Police could lock down an entire suburb and carry out unfettered
searches on homes, vehicles and individuals under anti-terrorism
laws proposed by the Labor leader, Kim Beazley.
Under the Opposition's plan announced yesterday, the
extraordinary powers could be executed on the basis of "credible
intelligence" only, and without seeking judicial approval.
Mr Beazley called for police commissioners to be allowed to lock
down an area if intelligence suggested a terrorist act was imminent
or terrorists had struck.
Police could search people, vehicles and premises in the target
area, demand proof of a person's identity, confiscate items, tow
away vehicles, and prevent people removing or interfering with
objects.
While Mr Beazley described the proposals as sensible and
practical, a Muslim civil liberties advocate, Waleed Kadous, said
it was a "very disappointing" salvo in a "political game of
one-upmanship to give away civil rights".
Concerns, too, were voiced among federal Labor MPs, although
several said they agreed with the plan. It was drawn up by a small
circle that included Mr Beazley, his staff and relevant shadow
ministers.
One MP questioned whether the plan ditched civil and legal
rights for the expediency of "out-Howarding Howard" and another
said it was "far-fetched".
Mr Beazley said he wanted his plan adopted at tomorrow's meeting
in Canberra of the Prime Minister and the state premiers to discuss
proposed anti-terrorism laws, including 14 days' detention of
suspects without a lawyer and the electronic tagging of those
assessed as terrorism risks.
The Federal Government will not offer the states sunset clauses
in any consequent legislation but is understood to be willing to
accede if the premiers insist on them.
From discussion and the exchange of documents, the Federal
Government is satisfied that in-principle agreement exists except
on the issue of so-called control orders - the means of monitoring
terrorist suspects. The states want safeguards to ensure orders are
not issued willy-nilly and the Federal Government regards this as
the main sticking point in tomorrow's talks.
The Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, said yesterday that civil
liberties would be preserved but the Queensland Premier, Peter
Beattie, said he would abandon the talks if safeguards were not
adequate.
Mr Beazley has not opposed the Howard Government's proposals but
wants to go further with the search-and-seize model, which he has
borrowed largely from NSW.
The powers he is seeking could be used for up to 12 hours
without a judge's approval. They could be enforced for seven days
without an attack and 48 hours after one.
Mr Beazley insisted this would amount to proper judicial
oversight, particularly as Parliament would require a subsequent
report and lawful industrial or political protest would be
protected.
"These powers give police what they need to help protect our
communities," Mr Beazley said.
"They are targeted and time-limited and they could be national
if the Prime Minister shows the necessary leadership."
A spokesman for Mr Ruddock said Labor was "playing catch-up"
with federal reforms announced last month. But these identify only
"transport hubs and other places of mass gatherings", where police
might be able to exercise unlimited search and seizure powers, and
limit them to people and bags.
Mr Kadous, of the Australian Muslim Civil Rights Advocacy
Network, said thousands of innocent people would suffer under the
Beazley plan. It could spark antagonism among Muslims and others if
one ethnic group dominated the area.
Tom Allard, Louise Dodson and David Humphries
Sydney Morning Herald, 26 September 2005
