NSWCCL on proposed national data sharing agreement
Media coverage: ITNews
'Federal, state and territory leaders have agreed to create an intergovernmental agreement to facilitate greater data sharing between all levels of government.
The plan for the high-level agreement, which is still to be developed, was endorsed at a meeting of national cabinet.
“National cabinet agreed that jurisdictions will work together to capitalise on the value of public data to achieve better outcomes for Australians,” Prime Minister Scott Morrison said.
While details remain scarce, the pact will likely make it easier for federal, state and territory government to share data, building on efforts with health and travel data during Covid-19.
The planned agreement would likely work alongside the Data Availability and Transparency Bill, which is currently before federal parliament.
The legislation aims to streamline data sharing between governments and the private sector, overriding some 500 provisions in 175 pieces of existing legislation.
But it faces calls for amendments from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, Australian Medical Association and the NSW Council for Civil Liberties.'
Privacy experts sound alarm over COVID QR codes
Media coverage: Sydney Morning Herald
'Customer Service Minister Victor Dominello has promised mandatory venue check-ins will be lifted “as soon as we get the green light from health experts”, as privacy experts warn the COVID-19 check-in tool lacks safeguards.
Mr Dominello said the QR code system was only intended for contact tracing during “pandemic conditions” but those might continue for some time....
Mr Dominello said the data was securely stored for 28 days and then destroyed, and “under no circumstance ... shared with other parties or agencies outside NSW Health”. Privacy was at the “forefront of our thinking” when delivering digital services, he said.
But Michelle Falstein, secretary of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, warned personal data collected by the check-in tool could be used for purposes other than contact tracing.
“Such broad purpose could enable the sharing of health information with police or for any other number of additional, loosely linked purposes not anticipated by the public,” Ms Falstein said in a letter to Mr Dominello.
Ms Falstein also expressed concern about the lack of an end date for use of the check-in tool to enter businesses such as pubs, restaurants and entertainment venues.'
Vaccine ‘passports’: a legal and ethical minefield
Media coverage: Spectator Australia
'On Monday, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson outlined his ‘roadmap’ out of lockdown. An important aspect of this plan is vaccine ‘passports’, even though, as Fraser Nelson wrote on The Spectator’s Coffee House website the next day, Johnson didn’t want to admit to them. He referred to his plans as ‘Covid status certification’.
Such a plan is fraught with several legal and ethical questions, leading to many MPs voicing strong opposition to vaccine ‘passports’. Last weekend a group of 72 MPs signed a pledge against them. This ‘cross-party coalition’ includes Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, who has stated vaccine ‘passports’ would be against the “British instinct”. Another signatory is Starmer’s predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn. One of the Conservative signatories, Sir Graham Brady, Chairman of the influential 1922 Committee of Tory backbenchers, said: “COVID-status certification would be divisive and discriminatory.” He added: “With high levels of vaccination protecting the vulnerable and making transmission less likely, we should aim to return to normal life, not to put permanent restrictions in place.”
Therein lies the problem...
With regard to vaccine ‘passports’ for travel, NSW Council for Civil Liberties spokesperson Stephen Blanks said last November that the Federal Government would need to ensure that appropriate allowances are made for people who have legitimate reasons for not getting vaccinated. Those reasons could be health, religious or conscientious based. Such reasons would be protected in accordance with articles 18 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Australia has ratified. Those articles guarantee freedom of speech, conscience and religion.'
NSWCCL - Lift the travel ban and clarify process
29 MARCH 2021
PUBLIC STATEMENT
The NSW Council for Civil Liberties calls on the Federal Government to end the ban on leaving Australia and introduce clear and transparent rules for who gets to enter Australia.
This week marks a year since the imposition of both inward and outward travel bans. The government has adopted an authoritarian approach to the issue of incoming and outgoing travellers rather than improving the hotel quarantine system. This approach must now end.
The total lack of transparency around the basis for the granting and rejecting of applications is causing immense suffering in the community.
What is most galling is the ease with which rich and well-connected people seem to come and go as they please while ordinary people who have been separated from partners and immediate family for over a year receive rejection after rejection, with no reasons given, even when their applications meet all the stated criteria.
“It is quite shocking that we have a ban on exiting the country with no clear or compelling justification”, said Pauline Wright, President of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties. “Since the government has made it very difficult for people to return, and testing and quarantine measures remain in place on arrival, it is hard to understand the purpose of the exit ban, let alone its proportionality.”
“The terms of the Biosecurity Determination are vague, allowing enormous discretion, and the proof required of applicants is unclear. A lack of clarity increases the costs of mobility and adds unneeded stress to the lives of citizens who just want to go out of their country” said Ms Wright. “It is dismaying that the government is acting in a manner unprecedented in the democratic world in prohibiting people from leaving Australia. It displays a disregard for fundamental human rights and liberties.”
When it comes to entering the country, NSWCCL is aware of many people who qualify as immediate family members of Australians who have been rejected in applications to re-unite.
“The government must be far clearer in publicly explaining the basis for its decision-making and give people reasons,” said Ms Wright.
The government has had a year to produce a more open, transparent process. Enough is enough.
NSWCCL will watch with interest the challenge in the Federal Court of Australia to the exit ban regulations being brought by LibertyWorks. However, the result of that case is far from certain.
“This travel ban once again underscores the urgency of a federal charter of rights to better protect human rights and freedoms in Australia. Australia is unique in the western world for lacking federal legislative or constitutional human rights protections.”
For comment and for case studies of people with applications rejected willing to speak to media, please contact: NSWCCL President Pauline Wright on [email protected]
Work with us
The NSW Council for Civil Liberties (NSWCCL) was established in 1963 as an independent not-for-profit member organisation committed to protecting civil liberties and human rights in Australia. We are secular and politically non-partisan.
We engage with a wide range of civil liberties and human rights issues within NSW and at a national level.
Our main work is done through policy advocacy and campaigns to influence community views and government policies and laws. NSWCCL also responds to complaints from the public on civil liberties related issues. As a member organisation, our work is largely done by volunteers, led by an elected Committee (equivalent to a board of directors).
CURRENT VACANCIES:
Volunteer roles with NSWCCL Action Groups. Please email [email protected] with an expression of interest, indicating which Action Group/s you would like to contribute to.
NSWCCL on government’s proposed new hacking powers
Media coverage: InnovationAus
Civil society has been “completely sidelined and ignored” in the inquiry into the government’s proposed new hacking powers, after no civil or digital rights groups were invited to the only public hearing, Deakin University senior lecturer Dr Monique Mann says.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) is conducting an inquiry into the Identify and Disrupt Bill, which hands sweeping powers to the Federal Police and Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission to hack into the devices and networks of suspected criminals to ‘disrupt’ their data and covertly take over their accounts.
The PJCIS held its only public hearing as part of its inquiry last week, but no civil or digital rights organisations were invited to appear before the committee.
The NSW Council of Civil Liberties labelled the proposed laws a “catch-all formula for abuse” and “next in an accelerating wave, strengthening the powers of the state without any humility about the cumulative erosion of democratic freedoms they entail”.
Allegations against Porter more than scuttlebutt says NSWCCL President
Media coverage: The Saturday Paper
Independent inquiry no threat to rule of law say legal experts
Media coverage: The Guardian
A former president of the Law Council, Pauline Wright, and workplace expert Narreen Young, said that if a CEO of a company or a senior lawyer in a firm were accused of a similar historical crime, they would normally step down while an investigation took place.
“If it was a partner in a law firm, generally speaking a complaint would be made to the Law Society of NSW, if it was in NSW, or the office of the legal services commissioner,” Wright said.
“And an investigation would take place by the independent body, and it would be looking at whether the person was fit and proper to continue on the roll of solicitors, or admitted as a barrister. The potential outcome for a solicitor or barrister is being struck off. Because this is the sort of thing that would bring the profession into disrepute”.
Wright said that, as the first law officer, the attorney general should be held to a similar standard.
Any inquiry would look at “fitness to continue in the role as opposed to criminal guilt”, she said, and thus would not conflict with the criminal law.
“It is not looking at his criminal guilt,” she said. “It is looking at whether or not he is of that very high standard that we expect of ministers, particularly of the first law officer.
“There would be numerous examples where individuals are accused of inappropriate behaviour where it is not referred to the police necessarily,” she said. “You might find the complainant doesn’t want to go to court but is very happy for there to be an investigation internally.”
Wright, who is also the president of the NSW Council of Civil Liberties, said that an independent inquiry could also apply a different standard of proof – higher than the usual civil standard of “balance of probabilities”.
“There is another standard called comfortable satisfaction, which is a higher standard than balance of probabilities, but not as high as reasonable doubt.
“It is the kind of standard that is often applied in administrative proceedings. I would have thought that is the kind of standard you were meaning to apply in a potentially serious allegation”.
Porter should face inquiry - NSWCCL President
Media Coverage: Australian Financial Review
Ms Wright said the “fact that a criminal prosecution is not proceeding does not mean that the matter is settled in the minds of the public”.
“There is nothing novel about independent inquiries being called to look into allegations even where the conduct alleged amounts to criminal behaviour.
“There is no breach of the rule of law if such an inquiry is conducted fairly in accordance with principles of natural justice or procedural fairness.”
Ms Wright said that if the allegations were true,“it would cast serious doubt on the integrity of the Attorney General and his fitness to be a Minister.
“For that reason, the PM should call an independent inquiry ensuring that procedural fairness is followed, ensuring the AG knows the case he has to answer and is given the opportunity to respond and clear his name.”
