Submission: Inquiry into the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM) Repeal Bill 2014 [Provisions] - NSWCCL
The INSLM is an important independent position set up in 2010 with broad review functions relating to the intensely sensitive and complex area of counter-terrorism laws: whether these laws remain proportionate to the threat of terrorism in Australia and whether they contain appropriate safeguards to protect the rights of individuals. It is most inappropriate that such a significant statutory role was proposed for repeal in this covert way without forewarning, substantive rationale or public consultation.
Submission: Data retention and certificates of immunity for ASIO officers and their contacts
NSWCCL has made a submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) regarding data retention and certificates of immunity for ASIO officers and their contacts
In this submission, NSWCCL addresses the following points:
- Opposing blanket data retention of all Australian's telecommunications metadata
- Response to police submissions concerning possible seeking of additional powers
- Opposing the proposal that ASIO officers be granted certificates of immunity from civil and criminal liability
Submission: Independent National Security Legislation Monitor
NSWCCL has made a Submission to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor
Questions addressed include:
- Is the last resort requirement for a questioning warrant under the ASIO Act too demanding?
- Are the time limits (e.g. 7 days detention for 24 hours questioning) applicable to questioning warrants too long, too short or about right?
- Are the time limits for questioning warrants where interpreters have been used commensurate with the limits applying otherwise?
- Are there sufficient safeguards including judicial review in relation to the surrender or cancellation of passports, in connexion with questi oning warrants?
- Is the abrogation of privilege against self-incrimination under a questioning warrant sufficiently balanced by the use immunity?
- Do the conditions permitting use of lethal force in enforcing a warrant sufficiently clearly require reasonable apprehension of danger to life or limb?
- Are the three several conditions for issuing a questioning and detention warrant stringent enough?
- Should anything be done about doubtful aspects of the constitutional validity of control orders and preventative detention orders under the Criminal Code?
NSWCCL launches national fightback to roll back extraordinary ASIO powers
"The greatest assault on civil liberties in Australia since World War II." Professor George Williams AO tonight launched a national campaign led by the NSW Council for Civil Liberties to wind back the excessive and disproportionate powers given to ASIO in the decade since 9/11.Read more
Submission: Review of Australia's Counter-Terrorism Legislation 2012
NSWCCL has made a submission to the COAG Review of Australia's Counter-Terrorism Legislation 2012
Although terrorism has been a problem for hundreds of years, the Twin Tours attack in New York and the London and Bali bombings led to the passage of a great deal of legislation which might have been justified if the problem, like a war, could be expe cted to be concluded in a few years. However, it is plain—indeed, it was always plain— that terrorism is not going away. It is time to consider which of the laws we have passed should be kept, which modified, and which should be repealed.
An argument is also made for the need for an Australian Bill of Rights. Without a Bill of Rights, the courts in Australia are unable to protect people from laws that violate fundamental principles of international human rights law; that expose Australians and aliens to risks to their liberties.
Submission: Inquiry into potential reforms of the National Security Legislation
NSWCCL has made a submission to the Joint Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) regarding the Inquiry into potential reforms of the National Security Legislation.
NSWCCL accepts the argument that there is a need to update and rework the relevant legislation in light of technological advances and successive amendments. However, neither of these drivers, in themselves, provides justification for an extension of powers or reduction in accountability for intelligence and law enforcement agencies, nor for the further erosion of individual privacy, civil liberties and democratic values.