Urgent platform amendment proposal: repeal aspects of National Security Bill


(Brendan Molloy) #5

I can refer to that the Constitutional Review Committee, and will.


(Brendan Molloy) #6

Yep, it’s a requirement of the Constitution that any such policy amendments require being voted upon at the Congress. :smile:


(William) #7

Throwing in my support for this proposal.


(Sammy B) #8

Works for me.

Scary, scary times…


(Michael Keating) #9

If you need a crystal ball vision from Stilgherrian on how these proposals looked 3 months ago, here you are: http://www.zdnet.com/beware-the-spin-behind-australias-new-surveillance-laws-7000031794/


(Mozart Olbrycht-Palmer) #10

This is a very appropriate platform and policy amendment and exactly how Art 5.2(2) should be used. These specific changes could not have been reasonably foreseen and having an explicit statement would be great. I anticipate the National Council will need to use this power again shortly unfortunately for Bills No 2 & 3 (and maybe even more), but as long as the membership remains informed and consulted, I have no issues. It’s very promising to see other members supportive of this course of action too :smile:


(Liam Pomfret) #11

100% behind this proposal. This is exactly the kind of situation that part of the constitution was designed for.


(Datakid23) #12

Has my support. I presume that it will be easy enough to remove once the legislation is repealled?


(Tim Serong) #13

Seems entirely appropriate to me.


(Nick Casmirri) #14

Yes, entirely appropriate, but in the long run it may be useful to have a process that enables policy amendments to be debated online and voted on by the membership at any time of year without having to be tied to a congress. I assume that’s the eventual goal and just not possible under current capacity constraints?


(Tim Challis) #15

Oh yes. These two reflect my own views so much better than I could express them myself:

I was debating whether they justified Article status in their own right?


(Andrew Downing) #16

Brendan,
I agree with your position.
I will be available this evening to work on the investigation as you requested.

… AndrewD…


(Jack Coulter) #17

Just echoing the sentiments of the previous posts here; this seems like an entirely appropriate use of article 5.2(2) - no protest against the proposed amendment from me.


(Brendan Molloy) #18

A simple explainer of the legislation has appeared:


(Tim Challis) #19

May I ask what I fear will turn out to be a dopey question: doesn’t the fact this Bill has passed in the Senate before being presented to the House completely violate rules of presentation?


Rules of Presentation for bills in Parliament
(Mark) #21

I support this & wonder if we shouldn’t just seek to repeal the bill in entirety. Is there anything in it worth salvaging?


(Brendan Molloy) #22

I don’t know hence why I took the safe option with the wording. The Congress can look to improving it.


(Rebecca) #23

I am in full support of repealing the new legislation AND reviewing the existing legislation as to it’s effectiveness and need. I think legislation we had was far too broad and that there are FAR better ways to manage the potential for extremism than harassing people (yes I’m looking at you ASIO).

Also this: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cartoon/2014/sep/26/firstdog-eggplants


(Chris Jones) #25

Brendan, I do agree that the wording could probably be improved, but only slightly.

Also, I propose we go one step more and come up with a proposal of the specifics that we would like to see removed/repealed from the amendment.

Obviously, it would be great to have the entire bill repealed, but we have to be realistic and take a relaistic apporach to this. Hence, a proposal of repeal points might be the way to go.


(Brendan Molloy) #26

The following motion was put by me to the National Council today via email as per By-law 2014-01:

The National Council exercises their privileges under Article 5.2(2) of the Party Constitution to amend the Civil Liberties policy to include the following line under the section entitled “Remove existing laws which unduly restrict privacy, speech, expression and access to information”:

  • Repeal the aspects of the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No.1) 2014 that have an unjustifiable impact on civil liberties, due process and the rule of law.

All members of the National Council voted aye except for Ben, who has not yet responded to the email. The motion is considered to have carried, and as per the requirements of the by-law, will be included in the minutes of the next National Council meeting, which is scheduled to next occur on Thursday, 2 October.

I look forward to the members and Policy Development Committee considering these issues in significantly more detail and putting forward relevant amendments for the next National Congress. If you have any suggestions, I recommend creating a new topic under the ‘policy’ category.

Thanks for your support! :smile: