New Bill Expands Police Search Powers! Random Searches Becoming Routine? Examining the Expansion of Police Powers in Australia from a Japanese Perspective

On the way to the station, I was stopped by a police officer. I hadn't witnessed any incident, nor did I show a knife. Yet, a metal detector was waved near my body.

Such scenes might become a more common part of everyday life over a wider area.

According to The Age on September 16, 2026, Victoria's Premier Ben Carroll announced plans to legislate giving police officers and PSOs (Protective Services Officers) the authority to conduct random checks on people in public places.

However, this news does not mean that checks can be conducted anywhere from today. According to ABC's report on the same day, this is a pledge to be introduced if the Labor Party is re-elected in the state election in November. They aim to add 1,200 portable metal detectors and start operations early the following year.

From Japan's perspective, it might seem like a move to strengthen street questioning. However, the core issue is how far to extend the scope of checks on individuals without suspicion of crime.

The idea of "finding a knife before it is used"

The system proposed for introduction is called "Jack's Law." The name originates from Jack Beasley, a boy who was stabbed to death on the Gold Coast in 2019. His parents have been advocating for legislation to prevent similar incidents.

The purpose of the checks is clear. It's not just about responding after knife-related incidents occur, but about discovering them while they are being carried. For those who have lost family members, even one additional opportunity for prevention holds significant meaning.

On the other hand, when considering it as a policy, the questions become deeper. Who will be checked, where, and to what extent? And will these checks actually reduce incidents?

The introduction of metal detectors as a tool and the expansion of authority to use them on people need to be considered separately.

The difference between existing "designated areas" and the current pledge

The proposal for random weapon checks is not new in Victoria. Under existing systems, police have broader authority to conduct checks in designated areas.

In fact, the designation for the Footscray district announced by state police on June 19, 2026, indicated the range of streets and stations covered and the time from 2 PM to 11 PM. The notice included checks using electronic devices and inspections of pockets and bags.

What is noteworthy about the current pledge is the move from a system based on such area designations to one where metal detectors can be widely used in public places.

However, the authority to wave a metal detector and the authority to subsequently open bags or conduct detailed body searches are not the same. It is necessary to confirm the bill's text and operational rules, including responses to refusals and conditions for additional checks. At this point, it is premature to conclude that "anything can be checked without limits."

"Found" and "Crime Reduced" are Different Outcomes

A useful reference for considering prior cases is the evaluation of Queensland's trial by Griffith University.

The subject was the use of metal detectors in the nightlife districts of Surfers Paradise and Broadbeach over a 12-month period from May 2021 to April 2022.

The study contributed to an increase in the discovery of knife possession in Surfers Paradise, while similar results were not obtained in Broadbeach. Furthermore, at that stage, there was no evidence found that it deterred knife carrying or reduced violent crime.

This does not prove that it will be ineffective in any region in the future. It is an evaluation of a specific period and location. However, the leap from "checks will find dangerous items" to "the more checks, the safer the city" is not automatic.

For example, significantly increasing checks could lead to more discoveries. However, if the discovery rate is low, many unrelated people will be stopped. The possibility of items being moved to other locations is also a point that needs examination.

From these points, what this article emphasizes is not evaluating policy based solely on the number of seizures. Without looking at the number of injuries or incidents, the personnel involved in checks, the percentage of checks that found nothing, and citizen complaints, it is impossible to compare outcomes and burdens.

The Distance Between "Willing to Cooperate" and "Not an Exception for Me" Seen on SNS

The direct reaction on SNS to the announcement on September 16 could not be sufficiently confirmed from public information. Therefore, here we introduce a discussion from the Melbourne regional community on Reddit regarding a similar expansion of authority in 2024. This does not represent the reaction to the current announcement or the general public opinion.

There were opinions in the posts suggesting that there would be no problem if one does not carry a knife. This reflects the idea of accepting short checks for safety.

Conversely, there were opinions against laws that rely on the expectation that people like oneself will not be targeted. This reflects concerns about the burden of checks being biased towards people with certain appearances or attributes.

Additionally, a user wrote about being checked at Southern Cross Station in the evening while wearing a suit and tie. Although this is an unverified personal account, it is a post that challenges the perception of "it doesn't concern me."

What can be read from this discussion is not the presence or absence of a desire for safety, but rather the difference in how people imagine the burden of contact with the police.

Some people may not mind a short, one-time check. For those repeatedly stopped, delays in commuting and the gaze of those around them accumulate. Even with the same system, perceptions may not be the same.

Is It the Same as "Stop and Search" in Japan?

Article 2 of Japan's Police Duties Execution Act stipulates that police can stop and question individuals based on reasonable judgment from abnormal behavior or surrounding circumstances, if there is sufficient reason to suspect they have committed or are about to commit a crime. It also includes those deemed to have knowledge about a crime.

The same article does not permit detention, forced escort, or compelled answers unless under the provisions of laws related to criminal procedure. Additionally, Article 1 limits the exercise of authority to the minimum necessary and prohibits abuse.

Therefore, it is not accurate to view Japan's stop and search as a general authority to conduct body searches on anyone in public places without reason.

However, this does not mean that all individual possession checks are judged under the same conditions. Questions, voluntary cooperation, and compulsory searches need to be distinguished. When comparing with Australia's pledge, it should not be concluded with "Japan also has stop and search, so it's the same."

When considering it from a Japanese perspective, the issue lies in the boundary between citizens cooperating for safety and the extent to which the state can enforce that cooperation.

From Japan's Perspective, Focus Should Be on Verification Mechanisms Rather Than the Strength of Authority

This is a consideration from a Japanese perspective.

If a similar system is to be discussed as a safety measure for stations or downtown areas, it is necessary to design a mechanism that allows for verification of operations later, not just the scope of checks.

First, clarify the purpose of the checks and the conditions for proceeding to additional verification. Next, record who was checked, how many were checked, and what was found, with consideration for privacy. Finally, ensure that if the system proves ineffective or unfairly operated, it can be scaled back or revised.

It is also essential to confirm whether targets are not being selected based solely on race, nationality, or clothing impression. Imagining Japanese people being checked abroad makes it easy to understand the importance of receiving explanations and being able to object to unfair treatment.

Supporting safety measures and monitoring authority can coexist. Trust in the police should also be supported by a system that allows for verification and correction when issues arise.

Carroll's pledge responds to the earnest desire to reduce knives from the streets. At the same time, it asks us: when we stop for safety, who verifies the effectiveness and fairness of those checks?

Source URL

1. The Age (September 16, 2026): Premier Carroll's plan to expand random search authority in public places.
   https://www.theage.com.au/national/premier-unveils-plan-to-give-police-power-to-randomly-search-people-20260916-p60xss.html

2. ABC News (September 16, 2026): Pledge to introduce Jack's Law conditional on re-election, addition of 1,200 metal detectors, background of the system confirmed in supplementary report.
   https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-16/jacks-law-victorian-knife-crime-labor-election-promise/106611898

3. Victoria Police (Updated June 16, 2026): Notice of designated area in Footscray district. Primary source showing area, time, and inspection authority under existing system.
   https://www.police.vic.gov.au/public-notice-footscray-business-district-friday-19-june-2026

4. Griffith University (November 14, 2022): Evaluation of Queensland's metal detector usage trial. Referenced for target period, regional differences, and lack of evidence for deterrence or crime reduction at the time.
   https://blogs.griffith.edu.au/gci-insights/2022/11/14/review-of-the-queensland-police-service-wanding-trial/

5. Reddit・r/melbourne (2024 discussion): Posts regarding past similar authority expansion. Opinions are summarized and do not represent direct reactions to the current announcement or a representative public opinion poll.
   https://www.reddit.com/r/melbourne/comments/1difeip/new_powers_proposed_for_victorian_police_to/

6. e-Gov Law Search・Police Duties Execution Act: Legal basis and limits of authority for stop and search in Japan.
   https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/law/323AC0000000136

7. Ministry of Justice・Japanese Law Translation Database Japanese Text: Used to confirm the text of Articles 1 and 2 of the Police Duties Execution Act.
   https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/4043/ja