All changes made to the description and title of this division.

View division | Edit description

Change Division
senate vote 2019-12-05#20

Edited by mackay

on 2019-12-13 13:17:24

Title

Description

  • The majority voted in favour of agreeing to the [remaining stages of the bill](https://www.peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/), which means it passed.
  • The majority voted in favour of agreeing to the [remaining stages of the bill](https://www.peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/), which means it passed. Since the bill had already been passed in the House of Representatives, it will now become law.
  • ### What does the bill do?
  • According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1920a/20bd065), the bill was introduced in order to:
  • > * *respond to concern about the validity of certain [ACIC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Criminal_Intelligence_Commission) determinations and other documents raised in the case of [CXXXVIII v Commonwealth](http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCATrans/2019/206.html) by confirming the validity of current and former Australian Crime Commission (ACC) special operations and special investigations, the lawfulness of which has been questioned and*
  • > * *amend the process by which the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) Board authorises future special operations and special investigations, including by amending the threshold of which it must be satisfied.*
  • Although the bill does not expand or alter the powers available to ACIC, parties [like the Centre Alliance](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1920a/20bd065) were concerned by the retroactive nature of the bill. That is, it will confirm the validity of current and former special operations and special investigations at a time when the High Court is considering the validity of these laws in the context of an alleged unlawful investigation.
  • Although the bill does not expand or alter the powers available to ACIC, parties [like the Centre Alliance](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1920a/20bd065) were concerned by the retroactive nature of the bill. That is, it will confirm the validity of current and former special operations and special investigations at a time when the High Court is considering the validity of these laws in the context of an alleged unlawful investigation.
senate vote 2019-12-05#20

Edited by mackay

on 2019-12-13 13:16:48

Title

Description

  • The majority voted in favour of agreeing to the [remaining stages of the bill](https://www.peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/), which means it passed.
  • ### What does the bill do?
  • According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1920a/20bd065), the bill was introduced in order to:
  • > * *respond to concern about the validity of certain [ACIC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Criminal_Intelligence_Commission) determinations and other documents raised in the case of [CXXXVIII v Commonwealth](http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCATrans/2019/206.html) by confirming the validity of current and former Australian Crime Commission (ACC) special operations and special investigations, the lawfulness of which has been questioned and*
  • > * *amend the process by which the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) Board authorises future special operations and special investigations, including by amending the threshold of which it must be satisfied.*
  • ### What was the CXXXVIII v Commonwealth case?
  • The following was taken from the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1920a/20bd065):
  • > *According to the Australian Financial Review:*
  • >
  • >> *Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton has been forced to act urgently after the High Court granted one of the commission’s targets special leave to appeal against the seizure of his mobile phone.*
  • >>
  • >> *The details of the case that led to the High Court challenge are shrouded in secrecy. What is known is that the ACIC seized the man's phone at Adelaide Airport on June 26 last year, but the ACIC later conceded this notice was incorrectly filled out.*
  • >>
  • >> *Two days later, after briefly handing the phone back to the man at his lawyer's office, the ACIC produced a second notice and seized it again.*
  • >>
  • >> *But the man's lawyers say a 2013 determination the ACIC relied on to launch its special investigation could not be ‘so broad, so wide, and so enduring that anything and all manner of matters years down the track must purportedly come within it’.*
  • >
  • > *The only recent grant of special leave involving the ACIC was on 18 October 2019, when High Court Justices Gordon and Nettle granted a person, known by the pseudonym CXXXVIII, leave to appeal to the Full Court of the High Court from a decision of the Federal Court.*
  • Although the bill does not expand or alter the powers available to ACIC, parties [like the Centre Alliance](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1920a/20bd065) were concerned by the retroactive nature of the bill. That is, it will confirm the validity of current and former special operations and special investigations at a time when the High Court is considering the validity of these laws in the context of an alleged unlawful investigation.
senate vote 2019-12-05#20

Edited by mackay

on 2019-12-13 13:09:48

Title

  • Ministerial Statements — Dairy Industry
  • Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Special Operations and Special Investigations) Bill 2019 - Third Reading - Pass the bill

Description

  • <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p>
  • <p>The question is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.</p>
  • The majority voted in favour of agreeing to the [remaining stages of the bill](https://www.peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/), which means it passed.
  • ### What does the bill do?
  • According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1920a/20bd065), the bill was introduced in order to:
  • > * *respond to concern about the validity of certain [ACIC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Criminal_Intelligence_Commission) determinations and other documents raised in the case of [CXXXVIII v Commonwealth](http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCATrans/2019/206.html) by confirming the validity of current and former Australian Crime Commission (ACC) special operations and special investigations, the lawfulness of which has been questioned and*
  • > * *amend the process by which the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) Board authorises future special operations and special investigations, including by amending the threshold of which it must be satisfied.*
  • ### What was the CXXXVIII v Commonwealth case?
  • The following was taken from the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1920a/20bd065):
  • > *According to the Australian Financial Review:*
  • >
  • >> *Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton has been forced to act urgently after the High Court granted one of the commission’s targets special leave to appeal against the seizure of his mobile phone.*
  • >>
  • >> *The details of the case that led to the High Court challenge are shrouded in secrecy. What is known is that the ACIC seized the man's phone at Adelaide Airport on June 26 last year, but the ACIC later conceded this notice was incorrectly filled out.*
  • >>
  • >> *Two days later, after briefly handing the phone back to the man at his lawyer's office, the ACIC produced a second notice and seized it again.*
  • >>
  • >> *But the man's lawyers say a 2013 determination the ACIC relied on to launch its special investigation could not be ‘so broad, so wide, and so enduring that anything and all manner of matters years down the track must purportedly come within it’.*
  • >
  • > *The only recent grant of special leave involving the ACIC was on 18 October 2019, when High Court Justices Gordon and Nettle granted a person, known by the pseudonym CXXXVIII, leave to appeal to the Full Court of the High Court from a decision of the Federal Court.*