Posts

Allied Troops immune in Australia? Not True

Last year the Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of Defence Force Response to Emergencies) Bill was passed. Some have said it will allow foreign tanks to roll down Australian streets and be immune to liability. This is simply untrue. When reading all of the bill, we see that this is more about fighting bushfires than foreign troops and they DO NOT get immunity for any act of aggression against Australians.

Section 123AA (1) of the Bill states – a “protected person” is “not subject to any liability (whether civil or criminal) in respect of anything the protected person does or omits to do, in good faith, in the performance or purported performance of the protected person’s duties”.

This operates as a limitation on the immunity. Someone will only have immunity where they are, in good faith, carrying out their duties to respond to the emergency (e.g. acting in good faith to conduct back-burning to help fight a bushfire). If someone were to act in bad faith in the performance of their duties to respond to the emergency (e.g. purposely harm or assault an Australian) the immunity would not apply and they would be liable, either criminally, civilly or both.

Transcript

My office has received many questions regarding the Defence Legislation Amendment Enhancement of Defence Force Response to Emergencies Bill 2020. It passed both houses of federal Parliament on the 8th of December, 2020. As Senators, we’re obliged to fully understand all legislation before taking a position and voting. And we cannot just look at one clause at a time in isolation. We need to scrutinise all clauses together because some clauses may modify other clauses. This is particularly relevant to this legislation.

The banter on social media around the Foreign Trips Bill is an excellent example. The most common yet false claim is that this bill allows the government to bring foreign armies into Australian soil to control Australians with complete immunity from criminal or civil liability. This is completely false. There is no cause for alarm. Let me give you some background. During 2019, 2020, eight foreign nations provided assistance to Australia to help fight the bush fires.

You may remember the US Coast Guard came out here and were water bombing the bush fires. Tragically, four crew members lost their lives when their water bombing plane crashed. Under the existing laws, if the plane crash damaged Australian property, or even worse, took a life on the ground, the pilots would have been liable for that damage, if they survived. Or if they died, then their estates would have been liable for that damage.

We don’t believe this is reasonable, as these people are over here helping save Australian lives and property, It’s only fair they have the same level of indemnity that Australian troops and emergency service personnel have when they’re fighting natural disasters. It’s worth remembering that the Commonwealth government, has always had the ability to call on Australian defence forces and foreign personnel to help in emergencies when quote, “immediate action is necessary to save human life or alleviate suffering, prevent extensive loss of animal life, prevent widespread spread loss or damage to property or to prevent environmental damage and when state or territory resources are not adequate,” end of quote.

The immunity granted to foreign troops is only given in relation to the conduct of the individuals in the performance of their official duties, connected with the natural disaster emergency. What that means is they can’t grab a truck, not belonging to them or back burn someone’s property to carry out their duties or to protect the greater good.

Therefore, quote, “immunity only applies when the duties are carried out to assist either the ADF or Defence Department in preparing for, or responding to a natural disaster or other emergency. Should force, coercive powers or a criminal offence occur against anyone in our Australian community, the foreign troops lose this indemnity immediately, as would our own troops. Those people then are held accountable under our existing laws. Only Australian Defence Force members and foreign personnel, who act in good faith in the course of their duties are offered this immunity. Social media speculation about this bill is false.

It needlessly worries people for no reason. It’s important for all people to diligently research legislation, to ensure messages are accurate. Remember, Pauline and I have consistently called out corrupt, unelected, overseas organisations, interfering with Australia and with our policies. I will never support anything that’s not in the best interest of Australians. You can be absolutely reassured that I would never support a bill that would let foreign armies onto Australian soil to control Australians and with complete immunity from criminal or civil liability.

There are times when we need international support to battle natural disasters and those serving troops, performing their duty, deserve the same immunity as our own troops and emergency services.

/by

Overseas defence personnel in Australia

,

There has been many comments recently about a bill that people were concerned about which they claimed would allow foreign troops and police to enter Australia and act against our interests.

This is untrue.

The bill simply gives foreign troops and police who are invited into our country to help in emergencies an exemption of liability if they are acting in good faith while performing their duties. It’s the same exemption that our defence force and police are given in emergencies.

One Nation would clearly not have anything to do with allowing foreign troops or police into Australia to act against the interest of its people.

The bill was the “Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of Defence Force response to Emergencies) Bill 2020”.

As a way of explanation, Clause 123AA:

A protected person (see subsection (3)) is not subject to any liability (whether civil or criminal) in respect of anything the protected person does or omits to do, in good faith, in the performance or purported performance of the protected person’s duties,…. A protected person is defined under 123AA :

  1. Each of the following is a protected person:

(a) a member of the Defence Force;

(b) an APS employee in the Department;

(c) a person authorised under subsection (4) to perform duties in respect of the provision of assistance mentioned in subsection (1).

Transcript

Hi, I’m Senator Malcolm Roberts, and I’m in Thursday Island just above the tip of Cape York. And we’re here for a Senate inquiry, but I also want to respond now to people who’ve contacted our office about something that concerns them. It’s another internet rumour that’s not true.

They’re asking questions about us, or the parliament or the government authorising foreign defence forces to come onto this country and be armed and to control the people, that’s nonsense.

The bill that was passed recently is merely to ensure that overseas volunteers who come here to help us in times of natural disaster have the same rights and protections as Australian soldiers and Australian volunteers, because they’re covered by insurance, foreigners are not, until now.

So it means that providing foreigners, whether they be armed, whether they be, they won’t be armed forces, but whether they be defence forces or police forces or volunteers, will be covered. People like the three pilots who died in the plane crash last year fighting the fires with a water bomber.

Volunteers, defence, police, and so on. They must be acting in good faith. If they’re not acting in good faith, or they do something deliberately harmful to people, then they lose that protection, and they’re vulnerable.

So all that’s happened is that the government is protecting the foreign volunteers to make sure that we keep getting foreign volunteers to come here and help us with their particular skills in terms of natural disasters.

That’s all it is. We checked it thoroughly, and it’s here for our protection.

/by