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

Quotes attributable to Timothy Roberts, President NSWCCL 

“Political speech must be protected. This is an absurd situation where someone, in their private capacity, asked a question about an intelligence agency and has subsequently been targeted, censored and publicly condemned by their employer. 

“It is in the public’s interest for questions to be asked regarding the trustworthiness of information from the government, including from intelligence agencies. This year alone it has been exposed that the Dural Caravan incident was known to be a criminal hoax from early on, while the NSW Premier used this to inflame fear in the public and push through anti-protest laws. 

“In a democratic country, we are entitled to question and scrutinize the decisions of all states. Even more so, we are entitled to question and scrutinize the decisions of intelligence agencies. 

“Across Australia we are witnessing institutions, including hospitals, cave to pressure and use codes of conduct and policies to repress legitimate political speech. This is shameful, antidemocratic behaviour.

“As a matter of public policy, definitions which conflate criticism of Israel and its government’s policies with antisemitism are of serious concern to freedom of speech, in the circumstance of Peter Macdonald this is taken even further to equate criticism of the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad, with antisemitism.”

The NSWCCL 2025 Annual Dinner will have a keynote address from global best-selling author, journalist and film-maker Antony Loewenstein. He will be speaking to members and friends of the NSWCCL on the topic of ‘Free Speech and Discomfort in a Time of War.’ The Annual Dinner will also be addressed by human rights lawyer and Executive Officer of the Jewish Council of Australia, Sarah Schwartz.

Antony’s latest book, The Palestine Laboratory, is an award-winning and best-selling book that exposes Israel’s military industrial complex and shows how it “battle-tests” its weapons and surveillance on Palestinians before selling them to the world.

The NSWCCL is deeply concerned about the censorship some of our community faces when looking to address some issues publically. The NSWCCL is committed to ensuring we are able to have these conversations and welcome the address as one such occasion. This is particularly important given the actions of the NSW Government.

In February this year, the NSW Minns Labor Government passed laws to criminalise the incitement of racial hatred. The offence carries a maximum penalty for an individual of two years’ imprisonment, fines of up to $11,000, or both, while corporations can face fines of $55,000. Hatred was not defined in the laws. In passing these poorly drafted laws, the NSW Government has improperly suppressed speech. They have also acted against the recommendations of the former Chief Justice Tom Bathurst NSW Law Reform Commission, which warned that hatred is too imprecise and subjective a term for the criminal law. Further, the review made clear they go against the advice of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination which warned that restrictions on freedom of speech should not be “broad or vague”.

The incitement of violence on the basis of race, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status and HIV status was already illegal, as are civil protections against hate speech in the Anti-Discrimination Act, and rightly so. These laws protect our community while not unreasonably burdening free speech.