Login
‘Alarming’ rush of surveillance bill may have ‘chilling effect’ on whistleblowers, says HRLC
A new surveillance bill that has been rushed through by the Morrison government has largely ignored critical recommendations made by a parliamentary joint committee to provide better safeguards for whistleblowers and journalists.
Naomi Neilson
Earlier this month, the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security (PJCIS) recommended that the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 should be amended to include more oversight in warrants. Despite this, the federal government has rushed the bill through with little to no changes.
Commenting on the new bill, senior lawyer Kieran Pender said: “Every increase in state surveillance has a democratic cost. Overbroad surveillance powers impact the privacy of all Australians and have a chilling effect on journalists and whistleblowers.
“Given the powers are unprecedented and extraordinarily intrusive, they should have been narrowed to what is strictly necessary and subject to robust safeguards. That is why the committee unanimously recommended significant changes.”
HRLC said it is “alarmed” that despite the committee’s recommendations, the Morrison government failed to allow enough time to review potential changes and instead “rushed these laws through parliament in less than 24 hours”.
The committee accepted a number of the concerns of the HRLC and other civil society stakeholders that all proposed narrower criteria for the use of the new powers and stronger oversight mechanisms. At the time, PJCIS said that having more, recommended robust authorisations for the warrants would “give the community confidence that they will only be used for their intended purpose”.
One improvement to the law, called for by HRLC, is greater safeguards to prevent the improper use of these laws against whistleblowers and journalists. A judge or tribunal member must now consider the public interest in the work of journalists and their intention with whistleblowers before permitting police to use the new powers.
“While safeguards for journalists and whistleblowers are welcome, they highlight the lack of wider entrenched safeguards for press freedom and free speech in Australia. By enacting wide-ranging surveillance and secrecy laws in the absence of federal human rights laws, successive governments have put the cart before the horse,” Mr Pender said.
“Australians urgently need protections for fundamental human rights like a Charter of Human Rights.”
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
