This is an opinion piece authored by Simon Frew, President of Pirate Party Australia. It has been sent to ABC’s The Drum for publication.

---

The balance of power between citizens and the state is shifting on a number of fronts. On one hand, government agencies are becoming increasingly secretive, exemplified by recent recommendations to the Attorney-General’s Department to reduce access to government documents through Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation. On the other hand, there is increasing surveillance of citizens and a continual, rapid growth in the reach of security agencies.

Failure of Open Government

The Labor Government has been making positive noises about opening up government to greater scrutiny from the public. The announcement of Government 2.0 in 2010[1], and the signing up to the Open Government Partnership earlier this year[2] have been welcome moves that in theory should have enabled greater participation in government debates from ordinary citizens.

In reality, the public service works to deny access to much of what should be available to the public. Pirate Party Australia makes regular requests for information under Australia’s FOI Act, and it is typical to receive pages upon pages of blacked out paragraphs with very little useful information.

On Friday, the Hawke Review into the operation of the FOI Act was released[3]. It recommended a reduction to Australia’s access to government information, including exempting more departments and introducing a fee for those appealing decisions made with regard to releasing information. It also recommended an end to anonymous FOI requests.

Most importantly, there are moves to block access to issues surrounding surveillance and security, reducing public knowledge of the amount and types of surveillance we are subjected to. This is an area with very little accountability as it is, and the proposals would exacerbate this situation.

Surveillance

Over the last twelve years there has been a steady growth in the amount of surveillance we are subjected to. Since the September 11 attacks on the United States, governments have claimed increased surveillance is needed to protect us from terrorists. This has been expanded through secret programs coordinated by the US, primarily through the NSA as recently revealed from leaks provided by former contractor Edward Snowden.

The Australia Government has been implicated in the scandal, most recently through the XKeyscore program, where there are at least four sites operational sites in Australia. A map provided in the Guardian[4] marks locations that appear to correspond with Pine Gap, the Darwin Shoal Bay Receiving Station, the Australian Defence Satellite Communications Facility, and HMAS Harmon near Canberra. The data that can be collected through the program includes what is widely believed to be private chats on Facebook, phone records, and email metadata — including who you’ve been communicating with, what you’ve been communicating about, and perhaps even where you’ve been.

There is direct evidence that Britain’s GCHQ, which is partially funded by the NSA, is used to bypass domestic spy restrictions by spying on Americans and passing that information back to US intelligence. This begs the question: what information about us is passed on to Australian intelligence organisations that can’t otherwise be legally accessed in Australia?

Last year’s report into the use of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (TIA Act) revealed that there were 293,501 requests for access to Australian citizens’ metadata over the 2011-2012 financial year[6]. If each request for data pertained to a separate person, it would equate to roughly one in seventy-five Australians having their private information accessed without a warrant over the course of a single year.

AGD proposals to extend surveillance last year were met with significant opposition from civil society, with the vast majority of submissions to the Department’s National Security Inquiry discussion paper opposing any expansion of surveillance. It must be noted that this was the first inquiry into security agencies’ powers since the beginning of the ‘War on Terror’ and the inquiry itself was a good thing.

Greens Senator Scott Ludlam put forward the ‘Get a Warrant’ amendment bill to the TIA Act to reign this in. The Bill has moved past the submission stage and, as expected, the AGD is opposed to the limitations on surveillance the amendment proposes. The line from the Government and law enforcement agencies is that collecting metadata is not a serious invasion of privacy and helps to solve crimes. The reality is quite different.

Metadata includes who you have mailed, possible topic headers, and, with mobile devices, locational information so they can track everywhere you have been. German Greens MP Malte Spitz sued his Telco for access to his communications metadata and, using the information received, made an app mapping his movements over a six month period. The result showed where he was and who and when he had called every single day[7]. This is a stark illustration of the data that is currently available to a myriad of Australian law enforcement and intelligence agencies without any legal oversight.

There has never been adequate debate into whether such pervasive warrantless surveillance is acceptable to the Australian public. If information collected by the NSA is being added to the picture available under Australia’s warrantless surveillance regime, security and police agencies can put together a very intimate profile on every Australian without any legal oversight whatsoever.

Bi-Partisan Support For Growth of Government Power

When it comes to government transparency, the difference between Labor and Liberal is miniscule. The ALP has been slightly more accountable in power than the Howard Government was. Signing up to the Open Government Partnership and attempting to institute the painfully named Government 2.0 open governance agenda have been moves to be applauded. The National Security Inquiry was the first chance the Australian public has had since 9/11 to comment on the role of surveillance in society. That said, the agenda by both major parties is still to increase surveillance and government power against the civil liberties of ordinary Australians.

For more than a decade, terrorism has been used to justify a continual assault on civil liberties. The revelations of blanket surveillance in the US has, for the first time, seen more Americans concerned about the loss of civil liberties than terrorist attacks. Like the boy who cried wolf, the constant use of the terrorist bogeyman to scare people into accepting the assault on civil liberties is losing its power.

The balance urgently needs to be shifted back towards citizens. People who want to live in a society that respects the rights of its citizens should not vote for either major Party, as there is bipartisan support for increased cooperation with foreign intelligence agencies who have been spying on all of us. Bi-partisan support for greater surveillance, less civil liberties, and less accountability for the Australian public service.

The Pirate Party is one of several smaller parties pushing back against the growth of state power. Preferential voting means voting against the major parties is not a wasted vote. If you believe in a society with civil liberties and are opposed to blanket surveillance, I suggest you have a good look at your options in the coming election.

One thing is for certain — a vote for either major party is a vote for the continued erosion of your civil rights.

[1] http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/govresponse20report/index.html
[2] http://agict.gov.au/blog/2013/05/22/australia-joins-open-government-partnership
[3] http://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Pages/ReviewofFOIlaws.aspx
[4] http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jul/31/nsa-xkeyscore-program-full-presentation
[5] http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/01/nsa-paid-gchq-spying-edward-snowden
[6] Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 Report for the year ending 30 June 2012 http://www.ag.gov.au/NationalSecurity/TelecommunicationsSurveillance/Documents/Annual%20Report%20for%20the%20year%20ending%2030%20June%202012.doc
[7] http://www.zeit.de/datenschutz/malte-spitz-data-retention/