When Twitter becomes a lethal weapon

A U.S. District Court’s response to Twitter being used to deliver a strobe effect video to a known epileptic…..

Rule 202 Order_signed 12.19.16_copy by Kurt Eichenwald on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/document/334699195/Rule-202-Order-signed-12-19-16-copy

Culleton's political & legal capers continue

Former grain acquisition agent for AWB Limited and former One Nation senator Rodney Norman "Rod" Culleton had a two days……

Click on image to enlarge

News.com.au, 19 December 2016:

“Rod Culleton is a pain in my backside. I am glad to see the back of him.”

Senator Hanson said she had not asked him to resign previously, and said she would stick by him. But now she’s changed her tune.

“He asked if I wanted him to resign. Previously, with his legal cases, he has asked if I wanted him to resign. I have said that I would stick by him, but this time I said yes because I believe that he did not comply with section 44, section 2 of the Australian Constitution.”

She added that he had been asking for money from the party.

“That is what he is angry about. He is going to court today for bankruptcy. He is trying to get the money for that,” she said…..

He accused Senator Hanson and her chief of staff of trying to force him to resign and wielding control over his office.

“The PHON leader’s rants against me have been accompanied by demands for my resignation and control over diaries, office management and staffing by Senator Hanson and her chief of staff, James Ashby,” he said. “The irrational dictates have caused only distrust and disunity.”

The embattled senator is facing legal battles, including one case before the High Court, which could render him ineligible as a parliamentarian.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 19 December 2016:

The judge ordered a number of brief adjournments and it took more than an hour for the hearing to recommence.

Once back in court Senator Culleton asked how proceedings could continue to which Justice Michael Barker responded "I'm running this court, not you." 

But in a bizarre turn of events police arrived at court to forcibly remove Bruce Bell and Frank Bertola, the two people alleged to be in breach of VROs…..

Earlier, Senator Culleton, who is representing himself in the case, took to the stand to cross examine the police officer who handed him his bankruptcy papers.

He asked the officer how he had responded to the notice to which Sergeant Matthew Scott said: "You put your hands in the air and said 'I'm not f---ing taking that."

Senator Culleton responded, saying: "Given my experience with you guys maybe I thought I was going to get Tasered."  

The former One Nation representative was in court to challenge a three-year-old court judgment ordering him to pay $205,000 in damages to former Wesfarmers director Dick Lester.

"If you're not going to remove them, I will stand down," Senator Culleton said during a brief spell in front of the judge before walking out on proceedings.

"If you're not going to address the issue, I will remove myself, I need my wife here now. I will not be bullied."

A legal hearing involving West Australian senator Rod Culleton descended into chaos on Monday morning with the embattled politician delaying proceedings by refusing to take to the court room.

Less than 24 hours after resigning from Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party, Senator Culleton demanded an adjournment in Federal Court in Perth - claiming two people in attendance were breaching violence restraining orders, taken out by his wife Ioanna.

Earlier, Senator Culleton, who is representing himself in the case, took to the stand to cross examine the police officer who handed him his bankruptcy papers.

He asked the officer how he had responded to the notice to which Sergeant Matthew Scott said: "You put your hands in the air and said 'I'm not f---ing taking that."……

@abcnewsPerth

NOTE:  The matter of  Bell v Culleton [2016] as it now stands in the High Court of Australia can be found at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCATrans/2016/289.html

NSW Aboriginal Land Council claim on old Berrima Gaol refused by High Court

Read the full summary here.

Maybe it's time to view this video now that the gun lobby is continuing to push for import of more fast-action shotguns into Australia

https://youtu.be/1nAfWfF4TjM

Meanwhile in Australia..........

News.com.au, 3 December 2016:

AUSTRALIA’S import ban on the lever-action Adler A110 shotgun can be lifted next year with a national agreement on a new D licence, limiting it to a handful of professional shooters.

In a major victory for the gun-control lobby, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and state premiers are now set to ratify the new rules when COAG meets on Friday.

The deal will act as a de facto ban, with the gun only able to be imported and owned by limited to a tiny number of professional shooters who specialise in pest and feral animal control on a D licence.

That is likely to trigger calls for a taxpayer-funded national buyback of thousands of retrofitted Adler shotguns already in the country that will be rendered illegal if they have a magazine capacity of more than five.

The Martin Place siege was the trigger for a review of the National Firearms Agreement and the current Adler import ban will continue until there is unanimous agreement with all jurisdictions about how to classify lever-action shotguns with a magazine capacity of more than five.

The Sunday Herald Sun can reveal the gamechanger was NSW Premier Mike Baird’s decision to roll his own Police Minister Troy Grant in cabinet on the controversial shotgun on Thursday.

It was revealed last Sunday that NSW Police had urged cabinet to stare down the pro-gun lobby with a tough D classification.

Mr Grant had publicly campaigned for a weaker B classification for the Adler shotgun in the lead-up to the Orange by-election in NSW that was won by the Shooters Party as the Nationals attempted to court shooters.

The NSW cabinet decision is pivotal, because there is ­already broad national consensus that the Adler should be ­reclassified as a D licence firearm and NSW was the final barrier to a resolution.

The Prime Minister confirmed the National Firearms Agreement will be on the COAG agenda on Friday.

Although COAG did agree to restricting the importation of Adler A110 shotgun, this is definitely a retrograde step as there is not a total ban on this weapon.

Changes to the National Firearms Agreement also have to go to state parliaments in 2017 for ratification.

ABC News reported on 10 December 2016:

Under Category D, the Adler will only be available to professional shooters under certain conditions.

However, the premiers and chief ministers will have to pass the changes through their parliaments first.

This may prove difficult for the Queensland Labor minority Government, where Bob Katter's Australian Party is threatening to block the restrictions and the LNP Opposition has not decided how they will vote.

"I'm confident that state national parties will stand by shooters and hunters and evidence-based policy making," Senator McKenzie said.

She has previously crossed the Senate floor over the shotgun.

North Coast Voices readers may recall that the man behind plans to import the Turkish-made gun is Robert Nioa, the son-in-law of Bob Katter. 

The national shame of 2-4 August 2014 should never ever be repeated

"It is profoundly disturbing to witness the appalling treatment of this young woman at the Lock-Up on 4 August 2014. In her final hours she was unable to have the comfort of the presence of her loved ones, and was in the care of a number of police officers who disregarded her welfare and her right to humane and dignified treatment." [Excerpt from Western Australia State Coroner, coronial finding, 16 December 2016]

WA Coronial Inquest into the Death of Ms. Dhu, 16 December 2016 by clarencegirl on Scribd

CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (HIGH RISK TERRORIST OFFENDERS) BILL 2016 expected to pass Parliament

And so the downward spiral continues.........

UNCLASSIFIED

SENATOR THE HON GEORGE BRANDIS QC

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SENATE

MEDIA RELEASE­
30 November 2016

Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016

The Turnbull Government has secured support from all states and territories for the High Risk Terrorist Offenders Bill.

The Australian Government, backed by all states and territories, has accepted all 24 recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS), including that the Bill be passed.

The Bill, including amendments, will return for debate in the Senate today and is expected to pass the Parliament this week.

This Bill further strengthens Australia's national security laws and counter-terrorism framework by enabling continued detention of terrorist offenders who present an unacceptable risk to the community at the end of their custodial sentences.

For this to happen, a Supreme Court would need to be satisfied to a high degree of probability, on the basis of admissible evidence, that the offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence if released into the community.

Implementing the Committee's recommendations will enhance operational safeguards and ensure adequate and effective oversight.

As recommended by the Committee, the Government has developed an Implementation Plan. This includes further detail on, and timeframes for, the key operational elements of the scheme, such as developing risk assessment tools and detention arrangements for offenders. This is being done in close consultation with the states and territories.

Amendments made to the Bill include:

• when sentencing an offender convicted under any of the provisions of the Criminal Code to which the continuing detention scheme applies, the sentencing court must warn the offender that an application for continuing detention could be considered;
• the application for a continuing detention order, or review of a continuing detention order, must include a copy of any material in the possession of the Attorney-General or any statements of facts that the Attorney-General is aware of that would reasonably be regarded as supporting a finding that an order should not be made;
• the continuing detention scheme must be subject to a sunset period of 10 years after the day the Bill receives Royal Assent;
• the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM) must complete a review of the continuing detention scheme five years after the day the Bill receives Royal Assent; and
• the PJCIS must review the continuing detention scheme six years after the day the Bill receives Royal Assent.

The Government thanks the Committee for its valuable bipartisan work.

The Government also thanks the states and territories for their ongoing partnership with the Commonwealth in protecting the community from terrorism.

The PJCIS Report is available on the Report PDF page of the Parliament of Australia website.

The Implementation Plan is available on the Implementation plan page of the Parliament of Australia website.

Recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and the Government's response

No.	Recommendation	Government Response
1	The Committee recommends that, following the consideration of the other recommendations listed in this Report, the Government obtains legal advice from the Solicitor-General, or equivalent, on the final form of the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016.	Accepted
2	The Committee recommends that proposed section 105A.3 in the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to remove from the scope of offences section 80(B) of the Criminal Code, which refers to treason.	Accepted
3	The Committee recommends that proposed section 105A.3 in the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to remove from the scope of offences subsections 119.7(2) and (3) of the Criminal Code, which refer to publishing recruitment advertisements.	Accepted
4	The Committee recommends that the Explanatory Memorandum to the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to clarify the interaction between parole and bail provisions, and make explicit that: a person is not eligible for parole if that person is subject to a continuing detention order, a person detained for the purposes of giving effect to a continuing detention order is not entitled to seek bail, and a person subject to a continuing detention order and charged with a further offence is entitled to make an application for bail for that offence.	Accepted
5	The Committee recommends that the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to provide that an application for a continuing detention order may be commenced up to 12 months (rather than six months) prior to the completion of an offender's sentence, in order to provide all parties additional time to prepare and for the offender to seek legal representation.	Accepted
6	The Committee recommends that, to avoid a potential ambiguity, proposed section 105A.8 of the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to make clear that the rules of evidence apply to the matters the Court is required to have regard to in its decision as to whether the terrorist offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence if released into the community.	Accepted
7	The Committee recommends that the Explanatory Memorandum to the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to provide greater clarity to the definition of ‘relevant expert' in proposed section 105A.2. This should include examples of persons who may potentially fall within the category ‘any other expert' at item (d) of the definition.	Accepted
8	The Committee recommends that proposed sub section 105A.6(7) of the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to replace the word ‘must' with ‘may' so that the expert's report may include the matters listed in paragraphs (a) to (h).	Accepted
9	The Committee recommends that the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 and Explanatory Memorandum be amended to make explicit that each party is able to bring forward their preferred relevant expert, or experts, and that the Court will then determine the admissibility of each expert's evidence.	Accepted
10	The Committee recommends that the Explanatory Memorandum to the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to make explicit that a Court may appoint a relevant expert at any point during continuing detention order proceedings.	Accepted
11	The Committee recommends that the Explanatory Memorandum to the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to make explicit that an offender is to be provided in a timely manner with information to be relied on in an application for a continuing detention order.	Accepted
12	The Committee recommends that the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended so that if an offender, through no fault of his or her own, is unable to obtain legal representation: the Court has the explicit power to stay proceedings for a continuing detention order, and the Court is empowered to make an order for reasonable costs to be funded to enable the offender to obtain legal representation.	Accepted
13	The Committee recommends that the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to require documents related to a continuing detention order to be given to the offender's legal representative. If the offender does not have a legal representative, the documents may be delivered to the chief executive officer of the offender's prison as currently provided for in the Bill.	Accepted
14	The Committee recommends that the Explanatory Memorandum to the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to clarify what is proposed by a ‘rehearing' as set out in proposed section 105A.17, namely what matters may be considered within a rehearing, and the types of circumstances that would constitute ‘special grounds' to allow new evidence to be introduced during a rehearing.	Accepted
15	The Committee recommends that the Government clarify the process for the initiation of a periodic review of a continuing detention order in the Explanatory Memorandum, and, if necessary, in the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016.	Accepted
16	The Committee recommends that, for the avoidance of doubt, the Government should amend Division 104 of the Criminal Code to make explicit that a control order can be applied for and obtained while an individual is in prison, but that the controls imposed by that order would not apply until the person is released. The Committee further recommends that the Government consider whether the existing control order regime could be further improved to most effectively operate alongside the proposed continuing detention order regime. Any potential changes should be developed in time to be considered as part of the reviews of the control order legislation to be completed by the INSLM by 7 September 2017 and the PJCIS by 7 March 2018.	Accepted
17	The Committee recommends that the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to require a Court, when sentencing an offender convicted under any of the provisions of the Criminal Code that apply to the continuing detention order regime, to warn the offender that an application for post-sentence detention could be considered.	Accepted
18	The Committee recommends that the continuing detention order regime be subject to an initial sunset period that expires 10 years after passage of the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016.	Accepted
19	The Committee recommends that the Intelligence Services Act 2001 be amended to require the PJCIS to complete a review of the continuing detention order regime at Division 105A of the Criminal Code six years after passage of the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016.	Accepted
20	The Committee recommends that the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010 be amended to require the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor to complete a review of the continuing detention order regime at Division 105A of the Criminal Code five years after passage of the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016.	Accepted
21	The Committee recommends that the Government appoint a new Independent National Security Legislation Monitor as soon as possible.	Accepted
22	The Committee recommends that the Attorney-General provide the Committee with a clear development and implementation plan that includes timeframes to assist detailed consideration of the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016. This plan should be provided prior to the second reading debate in the Senate.	Accepted
23	The Committee recommends that the Attorney-General provide the Committee a timetable for implementation of any outstanding matters being considered by the Implementation Working Group by 30 June 2017. The Attorney-General's report should include information about: the general categorisation and qualifications of relevant experts, the development and validation of risk assessment tools, conditions of detention, including any agreements reached with States and Territories on housing arrangements, and progress in adapting the existing oversight mechanisms for use in the continuing detention order regime. The report should also include any other matters relevant to implementation of the regime.	Accepted
24	The Committee recommends that, following implementation of the recommendations in this report, the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be passed.	Accepted

This bill was read for the third time in the Senate on 1 December 2016 will now become law sometime in the first quarter of 2017.

Former Queensland LNP politician found guilty of fraud

What started with this……

Hockings v Queensland Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association (Industrial Organization of Employers) [2014] QIRC 37 (19 February 2014):

CITATION:	Hockings v Queensland Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association (Industrial Organization of Employers) [2014] QIRC 037
PARTIES:	Hockings, John Norman (Applicant) v Queensland Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association (Industrial Organization of Employers) (Respondent)
CASE NO:	B/2013/18
PROCEEDING:	Application to re-open proceedings
DELIVERED ON:	19 February 2014
HEARING DATES:	12 and 26 April 2013 30 May 2013
MEMBER:	Deputy President Bloomfield
ORDERS :	1.  Matter No. RIO/2012/155 be re-opened on the Commission's own initiative. 2.  Orders in Matter No. RIO/2012/155, issued on 10 September 2012 and formalised on 5 December 2012, be vacated. 3.  Mr Scott and Mrs Emma Driscoll be referred to the Queensland Police Service for investigation. 4.  Mr  Scott Driscoll  be referred to the Speaker of Queensland Parliament for possibly misleading Parliament.

Ended with this…….

Brisbane Times, 25 November 2016:

Former Queensland politician Scott Driscoll has admitted to soliciting thousands of dollars in secret commissions and falsifying records during his term as the Member for Redcliffe.

Driscoll was expected to stand trial in the Brisbane District Court next week but on Friday pleaded guilty to 15 charges, including fraud.

The 41-year-old was released on bail and is due to be sentenced next year on March 6.

The former Liberal National Party MP won office in the Newman government's landslide in the March 2012 election victory.

Driscoll resigned in disgrace from State Parliament in November 2013for misleading the House about his financial interests and his role in the Queensland Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association.

A year later, Driscoll was charged by the Crime and Corruption Commission for soliciting secret commissions worth at least $400,000 on behalf of the QRTSA from Wesfarmers and Woolworths in October 2012 while he was in office……

Driscoll did not speak to the media as he left the court with his wife Emma, who was sentenced in September to three years jail, wholly suspended, for multiple counts of falsifying a record and making a false declaration.

The government's attack on Australian Human Rights Commission president continues unabated

On 28 May 2013 a small group of students sought to use facilities at the dedicated Oodgeroo Unit within the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) and were asked to leave.   

The subsequent comments of one or more QUT students on Facebook resulted in a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission by a university administrative employee under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

Conciliation between the parties under the auspices of the Commission failed by August 2015 and, the employee then made application to the Federal Circuit Court Of Australia in Prior V Queensland University Of Technology & Ors to seek what she obviously thought was justifiable legal remedy.

The judgment dismissed that part of the application brought against three students under s18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. However the remainder of the matter involving a fourth student and the university and its named employees is next before the court on 21 November 2016 in what appears to be a directions hearing.

The Turnbull Government leaped on this summary judgment to continue its public attack on Human Rights Commission President Gillian Triggs – which had commenced in earnest in February last year - culminating this month in Malcolm Bligh Turnbull raising the possibility of sections of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975  being reviewed and possibly amended and suggesting that the Commission had damaged its credibility.

A swift response came from the Australian Human Rights Commission in the form of a media release on Monday 7 November 2016:

There has been considerable public interest in the Commission’s complaint handling processes under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986.  There has been particular interest In the Commission’s handling of complaints under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. 

In relation to the recent QUT case, it is a matter of public record that the Commission terminated this matter in August 2015. The Commission has had no role in the subsequent law suit in the Federal Circuit Court.

At no stage does the Commission initiate or prosecute a complaint. If the Commission receives a complaint in writing alleging a discriminatory act, the Act provides that the Commission must investigate the facts and attempt to conciliate the matter.

The Commission’s focus is on resolving disputes so parties can avoid court proceedings. Of complaints where conciliation was attempted, 76% were successfully resolved in 2015-16.

Only 3% of complaints finalised by the Commission were lodged in court. For example, of the over 80 complaints finalised under the racial hatred provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act last year, only one proceeded to court at the initiation of the complainant.

In the 2015-16 reporting year the average time it took the Commission to finalise a complaint was 3.8 months. In that same reporting year, 94% of surveyed parties were satisfied with the Commission’s service.

The Commission has no judicial powers, and it makes no legally binding determinations as to whether unlawful acts have occurred. The Commission has no statutory power to prevent a complainant proceeding to court once the Commission terminates the complaint. 

The Commission has provided advice to successive governments and Attorneys-General on amendments to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act.  In particular, the Commission has asked for amendments to streamline the process by raising the threshold for accepting complaints.

Refutation of the Turnbull Government's position is also found elsewhere.

Excerpts from Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Official Blog, 7 November 2016:

This is all the Australian Human Rights Commission and/or Professor Gillian Triggs’ fault

No it isn’t. The AHRC is not a party in the Prior litigation. Professor Triggs is not acting for Ms Prior (Ms Prior has engaged her own solicitors and counsel). And the student respondents were not in the case because the AHRC put them in there; they were in there because the applicant, Ms Prior, sued them when proceedings were commenced in the Federal Circuit Court in October 2015.

Applicants bring proceedings for discrimination (including under section 18C), not the AHRC. There is one applicant in the proceedings and it is Ms Prior.

If the claims were lacking in substance, the AHRC should have thrown them out – they should never have got to the Court

In order to bring a claim for unlawful discrimination under Federal legislation, the AHRC is the first step in the process. A complaint is made to the AHRC, and the AHRC will then try to resolve the complaint by assisting the parties to reach an agreement for resolution. If the complaint can’t be resolved, the AHRC “terminates” the complaint, and the complainant can then take the terminated complaint off to the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit Court to start a court case.

The AHRC cannot decide discrimination claims, because the AHRC is not a court – it doesn’t have any judges and it doesn’t have the power to impose a resolution on the parties to the complaint. The AHRC cannot decide that a complaint is hopeless and should go no further. The AHRC cannot decide that a complaint will invariably succeed and award damages to the complainant. The function of the AHRC is to investigate (and, if possible, to conciliate), not to decide. The deciding needs to happen in a place where Federal judicial power can be exercised, namely, in the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit Court.

It is true that there are many different grounds on which the AHRC (acting through a delegate of the President of the AHRC) can “terminate” a complaint (which is the necessary precondition for the matter to go to a Federal court). Those grounds include that the delegate “is satisfied that the alleged unlawful discrimination is not unlawful discrimination” or “is satisfied that the complaint was trivial, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance”.

According to press reports, Ms Prior’s complaint was terminated on the more commonly used ground that the delegate was “satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the matter being settled by conciliation”.

Shouldn’t the AHRC should have taken the harder line? For two reasons, no.

The first is that it wouldn’t have made a blind bit of difference. Ms Prior’s right to commence court proceedings would have been exactly the same regardless of the ground on which the complaint was terminated by the delegate. Ms Prior decided, presumably with the benefit of legal advice from the experienced firm of employment lawyers who are acting for her, to commence proceedings against all of the respondents. That was a choice which the AHRC could not have denied her, regardless of what view was expressed by the President or her delegate as to the merits of the claim at the time the complaint was terminated.

The second is that Ms Prior’s complaint is still continuing against four of the respondents (including QUT, who are also represented by highly experienced employment lawyers). Those respondents did not seek to have the claims against them struck out summarily, which suggests that Ms Prior’s claim as a whole could not be properly have been described, at the time the complaint was terminated, as hopeless.

The case proves that section 18C is terrible and must be abolished

Good luck trying to make that one work, given the basis on which the respondents succeeded in convincing the court to dismiss the claims against them. The two respondents who succeeded on the basis of the Court’s analysis of section 18C succeeded on the basis that (a) their Facebook posts were not made “because of” Ms Prior’s (or anyone else’s) race and (b) the posts were not reasonably likely to give rise to offence, insult, humiliation or intimidation.

In making those findings, the Federal Circuit Court expressly referred to the jurisprudence of section 18C to the effect that the section does not extend to “mere slights” but requires “profound and serious effects”. (This is jurisprudence which needs to be mostly ignored in order to advance the case that the words “offend” and “insult” somehow create an overly broad restriction on free speech).

The final respondent succeeded on the basis that there was no evidence that he had made the Facebook post alleged to constitute the breach of section 18C, which has nothing to do with the section, and everything to do with orthodox principles of establishing a “no case to answer submission”. In any litigation, successful defendants will feel aggrieved at having been put to the time and expense of defending claims which failed. However, the fact that a claim fails does not mean that the law used to bring the claim should be demolished.

No-one sensibly suggests dismantling the law of defamation every time a defamation plaintiff loses, or suggests tearing up the law of torts every time a personal injury plaintiff is unsuccessful. For the same reason, it is hard to see any sensible legal basis to suggest that the decision of the Federal Circuit Court last Friday should affect anyone other than the parties to the claim. If only the ability to distinguish “sensible legal basis” from “nonsense” was a precondition to publishing on the topic of section 18C . . .

Senate finds Attorney-General Brandis sought to undermine rule of law in Australia

Australian Senate, Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, Inquiry into the  Nature and scope of the consultations prior to the making of the Legal Services Amendment (Solicitor-General Opinions) Direction 2016, 8 November 2016 – majority view:

4.9 It is the committee's view that the Attorney-General has sought to undermine the rule of law in Australia by failing to adequately consult the Solicitor-General and constraining the independence of the Solicitor-General….

4.27 The committee makes the following recommendations:

Recommendation 1 

4.28 That the Senate disallow the amendment to the Direction or the Attorney-General withdraw it immediately, and that the Guidance Note be revised accordingly.

Recommendation 2 

4.29 That the Attorney-General provide, within three sitting days, an explanation to the Senate responding to the matters raised in this report.

Recommendation 3 

4.30 That the Senate censure the Attorney-General for misleading the parliament and failing to discharge his duties as Attorney-General appropriately.

Full report here.

Australian Electoral Commission asks 18,343 voters to please explain.....

The Sydney Morning Herald, 19 October 2016:

More than 18,000 people have been asked to explain why they apparently voted more than once at the federal election.

Despite heavy fines and the risk of jail time for multiple voting, two people were marked off the electoral roll 11 times on July 2. 

A further two people had their names marked off five times, while four others had four marks and 51 people had three marks.

Australian Electoral Commissioner Tom Rogers told a Senate estimates hearing on Tuesday night 18,343 people have been asked to explain why their name was checked off more than once, with many expected to be in error.

The Commonwealth Electoral Act allows for fines of $10,800 or up to a year in jail for people convicted of multiple votes. Anyone found to have impersonated someone else at the ballot box faces up to six months in jail or a fine of $1800.

Before this year's election the AEC wrote to more than 4600 people with a prior history of apparent multiple voting to remind them of the law.

Mr Rogers said individuals who had two or more marks next to their name at the past two elections were sent warning letters.

"We wrote to a select group of people we thought may be at risk of not understanding their obligations under the Electoral Act," he said.

"We've never done that before.

"That was an attempt to demonstrate the seriousness with which we treat this particular issue." 

AEC officials will assess how many recipients of the letters are among those recorded as having their name marked off more than once. 

Senators falling like skittles in Canberra

On 1 November 2016  it was the announcement that it was the intention of the Turnbull Government and  Australian Parliament to challenge the validity of the election of Family First Senator for South Australia Bob Day in the High Court on the basis of a potential non-direct pecuniary interest through Fullarton Investments Pty Ltd.

One day later and a similar announcement is made concerning One Nation Senator for West Australia Rod Cullerton in relation to a criminal conviction for larceny prior to the 2016 federal election.

UNCLASSIFIED

SENATOR THE HON GEORGE BRANDIS QC

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SENATE

MEDIA RELEASE­

Senator Rod Culleton

Last Saturday, I wrote to the President of the Senate, the Hon Stephen Parry, to draw to his attention an Opinion which I had received from the Solicitor-General concerning the election of Senator Rod Culleton as a Senator for Western Australia.  I received the Opinion late on Friday, 28 October 2016.  I also provided a copy of the Opinion to Senator Culleton.

The opinion was sought by me on 13 October 2016 in view of issues raised in proceedings commenced in the High Court against Senator Culleton by Mr Bruce Bell. 

It appears that the proceedings brought by Mr Bell are based on an allegation that, at the time of the last election, Senator Culleton had been convicted of an offence punishable by a sentence of imprisonment for one year or longer, and was therefore “incapable of being chosen” as a Senator under section 44(ii) of the Constitution.

The President of the Senate has written to me today to advise that he proposes to bring the matter to the attention of the Senate when it sits on 7 November 2016.  At that time, the Government will initiate a referral of the matter to the High Court pursuant to section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

2 November 2016