Subsection 23CA(4) provides that the investigation period extends from the time of arrest for a reasonable time, having regard to all the circumstances. A maximum investigation period of four hours is prescribed for terrorism offences. For persons who are or who appear to be under 18, and Aboriginal persons or Torres Strait Islanders, the maximum investigation period is two hours.

Two hours? Four Hours? 94.6 hours? What?

Question: Why name Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders along with terrorists? If we are not listed as a terrorist group why name us at all?

This clearly suggests that these laws have a broader political intention.

R I P democracy

Over the top Maximus.

I have no doubt that the proposed laws are an honest attempt to deal with the changed environment in which we live…and that Philip Ruddock is doing the right thing in expressing it in the media and in a forum such as this where it can be widely debated. I say, good on him. Many people think of Ruddock as a devious piece of work, but I reckon he is one of our very few really genuine take-him-at-face-value politicians.

If you hadn’t condemned Ruddock for every little thing and had stuck to the issue, then maybe you would have retained some shred of credibility.

Hey, but I sort of agree with you on one point; You say; “Freedom of speech was silenced years ago”.

I don’t think it ever really existed. Just like the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, it is a crock of poo. Our freedom of speech has always been highly compromised, so I discovered a few years ago, when I suddenly could no longer express my views as a private citizen, on matters in any way associated with my profession. That imposition was unlawful, against my employer’s code of conduct, and ultimately overturned in a very expensive mediation session, brought about after four years of protest. But even after mediation, my freedom of speech is greatly reduced compared to what it is supposed to be in this democracy. When I was a nobody, I could express my views openly, but when I climbed the greasy pole, gaining experience and expertise along the way, I could no longer openly express myself, even though I was all the more qualified to do so. Sucks to the extreme when you can’t partake in an impartial manner in matters that you are passionately concerned about, unless you’re anonymous.

So let’s not live with the illusion that freedom of speech is alive and well. The new laws are just simply not going to further impinge on our already highly compromised freedom of speech.

If indeed the government has nothing to hide,
why does it not allow the public to view the new laws
- or does anyone know of a site where the proposed new laws are published?

Dear David, as a Catholic, you make a good point re the pope, and as usual, you are a very difficult man to disagree with, please keep up the good work,Regards,Shaun

Yuyutsu,

here is the new Anti-terror Act (No2) 2005 (Cth)

http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/Repository/Legis/Bills/Linked/03110504.pdf

Here is the advice provided by the faculty at UNSW to ACT Chief Minister John Stanhope;

http://www.law.unsw.edu.au/News_and_Events/Doc/Stanhope_advice_20051018.pdf

My quick analysis of these laws is;

a. they impose Retrospective Criminal Liability (s.142.2(2); cf Communist Party Case; cf Polyukhevic; cf ICCPR).

b. Judges will not be able to act as 'persona designata' (cf Grollo v Palmer), as the detention is punitive (cf Al-Khateb) being that it is to ensure the welfare of persons other than the detainee (cf Kruger) who may not have been found guilty of any crime (cf Fardon v A-G (Qld)).

Therefore as detention is punitive, it may only be imposed by the judiciary (Chu Kheng Lim), and any attempt to do so by a quasi-judicial, administrative tribunal will offend the separation of powers (particularly of judicial power; Boilermakers').

Thus, as any body which can be used to provide these detention orders must be a court, they cannot deny the accussed due process (Leeth v Cth; Plenty v Dillon; Coco v R).

c. Despite assurances through the media to the contrary, this act expressly excludes judicial review (ADJR).

I do not think there is much chance at all of these laws being deemed to be Constitutional.