Civil rights at risk in terror backlash

John Howard has been accused of frightening Australians with harsh new anti-terror laws he says are necessary but which even some supporters admit are "draconian".

The Australian Prime Minister's plan to change the law so a person can be detained for up to two weeks without charge has also been labelled a threat to the freedoms the so-called "war on terror" is meant to be protecting.

New Zealand is not expected to follow Australia's lead in seeking house arrest or greater detention powers, although measures such as increased personal searches and questioning at big events, such as sporting contests, cannot be ruled out.

The director of the Centre for Strategic Studies, Peter Cozens, told the Herald it was prudent for Australia to take a harder-edged approach to security than New Zealand because of its foreign policy and its greater ethnic mix.

But he said civil liberties now at risk, such as the principle of habeas corpus that protects a person against unlawful arrest, had taken centuries to develop at great sacrifice.

"There's no need to frighten people. It's almost damaging the very freedoms everyone is wanting to protect.

"A 'softly softly, catchy monkey' approach will reward authorities more than a 'reds under the bed', or 'terrorist under the bed' approach."

Prime Minister Helen Clark, the Minister in charge of Security and Intelligence, said she had not been briefed on the changes but New Zealand did monitor security developments in other Western countries.

Neither police nor the Security Intelligence Service would comment on Australia's proposed laws or whether they wanted similar powers.

But police previously said they would watch keenly how both Australia and Britain reacted to the London bombings in July that killed 56 people (including New Zealander Shelley Mather) and injured 700.

Assistant Commissioner Jon White told the Herald last month that New Zealand might also need to be ready to debate the balance between personal freedoms and a country's security needs.

Co-inciding with Mr Howard's unveiling of his latest crackdown on terror, Australia's security agencies increased the number of Muslim "extremists" it was watching from about 70-80 to 800, said the Australian newspaper.

The tough approach has sparked alarm among Muslim and human rights groups, even though the laws will be reviewed after five years and will have a 10-year expiry date.

Mr Howard said the new laws would be drafted within weeks and would give increased "peace of mind" to Australians.

Civil rights lawyers in New Zealand said yesterday that Australia's changes had to be watched warily.

Similar powers were not likely here yet, especially after the controversy surrounding Algerian Ahmed Zaoui, whose security status has yet to be determined almost three years after he arrived here.

The president of the Federation for Ethnic Councils, Pancha Narayanan, said Australia had over-reacted to threats it faced.

But he expected that some people - such as New Zealand First leader Winston Peters - might advocate similar policies here.

"I don't think we want to go down that way," he said. "We are a moderate society."

Andrew Ladley, the director of Victoria University's Institute of Policy Studies, said democracies had to strike a balance between the duty of a state to protect people from danger, and the individual's right to be protected from the state going too far.

Anti-terror laws

* Detention without charge for up to two weeks.

* Court orders to impose house arrest.

* Detainees may be denied their own lawyers and offered state lawyers.

* Greater powers relating to questioning and search at major events and on public transport.

* A$40 million ($44 million) for security, including the prevention of chemical and biological attacks.