Australian Greens, Pirate Party Australia combined press release

Australian Greens communications spokesperson Senator Scott Ludlam will table a petition in the Senate tomorrow circulated by Pirate Party Australia and comprising 1447 signatures raising serious concerns about proposed changes to national security laws.

The signatories have presented objections to the proposals under discussion by the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security Inquiry into potential reforms of National Security Legislation (#natsecinquiry).

“98.9 per cent of the five and a half thousand submissions received by the Committee are opposed to the unnecessary and dangerously vague data retention proposal and other draconian ideas suggested by the Attorney General’s Department,” said Senator Ludlam.

Pirate Party Secretary Brendan Molloy said, “The petitioners object to penalties for failing to provide computer passwords and near unrestricted interception of communications, as well as the appallingly short window of time provided by the Committee to make a submission, of which the Pirate Party campaigned for an extension.”

Read More

Pirate Party Australia condemns the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012, the second reading of which was today debated in the Senate[1].

The particular parts the Pirate Party objects to are the amendments to paragraph 170(3)(a) and 170(3)(b) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, which would double the cost of fielding Senate and House of Representatives candidates. If the bill passes, Senate candidates will cost $2,000, while House of Representatives candidates will cost $1,000.

The purpose of the price increase is to “discourage…those candidates and groups whose chances are very slim, thereby avoiding unwieldy ballot papers that tend to be difficult to read and are likely to give rise to higher levels of informality,” according to a Parliamentary Library document[2].

“The two particular amendments, masterfully hidden among fairly reasonable amendments, are devastating to the ability of minority parties such as ourselves to compete in fair and democratic elections,”commented Mozart Olbrycht-Palmer, Deputy Secretary of Pirate Party Australia. “The justification for increasing the cost of candidates is laughable — democracy is not about discouraging candidates from competing elections, and it is not about the convenience of being able to print smaller ballot papers.”

Read More

Pirate Party Australia raises concerns over the mandatory nature of the new Interpol Internet filtering regime, in regards to its opaque nature and the dubious use of §313 of the Telecommunications Act.

ISPs have been ordered to implement Interpol’s “worst-of-the-worst” filter that specifically targets websites that provide access to child abuse material. This order has been made under §313 of the Telecommunications Act 1997. It is unclear whether or not the use of §313 for the purposes of Internet censorship is appropriate or even legal.

“While an Internet filtering regime that focuses squarely on the Interpol blacklist is a major step back from the proposed mandatory censorship regime which would have encompassed all Refused Classification content — and even some R18+ and MA15+ content — the opaque nature and lack of control over the blacklist are still issues that raise significant concern,” said Brendan Molloy, Secretary of Pirate Party Australia.

Read More

Due to public outcry over the vague and sinister proposals of the National Security Discussion Paper and Inquiry, more details about the proposal have come to light.

After refusing Pirate Party Australia’s freedom of information request to release draft legislation, the AGD has chosen to make their own submission to the Inquiry[1], and in a very revealing exchange at Senate Estimates, Senator Scott Ludlam received answers about long-standing questions regarding the definition of metadata[2]. Transparency, strongly advocated by Pirate Party Australia, often yields a far more democratic outcome. This submission from the AGD highlights concerns many Australians have regarding the National Security Inquiry.

“It is a refreshing move for the AGD and the AFP to be this transparent about their National Security wishlist. This submission provides a far more democratic outcome, and offers some insight into what security agencies and the Attorney General’s Department hope to achieve through this inquiry,” commented David W. Campbell, President of Pirate Party Australia.

“While the submission is valuable for transparency, the contents are outrageous. Many of the more totalitarian interpretations of the vague discussion paper seem to be exactly what is on the table. The AFP appears to believe it is okay to access information about all Australians’ movements without any form of judicial oversight. If people understood that the Federal Police, among other agencies, could access information about their every movement they would be appalled. This is only one proposal in a wide-ranging inquiry that will dramatically expand police powers at the expense of our civil liberties and democratic rights,” Mr Campbell continued.

Read More

The deadline for submissions to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security’s (PJCIS) Inquiry into potential reforms of National Security Legislation was August 20, and today, PJCIS allowed for the publication of submissions. Pirate Party Australia submitted a comprehensive response to the discussion paper.

In the lengthy submission the Party comments on many points in the discussion paper, including:

  • Strongly objecting to penalties for individuals who refuse to assist in decrypting information or provide their passwords, eroding a person’s right to avoid self-incrimination;
  • Strongly objecting to keeping all Internet users’ browsing and email history for two years, introducing an arbitrary violation of privacy; and
  • Suggesting adding controls to various powers that certain agencies have to breach individuals’ privacy.

Read More