Senator Bob McMullan has reassured us that any bugging of the Chinese Embassy would not result in a trade disadvantage. He said about the allegations _ that the Foreign Minister would neither confirm nor deny _ that Chinese officials would talk about trade inside the building to Australians, so the Americans _ who got first bite at the intelligence _ would not have got an advantage. Sounds like McMullan is acknowledging the truth of the bugging allegation _ that the embassy was laced with fibre optics during its construction.
The Attorney-General’s Department was pretty hot on the allegations, too. They desperately attempted to suppress them and even suppress the fact that the department was trying to suppress the allegations. The sinister nature of suppressing the fact of suppression was illustrated with an exchange with The Canberra Times. When told by a departmental officer that the Government would seek suppression of the act of suppression itself, The Canberra Times representative (who has wide knowledge in this field) said something like: “”This is unprecendented!” To which the departmental officer replied sagely: “”No; it’s not.” Of course, only he and his department would know. Anyway, McMullan’s comments and the vigour with which the government attempted to suppress the story indicate it is true. The media have been chastised, implicitly, for not acting “”in the national interest” by blowing this story when they should have voluntarily suppressed it. It is a view that does not sit well with the law _ a law passed by the Australian Parliament. The Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act embraces into Australian law the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Section 7 says: “”Articles 1, 22 to 24 (inclusive) and 27 to 40 (inclusive) of the Convention have the force of law in Australia and in every external Territory.” Article 22 says: “”1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable.
The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission. “”2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.” And Article 27 says: “”1. The receiving State shall permit and protect free communication on the part of the mission for all official purposes.”
That piece of Australian law does not sit well with laying down of fibre optics during construction and then eaves-dropping. If true, it is even more extraordinary coming from a government that takes so much pride in fulfilling its international obligations. Or perhaps this government restricts its international obligations to those which co-incide with its own political program, such as heritage areas, privacy, sex discrimination etc The Australian Government can sink to the standards of other countries and join the new great game of diplomacy _ it’s all right to spy on the Chinese because they are the baddies. But maybe I am doing the government an injustice. Perhaps the allegations about bugging are false. However, if that is the case, the Government should say so. It is not good enough to say: “”We can neither confirm nor deny.” The Government should always be able to say: “”We are not breaking the law,” or at least, “”If we have broken the law it is wrong and will be remedied.” The rule of law and the separation of powers (that is the Executive will obey the laws passed by Parliament) are essential elements of our constitutional democracy.
The Government’s shabby attempt to cover up its own illegal activities by calling in the courts needs to be challenged to the High Court, calling in the newly found freedom of political communication. It can never in the national interest for the Government to breach the law passed by the Parliament of representatives of the people. The English notions that “”the crown can do no wrong” and that “”the protection of the state is paramount law” have no room in an Australian democracy where the people are sovereign. Paul Keating, in particular, should not allow his government to hide behind them.