[1] The Bill was prepared by the Howard government in the wake of a series of terrorist attacks overseas, in particular London, with the stated intent of preventing such events from happening in Australia.
Victorian Premier Steve Bracks noted the 'shoot to kill' clause had not been discussed at the Council of Australian Governments meeting where the draft laws were forged.
The Federal government also introduced "control orders" which allow for a range of restrictions to be placed on an individual (who has not been charged, let alone found guilty of any criminal offence) including subjecting that person to 12 months house arrest.
[9] Then Queensland Premier Peter Beattie announced that he had received advice that the blurring of boundaries between the executive and judicial powers was likely to be unconstitutional.
[10] Then federal Treasurer Peter Costello adopted a more cautious attitude, stating that "you never really know" the answer to the vexed question of constitutionality "until such time as the courts decide on these things".
(SMH, 27 October 2005)[full citation needed] According to spokespeople for the then Prime Minister, his and the Treasurer's views were compatible, but some media outlets, including the Sydney Morning Herald, insinuated otherwise.
[11] Law Council of Australia president John North, suggested that such powers were designed to protect police in the event of a mistaken fatal shooting such as that of Jean Charles de Menezes.
"[16] John North, President of the Law Council of Australia, said "The power to make control orders is to be given to federal courts and is clearly non-judicial.
Judicial power requires a fair procedure, including notice of the proceedings and disclosure of the basis upon which orders are sought and made.