Paul Wilkins wrote:
If Dutton is in fact ineligible to sit, then so too is his motion to
introduce the Bill to Parliament. Or such is the stuff of dreams?
You are correct, if he is ineligible .. and *if he was at the time of
the introduction* then it should be challenged as not validly
introduced.. this will not be automatic though.
Michelle
Kind regards
Paul Wilkins
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 09:39, Paul Wilkins <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Seems Dutton is about to get a lesson in constitutional law:
S44 (iv) holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any
pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the
revenues of the Commonwealth; or
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a
member of the House of Representatives.
Kind regards
Paul Wilkins
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 10:34, Paul Wilkins
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
After the Department Home Affairs sitting on this Bill for
over a year and conducting industry consultation they claim is
confidential (ie: they have no one who'll go on record
supporting the Bill) suddenly it's a priority, and the
Minister for Home Affairs writes a wheedling letter to PJCIS
to pass the Bill before Christmas.
The lack of public and industry consultation, the vague and
poor drafting, and then a sudden push to pass the Bill in a
couple of weeks, rather suggest a deliberate strategy to pass
a Bill that's out of all proportion to the need to combat
terrorism and serious crime in the context of rising use of
encryption.
Rising use of encryption is hardly news to anyone. After all,
a rising tide lifts all boats.
https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=a46f0ed4-fc0d-4e95-bbd3-ef8fafe419ab&subId=663130
Kind regards
Paul Wilkins
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 at 13:56, Paul Wilkins
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
/"In practice, if they balls-up the change request given
to the device manufacturer or app/website developer,
anything could happen."/
Then you recall the obligation under the
Telecommunications Act 1997 for carriers to "do their best
to protect networks and facilities". No such obligation
attaches to the Crown under the powers of the Assistance
and Access Bill 2018.
So, even if in the cases of misfeasance, non feasance, or
malfeasance on the part of the Crown or its agents in the
implementation of TCNs/TANs/TARs, and their impact on
carriers businesses, liability rests, not with the Crown
as you might ingenuously assume, but with the carrier who
unwittingly acted as directed.
Kind regards
Paul Wilkins
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 at 06:38, Scott Weeks
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
-----------------------
...the drafting certainly seems loose enough for a future
government to establishthe machinery of a police state.
-----------------------
I'm seeing this in *NOG lists and elsewhere all over the
world. It's going to be an interesting next buncha years!
scott
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
--
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
