the moment as they were before the courts. Mr Abbott, apparently dissatisfied with this response, immediately moved, under section 35 of the constitution, that the Speaker be removed from office. Since federation in 1901 this is the first time that section 35 has been invoked for the purpose of removing a Speaker. Mr Abbott commented: “At
the risk of detaining the House in a repetitive way, let me say that it is absolutely crystal clear that the Speaker is no longer a fit and proper person to uphold the dignity of this Parliament and is no longer a fit and proper person to uphold and protect the standing orders of this House. I say that the Speaker is not disqualified by the mere fact of a legal action against him—that can befall any Member of this House and of itself should not be a disqualification from high office. What must nevertheless be held against the Speaker of this Parliament are the undenied, uncontradicted facts that have emerged, and that continue to emerge, in the course of the case currently on foot against him. At the risk of dismaying this Chamber, at the risk of dismaying the public, I must allude—and I only allude—to the gross references to female genitalia which are contained in the uncontradicted, undenied evidence before the court about the conduct of this Speaker. I must allude to the vile anatomical references to which this Speaker appears to be addicted in his text messaging.” Mr Abbott then turned his
attack to the Prime Minister. Mr Abbott stated that “it is not just the Speaker who has failed the character test. It is indeed this Prime Minister who has failed the judgement test. This Prime Minister hand-picked the current Speaker for the top job of this Parliament. This Prime Minister orchestrated the resignation of the former Speaker, the member for Scullin, a man of undoubted
character, a man of undoubted quality and a man of undoubted impartiality in the conduct of this
chamber. Does anyone think for a second that the member for Scullin, the former Speaker of the
Parliament—a man who loved this Parliament, who loved the speakership as he loved his life—
THIRD READING: AUSTRALIA
Cybercrime Legislation Amendment Act 2012 The Cybercrime Legislation Amendment Act makes amendments to facilitate Australia’s accession to the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime. The convention is the only binding international treaty on cybercrime. The then Attorney-General Hon. Robert McClelland, MP, commented that “cybercrime poses a significant challenge for our law enforcement and criminal justice system. The global and interconnected nature of the internet makes it easy for malicious actors to operate from abroad, especially from those countries where regulations and enforcement arrangements are weak. For this reason, it is critical that laws designed to combat cyberthreats are harmonised, or at least compatible to allow for international cooperation between law enforcement agencies”. Mr McClelland noted that “Australian law already complies with a majority of the obligations of the convention. In particular, jurisdictions in Australia have created relevant offences and have provided agencies with many of the powers and procedures required by the convention”. However, he explained that “accession to the convention will require amendments to the Telecom-munications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987, the Criminal Code Act 1995 and the Telecommunications Act 1997 to enhance Australia’s ability to effectively combat cybercrime”. The legislation provides for the preservation of
stored communication. Mr McClelland noted that “these amendments are necessary as carriers’ business practices often include the deletion of communications before agencies have the opportunity to exercise a warrant for their access, in the case of one carrier that is within 24 hours of a message’s creation”. In addition, the legislation will enable the Australian Federal Police to require the preservation of communications on behalf of a foreign law enforcement agency. Mr McClelland noted that ‘once again, however, the content of those preserved communications can only be accessed following authorisation of a stored communications warrant under a formal mutual assistance request for a serious foreign contravention”. Protection in the legislation includes the requirement that access to preserved communications can be through a warrant, and preservation is only available to access a ‘serious contravention’ which is defined as an offence carrying three years imprisonment. In relation to privacy provisions, Mr McClelland advised
that “in order to ensure full compliance with article 15 of the convention, which deals with the protection of civil liberties, the Bill also introduces a new requirement in the Telecommunications (Interception) Act in respect of the protection of privacy. This will require agencies to specifically consider the privacy of affected parties before authorising the disclosure of telecommunications data”. The Shadow Attorney-General Sen. the Hon George
Brandis indicated that the opposition would support the legislation. He dealt firstly with privacy issues. Senator Brandis noted that “submissions to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties complained that the convention does not contain sufficiently robust privacy and civil liberties protections to offset the increased surveillance and the information sharing powers that it implements”. Senator Brandis noted that “disclosure of real-time data is limited to investigations relating to a criminal offence punishable by at least three years’ imprisonment. In addition, the acts to be amended by this bill contain their own fairly robust privacy safeguards and accountability mechanisms”. Senator Brandis did draw attention to the implementation time for the legislation. Senator Brandis advised that “the Attorney-General’s Department has advised that it is of the view that the legislation can be implemented within the time frame contemplated by its provisions and that, if carriers and carriage service providers are unable to comply, stopgap measures will be acceptable and the Attorney-General’s Department will not insist on strict compliance”. He noted that “the views expressed to the coalition by the carriers and carriage service providers is that this is a simplistic approach which provides cold comfort to them. It also fails to take into account the additional expense to which carriers and carriage service providers will be put to comply with what we are advised is a totally unrealistic time frame”. Senator Brandis concluded that “ultimately, the coalition has been forced into a fairly unacceptable choice: to take the government at its word—always a risk with this government—or to support amendments that might further delay the implementation of important law enforcement legislation. On this occasion, and on balance, we have decided with some hesitation to take at face value the government’s assurances that interim measures will be acceptable and that carriers and carriage service providers will not be put to unnecessary expense in an effort to comply with the legislation”.