Cronulla riot

The Cronulla riot took place on Sunday, 11 December 2005. Between then and now (one month and two days after the event), there has been at least one news report a day highlighting either copycat attacks or the arrest of riot suspects. Hurray to the NSW Government—it has tried hard to assure the nation of the versatility and integrity of the NSW police force!

On 12 January 2006, the Sydney Morning Herald reported over 600 people had been arrested for their alleged involvement in the riot or related events. Offences included 1,151 traffic-related, 17 riot-related, two malicious damage by fire and three for sending text messages.

Three charges laid for sending text messages?

This is because on 15 December 2005, just four days after the Cronulla riot, the NSW Government passed emergency laws to give police more power to arrest people they suspected had acted in support of the riot. As a result, police were able to seize cars and mobile phones for up to seven days.

The amended laws highlight the NSW Government's fear of mass communication technology. This response is not entirely unexpected, given that prior to the Cronulla Riot text messages were sent urging "Aussies" to take action against “Lebs and wogs”. The same text message method was also used to incite retaliatory attacks in the other parts of Sydney.

The Australian Mobile Telecommunication Association said text messages are stored for up to five days before they are permanently deleted. According to telecommunications analyst, Paul Budde, the technology to trace phone calls or text messages has been in place for several years as part of Commonwealth legislation referring to telecommunications-based offences. This enables law authorities to trace calls and obtain certain information contained in text messages for the purpose of uncovering criminal behaviour. The NSW Government was using existing laws to assure the public that no undesirable behaviour had slipped through their fingers.

But what about the individual's right to privacy and their freedom to circulate information and opinions? If permission to access personal mobile phones could be given this time, why not in the next 'perceived' national emergency when a peaceful protest is just about to occur? If a person expresses 'slightly extremist' ideas does this mean they could be tracked down by the Federal Police and accused of creating civic chaos?

The law that gives authorities the right to access and assess personal text messages might be effective, but surely, when it involves an invasion of privacy or could potentially threaten freedom of speech, we should be more aware of the consequences that one mild exception could lead to if an extreme one is introduced in the future. If exceptions continue to be granted during emergencies how can we be sure that privacy and free speech are guaranteed in the future? Especially because Australia does not have a national human rights act or equivalent, that specifies the conditions and rights guaranteed to all citizens.