Footnotes
[1] Clause 3.
[2] The Hon Philip Ruddock MP, Attorney-General, Second
Reading Speech, House of Representatives
Hansard, 27 May 2004, p. 29307.
[3] Attorney-General, The Hon Philip Ruddock MP, News
Release no. 078/2004, 27 May 2004.
[4] The Hon Philip Ruddock MP, Attorney-General, Second
Reading Speech, House of Representatives
Hansard, 27 May 2004, p. 29308.
[5] News Release, Attorney-General, The Hon Philip
Ruddock MP, no. 078/2004, 27 May 2004.
[6] ALRC, Protecting
Classified and Security Sensitive Information, Background Paper, July 2003
p. 9.
[7] ibid, pp. 104 & 107.
[8] See for example, submissions to the ALRC by the
Victorian Bar Association, 31 March 2003; New South Wales Police, 29 August
2003; Law Society of New South Wales, n.d.
[9] Law Council submission to the ALRC, 12 September 2003,
p. 8.
[10] ibid, p. 9.
[11] ibid, p. 10.
[12] ibid, p. 15.
[13] Attorney-General's Department submission to the
ALRC, Executive Summary, p. 1.
[14] ibid.
[15] ALRC, Media Release, Courts need new laws to protect national security information, 5
February 2004.
[16] ALRC, Protecting
Classified and Security Sensitive Information, Discussion Paper, January
2004, pp. 11-12.
[17] Submission
1, p. 4.
[18] ALRC, Media release, Justice system must adapt to meet terror challenges: ALRC, 23 June
2004.
[19] Recommendation 111.
[20] News Release, Attorney-General, The Hon Philip
Ruddock MP, no. 102/2004, 23 June 2004.
[21] Clause 14.
[22] Clause 13.
[23] Clause 19.
[24] Clause 20.
[25] Subclause 22(3).
[26] Subclause 27(2).
[27] Subclause 27(3).
[28] Clause 28.
[29] Subclause 29(6).
[30] Subclause 29(7).
[31] Subclauses 29(8) and (9).
[32] Submission
10, p. 3.
[33] For example, Amnesty International Australia, Submission 11, p. 4.
[34] See, for example, Mr Patrick Emerton, Submission 13, p. 11.
[35] Submission
5, p. 1.
[36] Submission
3, p. 2.
[37] Submission
21.
[38] Submission
8, p. 5 and submission to the ALRC
inquiry.
[39] Submission
8, p. 5.
[40] Submission to the ALRC inquiry, 16 April 2004, p.
3.
[41] ibid.
[42] Submission
8, p. 5.
[43] Committee
Hansard, 5 July 2004, pp. 14-15.
[44] Submission
1, p. 4.
[45] ibid.
[46] Clause 8.
[47] Committee Hansard, 5 July 2004, p. 16. See also Submission 2 and Submission
17.
[48] Submission
3, p. 1.
[49] Submission
9, p. 1; Submission 11, pp. 11-12;
Submission 13, p. 19. While Amnesty International accepted that there may be
cases where the public's access to the proceedings may be restricted for
reasons of national security, it argued that it is important to ensure that
national security is clearly defined and limited. In its view the definition
was 'unacceptably broad'.
[50] Submission
12, p. 2.
[51] Clauses 35, 36 and 37.
[52] Submission
11, pp. 12-13.
[53] Committee Hansard, 5 July 2004, p. 24.
[54] Clause 37 makes it an offence if the person
intentionally contravenes Subclauses 22(1) and (2), 23(2) and 6 and the
disclosure of information is likely to prejudice national security.
[55] Submission
3, p. 1.
[56] ibid.
[57] ibid.
[58] ibid.
[59] ibid.
[60] Committee Hansard, 5 July 2004, pp. 1617.
[61] ibid,
p. 17.
[62] Submission
3, p. 1.
[63] Submission
8, p. 6.
[64] ibid.
[65] Submission
14, p. 6.
[66] Submission
3, p. 2.
[67] Amnesty International Fair Trials Manual, p. 15
of 57.
[68] ALRC, Keeping
Secrets: The Protection of Classified and Security Sensitive Information, Report
98, May 2004, p. 471.
[69] ibid, p. 497.
[70] See for example, Recommendation 1122, ALRC, Keeping Secrets: The Protection of
Classified and Security Sensitive Information, Report 98, May 2004, p. 505.
[71] Clause 28.
[72] ALRC, Keeping
Secrets: The Protection of Classified and Security Sensitive Information, Report
98, May 2004, Recommendation 1118, pp. 503-4.
[73] Committee
Hansard, 5 July 2004, p. 5.
[74] ibid.
[75] Submission
8, p. 6.
[76] ibid.
[77] ibid.
[78] Committee Hansard, 5 July 2004, p. 11.
[79] Submission
13, p. 16.
[80] Submission
12, p. 4.
[81] Submission
7, p. 8.
[82] ibid.
[83] Submission
11, p. 11.
[84] Submission
3, p. 3.
[85] Submission
14, p. 6.
[86] Committee Hansard, 5 July 2004, p. 24.
[87] Submission
20, p. 2.
[88] Submission
11, p. 10.
[89] ibid, p. 4.
[90] Submission
12, p. 5.
[91] Submission
10, p. 2.
[92] Submission
8, p. 6.
[93] ibid.
[94] Submission
13, p. 16.
[95] ibid. Graham Fricke QC, has written an
interesting paper on trial by jury and section 80 of the Constitution, Trial by Jury, Parliament of Australia,
Parliamentary Library, Research Paper 11, 199697.
[96] Submission
13, pp. 1415.
[97] Committee Hansard, 5 July 2004, p. 8.
[98] Submission
11, p. 11.
[99] Committee Hansard, 5 July 2004, p. 8.
[100] Submission
13, p. 12.
[101] ibid, p. 3.
[102] ibid.
[103] Submission
14, p. 6.
[104] ibid.
[105] Submission
11, p.10.
[106] Submission
7, p. 7.
[107] ibid.
[108] ibid.
[109] Submission
1, p. 3.
[110] Submission
13, p. 13.
[111] Submission
7, p. 5.
[112] ibid.
[113] ibid, p. 6.
[114] Submission
10, p. 2.
[115] ibid.
[116] Committee
Hansard, 5 July 2004, p. 23.
[117] Submission
8, p. 6.
[118] ibid; Submission
20, p. 6.
[119] Submission
9, p. 2.
[120] Submission
12, pp. 4 & 6.
[121] Submission
19, p. 4.
[122] ibid.
[123] Explanatory Memorandum, p. 2.
[124] Submission
1, p. 4.
[125] ALRC, Keeping
Secrets: The Protection of Classified and Security Sensitive Information, Report
98, May 2004, Recommendations 1140 and 1143(d), pp. 508-509.
[126] ibid, Recommendation 1124, p. 505. See also
ALRC, Media Release, Justice system must
adapt to meet terror challenges: ALRC, 23 June 2004.
[127] Submission
1, p. 4.
[128] ibid.
[129] See for example, Submission 9, p. 2;
HREOC, Submission 14, p. 5.
[130] Submission
7, p. 12.
[131] ibid.
[132] Submission
8, p. 3.
[133] ibid.
[134] ibid.
[135] ibid, p. 4.
[136] ibid.
[137] Submission
16, pp. 2-3.
[138] Submission
14, p. 5.
[139] ibid.
[140] Submission
8, p. 5.
[141] Submission
11, p. 1314; Submission 12, p. 5.
[142] Submission
8, p. 4.
[143] Submission
9, p. 2.
[144] ibid.
[145] ibid., pp. 2-3.
[146] ibid, p. 3.
[147] Submission
12, p. 3; Submission 13, p. 23. The
Law Institute of Victoria also objected to the requirement that defence legal
representatives obtain a security clearance. It submitted that the requirement
will expose representatives to a 'subjective and invasive process' and that the
criteria are 'vague and subjective'.
[148] Submission 7, p. 10. This
part of the Evidence Act deals with discretions to exclude evidence. It allows
the court to refuse to admit evidence if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by the danger that the evidence might be unfairly prejudicial to a
party or be misleading or confusing; or cause or result in undue waste of time.
The court may limit the use to be made of evidence if there is a danger that a
particular use of the evidence might be unfairly prejudicial to a party or be
misleading or confusing. In a criminal proceeding, the court must refuse to
admit evidence adduced by the prosecutor if its probative value is outweighed
by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant. There are also provisions
governing the courts discretion to exclude improperly or illegally obtained
evidence.
[149] Submission
7, p. 10.
[150] ibid.
[151] ALRC, Keeping
Secrets: The Protection of Classified and Security Sensitive Information, Report
98, May 2004, Recommendation 1112, p. 502.
[152] Table comparing the National Security
Information (Criminal Proceedings) Bill 2004 with recommendations in the ALRC's
report relating to a National Security Information Procedures Act, provided to
the Committee by the Attorney-General's Department.
[153] ibid.
[154] Submission
13, pp. 9 and 15.
[155] Submission
3, p. 2.
[156] ibid.
[157] Submission
7, p. 11.
[158] ibid.
[159] ibid.
[160] Submission
20, p. 2.
[161] Submission
7, p. 10.
[162] ibid.
[163] Submission
12, p. 4.
[164] Submission
13, p. 13.
[165] Committee Hansard, 5 July 2004, p. 2.
[166] ibid, p.
24.
[167] Submission
8, p. 7.
[168] Submission
1, p. 6.
[169] Committee
Hansard, 5 July 2004, p. 6.