Canberra plays down fears of shoot-to-kill terrorism laws

CANBERRA - Australian leaders have moved to calm growing fears of proposed shoot-to-kill provisions in plans to allow the military a greater role in anti-terror operations.

The plan follows last week's emergency sitting of the Senate to pass extended powers of arrest for suspected terrorists, pushed through because of reports of an immediate threat to the nation.

Yesterday the Australian reported that suspects in Sydney were now subject to round-the-clock surveillance by police, with further operations in Melbourne.

The Federal Court also dismissed an appeal against deportation by Muslim cleric Sheik Mansour Leghaei, launched after the domestic spy agency Asio declared him to be a risk to national security.

Concern has increased at the civil rights implications of a proposal by Defence Minister Robert Hill to introduce legislation to give authorities a freer hand in calling in troops, including rules of engagement that would allow lethal force.

The Defence Act already allows the Defence Force to assist civilian authorities, and troops and aircraft were used in the security blanket drawn around the Sydney Olympics and the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Queensland.

Significant military involvement has been confirmed for next year's Melbourne Commonwealth Games.

Hill said the use of Defence Act provisions had been difficult to implement, and the Government wanted new powers to allow troops, aircraft and ships to move rapidly to counter a moving threat - rather than be confined to a specific location, as under present arrangements.

"The idea is that if there is an event that is beyond the capability of the police to handle - we want to be able to use the [Defence Force] flexibly and effectively to protect the lives of Australian people," he said.

But he denied troops would have unbridled powers to search, detain or shoot people. "That's not the idea."

The proposal has the support of the Labor Opposition, whose main criticism has been that the Government has been slow in introducing it.

The states, which initially held deep reservations about the new laws, have swung behind the Government and criticised "alarmist" reporting of the measures.

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie said the debate over the measures had at times used unnecessary and alarming language.

"People would expect that if there was a major terrorism incident in this country the Army would have a role to play," he said. "I don't think anyone would argue about that."

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has also defended the Government against criticism of its decision to disclose an imminent terror threat last week as justification for rushing through new arrest powers.

The Government has been accused of using intelligence to raise public fears for political purposes, and of compromising the operations of counter-terror agencies.

Ruddock conceded to ABC radio that the new powers might not be used in the case used to hurry them through the Senate, but he said urgency had still been required.

"It was quite clear on the advice that we had ... that it couldn't wait for the passage of the broader bill, which won't take place for another three weeks."