http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/12/2653998.htm
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25920112-601,00.html
Do provisions like this exist in other countries and how well do they operate?
Spoiler :
The Federal Government has unveiled plans to toughen its counter-terrorism laws that would allow police to break into a suspect's home without getting approval from a judge.
It also wants to make it easier to stop suspects getting out of jail on bail.
But the Government is planning to put a cap on the amount of time suspects can be held without charge.
Attorney-General Robert McClelland says the tougher laws would protect Australians.
"The Government is committed to ensuring the focus of Australia's national security and counter-terrorism laws remains on preventing a terrorist attack from occurring in the first place," he said.
But some argue toughening the laws would have the opposite effect.
Nicola McGarrity from the Terrorism Law Project at the University of New South Wales says the laws could take away the protection of the judiciary.
"It's fundamentally undermining the safeguards that exist," she said.
"It's taking away the protection of having a judicial officer make a warrant."
But new limits will be imposed on other controversial powers.
In the case of Dr Mohammed Haneef, who was detained in 2007, police were allowed to question him without charging him for a total of one day.
The clock stops ticking, however, when the suspect goes to sleep or the police need time to check with agencies overseas.
In the end, Dr Haneef was held for 12 days without charge before a magistrate ordered his release.
So Mr McClelland says the Government is planning to introduce an eight-day limit.
"To enable the law enforcement authorities to have that time and balance it against the rights of individuals - that we would hope our society cherishes - and that is the right not to be detained without charge," he said.
But legal analysts, including Ms McGarrity, argue that eight days is still too much time and that the detainment period should be capped at three days.
"What normally happens with police is they exercise those powers up to the extent of those powers," she said.
The Government also wants to press ahead with controversial plans to make it a crime to urge attacks on someone based on their nationality or religion.
The Attorney-General says he has seen intelligence and phone tap logs that back the need for this law.
Mr McClelland says it is the kind of law that could have been used against people involved in attacks on Indian students if nationality, race or religion was the driving force.
Another proposal in the discussion paper released on Wednesday was to make terrorism hoaxes punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
The naming of a terrorist organisation would also stay current for three years, instead of one, before expiring, the paper said.
The public has until September 25 to comment on the discussion paper.
But the Shadow Attorney-General, George Brandis, says he is sceptical about the Government's level of commitment to national security.
"In the last budget, for example, the Australian Federal Police's counter-terrorism program was scaled back by $1.4 million," he said.
"The AFP's intelligence programs were scaled back by $3.2 million. There was a 7 per cent reduction in the staff of the Australian Crime Commission."
It also wants to make it easier to stop suspects getting out of jail on bail.
But the Government is planning to put a cap on the amount of time suspects can be held without charge.
Attorney-General Robert McClelland says the tougher laws would protect Australians.
"The Government is committed to ensuring the focus of Australia's national security and counter-terrorism laws remains on preventing a terrorist attack from occurring in the first place," he said.
But some argue toughening the laws would have the opposite effect.
Nicola McGarrity from the Terrorism Law Project at the University of New South Wales says the laws could take away the protection of the judiciary.
"It's fundamentally undermining the safeguards that exist," she said.
"It's taking away the protection of having a judicial officer make a warrant."
But new limits will be imposed on other controversial powers.
In the case of Dr Mohammed Haneef, who was detained in 2007, police were allowed to question him without charging him for a total of one day.
The clock stops ticking, however, when the suspect goes to sleep or the police need time to check with agencies overseas.
In the end, Dr Haneef was held for 12 days without charge before a magistrate ordered his release.
So Mr McClelland says the Government is planning to introduce an eight-day limit.
"To enable the law enforcement authorities to have that time and balance it against the rights of individuals - that we would hope our society cherishes - and that is the right not to be detained without charge," he said.
But legal analysts, including Ms McGarrity, argue that eight days is still too much time and that the detainment period should be capped at three days.
"What normally happens with police is they exercise those powers up to the extent of those powers," she said.
The Government also wants to press ahead with controversial plans to make it a crime to urge attacks on someone based on their nationality or religion.
The Attorney-General says he has seen intelligence and phone tap logs that back the need for this law.
Mr McClelland says it is the kind of law that could have been used against people involved in attacks on Indian students if nationality, race or religion was the driving force.
Another proposal in the discussion paper released on Wednesday was to make terrorism hoaxes punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
The naming of a terrorist organisation would also stay current for three years, instead of one, before expiring, the paper said.
The public has until September 25 to comment on the discussion paper.
But the Shadow Attorney-General, George Brandis, says he is sceptical about the Government's level of commitment to national security.
"In the last budget, for example, the Australian Federal Police's counter-terrorism program was scaled back by $1.4 million," he said.
"The AFP's intelligence programs were scaled back by $3.2 million. There was a 7 per cent reduction in the staff of the Australian Crime Commission."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25920112-601,00.html
Spoiler :
POLICE will not be able to hold terrorism suspects after seven days and the definition of a terrorist act will be expanded to include "psychological harm" under proposed changes to Australia's counter-terror laws.
The proposed changes, unveiled today by Attorney-General Robert McClelland, are aimed at moderating the tough suite of laws passed by the Howard government in the wake of September 11 and the Bali bombings.
Police will also be given the power to search premises without a warrant where they believe there is material that threatens public health.
Mr McClelland said the changes toughened the laws in some areas while moderating them in others.
But when asked if he thought the previous government had overshot the mark in drafting the counter-terror legislation, Mr McClelland pointedly noted the existing legislation had been introduced expeditiously.
I think it's fair to say that the previous legislation, and this is a very solid point, the previous legislation was introduced expeditiously as the circumstances required as an immediate response to the event of September 11 and the Bali bomb attacks, Mr McClelland told journalists in Canberra.
The government was required to act and acted expeditiously. I think it's appropriate, given reflections, given time, that we now need to shift our focus to a frame of reference that is long term so that the public accepts the legislation which in many instances had time limits or sunset clauses, accepts the legislation as being valid, credible and effective, but balanced for the long term and this is the philosophy with which we've approached this task.
Mr McClelland told parliament a 452-page national security legislation discussion paper proposed a range of reforms to existing legislation.
That follows a series of reviews, including the Clarke inquiry into the wrongful arrest and detention of Gold Coast-based doctor Mohamed Haneef.
Under the proposed changes there will be a new terrorism hoax offence, punishable by up to 10 years' jail, for anyone seeking to create a false belief that a terrorist act will occur.
As foreshadowed last month, Mr McClelland said it was proposed there be an offence of inciting violence against an individual on the basis of race, religion, nationality, national origin or political opinion.
Mr McClelland said a new Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement would be created to extend parliamentary oversight to include the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission.
He said the Government had sought to address the concerns and issues raised in reviews of national security and counter-terrorism legislation to achieve the right balance between strong terror laws while preserving democratic rights.
Each and all of the measures .... are designed to give the Australian community confidence that our law enforcement and security agencies have the tools they need to fight terrorism, while ensuring these laws and powers are balanced by appropriate safeguards and are accountable in their operation, he said.
The proposed changes, unveiled today by Attorney-General Robert McClelland, are aimed at moderating the tough suite of laws passed by the Howard government in the wake of September 11 and the Bali bombings.
Police will also be given the power to search premises without a warrant where they believe there is material that threatens public health.
Mr McClelland said the changes toughened the laws in some areas while moderating them in others.
But when asked if he thought the previous government had overshot the mark in drafting the counter-terror legislation, Mr McClelland pointedly noted the existing legislation had been introduced expeditiously.
I think it's fair to say that the previous legislation, and this is a very solid point, the previous legislation was introduced expeditiously as the circumstances required as an immediate response to the event of September 11 and the Bali bomb attacks, Mr McClelland told journalists in Canberra.
The government was required to act and acted expeditiously. I think it's appropriate, given reflections, given time, that we now need to shift our focus to a frame of reference that is long term so that the public accepts the legislation which in many instances had time limits or sunset clauses, accepts the legislation as being valid, credible and effective, but balanced for the long term and this is the philosophy with which we've approached this task.
Mr McClelland told parliament a 452-page national security legislation discussion paper proposed a range of reforms to existing legislation.
That follows a series of reviews, including the Clarke inquiry into the wrongful arrest and detention of Gold Coast-based doctor Mohamed Haneef.
Under the proposed changes there will be a new terrorism hoax offence, punishable by up to 10 years' jail, for anyone seeking to create a false belief that a terrorist act will occur.
As foreshadowed last month, Mr McClelland said it was proposed there be an offence of inciting violence against an individual on the basis of race, religion, nationality, national origin or political opinion.
Mr McClelland said a new Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement would be created to extend parliamentary oversight to include the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission.
He said the Government had sought to address the concerns and issues raised in reviews of national security and counter-terrorism legislation to achieve the right balance between strong terror laws while preserving democratic rights.
Each and all of the measures .... are designed to give the Australian community confidence that our law enforcement and security agencies have the tools they need to fight terrorism, while ensuring these laws and powers are balanced by appropriate safeguards and are accountable in their operation, he said.
Do provisions like this exist in other countries and how well do they operate?