Disturbing new terrorism law
Ah, ain't it always the way - civil liberties bulldozed in the interests of the 'war on terror'. Parish has a piece on the NSW legislation - the Terrorism (Police Powers) Bill 2002, here. Notably, from a quick skimming, it is not limited to terrorism but certain of teh powers to be granted to police extend to getting evidence for "serious indictable offences". all the usual suspects - searches without warrants, and even on the authorisation - not of a court, nor even a Minister, but any senior police officer above the rank of superintendant. Carr of course is claiming it's all legitimate and warranted. But the legislation is definitely disturbingly vague - according to an article in the SMH:

The police minister Michael Costa said in a terrorist incident involving a large van, such as the Oklahoma bombing, police would have the power to search all large vans without a warrant.
"If that's the information that has been received - that a large van is likely to be used on a particular terrorist attack- they could for a period of seven days before or 48 hours after the event have those powers of search."

My comment with all these forms of legislation, supposed to respond to an imminent threat or situation (apart from all the obvious civil liberties issues addressed by Ken Parish on his blog) is - why isn't there a sunset clause - ie why isn't the legislation expressed to be valid only for a limited time - thus requiring the legislation to renew the legislation - if deemed warranted - after some reasonable period. It's notable that in cases of controversial legislation, Australian governments have taken to putting in requirements that the legislation be "reviewed" (in this case after 12 months - see clause 36). But that won't prevent the law still being on the books, will it?