Sunday July 19, 1998 we were locked in our cells, told nothing and fully expected a normal week ahead. Monday morning we were told by Officers that it was a lock in and nothing more. Tuesday was the same. Wednesday, 2.15 am our day started with a jolt as heavily armed Emergency Unit Officers opened our cells, threw in tubs for our property and ordered us to "pack our gear as we were going to Goulburn for the winter". This was most distressing to many of the inmates, if not all, as we were awaiting interviews with S.O.R.C., continuation of education programs, and counselling programs. At the reception room, on the way out of the jail, we were relieved of any property that the Officers saw fit to remove, strip searched, abused and loaded on trucks. Upon arrival at Goulburn we spent eight hours in the yards in the reception before being placed in a cold, bare cell, with a cold meal and no hot water for coffee.

We were denied warm clothing, still are, and there is no heater in the cell, the showers are cold and wind-swept and we are locked in yards all day.

In the eleven days we have been here, although not in our wing, we have had one hanging and one murder. We are still attempting to obtain warm clothing and gather rations to store, permiting some level of moderate comfort.

The only reason we have been given for our removal from Lithgow was that the wing we were using was required for some other purpose. Some of the fifty inmates have been allowed to return. Only a select few though. Reasons unknown.

As I was about to sign off on this letter, the following occurred:-
As if to add even more credibility to my letter, as if it needed it, the Emergency Unit have just ramped the jail, in particular the wing I am housed in. We have been locked in all day, no buy-ups issued and now our cells have been damaged and Televisions have been confiscated without explanation but left in the wing, just outside our doors.

A murder and a suicide occurred in one wing of Goulburn Jail, yet the Emergency Unit harass and punish the inmates of wings other than the one in question. I assume this is just another example of Officers Duty Of Care and Rehabilitation in action.

We are sitting in our cells, without heaters, furniture, TV's or hope. Without having broken any rules, we are now enduring punishment consistent with that meted out for major infractions of the many and varied petty rules and regulations that abound in order to oppress the defenceless and battered class of citizens that we have become.

Hoping against hope that in some small way that you and your inspiring organisation can facilitate enough changes and attitude reappraisal's to enable prisoners as myself to pass though the system without becoming either a murder or suicide statistic. or a habitual visitor or long term tenant due to my inability to adapt to normal community life due to the horrendous and inhuman treatment meted out in the name of "JUSTICE".

Dear Framed

I am currently serving six years for a crime I won't go into at the moment. I was reading the latest issue of Framed (Issue No 35) and in particular the article 'View from the Inside'. Brother I know where you are coming from, this is my fifth tour through the system and every time I come back things keep changing.

I am currently at Oberon C.C. as an Adult Nucleus Inmate, and what a load of bullshit that is. They advertised for nukes promising the world - good jobs, top dollar, the best of everything, like I said a load of bullshit. They reckon you can get your C3 easy, and day and weekend leave. And if you don't like it here; so says the procedures manual, you can go to any jail you wish! But it doesn't work out that way, so I found - it's just one big rort.

Every time you think you are nearly there they put up another brick wall. Playing mind games and giving heaps of therapy, you think you are doing the right thing by coming here and helping with the young offenders program - what a joke!

You give up good jobs, good money (as far as jail goes) and good mates to come here and be treated like a young offender and shit like that.

In order for me to become a nuke it took them three months of screening to see if I fitted their (Green Book) criteria, which doesn't exist.

The reasons they want nukes to come here are to keep these young offenders in line. It's just doing the screws job; they're a bunch of lazy ones out here in the bush, and I'm form the Old school. I wear green and don't wear blue; so all that I can say is if you are thinking of becoming a nuke, think again! You sacrifice a lot by coming here to be treated like an idiot.

Police State 2000

by Lee Rhiannon*

The NSW Labor Government has shown an alarming willingness to be the leader of the pack when it comes to introducing draconian, law and order legislation. Despite the findings of the Wood Royal Commission, which revealed a police force that too readily abused its existing powers, Premier Carr's term has been marked by a raft of legislation that unnecessarily extends police authority.

The Police and Public Safety Act, the Detention After Arrest Act and the Ongoing Dealing Act were strongly lobbied for by the NSW Police Association and the police force itself. These laws, plus the arming of police with semi-automatic glock pistols, capsicum gas and extendable batons, has occurred despite the fact that it is increasingly acknowledged that police officers regularly abuse the powers they already have.

All the major parties have largely been at one in supporting this boost to police powers. The term of the Carr government has been characterised by Labor, Liberal and National politicians, with the support of the tabloid media, fanning the fears of the public with regard to crime and violence. Having manufactured a need, the major parties then cater to it by passing legislation that rather than achieving the stated intention of reducing violence perpetuates a police culture that discriminates and brutalises.

This is simply the politics of avoidance. The voters of NSW are bombarded with the fear tactics of the major parties as most politicians do not have answers to pressing issues such as unemployment, youth suicides, the run down in community facilities and unsafe drinking water. Politicians in the Labor and Coalition parties, particularly when an election is not too far away, prefer to avoid controversial and complex issues.

So law and order legislation can be likened to the modern day version of public hanging in the market place. It diverts the people away from finding meaningful solutions to the difficult problems our society faces, and can offer power hungry politicians a quick route back to Macquarie Street.

But law and order legislation also has a most definite political intent. With the Olympics now only two years away, the NSW government is preparing to ensure that Sydney can be controlled in any way the authorities deem necessary. Government and business leaders are desperate to ensure that the right commercial image is conveyed to the billions of viewers and millions of visitors who will see some part of the 2000 Olympics.

The image for Sydney in the year 2000 is already being laid down, and we can be assured it will not include street people, young people hanging out, indigenous people sitting in a park or people protesting. Courtesy of the Carr government police already have enormous powers to clean-up Sydney streets to ensure that the image projected around the world contains the clear message, that this is a country worth investing in.

Although the link is not often made between law and order legislation and commercial interests, this is a major motivating factor. Whether it is country mayors, who want the power to ensure that Aboriginal people can not hang out in town parks, or city businesses, that complain about 'youth gangs' disturbing customers, the motivating factor is money and political power, not community goodwill.

The solid support for law and order legislation from the major parties underlines the need for a strong activist movement that exposes the hypocrisy and danger of such an approach. While The Greens member in the Upper House of the NSW parliament, Ian Cohen, plus a handful of other politicians, will continue to speak out against the law and order approach of the major parties, this campaign will most definitely be won by building a strong public movement of opposition.

There is an urgency for such a movement to become more organised and publicly active. While the Olympics is a reason that much of this legislation has been imposed on the people of NSW, this event also offers an opportunity to gain publicity for campaigns committed to repealing the unwanted Acts that Premier Carr is so keenly accumulating.

Hopefully, such a movement will bring together all those that have concerns about law and order issues, groups concerned about the negative impact of the Olympics on Australia, and sympathetic politicians.

Campaigning for the defeat of those laws that in the name of law and order allow police to discriminate against young people, blacks, ethnics and people living in low income areas will not be easy. But most movements for social change never are at the beginning.
 

POSTSCRIPT
As this article was being finalised Premier Carr announced that he was prepared to back the Home Invasion Bill introduced by John Tingle, Shooters' Party member of the Upper House in the NSW Parliament. For the Shooters' Party their motivation is clear: to further promote the legitimate ownership and use of guns. For the ALP this latest foray into legislation on the run highlights that Premier Carr still has his law and order obsession. If Carr can hop into bed with Tingle we are left wondering how far he will sell out the people of NSW when One Nation announces its law and order package.  

* Lee Rhiannon is the lead upper house candidate for The Greens in the NSW state elections. The election will be held on 27 March 1999.

We welcome materials, suggestions, letters to the editor, photos & graphics, relevant print and media reviews and any queries. We encourage reprinting of the material with crediting made to Framed and a copy of the reprint sent to the editor.

Framed is the official journal of Justice Action. Views expressed in articles are contributor's own and not necessarily those of Justice Action. Statements of fact are believed to be true, but no legal responsibility is accepted for them.

Justice Action takes no responsibility for the advertising appearing herein and it does not necessarily endorse any products advertised. Justice Action acknowledges the NSW Department of Correctional Services for enabling publication and distribution of Framed to prisons without censure, in the best tradition of freedom of expression. JA has undertaken to put any critical material naming prison staff to such persons for them to respond prior to publication.

Framed is circulated free of charge in every prison in NSW

Send contributions to:
Po Box K365 Haymarket NSW 2000
Phone: (02) 9281 5100 Fax: (02) 9281 5303
Email:
justiceactionbreakout@nlc.net.au

Justice Action & Framed home page:
www.breakout.nlc.net.au/JA.html

Subscription:
Available through this link

||  Framed main  ||  Framed archives  ||  Framed subscription ||  Site index  ||