Australian Human Rights Commission Submission to UN Committee Against Torture, 17 October 2014 necessary updates to Australia’s national security protections. However, the Commission has also noted that in some instances, the provisions of this law extend beyond what is reasonable in the circumstances and unduly infringe human rights. 102. 103. In particular, the Commission has expressed concern that this law: • Provides overly broad immunities and protections to security agencies in the conduct of Special Intelligence Operations (SIOs) • Creates new offences about the disclosure of information relating to SIOs that unduly infringe freedom of expression. The Commission has expressed concerns that the Foreign Fighters Bill contains measures that are inconsistent with human rights and not able to be justified as necessary and proportionate responses. In particular, the Commission has expressed concerns that the Bill: • Extends the use of control orders; preventative detention orders; stop, search and seizure powers; and ASIO special warrant powers without addressing significant concerns about the breadth of these powers and without demonstrating that the retention of these powers is justified • Reduces the threshold for Customs officers to detain people to a level that is too low • Introduces new criminal offences relating to ‘declared areas’ and ‘advocating terrorism’ that are poorly defined and insufficiently targeted to their intended purpose. 104. Control orders may impose significant restrictions on freedom of movement and the right to privacy. Preventative detention orders allow the detention of persons without charge. Stop, search and seizure powers involve restrictions on the freedom of movement and the right to privacy. Questioning and detention warrants issued under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (Cth) will necessarily involve very significant limitations of the rights in articles 9 and 17 of the ICCPR. 105. The Australian government has, in the Explanatory Memorandum for the Bill,94 made general statements about the need to extend the operation of the relevant provisions to address the enduring threat posed by terrorism.95 106. The government has also relied on a recommendation from the Council of Australian Governments Review of Counter-Terrorism Legislation (COAG Review) concerning the continuation of the power to issue control orders.96 While it is true that COAG has recommended that the control order provisions in the Criminal Code be extended, the review had also noted that safeguards were inadequate and required substantial change to prevent abuse and to ensure a fair hearing is held.97 107. The same COAG Review had also recommended that the preventative detention order provisions be abolished.98 The former INSLM also criticised the 26