The Claim
“Proposed a law which would give police the power to imprison people for 14 days without arrest.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim is substantially accurate but requires critical context. The Turnbull government did propose a law allowing detention of terrorism suspects for up to 14 days without being charged [1]. This was proposed at a special Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting in October 2017 [1]. The proposal was part of a broader counter-terrorism legislative package that included new offences for possessing terrorist instructional material and making terrorism hoaxes [1].
The 14-day detention period was framed as "pre-charge detention" - meaning suspects could be interrogated/detained without formal charges being laid [1]. Prime Minister Turnbull, Attorney-General George Brandis, and Justice Minister Michael Keenan developed the proposal to standardize detention periods across states, as different states had vastly different pre-charge detention limits (NSW had 7 days maximum, South Australia had only 8 hours) [1].
However, a critical distinction must be noted: this was pre-charge detention (detention during investigation), not post-conviction imprisonment. The term "imprison" in the claim is misleading—the proposal was about extending the period suspects could be held for questioning before being formally charged with an offense, not imprisoning convicted persons [1].
Missing Context
The claim omits several crucial details:
1. Not imprisonment but investigative detention: The 14-day period was framed as time to interrogate and investigate suspects, not sentence them to prison [1]. This is a fundamentally different concept from imprisonment, though it does restrict liberty.
2. Legal safeguards were promised: The government stated it was devising "additional legal safeguards" to "ensure natural justice to suspects" [1], indicating the intention was not arbitrary detention.
3. States already had equivalent or variable powers: The proposal was motivated by the problem that states had inconsistent pre-charge detention periods [1]. NSW had 7-day maximum detention (introduced under Labor in 2004 [4]), while South Australia had only 8 hours. The federal government was proposing national consistency, not creating new detention powers from scratch [1].
4. Specific trigger: The detention was specifically for terrorism suspects, not general arrest powers [1]. This is an important limitation.
5. The proposal faced scrutiny but did not become law: There is no evidence the 14-day pre-charge detention law was passed. The government also proposed continuing detention orders (CDOs) for high-risk terrorist offenders after sentence completion (Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016) [2], but the broad 14-day pre-charge detention proposal did not appear to become Commonwealth legislation [3].
6. Civil liberties concerns were raised: Legal academics, including law professor George Williams, called for the government to explain why existing laws were insufficient [1]. Criminal barrister Greg Barns "likely" to criticize similar proposals [1].
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source is the Sydney Morning Herald, a mainstream Australian news outlet with strong journalistic standards [1]. The article is factual reporting by James Massola, the chief political commentator. The SMH is generally regarded as credible and balanced. The article appropriately attributes proposals to named government ministers and notes civil liberties concerns.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor introduce detention without charge laws?
Australia has had extended pre-charge detention powers for terrorism suspects since the Labor government introduced counter-terrorism legislation in 2005-2006 following the September 11 attacks [4]. These powers existed well before the Coalition's 2017 proposal and were already in place under state laws during Labor's 2007-2013 government [4].
The specific problem the Coalition was addressing in 2017 was national inconsistency in state-based pre-charge detention periods—a problem that predated the Coalition government [1]. Labor had not achieved national consistency during their own period in government [1].
While Labor did introduce broader counter-terrorism powers post-2001, there is no evidence Labor had proposed a 14-day federal pre-charge detention regime [4]. However, the broad concept of detention without immediate charge is not unique to the Coalition—it was part of Australia's counter-terrorism framework established by Labor [4].
Balanced Perspective
The full story includes:
Government perspective: The Coalition framed the 14-day detention proposal as a necessary counter-terrorism measure, particularly following foiled terrorist plots in Australia [1]. Prime Minister Turnbull stated: "It's vital that we have nationally consistent terrorism laws" and noted the problem where "those who seek to do us harm can be held to account no matter where they are" [1]. The government's concern was genuine—states had wildly inconsistent detention periods (8 hours in SA vs 7 days in NSW), which created enforcement problems [1].
Civil liberties perspective: Law professor George Williams emphasized the need for the government to justify why existing laws were insufficient [1]. Criminal barristers like Greg Barns were expected to raise concerns about due process [1]. The broader concern is that detention without charge, even for terrorism investigations, can be subject to abuse and violates principles of natural justice.
Comparative context: Most Western democracies have some pre-charge detention powers for terrorism suspects, though the duration varies. Australia's existing counter-terrorism framework (inherited and built upon from Labor governments) already provided detention without immediate charges [4]. The Coalition's proposal was to extend and standardize this, not introduce it entirely.
Verdict accuracy: The claim is technically accurate that the Coalition proposed this law, but the framing as "imprison people" is misleading terminology. The proposal was for pre-charge detention during investigation, which is categorically different from imprisoning convicted persons.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The Coalition did propose allowing police to detain terrorism suspects for up to 14 days without charge [1]. However, the claim uses the word "imprison" which implies conviction and sentencing, when the proposal was actually for extended pre-charge detention during investigation [1]. This is an important distinction. Additionally, the claim fails to note that: (1) such detention powers were not new to Australia but inherited from Labor's counter-terrorism framework [4], (2) the Coalition was addressing genuine national inconsistency in state powers [1], and (3) there is no evidence the 14-day federal pre-charge detention law was actually passed [3]. The proposal was controversial and faced civil liberties criticisms, but framing it as "imprisoning" people is technically inaccurate and suggests a severity beyond the actual proposal.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The Coalition did propose allowing police to detain terrorism suspects for up to 14 days without charge [1]. However, the claim uses the word "imprison" which implies conviction and sentencing, when the proposal was actually for extended pre-charge detention during investigation [1]. This is an important distinction. Additionally, the claim fails to note that: (1) such detention powers were not new to Australia but inherited from Labor's counter-terrorism framework [4], (2) the Coalition was addressing genuine national inconsistency in state powers [1], and (3) there is no evidence the 14-day federal pre-charge detention law was actually passed [3]. The proposal was controversial and faced civil liberties criticisms, but framing it as "imprisoning" people is technically inaccurate and suggests a severity beyond the actual proposal.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (6)
-
1
Malcolm Turnbull pushes for law to detain terror suspects for up to 14 days before charges
Terrorism suspects could be interrogated for up to 14 days before being charged under a major shake up of Australia's terrorism laws being proposed by the Turnbull government.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
2
Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016
Helpful information Text of bill First reading: Text of the bill as introduced into the Parliament Third reading: Prepared if the bill is amended by the house in which it was introduced. This version of the bill is then considered by the second house. As passed by
Aph Gov -
3
Continuing Detention Order (CDO) regime under fire: Law Council pushes for reform
The Law Council suggests that detention should only take place after a person has been found guilty of a crime.
Mondaq -
4PDF
Anti-terrorism laws (3rd Edition)
Lawfoundation Net • PDF Document -
5
Review of police stop, search and seizure powers, the control order regime and the preventative detention order regime - Report
Report
Aph Gov -
6
Laws to combat terrorism
The Australian Government's first priority is to keep our community safe from people who seek to do us harm.
Australian National Security Website
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.