Search warrants no longer required in Oz???

[Roofie]

Watching the news this morning I came across this.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/senate-passes-security-reform/story-fn59niix-1225954075841

Australian Police are now not required to obtain a search warrant to search your person or premises under new legislation which was passed last night.
This has been said to be used for terrorist suspects but at present does not have a governing body to investigate misuse and could easily be open to abuse by both State and Federal Police.

Are we becoming the New America???? Only time will tell.

[Anchor]

Thanks, I read the article.


LAWS that cap the amount of time terror suspects can be detained without charge and give police greater search powers passed through parliament last night.

But a watchdog to monitor the changes has yet to be appointed.

The National Security Legislation Amendment Bill passed the Senate last night with the support of the Coalition and despite vocal opposition from the Greens.

The amendments have been almost two years in the making and build on a series of reviews into Australia's at-times controversial counter-terror regime, including the 2008 inquiry into the botched Mohamed Haneef investigation.

The changes limit to seven days the amount of time police can detain suspects, exempt police from obtaining search warrants in emergency circumstances and place the Australian Federal Police under greater parliamentary oversight.

The amendments also broaden offences for inciting violence to include race or religion, allow the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to inquire into any commonwealth agency on security matters and extend the time an organisation is subject to proscription from two years to three.

Attorney-General Robert McClelland said the changes sought to strike a balance between security and liberty.

"These 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 the laws and powers are balanced by appropriate safeguards and are accountable in their operation," Mr McClelland said.

The amendments were announced almost two years ago after John Clarke QC found serious deficiencies in the application of Australia's counter-terror laws, passed amid much controversy in the years after the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.

Mr McClelland's office has defended its delay in implementing the reforms, noting the Haneef "debacle" occurred under the Howard government.

Greens senator Scott Ludlum said the amendments missed the chance to roll back laws passed in the "heat of the moment" after September 11.

Warrant-less police searches are always going to touch a nerve with me. What we really need is a good definition of the legal interpretation of terrorism.

More worrying: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/psychological-harm-in-new-terror-laws/story-e6frea8c-1225760762903


TERRORISM will be redefined to include psychological as well as physical harm while hoaxers will face up to 10 years jail under proposed reforms to national security laws.

Attorney-General Robert McClelland said the Federal Government remained committed to ensuring the focus continued to be on preventing terrorist attacks, not just waiting to punish those who would commit such heinous crimes after they occur.

Mr McClelland said an effective legal framework was fundamental to the ability to address Australia's security.

He 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.

Finally in another spin on the same story:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/howard-era-terror-laws-watered-down/story-e6frea8c-1225760825479


ATTORNEY-GENERAL Robert McClelland has moved to soften elements of Australia's counter-terrorism laws, barely a week after police raided a cell of suspected extremists in Melbourne.

In an effort to move beyond the laws created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on the US and the 2002 Bali bombings, Mr McClelland has announced a suite of changes to Australia's terror laws, The Australian reports.

Under the changes, the length of time that police can detain terror suspects will be capped at nine days.

But police will be given the power to search premises without a warrant where they believe there is material that threatens public health, such as explosives or biological agents.

As a safeguard, police will not be able to enter a premises for the purpose of gathering evidence merely to address acute security threats.

The changes also extend the amount of time police have to re-enter premises from one hour to 12 in emergencies.

Mr McClelland has said the proposals hardened Australia's laws in some areas and moderated them in others.

But he left little doubt that overall the adjustments represented a softening of the body of laws introduced by the Howard government, which he said had been passed "expeditiously" following the September 11 attacks and the 2002 Bali bombings.

Under the changes, the definition of a terrorist act will be expanded to include acts of "psychological" harm, as well as physical injury.

A new "terrorism hoax" offence will also be created, punishing people with up to 10 years' jail if they convey the impression a terror attack is imminent. And it will become an offence to incite violence against somebody on the basis of their race, religion or political opinion.

The changes also effectively abolish the offence of sedition, renaming it as "urging violence" and expanding its definition to include individuals as well as groups.

When asked if the Howard government had overshot the mark in drafting the laws, Mr McClelland said: "The government was required to act and acted expeditiously."

But Mr McClelland said the time had come to recalibrate the laws.

"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," he said.

Coalition Senator George Brandis has said the existing laws struck the right balance between personal liberty and public safety.

"There hasn't been any difficulty in enforcing those laws," he said. "There hasn't been a terrorist incident in Australia."

[Teakai]

Uh oh, I feel another letter to parliament coming on.

[ponda]

So from "their" perspective it's not terrorism if you're wearing a uniform

[Carmody]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/art-gop-fascism-poster.jpg

As an observation,

I'd say that you've reached a turning point. The kind that resembles a slide down a hill where the brakes are finally overcome - and the car begins to speed up.

You're going to figure out exactly what your personal point of no return is now, individually and collectively, fairly soon.

[Lord Sidious]

From reading this, this applies to the feds, not the state police.
The commonwealth can't regulate the state police or their laws, only the federal ones.

[Mad Hatter]

Under the changes, the definition of a terrorist act will be expanded to include acts of "psychological" harm, as well as physical injury.
A new "terrorism hoax" offence will also be created, punishing people with up to 10 years' jail if they convey the impression a terror attack is imminent. And it will become an offence to incite violence against somebody on the basis of their race, religion or political opinion.
Applies nicely to the bipartisan support for us joining the coalition of clowns based on non existant WMD's...no? Class action anybody??


The changes also effectively abolish the offence of sedition, renaming it as "urging violence" and expanding its definition to include individuals as well as groups.
So at what point is that rabid warmongering idiot, sheik hilarious at the Lakemba mosque, going to be brought into line or does the anti discrimination law trump this little lot?


But Mr McClelland said the time had come to recalibrate the laws.
"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," he said.
It was we the people that accepted this to start with on the basis of the 'sunset' clauses...nice dodge McClown!!
So for those that can see how this is done, do ya really think the mad monk will revoke any carbon tax juliar and the watermelons introduce??


Coalition Senator George Brandis... "There hasn't been a terrorist incident in Australia."
Either proof positive this fwit arrived in the last shower of doom and gloom dumped by the media spin cycle or the bomb planted outside the Sydney Hilton hotel was yet another inside job..which is it Senator Brandarse??


From reading this, this applies to the feds, not the state police.
The commonwealth can't regulate the state police or their laws, only the federal ones.
Noted...but is it not the federal police who have authority across all University campuses? How convenient...