Preserving Australian way in time of draconian laws

Draco was an Athenian of the 7th century BC who drew up a code of laws known for their severity. Nearly every violation was a capital crime. Centuries later, the orator Demades said Draco’s code was written in blood. The brand has been defined down over millennia. We often hear about draconian laws, without anyone being put to death for breaking them. Speaking on Sunday about social distancing to contain the coronavirus, Scott Morrison warned he “may have to take far more draconian measures” in terms of lockdowns and the like. Sure, that’s crisis rhetoric. But we can’t help but be troubled every time we hear governments speak about new restrictions on liberties, when we experience the onset of surveillance and feel the hefty, tightening grip of the national security state.

The advice from the medical experts of the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, guiding the emergency response by governments, is to impose progressively harsher social-distancing measures. The aim is to flatten the rate of COVID-19 infections, spreading the caseload across a longer period to reduce pressure on intensive care facilities. Restrictions on travel, trading, socialising and schooling give authorities a chance to put resources in place ahead of a surge in infections. Australians grumble but accept such intrusive measures are necessary as long as they are based on facts, are transparent and explained clearly, and carefully balance competing interests. Let’s not destroy the village to save it.

In this vein, we must be vigilant about protecting the freedoms that are the Australian way of life. On Tuesday, we noted the success Singapore has had in containing the spread of COVID-19. Even at the best of times, the six million residents of the city-state consent to the harsh social control and surveillance by an autocratic government. Although it was quick to close borders and impose quarantine, Singapore also has used invasive contact-tracing procedures to create detailed logs of the movement of infected people. A new smartphone app called TraceTogether will allow officials to record virtually every encounter a person has, as phones exchange Bluetooth signals when they come within 2m of each other.

You would hope privacy breaches on this scale would be anathema to our open culture and vibrant democracy. Before you say Google, Facebook and the rise of what one Harvard theorist calls “surveillance capitalism”, think again. The AHPPC now has flagged measures to monitor closely those in quarantine and isolation, including phone checks and mobile phone tracking. Such an intrusive move has context, some would say justification, after the reckless NSW government allowed infected cruise passengers to disembark from the Ruby Princess last Thursday. Like the debacle at Bondi Beach that directly led to the shuttering of the nation’s hospitality industry and mass job losses, negligence on this scale invites desperate, damaging measures that chip away at our prized freedoms.

Again, there are delicate trade-offs at play. Liberty is recalibrated in times of national crisis, such as wars and pandemics. In 2015 parliament enacted the Biosecurity Act. As legal scholar George Williams wrote on Monday: “It provides a formidable and truly remarkable set of powers for the federal government to navigate this crisis.” Government officials can impose a control order on any person displaying one or more symptoms of COVID-19, as well as any person with whom they have been in contact. Those subject to a control order can be compelled to name people they’ve been in contact with, must take a medical examination or provide body samples, and must submit to treatment. After the Governor-General declared a week ago that “a human biosecurity emergency exists”, Professor Williams argued Health Minister Greg Hunt has the unfettered power normally found in dictatorships. Attorney-General Christian Porter acknowledged these laws were “strange and foreign to many Australians”.

Traditional checks and balances, for now, are out the window. Australians in every era have been ambivalent about authority. Citizens will comply in good faith during the COVID-19 fight but will continually ask questions and expect straight answers from leaders and officials. Yet we worry about the overhang of draconian measures first sold as temporary impositions. After 9/11, we experienced a loss of liberty as governments prosecuted the war on terror. Security agencies were scaled up. Screening at airports and homeland security red tape imposed costs — in lost time, higher taxes, inconveniences and forfeited opportunities. Strict laws curtailed a range of freedoms.

But Australia became complacent. The creep of the national security state also has eaten away at press freedom, making news reporting a crime in some instances and limiting a citizen’s right to know what governments are doing. We are in a protracted fight, with lives lost and threatened, the social fabric stretched, an economy suffocating. The Prime Minister assures us Australia will emerge from the pandemic united and stronger. That promised land should be more open, with liberties restored. Today’s emergency controls, written in blood, must also be washed away.