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.

NSWCCL and Liberty Victoria have made a joint submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security responding to its review under section 29(bbaaa) of the Intelligence Services Act 2001 into the operation, effectiveness and implications of Division 105A of the Criminal Code, and any other provision of the Criminal Code Act 1995 as it relates to that Division.

Division 105A provides for post sentence orders in relation to terrorism. It enables two main forms of post-sentence orders: continuing detention orders and extended supervision orders.

We acknowledges 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.

The task currently before the PJCIS is to evaluate, in light of the recent INSLM report, the operation and merit of Div 105A, with a view to whether amendment may be necessary, and, if reform is required, what form such amendment should take. In assessing the merit and necessity of any security measure, a balance must be struck between the need to ensure security, and the need to protect the values that are lie at the heart of our democracy—values of liberty, justice, tolerance, and social cohesion. 

Law Student and Yes voter, Melissa Dib, put some of the more spurious claims of the 'No' campaign to the test.

Australia has been considering constitutional recognition for more than 15 years. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have asked that the form of recognition come through a Voice to Parliament, which will give advice on laws and policies that affect Indigenous people.

Changing the Constitution seems to always be the most tedious task, and we very much have the fathers of the Federation Sir John Quick and Sir Robert Garran to thank for that. 

So, what are some of these misconceptions about the Voice to Parliament?

Justice Michael Murphy found in favour of the Commonwealth after Mostafa Azimitabar, 37, launched a lawsuit about his detention inside two Melbourne hotels for 14 months in 2019 and 2020.

Justice Murphy said his ruling should not be “understood as my approving the immigration detention and what the applicant was required to endure”.

“I can only wonder at the lack of thought, indeed lack of care and humanity, in detaining a person with serious psychiatric and psychological problems in the hotels for 14 months,” he said.

“But the decision in this case does not turn on the humanity of the applicant’s detention; it is about whether the minister had the power under the act to approve the hotels as places of immigration detention and, therefore, to detain the applicant as he was.”

“I consider the minister had (and has) the power to do so.”

NSWCCL is deeply concerned with the risk of corruption because, if not effectively checked, it threatens our democratic values and processes – including the rights and liberties of all people. We support a strong and effective ICAC, appropriately constrained by safeguards for individual liberties and rights that are compatible with operational effectiveness.

The investigation into Ms Berejiklian’s conduct was appropriate and we are pleased to see it reach a conclusion. Whilst it has taken considerable time for the ICAC to deliver its findings the Council believes that delays in the ICAC reporting should be addressed by increasing the ICAC's funding and resources, not by imposing arbitrary deadlines on the ICAC.

The NSW Council for Civil Liberties (NSWCCL) supports a comprehensive review of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act. 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.

NSWCCL insists that the Anti-Discrimination Act should protect individuals from vilification but not institutions and not beliefs, which are just ideas which must be freely contestable. The government’s Bill may effectively prohibit vilification or severe ridicule of beliefs or views themselves, or of institutions or organisations, and not merely the vilification or severe ridicule of persons because they belong to a religious group. The Bill, therefore, unacceptably impedes freedom of expression, legitimate criticism and debate.

Neos Kosmos writes that there have been social media posts circulating that claim the Voice to Parliament referendum directly contradicts Australian racial discrimination laws and international conventions. Experts have reiterated there is nothing ‘illegal’ about Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s proposal. 

The social media posts reference section 9 and 10 of the Racial Discrimination Act as ‘proof’, with one facebook post claiming that the Act contradicts the proposed Voice Referendum and ‘favour[s] one race over another’. Such erroneous claims have been shut down by leading experts, who state that the proposed advisory body will not restrict anyone else's rights. One post claims Albanese is attempting to ‘entice’ individuals into voting ‘yes’, contrary to section 11.4 of the Criminal Code Act 1995, going as far as to say Albanese is asking Australian citizens to ‘unlawfully commit an act’ in voting ‘yes’. Section 9 of the Racial Discrimination Act allows individuals to complain if they have been subjected to treatment on the basis of their race, which limits their rights. 

Ian Fry, Australian National University Professor and Tuvalu’s former ambassador for Climate Change for over 21 years, was appointed in May 2022 by the UN Human Rights Council, as the first Special Rapporteur on climate, following the overwhelming vote to recognize the Right to a Healthy Environment, in 2021.

Recently the Special Rapporteur called for inputs on the promotion of human rights in the context of climate change.The NSW Council for Civil Liberties welcomed the opportunity to make a submission.

Climate change is an urgent threat to humanity and to the full enjoyment of fundamental human rights. Threats to the environment are threats to everyone, and collaborative efforts at national, regional, and global levels are required for effective climate action.

The NSW Council of Civil Liberties  considers that urgent reform of the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (Cth) is required. The federal government has flagged amendments to national security laws to ensure that the near total secrecy that hid the prosecution and imprisonment of a former Australian intelligence officer cannot happen again.

While we applaud this sentiment, we are concerned that the NSI Act is easily abused for political ends, prescribes a misguided objective, and fails to provide adequate protections that would ensure open and fair justice in the trials to which it applies. We need action.

Having regard to the significant issues with the current NSI Act, the Council submits that it is not fit for purpose and that urgent legislative overhaul is required. We are agnostic as to whether this should occur via wholesale legislative reform to the existing NSI Act, or by repealing and replacing the current regime. What is important, however, is that the reformed version of the regime ensures better protections to parties’ rights and open justice, and adequate procedural limits on the exercise of powers under the NSI Act.