Open letter to the PJCIS

Posted on

Below is an open letter sent today to the Secretary of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) requesting an extension of time to submit on the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No 1) 2014. The Attorney-General has proposed the new legislation based on earlier recommendations of the PJCIS which were made in 2013. It is an extensive bill, as the letter explains, and deviates from the 2012 recommendations significantly in some places. The Pirate Party has requested a two week extension for all submissions given the enormity of both the bill and its explanatory memorandum. The outcome of this request will be published here once an answer is received.

UPDATE: An extension has been granted to all persons and organisations intending to make a submission. The new date is 6 August 2014 (shorter than the two week extension requested) according to a media release issued on 29 July 2014 by the Committee.

Dear Secretary of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security,

Pirate Party Australia believes in considered, deliberative and consultative policy development. Our internal procedures are perfectly in line with these ideals, and our policy development is open to all members, and even interested outsiders. Our policies, as they are developed, are open for discussion typically for months before they are considered to be enacted.

It is with this in mind that we are disheartened by the extreme swiftness with which some very serious legislation that potentially affects all Australians is being rushed through the review process.

The time given to respond to the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No 1) 2014 is insufficient given the serious and substantial nature of the proposed amendments. It was referred to the Committee on 16 July 2014, with a deadline of 1 August 2014 for submissions on a bill that is 124 pages in length accompanied by an explanatory memorandum of 167 pages.

Although based on prior recommendations the Committee made in its 2013 Inquiry into potential reforms of National Security Legislation, the bill exceeds those recommendations significantly in places. More time is necessary to sufficiently analyse and put forward a measured and reasonable position on these matters.

For example, in a densely worded change to section 18(2) of the Australian Security Intelligence Act 1979, there is a small amendment that could result in far-reaching implications for how far political communication would be restricted.

Without adequate time to analyse all the elements of this extremely long and dense documentation, and to formulate coherent feedback, the process of consultation that is being undertaken would be ineffective, and would result in the process being seen to be a mockery.

We request that, at the very least, a further fourteen (14) days are granted to all persons and organisations who intend to submit to this committee. To not allow this would be an affront to democracy.

—
Regards,

Mozart Olbrycht-Palmer
Deputy Secretary
Pirate Party Australia

Data retention ruling is not an invitation to governments

Posted on

The Pirate Party renews its calls for the Government to abandon the pursuit of mandatory data retention following comments from the Attorney-General that data retention is under “active consideration”[1]. The Attorney-General also stated that data retention is “the way western nations are going.”

Pirate Party President Simon Frew commented: “What the Attorney-General has essentially said here is that everyone else is doing it, therefore Australia should too. This is abysmal reasoning in light of the thorough criticism provided by the Court of Justice of the European Union earlier this year, in a judgment that overturned the EU’s Data Retention Directive. The Court overturned the Directive precisely because it violated fundamental rights. That was not an invitation for law makers to find a different way of implementing a similar regime. The failure of the Data Retention Directive should serve to deter governments from implementing mandatory data retention: that level of indiscriminate intrusion into people’s privacy is unacceptable.

“The Attorney-General has also stated that privacy intrusions for the purposes of law enforcement should not be disproportionate[2]. We put it to the Attorney-General that data retention is disproportionate. How on earth could it be considered proportionate to store all information about who is contacting who, when they are speaking, for how long, and where they are? A society under constant surveillance is not an appropriate goal.

Read More

Sri Lankan handovers the result of flawed Government policy

Posted on

The Pirate Party remains highly critical of the Federal Government’s approach to asylum seekers, following the news that an interim injunction has been granted by the High Court to prevent the Government handing 153 asylum seekers over to Sri Lanka. This news comes just days after Immigration Minister Scott Morrison confirmed 41 asylum seekers had been handed over to Sri Lanka in a separate incident. This latter group is now facing charges in Sri Lanka[1].

Pirate Party Deputy Secretary, Mozart Olbrycht-Palmer, commented: “The Government’s approach towards asylum seekers is dominated by the mantra ‘stop the boats’ and demonstrates little regard for human rights, international law or even human life. The primary goal is not encouraging asylum seekers to go through official channels: it appears to be making these people someone else’s problem. The secrecy around the operations and justifications on national security grounds are absurd. At the moment it seems that the strategy is being made up as they go along.

“By rigorously pursuing its obsession with stopping the boats, the Abbott Government has dehumanised the issue. These vessels have people in them, and putting those people at risk of criminal charges or worse is unacceptable. Although the approach towards asylum seekers has become increasingly harsh since the Rudd Government, people are still trying to seek asylum in Australia. Punishing asylum seekers is not good policy.

“Turning boats back, handing them over to foreign authorities and holding asylum seekers in substandard conditions shows that the approach has not been seriously thought out. We should be spending our resources on ensuring they have adequate means of seeking asylum, no diverting those resources into preventing people from seeking asylum in Australia. We need a regional strategy to improve asylum seeker processing and refugee resettlement, and to encourage our neighbours to meet minimum standards of care and human rights protection. The Government’s silence on matters relating to asylum seekers is highly disturbing.”

[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-07/high-court-injunction-halts-handover-of-asylum-seekers/5579726

Greste sentenced, Government must take immediate action

Posted on

The Pirate Party is calling for the Australian Government to take immediate action on the sentencing of Australian journalist Peter Greste in Egypt yesterday. Greste has been sentenced to seven years for “spreading false news and supporting the blacklisted Muslim Brotherhood” according to the ABC[1].

Pirate Party President Simon Frew commented: “The Australian Government has indicated its support for Mr Greste and encouraged the Egyptian President to release him[2], however it is crucial at this point not to back down. An Australian journalist has been convicted by a foreign court for doing his job, and now is the time to take severe action on the matter.

“The Pirate Party considers it would be appropriate to expel the Egyptian Ambassador and sever diplomatic ties with the country if the verdict remains upheld. Australia must assert its position and send a strong message to Egypt that freedom of the press, no matter how bad the political situation, is vital to democracy.

“We are calling on the Australian Government to immediately take action to secure the release of Peter Greste and his safe return to Australia. The Government has consistently emphasised its support for freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Now is the perfect opportunity to demonstrate to the world that Australia will go to great lengths to ensure these freedoms are protected and those who exercise them will not be punished.

“Both major Parties have a mixed record of defending journalists and freedom of the press. A case in point is the lacklustre defence of Julian Assange, holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for the last two years. Australia needs to consistently defend the rights of journalists doing their jobs regardless of the nature of the reporting. A free press is an important part of a just and democratic society.”

[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-23/peter-greste-found-guilty/5543292
[2] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-22/bishop-pushes-for-greste-release-on-eve-of-trial-verdict/5541744

Pirate Party pushes for racial discrimination transparency

Posted on

Responding to the Attorney-General’s refusal to publish more than 5,500 submissions on the Government’s proposed amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act, the Pirate Party has lodged a freedom of information for the release of those documents[1]. The refusal to release these documents has been referred to as “ironic” given the amendments were designed to improve freedom of speech in Australia[2]. In May this year the Attorney-General announced the Government was reconsidering the amendments[3].

Brendan Molloy, Councillor of the Pirate Party commented: “This is an unusual and overwhelming number of submissions. In our experience legislative inquiries and reviews are unlikely to reach 100 submissions. The fact that over 5,000 were received demonstrates an obviously enormous public interest in the legislation, and opposition must have been extreme for the Government to be so tight-lipped on these submissions. There is no decent reason why these submissions should not be made available to the public.”

“This Government has shown a worrying tendency against transparency in the ten months it has been elected. There has been a pattern of refusal to operate transparently, from refusing to release departmental briefs even after freedom of information requests were made[4] to the expansive and secretive scope of ‘Operation Sovereign Borders'[5]. The Government has refused to allow the Human Rights Commissioner to visit the detention centres on Nauru and Manus Island for the preposterous and bureaucratic reason that the Commission’s jurisdiction does not extend past Australia’s borders[6]. In addition to all of this, the appalling track record of the current and former governments has overburdened the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. It takes several months for the OAIC to review rejected freedom of information requests, and instead of providing more resources, the Abbott Government is axing it![7]”

Read More