Six years ago, in the heart of this nation, a proclamation was made. Over 250 delegates representing First Nations joined to deliver the Uluru Statement from the Heart, inviting Australians to enshrine an Indigenous Voice within the constitution and to advance truth telling and treaty making.

We are mere weeks until the referendum day on the 14th October when Australians will vote on whether to enshrine a Voice in the Constitution. I take this moment to reiterate our support for a First Nations Voice to Parliament. We strive, in this moment, to be the best allies we can. I note that the discourse surrounding the referendum campaign has reified intergenerational trauma and unearthed historic injustices and the Voice is only one vehicle through which First Nations’ justice may be achieved in Australia.

This week, drug decriminalisation laws passed by a Labor Greens government in the ACT came into effect. This will mean less drug-related deaths, less normally law-abiding citizens arrested, and more time for police to see to real crime.

Yet, on the same day these laws were passed, NSW Labor premier Chris Minns told the Murdoch press that his government isn’t contemplating drug decriminalisation at present, but if he is voted in again, it might contemplate it some time after that.

A number of NSW Labor MPs, however, are likely disappointed with this decision, as they’ve spoken out about drug law reform in the past. Minns told the Daily Telegraph on Monday that there’s “no mandate” for his government to follow the ACT. But this is pretty obvious, because as state leader, he’s supposed to set the agenda. And the ongoing deaths and overpolicing of First Nations people in regard to drugs, seems to be his mandate.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.