Human rights and civil liberties groups, including NSW Council for Civil Liberties, have expressed serious doubts about Labor’s move to minimise misinformation, claiming its proposed law threatens free speech and democratic rights.

The rights groups join a growing coalition of voices criticising the Albanese government’s bid to give the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) powers to penalise groups like Meta if they fail to remove misinformation and disinformation.

NSW and Queensland’s peak civil liberties bodies have both revealed their opposition to sections of Labor’s draft bill, arguing it gives the government body too much power to police speech.

Australia remains the only liberal democracy globally without rights protections enshrined in federal law. Indeed, until not so long ago, no bill of rights or Human Rights Act (HRA) existed at any level of government: that was until the often-pioneering ACT Legislative Assembly passed one in 2002.

And while the stalemate has continued at the federal level, other states have followed the ACT’s lead, with Victoria enacting a charter of rights in 2004 and Queensland passing its Human Rights Act in 2019, which still leaves the people of NSW unprotected at all levels.

But this looks likely to change, as members of the 40-odd NSW legal and civil society organisations, including NSW Council for Civil Liberties, running the Human Rights Act for NSW campaign (HRA4NSW) hosted a recent event that saw the NSW attorney general Michael Daley confirm he is open to enacting one.

Yesterday the Queensland Government led by Premier Anastasia Palaszczuk changed the law to allow children to be indefinitely detained in Police watch houses usually reserved for adults[1]. To accomplish this an amendment was snuck into an unrelated Child Protection bill[2], the alteration itself required a separate vote to suspend the states Human Rights Act as detaining children is a violation of this act[3]. The state government claims this shocking law change is necessary due to Youth Detention centres reaching dangerous levels of overcrowding, with Labor MPs arguing that housing Children in watchhouses amongst adult detainees is “safer”. Such a law change comes after the Supreme Court deemed the detention of children in watchhouses illegal[4], with the solicitor-general advising the government to legislate to ensure no legal ramifications. Thus, the law change is a way for the government to legalise an already existing process.

The NSW Council for Civil Liberties (NSWCCL) welcomes the opportunity to make a submission to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communication and the Arts (the Department) in regard to the exposure draft of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 (the Draft Bill).

The NSWCCL acknowledges the harms caused by misinformation and disinformation, particularly as they relate to: the erosion of trust in democratic processes; the weakening of trust generally between and among public and private entities; and, the undermining of an informed populace.

However, the NSWCCL is concerned that the Draft Bill does not sufficiently consider freedoms of expression and assembly, nor take into account the potential for misinformation to be spread by means and entities that are outside the Draft Bill's scope.

Max Opray reports: Department of Home Affairs officials demanded that independent researchers water down a report critical of counterterrorism powers allowing individuals to be imprisoned for a crime they had yet to commit, newly revealed documents show. In 2018, the Home Affairs Department engaged leading researchers at the Australian National University to review the accuracy of tools designed to assess the risk of someone committing a future terrorism offence. Australia’s preventive detention regime for terrorism offenders allows individuals to be imprisoned for up to three years to prevent a future crime.

Opponents of gay conversion practices may need to be careful of critising the institutions that promote it due to the new anti-discrimination laws that passed in New South Wales parliament on Thursday, legal experts have said.

The Minns government’s religious vilification bill, with backing from the opposition, amended the existing Anti-Discrimination Act to make it unlawful to vilify people or organisations on the grounds of their religion.

Alastair Lawrie, an expert in anti-discrimination law at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, said that “It would be disappointing if this bill passes in its current form,” ahead of the bill being passed. Lawrie expressed that the changes being made were too broad and could lead to restrictions in freedom of speech. 

Update 2 July 2024: Our orginal submission has now been published in full on the committee's website and is available at the link below. Part III of the submission refers to the non-disclosure of critical evidence in the proceedings brought against Nacer Benbrika under Div 105A. The submission highlighted the persistent failure of the Minister for Home Affairs to comply with its statutory obligation to disclose all exculpatory evidence in the course of these proceedings.

In paragraph 73 of the submission, NSWCCL and Liberty Victoria called for a full investigation into the nondisclosure of the Corner Report from its finalisation in 2020 to its revelation in November 2022. We have now sent the committee an addendum to our submission which revisits the issue of the non-disclosure in light of the recent judgment delivered
on 5 June 2024 by the Honourable Justice Hollingworth of the Supreme Court of Victoria in the matter of Benbrika v Attorney-General (Cth) [2024] SCV 265. The addendum outlines the concerns that arise from the findings of Justice Hollingworth in relation to the conduct of Home Affairs, and issues that arise in light of the referrals made by the Court to the INSLM to conduct a further review. The addendum is available here.

Liberty Victoria and the NSW Council for Civil Liberties (NSWCCL) thank the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) for the opportunity to contribute to this Review of postsentence terrorism orders: Division 105A of the Criminal Code Act 1995.

Liberty Victoria and the NSWCCL acknowledge the importance of protecting the community from acts of terrorism. Terrorism and the threat of terrorism violate the rights to life and security of innocent people. Terrorism is regarded as a crime apart from others as it threatens the very fabric of liberal democracy by utilising violence and fear to further, often fundamentally illiberal, political, religious or ideological goals.

Legislation making it illegal to publicly ridicule someone due to their religious beliefs has passed NSW Parliament.

The amendment to the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 makes it unlawful to "by a public act, incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons, because of their religious belief, affiliation or activity".

Civil Liberties Council president Josh Pallas expressed concern at the time it could become illegal to criticise religious institutions such as the Catholic Church, Hillsong or the Church of Scientology as it could be seen as vilifying individual followers.

For more information, read the full article. 

In our submission we highlight that the proliferation of Artificial Intelligence, AI, could pose significant risks to the civil rights of the Australian public. As it stands, Australia’s regulatory system fails to fully address these risks – an issue that will grow with increased use of these technologies.

We support the Government’s ambition to reduce hate speech, violence and threats against diversity in Australia. However, we hold concerns about the Bill in its present form.

The amendments to the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), in the Bill offer in part a symbolic solution to the risk posed by neo-Nazi and other extremist groups in Australia, and in part over-reach by over-generalised application. Criminalisation of harmful ideologies can only be part of the response – what is required is an appropriately resourced whole of government response to extremism and radicalisation. Whilst the criminal law may be the bluntest instrument at the disposal of the State, it is one of the least useful.

Queer activist groups and human rights organisations have come out in opposition to the proposed NSW religious vilification bill, citing its failure to adequately protect LGBTQI communities.

The bill amends the Anti-Discrimination Act to make it “unlawful to, by a public act, incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons, because of their religious belief, affiliation or activity.”

In a statement, President of NSW Council for Civil Liberties (NSWCCL) Josh Pallas called on the Bill to either “address all discrimination now” or be withdrawn until the review of the Anti-Discrimination Act by the NSW Law Reform Commission is complete.

Activist are planning to gather at the Sydney Town Hall from 1pm on Saturday, 5 August to protest proposed changes to the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act that would see “religious vilification” become a criminal offense.\

There is concern that the definition of “religious vilification” in the bill is too vague and that it could be used to protect hate speech against LGBTIQA+ people or practices like conversion therapy.

There is also concern that the proposed bill could further entrench religious exemptions in NSW’s anti-discrimination laws that allow religious groups and businesses they own to legally discriminate against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation, gender identity or relationship status.

A national digital identity is being prepared for all Australians for use at the end of next year which poses one of the biggest changes to Australia in its recent history and yet most people seem unaware, unconcerned, overwhelmed or distracted, Umbrella News' Sebastian Salt reports. 

This bill presents to the public claims to safety and convenience, while human rights and civil liberties groups are saying that the new digital identity system will have a catastrophic impact upon our basic freedoms.

NSW Council for Civil Liberties Assistant Secretary, Michelle Falstein, made comments to Umbrella News, saying that the system suffers from an unacceptable lack of enforceable definition.

The NSW Council for Civil Liberties (NSWCCL) opposes the Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Religious Vilification) Bill 2023 in its current form. The bill should just get on with it and address all discrimination now or be withdrawn and wait for the ongoing NSW Law Reform Commission Review into the Act to be completed so that all changes that need to be made are made at once.

Anti-discrimination law reform is long overdue and necessary. NSWCCL is not opposed, in principle, to reforms that protect people from vilification for their religious expression or affiliation, however, the Bill does more than this and fails to address other necessary issues, especially aspects of discrimination against LGBTQI+ people.

Leading up to International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia, the media was campaigning for councils to cancel drag story time events in response to threats from right-wing groups.

Rainbow Community Angel Flis Marlowe stated that, “These people were calling library staff ‘groomers’ and ‘pedophiles’. It was horrendous. Ten councils cancelled their drag story-telling shows. When the Lethem Library, sadly, had to cancel theirs, we were prepared. We met the librarians; we visited the library and we worked with Frock Hudson, the drag performer scheduled to read on the day.”

It was about 11pm on 6 November 1981, the eve of the inquest into the death of Warren Lanfranchi, who had been gunned down by Detective Roger Rogerson in a back lane in Chippendale in June of that year. Four of us were getting ready to paste large posters featuring the infamous Detective onto the glass doors of the old Coroner’s Court in Glebe on the corner of Parramatta Road and Ross Street.

There was Ms X, Ms Y, Kevin Storey and me.

Liberty Victoria and the NSW Council for Civil Liberties (NSWCCL) thank the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) for the opportunity to contribute to this Review of post-sentence terrorism orders: Division 105A of the Criminal Code Act 1995. Liberty Victoria and the NSWCCL acknowledge the importance of protecting the community from acts of terrorism. However, in our submission we call for the abolition of continuing detention orders. The risk assessment tools underpinning these orders are deeply flawed and the regime amounts to arbitrary detention. 

Laws protecting vulnerable groups from discrimination will go under review in NSW, after the state's top lawmaker faced pressure from civil liberty groups. Attorney-General Michael Daley revealed on Thursday he had referred NSW's Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 to the NSW Law Reform Commission.

It comes after Mr Daley received pushback for amendments he introduced to parliament last month to prohibit religious vilification, which was promised by the government ahead of the last election.

The bill would make it unlawful to publicly incite hatred towards or severely ridicule a person or group because of their religious belief, affiliation or activity which was opposed by several groups including NSW Council for Civil Liberties who donned the moves as either overly restrictive or insufficient to address issues with existing laws.

Australia has a long and unsettling history of literary censorship. Prohibiting books was a tradition that proceeded federation and continued up until the 1970s. Books that the state deemed morally corrosive or too sexually explicit were considered unfit for public dissemination.  NSWCCL as a fledgling organisation was largely responsible for the changes in censorship laws in the early seventies by campaigning to gain entry for many books which were readily available in the UK, US and many other countries but which were denied entry into Australia.

David Bernie, a beloved member of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties was the driving force behind the Council’s push for an Australian Human Rights Act for decades. David’s support for the Act was underpinned by a deep, personal belief that the State should provide an explicit statutory basis for respecting, protecting and promoting fundamental human rights.