News

The assumption innate in the Bill is that allowing people to use deadly force to protect themselves and their dwelling will improve community safety and deter crime. However, outcomes of similar legislation in the USA show across the board that increasing legislative permissiveness of deadly force correlates with increased violent crime, unnecessary death, institutional racism, and no crime deterrence.

“Children, especially the teenagers that are the Bill’s primary subject, are to the relevant level capable of making their own decisions, and where a parent has not been proven to have incited or condoned a child’s misbehaviour, the child should be held responsible for it alone.”

We begin by noting what appears to be the irony of a conservative government introducing this type of legislation, since conservatives are usually associated with strong support for the rights of parents to choose how to bring up their children.

Modern policing apparently involves disrupting legal behaviour that makes people uncomfortable so the AFP told Parliament but in its letter to us it says something different…But surely we should believe what the AFP told Parliament?

Arguably, George Orwell’s most famous novel is ‘1984’. It is set in a dystopic future world ravaged by global and civil wars which is shroud in government surveillance. It is a fictional book. It should not be a play book for how the world might be today. It was a caution and one which we all ought to heed to.

While move on orders could theoretically promote community safety, the flaws outlined above mean that, in practice, they promote a mere sense of it. In fact, the manner in which they are often issued leads to further harm, disproportionately made against marginalised groups, cementing adversarial relationships with the police, promoting intolerance and, ultimately, failing to address underlying social issues that lead to unfavourable conduct

Citizenship is not a license that expires upon misbehaviour...The deprivation of citizenship is not a weapon the government may use to express its displeasure at a citizen's conduct however reprehensible that conduct may be.

“ Criminalising chants with harsh jail terms  in respect of the biggest public protest issue since Vietnam is up there with other excesses of the Bjelke -Petersen  government, “ Mr. O’Gorman said.

The QCCL condemns the statement of the police minister Mr Purdie that “the hate speech laws would criminalise phrases that led to people being murdered at Bondi” as not only unsupported by any evidence but as tending to undermine the moral responsibility of the bigots who perpetrated the mass murder at Bondi.”

Citizenship is not a license that expires upon misbehaviour. Could a citizen be deprived of her nationality for evading tax or murder? And one of the basic rights of a citizen is to return home,” says QCCL President Michael Cope

The fundamental principle of freedom of speech in Australia, the UK and the US is that “ causing offence “ is an inevitable result of maintaining freedom of speech principles and rights.

The Council has, at all times, been opposed to the disenfranchisement of prisoners. The concept of the civil dead no longer has any place in our law. Prisoners are human beings and ought to be treated with dignity. They are in prison as punishment not for punishment.

The Bill will fundamentally rework and expand hugely hate speech laws as well as having the 2026 equivalent of the 1950s ban of the Communist party which was struck down by the High Court. It is simply performative politics.

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.

Justice Wilson’s report was published in June 2023. Whilst your government has been in office for only just over 12 months, we have no doubt that the bureaucracy has been working on this topic since the report was released. In our submission this matter requires urgent attention.

The QCCL does not endorse the tenets of national socialism in any way. However, we have concerns about members of a criminal law enforcement agency taking action to ‘disrupt’ the lawful conduct of members of the Australian community because the conduct is denominated a ‘threat to social cohesion.’

Acknowledging then that the government has a legitimate interest in combating fire ants, that interest must be weighed against the fundamental interests protected by the right to privacy and particularly access to private property in the form of a person’s house.

   "It is unjust to treat equals unequally; it is equally unjust to treat unequals equally." – Aristotle  The “Adult Crime, Adult Time” legislation is unjust as it treats children equally to adults with whom children are unequal.

Our central submission is that the current definition should not be expanded. Terrorism should not be seen as a ‘catch-all’ term for serious crimes. The criminal law, with its established principles of criminal justice and procedure, already accommodate crimes which may constitute terrorism. Any further extension of the definition of terrorism would intervene in this system. It would enlarge the application of a wide set of powers that are both repugnant to civil liberties and inconsistent with these established principles of criminal justice

It is submitted that the entire scheme of Controlled Operations in the PPRA should be incorporated into the Bill for the same reasons that the Controlled Operations regime was originally incorporated into the PPRA.

There is a clear link between access to information and the capacity of citizens to secure basic rights.[1]  In particular it is clear that if citizens are to be in a position to participate fully in a democracy it is necessary that they have access to the knowledge and information to do so.[2]  The Council’s view is that a representative democracy necessitates an informed citizenry.  For this reason, freedom of information must be granted to the maximum extent possible.

In our modern era, social media is absolutely essential to freedom of speech. Both children and adults have a right to freedom of speech. No doubt the right of children to speak is not as broad as that of an adult. No doubt, children are entitled to protection from some of the harms that might flow from freedom of speech. But they do have a right to access social media to communicate with their friends and to seek information.

Sex offender registries create a false sense of security because most perpetrators of sex offences are known to their victims or their families. In 2015 around 75% of sexual assault victims knew their offender, while one third of victims were assaulted by a family member

The Council accepts that it is a fundamental human right of all persons particularly children to be protected from sexual assault. However, proposals such as Daniel’s law are most likely to have the opposite effect and do harm to innocent people such as victims”, says QCCL President Michael Cope

In our submission no changes should be made to the rights of victims which undermine the rehabilitation of the prisoners. The only consequence of that would be to create more victims, which surely is not the intention of the review let alone the government.

“The Segal report is a rather woolly document - long on assertions and claims for power to be given to the Envoy but short on argument and facts.”