The NSW Council for Civil Liberties (NSWCCL) condemns the Albanese Government’s decision to activate the new ‘arrival control’ powers under the recently passed Migration Amendment Act 2026. This move, which effectively bars over 7,000 Iranian visa holders from entering Australia for the next six months, is a betrayal of human rights that sets a perilous precedent for the exercise of executive power in Australia.

This ban follows only weeks after the government granted humanitarian visas to seven members of the Iranian women’s football team. To embrace high-profile asylum cases while slamming the door on 7,000 others fleeing the same conflict is not humanitarianism - it’s border politics.

The new laws grant the Minister unprecedented discretion to block entire classes of people based on their nationality. Such expansive executive power escapes parliamentary oversight and undermines the core principles of merit based migration.

The government claims the ban is necessary because Iranians are "unlikely" to leave due to the worsening conflict. Yet, Australia is simultaneously committing military personnel and assets to the very regional war that is making the situation worse for civilians.

By preventing travel, the government is deliberately blocking the only practical pathway for many Iranians to reach Australian soil and make an onshore claim for protection - a fundamental human right. The Albanese Government is happy to use the plight of Iranians to justify military involvement, but when those same people seek the safety of their already approved visas, they are treated as a threat to 'migration integrity.' This is a dangerous step toward a system where fundamental rights are subject to the whim of a Minister.

The NSWCCL calls for the immediate revocation of the arrival control determination and for a transparent, rights-based migration process.

Today the NSW Police Commissioner has again decided to renew the Public Assembly Restriction Declaration (PARD) power for a further 14 days.  This power was established in the latest tranche of anti-democratic laws passed by the Minns Labor Government. While a PARD is in effect, Form 1 applications to hold an authorised assembly will not be accepted for the specified policing zones of the declaration. 

The NSW Council for Civil Liberties believes this is a disgraceful misuse of power.

The New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties (NSWCCL) urges parliamentarians to reject the creation of proposed hate organisation powers in the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill. This Bill represents an unprecedented extension of executive power and as such has serious potential for misuse. By its broad and vague definitions, concentration of power and lack of procedural fairness the Bill creates a real risk that the powers could be used to inappropriately target groups who work against the political interests of Government, such as protestors or opposing political parties.

The proposed laws represent a very significant risk to freedom of political communication, free speech, and freedom of association. Further, it is fundamental to the rule of law that the law is accessible, intelligible, clear, and predictable. The proposals in the Bill do not meet this basic principle.

If passed, these laws could see a group designated as a hate group, by the actions of one person who happens to be a member of a group (or associated with), even if that person was not actually convicted of a hate crime, or they committed an action that was legal at the time it was committed. This is entirely too vague for the seriousness of the penalties.

Today, the Federal Government has unveiled proposed new, broad laws targeting speech and political expression. The Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 (Cth) combines practical reforms such as the creation of a National Gun Buyback Scheme with radical and unprecedented reforms to our democratic rights and liberties. 

The atrocities at Bondi necessitate a response that will address the causes of violence and increase harmony. The NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Liberty Victoria and Queensland Council for Civil Liberties condemn the proposed Bill due to its remarkable impact on human rights and civil liberties, and because there is no evidence that it will make any of us safer.

Amongst other things, the Bill would create a new framework for “prohibited hate groups”. This would grant the Home Affairs Minister extraordinary powers to designate organisations as “hate groups”, which would effectively make it illegal to be a member of or associated with that organisation. The Bill is also clear that the Minister “is not required to observe any requirements of procedural fairness" in making this decision. This gives the Minister an extraordinary discretion along with a remarkable lack of accountability. 

The Bill would also create a new racial vilification offence with a limited defence available if an individual was quoting from or otherwise referencing a religious text for the purpose of “religious teaching or discussion”. There is a risk that offences with selective exclusions or defences might create hierarchies of justice when they are directed to some attributes (such as race) but not others. Any such inequality, perceived or otherwise, only deepens division in the community.  

Many measures in the Bill go far beyond what’s required to address the horrific events at Bondi. For example, in relation to displaying symbols offences, the Bill will greatly expand the number of prohibited symbols, reduce the fault element to prove the offence, and place a reverse onus on an accused person to make out a public interest defence. This is in circumstances where the mandatory minimum sentence for the offence is 12 months’ imprisonment. This is highly likely to produce unjust outcomes.

The proposed legislation also expands the government’s already incredibly broad powers to refuse and cancel visas, allowing a person to be excluded based on a risk they “might” engage in certain conduct in Australia like inciting discord. This dangerously lowers the existing threshold into the realm of speculation.

Finally, given the far reaching and consequential nature of the reforms it is particularly concerning that the government has only given two days for stakeholders and civil society to make submissions to the inquiry. 

The NSWCCL is concerned about the weaponisation of hatred directed towards vulnerable groups as a political tool to pass legislation which unduly restricts civil liberties.  The NSWCCL strongly opposes all forms of hate directed towards vulnerable groups. However, responding to hate in the community must be evidence-based and carefully considered with reference to other fundamental freedoms that are owed to individuals.

It is the NSWCCL’s position that political speech ought to be protected except in circumstances where speech is inciting violence towards a protected group. In any healthy and functioning democracy, it is normal and natural for individuals and/or communities to disagree on political arguments and even in some instances be uncomfortable by the political position of others. Despite this discomfort, it is undemocratic to police political views for the subjective comfort of one group over another.

You can read our full submission here.

Today, the NSWCCL has made a submission to the NSW Government’s inquiry into measures to prohibit slogans that incite hatred. NSWCCL condemns the decision to allow only four weeks over the Christmas and New Year period for public submissions on such a radical proposal as shamefully anti-democratic and reflects a disregard for principles of transparent and responsible governance.

The NSWCCL is concerned about the weaponisation of hatred directed towards vulnerable groups as a political tool to pass legislation which unduly restricts civil liberties and calls for no further criminalisation of speech or thought to be passed into law in NSW. The criminal law alone is not equipped or designed to achieve social cohesion. It is a reactionary and coercive mechanism that should be reserved for the targeted punishment of harmful conduct, and is not effective when used to encourage broad-brushed social change.

Attempts to restrict the use of “globalise the intifada” are divisive as they target and disproportionately impact the Arabic speaking community, Palestinian community, any others who see the phrase as applicable to the causes that interest them, those supporting these communities or related causes. It does not assist social cohesion for the NSW Government to take up and codify a contested meaning in opposition to these communities. The division caused by doing so is only magnified by the inherent injustice of seeking to suppress a phrase that to many members of the NSW community speaks to fighting oppression.

Today the NSW Police Commissioner has decided to renew the Public Assembly Restriction Declaration (PARD) power for a further 14 days. This power was established in the latest tranche of anti-democratic laws passed by the Minns Labor Government. While a PARD is in effect, Form 1 applications to hold an authorised assembly will not be accepted for the specified policing zones of the declaration. 

The NSW Council for Civil Liberties believes this is a disgraceful misuse of power.

Tomorrow the NSW Police Commissioner will have to decide whether to renew the Public Assembly Restriction Declaration (PARD) power for a further 14 days. This power was established in the latest tranche of anti-democratic laws passed by the Minns Labor Government. While a PARD is in effect, Form 1 applications to hold an authorised assembly will not be accepted for the specified policing zones of the declaration.

The NSW Council for Civil Liberties is calling on the NSW Police Commissioner not to renew the PARD which is currently in effect in South West Metropolitan, North West Metropolitan and Central Metropolitan policing areas for a further 14 days.

The Minns Labor government has reintroduced the Places of Worship police move-on power. This power was previously struck down by the NSW Supreme Court because it impermissibly burdened the implied constitutional freedom of political communication. 

In May this year, the NSW Government initiated a review into the legal principle of doli incapax. The principle requires that when prosecuting children, between the age of 10 and 14, the prosecution has to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the child knows and is capable of knowing what they did was wrong.

This review was inadvisable and unnecessary in the first place. There is nothing objectionable about making sure that if children as young as 10 are facing criminal charges, that they know what they have done is wrong,  beyond reasonable doubt.

The review was undertaken by independent reviewers appointed by the Minns government. It was not carried out by The NSW Law Reform Commission, the independent statutory agency established to provide expert law reform advice. 

Today, the Minns Labor Government has introduced a bill that will put the common law test into legislation. The proposed legislation will make it easier for prosecutors to rebut this essential presumption. 

NSWCCL condemns the antisemitic demonstration of neo-Nazis at NSW Parliament house as repugnant racial hatred. The racist beliefs of neo-Nazis are antithetical to a society that respects individuals freedoms and rights. 

Earlier this year, without consultation from civil society, the NSW Government introduced a raft of new laws that unduly restrict freedom of speech and the right to protest. At the time they were introduced, NSWCCL warned these laws would bring more hatred. 

This week the federal Labor Government introduced a bill which would give the minister the power to cancel the welfare payments to individuals where an arrest warrant has been issued. 

Since the 9/11 terror attacks in the United States, the Australian Government has enacted laws that confer extraordinary powers upon government and their agencies. Such laws may be directed to protecting the community, but they undermine the very freedoms we are seeking to protect from terrorism. Thankfully, no similar act of mass violence has occurred in Australia, despite this, successive governments have expanded powers and increased resources associated with terrorism offences. 

These counter-terror measures have, and continue to, reshape Australians' understanding of the proper limits to government power and minimum democratic protections. Over time the counter-terror laws have become normalised and often passed with bipartisan support, this has extended to undermine even the most basic rights, including the power to strip someone of their citizenship. 

The Councils for Civil Liberties (NSWCCL, QCCL, Liberty Victoria) have come together to make this joint submission in opposition to the proposal to make permanent division 3 of Part III to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (“the Act”). We submit that division 3 of Part III should be repealed, or allowed to lapse when its sunset date is reached, in accordance with the recommendations of the INSLM in 2016.

The submission will proceed through the following issues in broadly the following terms:

a. that Questioning Warrants (“QWs”), whether or not they require the arrest and
immediate appearance of a subject, constitute a form of administrative detention
without suspicion or conviction of criminal guilt. This is unacceptable in a
democratic society subject to the rule of law. Of particular concern is that children
as young as 14 can be subject to these warrants;

b. that coercive questioning and the permitted uses of derivative material, including
its disclosure to an actual or potential prosecutor of the subject, seriously
diminishes the right of accused persons to a fair trial. Read in the context the
division as a whole, the provisions on derivative use tend to characterise ASIO as
a secret police force, rather than an intelligence gathering agency; and

c. linked to this, the qualifications on the right of an accused to legal representation
and advice, violate the subject’s right to a fair trial and place the subject on an
unequal footing with the state, in circumstances where the subject may suffer
serious penal sanctions as a result of the interrogation.

The New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties (NSWCCL) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the NSW Law Reform Commission (Commission) ‘Consultation paper: Unlawful Conduct’ (Consultation paper) concerning the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) (ADA) Review (Review).

NSWCCL made a submission, dated 28 September 2023, to the Commission in relation to the Review of the ADA. That submission is referenced in the Consultation Paper and is listed in Appendix A: Preliminary submissions as PAD21 (PAD21).

NSWCCL continues to endorse and relies on the comments and recommendations made in PAD21. It will also be referenced in this submission.

It is noted that the terms of reference, in this Consultation paper, consider issues relating to the tests for discrimination, who is protected, the areas in which discrimination is prohibited and exceptions. It also considers harassment, civil vilification and other unlawful acts, as well as liability and measures to promote substantive equality.

The NSWCCL strongly opposes all forms of hate directed towards vulnerable groups. The NSWCCL is also concerned about the weaponisation of hatred directed towards vulnerable groups as a political tool to pass legislation which unduly restricts civil liberties. Responding to hate in the community must be evidence-based and carefully considered with reference to other fundamental freedoms that are owed to individuals.

Last night, the NSW Council for Civil Liberties (NSWCCL) Annual General Meeting passed a resolution calling on the NSW Police to withdraw the anti-protest charges against the remaining 130 people arrested in Newcastle who were protesting the world’s largest coal port.  

NSWCCL considers that codification of the principle of doli incapax is unnecessary and inadvisable.  NSWCCL considers it a bare minimum that if a child aged between 10-13 years is charged with a crime, their understanding of the serious moral wrongness of that conduct should be established beyond reasonable doubt.  

NSWCCL is concerned that the Review has been commissioned in response to statistics indicating a fall in the successful prosecution of children since the High Court of Australia's decision in RP v The Queen.  Australia spends approximately $1 billion per year incarcerating children, despite unequivocal evidence from across Australia that incarcerating children leads to increased rates of crime.  It is well documented that child crime rates across Australia have been falling for over a decade.  Further, over 70% of the NSW proceedings against children under 14 years in 2023 were for non-violent crimes.  There is therefore no pressing need for law reform that creates legislation that has the effect of increasing interactions of children with the criminal justice system.

When a child interacts with the criminal justice system, that justice system must act in accordance with the best interests of that child.  Incarceration, even for a short time, has deleterious effects on children.  This is particularly pertinent to children with significant vulnerability and First Nations children, who are over-incarcerated and disproportionately harmed by measures aimed at increasing child prosecutions and incarcerations. 

You can read our submission here.

Today the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Queensland Council for Civil Liberties and Liberty Victoria (the CCLs) have jointly submitted to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security review into the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025. The CCLs are alarmed that the federal Labor Government is making the post 9/11 questioning and detention powers permanent. The questioning warrant powers remove or restrict accepted legal rights of due process, rights of an accused person to have legal representation and to a fair trial. These powers can be used to arrest, detain and question someone as young as 14, without any suspicion or criminal charge against them. 

The CCLs submit that these immense powers are contrary to the basic democratic principles and would characterise ASIO as a secret police force, rather than an intelligence gathering agency. 

The CCLs remind the government that Parliament’s duty is not merely to protect the safety of the public at all costs. It must also preserve the democratic liberty which the public cherishes and is entitled to expect. The appropriate balance must be struck. If, in combatting extremism, this society descends into authoritarianism, then the Parliament has destroyed what it is seeking to save