The federal opposition says it has not yet seen the draft bill but the ABC reports that it has sighted draft amendments to the law that would mean police could - without a warrant - arrest someone simply on suspicion of committing a terrorism offense.
The changes will also make it easier for police to apply control orders to limit the movement and activities of people suspected of being involved in terrorism.
The government is expected to introduce the draft legislation to parliament this week.
Civil Liberties Australia spokesman Tim Vines has called for the amendments to be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence.
Queensland Barrister Stephen Keim QC says the Abbott government is moving too quickly with proposed changes to Australia's anti-terrorism laws.
Mr Keim, who represented a former Gold Coast doctor cleared of terrorism charges, is worried the government wants both houses of parliament to approve the changes in weeks.
"That causes me real concern because this type of legislation shouldn't be rushed through the parliament and if we are talking about passing something through parliament within weeks then that meets my definition of rushing it through parliament," he told the ABC.
But Attorney-General George Brandis says the new legislation will be measured and that there will be safeguards to ensure the laws will not target any particular group.
"I will expect that Labor will support this provision. It is important to bear in mind what the provsion is: it prohibits a person from procuring to engage in a terrorist act or commit a terrorist defence," he told Sky News.
"...We're chasing anyone who violates it."
Mr Brandis said the "no-go zones" under new anti-terrorism laws will be "quite narrowly described", with exemptions to ensure journalists and those travelling to deliver aid would not be affected.
"These localities should be quite narrowly described. For example, there are certain areas in Syria and certain areas in northern Iraq which are - as they were - hot spots or headquarters for Al-Nusra. A town or village might be the subject of such a declaration.
"The point I made when I announced the law on August 5 is that I expected that this power would be used sparingly. And please don't make the mistae of assuming that merely becasue a law exists, it will be applied, [or that] it will be used oin a gratuitious or a wide fashion."
"What we need to do is to have every tool in the legal armoury that is available to us. But it doesn't follow on from that that we will necessarily be using this law in every case because we won't."
He lashed out at "red herring" claims that the new laws would allow for torture.
He also said there had been "confusion" in reporting about the laws and its potential impacts, insisting the new laws would have safeguards and exemptions.
"There has never been reverse onus of proof. I think there has been some confusion here. So let me explain: We are introducing two new criminal offences in this bill. One of advocacy of terrorism and one declared by the minister of foreign affairs to be in effect a no-go zone. So the offence is visiting a no-go zone," he said.
"But then there are a series of exemptions provided. For example, if a person visits the area solely for the purpose of humanitarian aid. If a person visits the area, solely for the purpose of engaging bonafide...in the profession of journalism to make a news report and so on.
"This is the ordinary way the criminal law works. There is an offence provision and there are defence provisions."
Share
