And the police state lurches ever closer, with the SMH today reporting on proposed legislation for “New secret search powers”.
The proposed powers would give police the right to execute search, seizure and surveillance under so-called “delayed notification warrants”, without judicial oversight, and including the assumption of false identities by police to gain access. The subject can be denied notice of the s/s/s for up to six months, with extensions available on Ministerial approval, again with no judicial involvement:
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.
The article continues:
The position of the Labor Opposition is unknown. The party did not return calls yesterday.
Make the bad men go away? Please? I’m going to hide under the bed for a while.
Y’know, I was sort of expecting something like this from Johnny the Garden Gnome. It goes along with the rest of the measures the current government has been trying to introduce to make independent thought effectively illegal. The annoying part isn’t so much they’re doing it, but more it’s not even unconstitutional for them to try. Not that this has ever stopped George the Shrub in the US, but then again, he’s making his own reality.
My own optimistic hope is on the normal and rather dilatory processes of parliamentary debate. With any luck, the opposition will live up to their job descriptions, and oppose the whole thing for long enough to ensure it doesn’t get passed in this current session of parliament. There’s not likely to be another prior to the next election (after all, they *do* have a constitutional timetable to be working to here), which means if things go well, it’ll be possible to get the blasted stuff quashed by the next parliament.
I wrote a bit more about this here. The lack of judicial oversight, and this new approach to excluding the courts, is certainly alarming, as is the assumption that a court of law can’t be ‘trusted’ with information but unaccountable ministers and police/intelligence operatives can.
I sincerely hope the ALP has something constructive to say, but I suspect it’ll just be more of Rudd’s anti-wedge stuff.
I have previously tended to not be alarmed by governments wanting to exercise diligence in protecting us from ‘the bad guys’ because I tended to think the government was trustworthy, whether or not I agreed with their policies, but this is truly disturbing. If the judiciary can be brushed aside so easily then there is nothing to protect you from the government. Do you need protecting from the government? You bet you do! Especially this one.
I’m sorry I’ve been so out of commission and haven’t been answering comments. “Word”, to you all, and thanks for the link Patrick.
[...] matter, are the legacy of bitter lesssons our federal government has yet to learn. There’s more on the propsals from Laurhedel, and David Bath makes a prima facie case that Andrews and Howard [...]