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.