New secret search powers
Wednesday, 01 August 2007
Police and security agencies will be given unprecedented "sneak and peek" powers to search the homes and computers of suspects without their knowledge under legislation to go before Federal Parliament next week.
The extensive powers - which also give federal police the right to monitor communications equipment without an interceptions warrant - come amid growing public disquiet about counter-terrorism powers following the bungled handling of the Mohamed Haneef case.
Under the laws, officers from the federal police and other agencies would be able to execute "delayed notification warrants", allowing them to undertake searches, seize equipment and plant listening devices in businesses and homes.
Police and security officers will be able to assume false identities to gain entry and conduct the surreptitious searches.
But the person affected by the raid does not have to be informed for at least six months, and can remain in the dark for 18 months if the warrant is rolled over.
The warrant is to be issued by the head of a police service or security agency without the approval of a judicial officer. It can also be extended for more than 18 months with the sanction of the minister.
The lack of judicial oversight was justified by the Minister for Justice and Customs, David Johnston, on the grounds that a court or judicial officer might leak news of the warrant.
"I don't want to impugn anyone, but the security of these operations has to be pristine," Senator Johnston told the Herald.
Moreover, the warrant can be issued for any offence that carries a prison term of 10 years or more, despite a strong recommendation from a bipartisan Senate committee earlier this year that it only be used for investigations into terrorism, organised crime and "offences involving death or serious injury with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment".
The new powers have their genesis in a meeting of state, territory and federal police ministers two years ago to create uniform search warrants.
They are scheduled to be introduced to the Senate on Tuesday when Parliament resumes.
But they are likely to be scrutinised more heavily in the wake of the detention and subsequent dropping of terrorism-related charges against Dr Haneef.
The Greens senator Kerry Nettle said the handling of Dr Haneef's case served as a reminder that law enforcement and intelligence agencies made mistakes, and already had extensive and intrusive powers.
"Given the Haneef debacle, now is not the time to be giving more powers to the Australian Federal Police," she said.
The position of the Labor Opposition is unknown. The party did not return calls yesterday.
Federal police say they need the powers because current rules mean suspects are tipped off that they are under investigation.
"It then allows associates unknown to the police to destroy or relocate evidence or activities to other premises not known to police," the Deputy Commissioner John Lawler told a Senate committee earlier this year. "It often prevents the full criminality of those involved being known."
The bill also deals with "controlled operations" - undercover operations where federal agents are permitted to undertake criminal activity in order to further their investigations.
Federal authorities will have far greater scope to undertake such operations and will no longer need approval from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
The bill provides for immunity not only to the undercover police or security officer involved but also civilian informants.
For the first time it also allows foreign police and intelligence agencies to take part in undercover operations and to use false identities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-terror laws rammed through - minus debateCONTROVERSIAL anti-terror laws which will allow police to detain terror suspects without charge were last night rammed through Parliament.The Government cut short debate on the laws to enable them to pass the Senate in the last sitting week of the year.Labor voted to support the bill, despite failing to secure more protections for freedom of speech built into the sedition section and three monthly reports to Parliament which would have enabled greater scrutiny of their use.The Australian Greens and the Australian Democrats voted against the laws and the bill was passed 53 to seven.Democrats Senator Natasha Stott Despoja accused the Government of gagging debate, to the detriment of free speech and democracy. She also accused Labor of selling out on sedition and passing the legislation despite none of their amendments passing the Senate last night. "This is a shameful and sad day for democracy," Senator Stott Despoja said."This was arguably the most significant piece of legislation the Senate has dealt with in the last decade. Yet the Government stopped Senators from speaking to the Bill and refused to allow debate on the majority of the proposed amendments."In an affront to the role of the Senate, the Government showed no willingness to seriously consider the many amendments circulated by the Democrats and other Opposition parties."
Australian Greens leader Bob Brown compared the laws to the 1950s crackdown on communism in the US. "Never has the Government been able to cogently argue that this legislation is going to defend us from terrorism," he told the Senate. "We are in a new period of McCarthyism and we need to know that, and understand it, and worry that this time it won't be turned around, that citizens, using a law like this, will be brought before courts for political reasons, not security reasons."
The Anti-Terrorism Bill will allow police to detain terror suspects for up to 14 days without charge, place suspects on control orders for up to 12 months and impose a seven-year jail term for sedition.
The Law Council of Australia vowed to monitor the use of the laws to ensure they were not abused by those in power.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-terror laws: 'unconstitutional' summit
Mr Beattie ... has reportedly received advice from his solicitor-general saying preventative detention and control orders raise constitutional problems.
Prime Minister John Howard has agreed to a meeting between state and federal legal heads to ensure new anti-terrorism laws are constitutional, Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says.
Mr Beattie said today Mr Howard had agreed solicitors-general from all states should meet with the relevant person at a national level to ensure Canberra's new laws had a solid legal basis.
He contacted Mr Howard today after Queensland's solicitor-general warned the state government that the laws could be unconstitutional.
"We're not interested in causing problems for anyone, but my concern about this is very simple: to make sure that when the laws are passed that they are enforceable and binding," Mr Beattie told reporters.
"The last thing I would want to see is a constitutional challenge."
Mr Beattie said he believed the solicitor-general from NSW and the federal equivalent had a different opinion to Queensland's solicitor-general.
"We will try to work through these issues and we believe we can," he said.
Mr Beattie had reportedly received advice from his solicitor-general saying preventative detention and control orders raise constitutional problems.
The advice is believed to point to problems with the way judges and magistrates are effectively recruited to aid the work of police in secretly detaining people who have committed no offence.
But Mr Howard said he had received advice the laws were constitutional.
"The advice we have is that these laws are constitutional," Mr Howard told ABC Radio.
"There has never been any doubt raised by our legal advisers."
Mr Howard said he had not seen Mr Beattie's advice, but was happy to discuss it with him.
He said it was not unusual to have conflicting advice from lawyers.
"Lawyers often have different opinions as to what the law means and there is nothing new for a group of lawyers to have a range of views about the validity or otherwise of an approach," he said.
Mr Howard again rejected concerns that the new laws gave police new shoot-to-kill powers.
He said the laws replicated existing police powers.
But constitutional lawyer John Williams said judges and magistrates would be within their rights to argue that the legislation undermined the independence of the judiciary.
Dr Williams, of the Australian National University, believed a High Court challenge to the laws was almost inevitable.
"I could not see that this legislation could operate for long without a challenge being made," he told ABC radio today.
"Under the legislation, by concealing charges, by forcibly removing people, to holding them in camera, in so much as you're asking the judiciary to be involved either as individuals or as a court, you're asking them to undertake activities which are just wholly incompatible with what we understand the judicial process is."
Professor George Williams of the University of NSW agreed.
Judicial independence could be compromised if judges were seen to be doing the bidding of government by helping police to enforce aspects of the laws, like preventative detention, he said.
"Judges may well be reluctant to be involved in a process that they think may undermine their independence or undermine people's perceptions of them doing their job properly as judges and not on behalf of government," Prof Williams told ABC radio today.
He said the laws could be struck down, thereby throwing the entire package into doubt.
"The bottom line is that we don't know," he said.
"All you can say is that there's the possibility of a challenge and the question is just how much risk are you prepared to have that the challenge will succeed, and are you prepared to lower that risk by having a proper debate and, like the other (counter-terrorism) legislation a couple of years ago, amending it where necessary to protect it from being struck down."
The laws could be struck down without the proper safeguards in place, he said.
Prof Williams said the laws need "substantial tweaking" before the appropriate safeguards are in place.
"I am concerned that the safeguards aren't there as strongly as they may be," he said.
If the laws did not stand up to a legal challenge, security forces could be found to have acted illegally.
"In essence what you'd find is our whole response based upon these new laws would be found to be like a house of cards. It would just fall down in the absence of proper power."
In the end, this could threaten national security even more.
"You (could) end up threatening Australia's national security in the longer term," he said.
Under the tough new proposals, security forces would be handed the power to lock up people thought to be involved in, or have knowledge of, a terrorist act, while suspects could be made to wear tracking devices and be subject to tight control of their travel and communication.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Backlash building over anti-terror laws
The NSW and federal governments have been accused of hatching coercive and draconian security powers in an "atmosphere of hysteria" as unease grows over Australia's anti-terrorism response.
Sydney's besieged Muslim community joined the emerging backlash to warn that ASIO's proposed powers of detention and interrogation would virtually transform the agency into a "secret police".
The state's legal fraternity, led by the Australian president of the International Commission of Jurists, John Dowd, also condemned the anti-terrorism measures, saying they eroded citizens' fundamental rights and gave encouragement to oppressive overseas regimes.
But the NSW Premier, Bob Carr, said Bali had proved the threat to civilian lives was real and enhanced police powers to arrest, question and search people was necessary.
"We had the slaughter of innocent Australians in Bali," Mr Carr said. "We've had warnings that Australia might be targeted. We are giving police a carefully defined power to be triggered only on the occasion of an emergency. So John wake up to yourself. The threat is real."NSW and federal government bills giving police and ASIO agents greater powers of search, interrogation and detention will be debated in the two parliaments next week.
Almost all the 404 submissions to a Senate inquiry into the new ASIO legislation oppose the provisions, said its chairman, the ALP's Nick Bolkus.
The Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights and the Law Council of Australia have objected to Canberra's plans to detain people of interest - but not suspects - for questioning for up to seven days. People of interest may be held without being charged, legal representation or a court appearance.
In evidence to the inquiry, Justice Dowd said Australians' fundamental rights were under attack from anti-terrorism bills in an "atmosphere of hysteria". Muslims stood to become the first victims of the new laws.
The anti-terrorist measures would be likely to be used as an excuse by dictators of Asian and Pacific nations for their own human rights violations, he said.
"Our credibility is blown," he said. "What we have done will be used by terrorist regimes and totalitarian regimes throughout the world. This is not what Australia is about. We developed our legal system on habeas corpus and a whole range of protections of the individual. This just throws it aside."
The Law Council of Australia spokesman, Bret Walker, SC, said the ASIO bill violated basic rights in the same way as the United States has been unlawfully detaining suspected Taliban fighters, including two Australians, in Guantanamo Bay.
The bill would not prevent ASIO from rearresting suspects after the seven days expired and from using its interrogation powers unlawfully, he said. The Australian Crime Commission, rather than ASIO and the Australian Federal Police, was more suited to having coercive powers of questioning.
The Australian Federation of Islamic Council's chief executive, Amjad Mehboob, said Australia must not go down the path of having a secret police force.
And senior research fellow at the University of NSW, Mohammed Kadous, said recent ASIO raids proved the agency already had sufficient powers. "With legislation like this, how could we say anything about Malaysia's International Security Act?" he said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Sim Means Test
The Police Commissioner is demanding strict new background checks for people buying a mobile phone SIM card.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DNA Powers
Police will soon be given the power to demand DNA samples from anyone suspected of any crime.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/video/seven/index.html
Wednesday, 01 August 2007
Police and security agencies will be given unprecedented "sneak and peek" powers to search the homes and computers of suspects without their knowledge under legislation to go before Federal Parliament next week.
The extensive powers - which also give federal police the right to monitor communications equipment without an interceptions warrant - come amid growing public disquiet about counter-terrorism powers following the bungled handling of the Mohamed Haneef case.
Under the laws, officers from the federal police and other agencies would be able to execute "delayed notification warrants", allowing them to undertake searches, seize equipment and plant listening devices in businesses and homes.
Police and security officers will be able to assume false identities to gain entry and conduct the surreptitious searches.
But the person affected by the raid does not have to be informed for at least six months, and can remain in the dark for 18 months if the warrant is rolled over.
The warrant is to be issued by the head of a police service or security agency without the approval of a judicial officer. It can also be extended for more than 18 months with the sanction of the minister.
The lack of judicial oversight was justified by the Minister for Justice and Customs, David Johnston, on the grounds that a court or judicial officer might leak news of the warrant.
"I don't want to impugn anyone, but the security of these operations has to be pristine," Senator Johnston told the Herald.
Moreover, the warrant can be issued for any offence that carries a prison term of 10 years or more, despite a strong recommendation from a bipartisan Senate committee earlier this year that it only be used for investigations into terrorism, organised crime and "offences involving death or serious injury with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment".
The new powers have their genesis in a meeting of state, territory and federal police ministers two years ago to create uniform search warrants.
They are scheduled to be introduced to the Senate on Tuesday when Parliament resumes.
But they are likely to be scrutinised more heavily in the wake of the detention and subsequent dropping of terrorism-related charges against Dr Haneef.
The Greens senator Kerry Nettle said the handling of Dr Haneef's case served as a reminder that law enforcement and intelligence agencies made mistakes, and already had extensive and intrusive powers.
"Given the Haneef debacle, now is not the time to be giving more powers to the Australian Federal Police," she said.
The position of the Labor Opposition is unknown. The party did not return calls yesterday.
Federal police say they need the powers because current rules mean suspects are tipped off that they are under investigation.
"It then allows associates unknown to the police to destroy or relocate evidence or activities to other premises not known to police," the Deputy Commissioner John Lawler told a Senate committee earlier this year. "It often prevents the full criminality of those involved being known."
The bill also deals with "controlled operations" - undercover operations where federal agents are permitted to undertake criminal activity in order to further their investigations.
Federal authorities will have far greater scope to undertake such operations and will no longer need approval from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
The bill provides for immunity not only to the undercover police or security officer involved but also civilian informants.
For the first time it also allows foreign police and intelligence agencies to take part in undercover operations and to use false identities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-terror laws rammed through - minus debateCONTROVERSIAL anti-terror laws which will allow police to detain terror suspects without charge were last night rammed through Parliament.The Government cut short debate on the laws to enable them to pass the Senate in the last sitting week of the year.Labor voted to support the bill, despite failing to secure more protections for freedom of speech built into the sedition section and three monthly reports to Parliament which would have enabled greater scrutiny of their use.The Australian Greens and the Australian Democrats voted against the laws and the bill was passed 53 to seven.Democrats Senator Natasha Stott Despoja accused the Government of gagging debate, to the detriment of free speech and democracy. She also accused Labor of selling out on sedition and passing the legislation despite none of their amendments passing the Senate last night. "This is a shameful and sad day for democracy," Senator Stott Despoja said."This was arguably the most significant piece of legislation the Senate has dealt with in the last decade. Yet the Government stopped Senators from speaking to the Bill and refused to allow debate on the majority of the proposed amendments."In an affront to the role of the Senate, the Government showed no willingness to seriously consider the many amendments circulated by the Democrats and other Opposition parties."
Australian Greens leader Bob Brown compared the laws to the 1950s crackdown on communism in the US. "Never has the Government been able to cogently argue that this legislation is going to defend us from terrorism," he told the Senate. "We are in a new period of McCarthyism and we need to know that, and understand it, and worry that this time it won't be turned around, that citizens, using a law like this, will be brought before courts for political reasons, not security reasons."
The Anti-Terrorism Bill will allow police to detain terror suspects for up to 14 days without charge, place suspects on control orders for up to 12 months and impose a seven-year jail term for sedition.
The Law Council of Australia vowed to monitor the use of the laws to ensure they were not abused by those in power.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-terror laws: 'unconstitutional' summit
Mr Beattie ... has reportedly received advice from his solicitor-general saying preventative detention and control orders raise constitutional problems.
Prime Minister John Howard has agreed to a meeting between state and federal legal heads to ensure new anti-terrorism laws are constitutional, Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says.
Mr Beattie said today Mr Howard had agreed solicitors-general from all states should meet with the relevant person at a national level to ensure Canberra's new laws had a solid legal basis.
He contacted Mr Howard today after Queensland's solicitor-general warned the state government that the laws could be unconstitutional.
"We're not interested in causing problems for anyone, but my concern about this is very simple: to make sure that when the laws are passed that they are enforceable and binding," Mr Beattie told reporters.
"The last thing I would want to see is a constitutional challenge."
Mr Beattie said he believed the solicitor-general from NSW and the federal equivalent had a different opinion to Queensland's solicitor-general.
"We will try to work through these issues and we believe we can," he said.
Mr Beattie had reportedly received advice from his solicitor-general saying preventative detention and control orders raise constitutional problems.
The advice is believed to point to problems with the way judges and magistrates are effectively recruited to aid the work of police in secretly detaining people who have committed no offence.
But Mr Howard said he had received advice the laws were constitutional.
"The advice we have is that these laws are constitutional," Mr Howard told ABC Radio.
"There has never been any doubt raised by our legal advisers."
Mr Howard said he had not seen Mr Beattie's advice, but was happy to discuss it with him.
He said it was not unusual to have conflicting advice from lawyers.
"Lawyers often have different opinions as to what the law means and there is nothing new for a group of lawyers to have a range of views about the validity or otherwise of an approach," he said.
Mr Howard again rejected concerns that the new laws gave police new shoot-to-kill powers.
He said the laws replicated existing police powers.
But constitutional lawyer John Williams said judges and magistrates would be within their rights to argue that the legislation undermined the independence of the judiciary.
Dr Williams, of the Australian National University, believed a High Court challenge to the laws was almost inevitable.
"I could not see that this legislation could operate for long without a challenge being made," he told ABC radio today.
"Under the legislation, by concealing charges, by forcibly removing people, to holding them in camera, in so much as you're asking the judiciary to be involved either as individuals or as a court, you're asking them to undertake activities which are just wholly incompatible with what we understand the judicial process is."
Professor George Williams of the University of NSW agreed.
Judicial independence could be compromised if judges were seen to be doing the bidding of government by helping police to enforce aspects of the laws, like preventative detention, he said.
"Judges may well be reluctant to be involved in a process that they think may undermine their independence or undermine people's perceptions of them doing their job properly as judges and not on behalf of government," Prof Williams told ABC radio today.
He said the laws could be struck down, thereby throwing the entire package into doubt.
"The bottom line is that we don't know," he said.
"All you can say is that there's the possibility of a challenge and the question is just how much risk are you prepared to have that the challenge will succeed, and are you prepared to lower that risk by having a proper debate and, like the other (counter-terrorism) legislation a couple of years ago, amending it where necessary to protect it from being struck down."
The laws could be struck down without the proper safeguards in place, he said.
Prof Williams said the laws need "substantial tweaking" before the appropriate safeguards are in place.
"I am concerned that the safeguards aren't there as strongly as they may be," he said.
If the laws did not stand up to a legal challenge, security forces could be found to have acted illegally.
"In essence what you'd find is our whole response based upon these new laws would be found to be like a house of cards. It would just fall down in the absence of proper power."
In the end, this could threaten national security even more.
"You (could) end up threatening Australia's national security in the longer term," he said.
Under the tough new proposals, security forces would be handed the power to lock up people thought to be involved in, or have knowledge of, a terrorist act, while suspects could be made to wear tracking devices and be subject to tight control of their travel and communication.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Backlash building over anti-terror laws
The NSW and federal governments have been accused of hatching coercive and draconian security powers in an "atmosphere of hysteria" as unease grows over Australia's anti-terrorism response.
Sydney's besieged Muslim community joined the emerging backlash to warn that ASIO's proposed powers of detention and interrogation would virtually transform the agency into a "secret police".
The state's legal fraternity, led by the Australian president of the International Commission of Jurists, John Dowd, also condemned the anti-terrorism measures, saying they eroded citizens' fundamental rights and gave encouragement to oppressive overseas regimes.
But the NSW Premier, Bob Carr, said Bali had proved the threat to civilian lives was real and enhanced police powers to arrest, question and search people was necessary.
"We had the slaughter of innocent Australians in Bali," Mr Carr said. "We've had warnings that Australia might be targeted. We are giving police a carefully defined power to be triggered only on the occasion of an emergency. So John wake up to yourself. The threat is real."NSW and federal government bills giving police and ASIO agents greater powers of search, interrogation and detention will be debated in the two parliaments next week.
Almost all the 404 submissions to a Senate inquiry into the new ASIO legislation oppose the provisions, said its chairman, the ALP's Nick Bolkus.
The Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights and the Law Council of Australia have objected to Canberra's plans to detain people of interest - but not suspects - for questioning for up to seven days. People of interest may be held without being charged, legal representation or a court appearance.
In evidence to the inquiry, Justice Dowd said Australians' fundamental rights were under attack from anti-terrorism bills in an "atmosphere of hysteria". Muslims stood to become the first victims of the new laws.
The anti-terrorist measures would be likely to be used as an excuse by dictators of Asian and Pacific nations for their own human rights violations, he said.
"Our credibility is blown," he said. "What we have done will be used by terrorist regimes and totalitarian regimes throughout the world. This is not what Australia is about. We developed our legal system on habeas corpus and a whole range of protections of the individual. This just throws it aside."
The Law Council of Australia spokesman, Bret Walker, SC, said the ASIO bill violated basic rights in the same way as the United States has been unlawfully detaining suspected Taliban fighters, including two Australians, in Guantanamo Bay.
The bill would not prevent ASIO from rearresting suspects after the seven days expired and from using its interrogation powers unlawfully, he said. The Australian Crime Commission, rather than ASIO and the Australian Federal Police, was more suited to having coercive powers of questioning.
The Australian Federation of Islamic Council's chief executive, Amjad Mehboob, said Australia must not go down the path of having a secret police force.
And senior research fellow at the University of NSW, Mohammed Kadous, said recent ASIO raids proved the agency already had sufficient powers. "With legislation like this, how could we say anything about Malaysia's International Security Act?" he said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Sim Means Test
The Police Commissioner is demanding strict new background checks for people buying a mobile phone SIM card.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DNA Powers
Police will soon be given the power to demand DNA samples from anyone suspected of any crime.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/video/seven/index.html
The Government cut short debate on the laws to enable them to pass the Senate in the last sitting week of the year. The Australian Greens and the Australian Democrats voted against the laws and the bill was passed 53 to seven. "This was arguably the most significant piece of legislation the Senate has dealt with in the last decade. Yet the Government stopped Senators from speaking to the Bill and refused to allow debate on the majority of the proposed amendments. Australian Greens leader Bob Brown compared the laws to the 1950s crackdown on communism in the US. "Never has the Government been able to cogently argue that this legislation is going to defend us from terrorism," he told the Senate. "We are in a new period of McCarthyism and we need to know that, and understand it, and worry that this time it won't be turned around, that citizens, using a law like this, will be brought before courts for political reasons, not security reasons." The Anti-Terrorism Bill will allow police to detain terror suspects for up to 14 days without charge, place suspects on control orders for up to 12 months and impose a seven-year jail term for sedition. The Law Council of Australia vowed to monitor the use of the laws to ensure they were not abused by those in power. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr Beattie ... has reportedly received advice from his solicitor-general saying preventative detention and control orders raise constitutional problems. Prime Minister John Howard has agreed to a meeting between state and federal legal heads to ensure new anti-terrorism laws are constitutional, Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says. Mr Beattie said today Mr Howard had agreed solicitors-general from all states should meet with the relevant person at a national level to ensure Canberra's new laws had a solid legal basis. He contacted Mr Howard today after Queensland's solicitor-general warned the state government that the laws could be unconstitutional. "We're not interested in causing problems for anyone, but my concern about this is very simple: to make sure that when the laws are passed that they are enforceable and binding," Mr Beattie told reporters. "The last thing I would want to see is a constitutional challenge." Mr Beattie said he believed the solicitor-general from NSW and the federal equivalent had a different opinion to Queensland's solicitor-general. Mr Beattie had reportedly received advice from his solicitor-general saying preventative detention and control orders raise constitutional problems. The advice is believed to point to problems with the way judges and magistrates are effectively recruited to aid the work of police in secretly detaining people who have committed no offence. But Mr Howard said he had received advice the laws were constitutional. "The advice we have is that these laws are constitutional," Mr Howard told ABC Radio. "There has never been any doubt raised by our legal advisers." Mr Howard said he had not seen Mr Beattie's advice, but was happy to discuss it with him. He said it was not unusual to have conflicting advice from lawyers. "Lawyers often have different opinions as to what the law means and there is nothing new for a group of lawyers to have a range of views about the validity or otherwise of an approach," he said. Mr Howard again rejected concerns that the new laws gave police new shoot-to-kill powers. He said the laws replicated existing police powers. But constitutional lawyer John Williams said judges and magistrates would be within their rights to argue that the legislation undermined the independence of the judiciary. Dr Williams, of the Australian National University, believed a High Court challenge to the laws was almost inevitable. "I could not see that this legislation could operate for long without a challenge being made," he told ABC radio today. "Under the legislation, by concealing charges, by forcibly removing people, to holding them in camera, in so much as you're asking the judiciary to be involved either as individuals or as a court, you're asking them to undertake activities which are just wholly incompatible with what we understand the judicial process is." Professor George Williams of the University of NSW agreed. Judicial independence could be compromised if judges were seen to be doing the bidding of government by helping police to enforce aspects of the laws, like preventative detention, he said. "Judges may well be reluctant to be involved in a process that they think may undermine their independence or undermine people's perceptions of them doing their job properly as judges and not on behalf of government," Prof Williams told ABC radio today. He said the laws could be struck down, thereby throwing the entire package into doubt. "The bottom line is that we don't know," he said. "All you can say is that there's the possibility of a challenge and the question is just how much risk are you prepared to have that the challenge will succeed, and are you prepared to lower that risk by having a proper debate and, like the other (counter-terrorism) legislation a couple of years ago, amending it where necessary to protect it from being struck down." The laws could be struck down without the proper safeguards in place, he said. Prof Williams said the laws need "substantial tweaking" before the appropriate safeguards are in place. "I am concerned that the safeguards aren't there as strongly as they may be," he said. If the laws did not stand up to a legal challenge, security forces could be found to have acted illegally. "In essence what you'd find is our whole response based upon these new laws would be found to be like a house of cards. It would just fall down in the absence of proper power." In the end, this could threaten national security even more. "You (could) end up threatening Australia's national security in the longer term," he said. Under the tough new proposals, security forces would be handed the power to lock up people thought to be involved in, or have knowledge of, a terrorist act, while suspects could be made to wear tracking devices and be subject to tight control of their travel and communication. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The NSW and federal governments have been accused of hatching coercive and draconian security powers in an "atmosphere of hysteria" as unease grows over Australia's anti-terrorism response. Sydney's besieged Muslim community joined the emerging backlash to warn that ASIO's proposed powers of detention and interrogation would virtually transform the agency into a "secret police". The state's legal fraternity, led by the Australian president of the International Commission of Jurists, John Dowd, also condemned the anti-terrorism measures, saying they eroded citizens' fundamental rights and gave encouragement to oppressive overseas regimes. But the NSW Premier, Bob Carr, said Bali had proved the threat to civilian lives was real and enhanced police powers to arrest, question and search people was necessary. "We had the slaughter of innocent Australians in Bali," Mr Carr said. "We've had warnings that Australia might be targeted. We are giving police a carefully defined power to be triggered only on the occasion of an emergency. So John wake up to yourself. The threat is real."NSW and federal government bills giving police and ASIO agents greater powers of search, interrogation and detention will be debated in the two parliaments next week. Almost all the 404 submissions to a Senate inquiry into the new ASIO legislation oppose the provisions, said its chairman, the ALP's Nick Bolkus. The Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights and the Law Council of Australia have objected to Canberra's plans to detain people of interest - but not suspects - for questioning for up to seven days. People of interest may be held without being charged, legal representation or a court appearance. In evidence to the inquiry, Justice Dowd said Australians' fundamental rights were under attack from anti-terrorism bills in an "atmosphere of hysteria". Muslims stood to become the first victims of the new laws. The anti-terrorist measures would be likely to be used as an excuse by dictators of Asian and Pacific nations for their own human rights violations, he said. "Our credibility is blown," he said. "What we have done will be used by terrorist regimes and totalitarian regimes throughout the world. This is not what Australia is about. We developed our legal system on habeas corpus and a whole range of protections of the individual. This just throws it aside." The Law Council of Australia spokesman, Bret Walker, SC, said the ASIO bill violated basic rights in the same way as the United States has been unlawfully detaining suspected Taliban fighters, including two Australians, in Guantanamo Bay. The bill would not prevent ASIO from rearresting suspects after the seven days expired and from using its interrogation powers unlawfully, he said. The Australian Crime Commission, rather than ASIO and the Australian Federal Police, was more suited to having coercive powers of questioning. The Australian Federation of Islamic Council's chief executive, Amjad Mehboob, said Australia must not go down the path of having a secret police force. And senior research fellow at the University of NSW, Mohammed Kadous, said recent ASIO raids proved the agency already had sufficient powers. "With legislation like this, how could we say anything about Malaysia's International Security Act?" he said. The Police Commissioner is demanding strict new background checks for people buying a mobile phone SIM card.
"We will try to work through these issues and we believe we can," he said.
New Sim Means Test
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DNA Powers
Police will soon be given the power to demand DNA samples from anyone suspected of any crime.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/video/seven/index.html
