Did no-one suggest that this was so important they might recall Parliament in two weeks giving everyone a chance to read and comment before reasoned debate?
On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 10:11 AM Kate Lance <[email protected]> wrote: > > “We offer to let the bill go forward, without the amendments which are > needed...provided the government agrees on the very first sitting day, to > pass the amendments we say are needed,” Shorten said. > > Does anyone seriously believe Morrison and his thugs will do this? They'll > just sit back and laugh at Labor's gullibility and claim some pathetic > reason they can't possibly do it. Unbelievable. > > Regards, Kate > > > On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 09:20:13AM +1100, Roger Clarke wrote: > > This morning's news says: > > > Australia’s law enforcement agencies have a wide range of new > > encryption-busting powers after Labor dropped all opposition to a highly > > contentious bill and let it pass without extra changes it claimed all day > > were needed. ... > > > > [Just when you think Australian politics can't lower its standards any > > further, Labor manages to behave in the most cowardly way imaginable. > > > > [Questions also need to be asked about the constitutionality of the > process > > that Shorten's 'low-target' strategy enabled: > > > Labor's shift caught even the senate off-guard, and led to farcical > > scenes as senators learned that the amendments they were debating had > been > > pulled. > > > > [The Senate then failed to exercise its responsibilities as a house of > > review, and delay consideration of the Bill until the next sittings. > > > > [Whether or not the amendments that Labor pretends that it's negotiated > are > > ever passed, the statute is a nonsense, but a seriously trust-destroying > > one. > > > > [We've reached the point at which a considerable number of laws on the > books > > have to be simply ignored by business, and by the public generally. > > > > [If that offends your sensibilities, take into account the fact that > > Governments and government agencies routinely ignore the law. > > > > [A great many laws are not enforced. Some are recognised by the public > > service as being outdated or just plain idiotic, and not acted on. Some > > (such as requirements for reporting and audit) are not noticed, or are > > performed years late. Some agencies and functions that are required by > > statute are not funded by the Government of the day (the farce with the > OAIC > > being a case in point). Appointments to statutory offices are commonly > > delayed for long periods. The AFP ignores cases it doesn't want to > pursue, > > including ones which would be inconvenient to the Government of the day. > > The DPP does the same, citing of course lack of resources. And the last > few > > months have seen serial admissions by ASIC and APRA of abject failure to > > fulfil their statutory responsibilities - with no retribution beyond a > day's > > 'shaming' in the media, and later a Royal Commission Report which will > fail > > to recommend sackings and prosecutions, effectively absolving all of the > > criminal behaviour that has gone on in the financial services sector. > > Regulatory processes can be applied to people, but applying them to > > organisations is regarded as being just too hard. > > > > [I started my working life a bit over 50 years ago with positive > impressions > > of the way that the (Australian) world functioned. As I gathered > > experience, across many different fields, I worked at fixing problems > that I > > ran into, and developing and improving systems that supported data > > management and decision-making. But the optimism has been ground out of > me > > by the absence of commitment and professionalism in government and > business, > > and the way in which people with limited competence and no principles > > (beyond unshakeable belief in self-promotion) shuffle their way to the > top > > of the pile and infect the organisations that they 'lead'.] > > > > > > Australia gets world-first encryption busting laws > > Labor passes bill without changes it claimed were needed. > > Ry Crozier > > itNews > > Dec 6 2018 > > > https://www.itnews.com.au/news/australia-gets-world-first-encryption-busting-laws-516601 > > > > Australia’s law enforcement agencies have a wide range of new > > encryption-busting powers after Labor dropped all opposition to a highly > > contentious bill and let it pass without extra changes it claimed all day > > were needed. > > > > The bill passed into law by 44 votes to 12 in the senate, having already > > cleared the lower house where just two MPs voted against it. > > > > The law gives law enforcement the power to ask technology companies to > > create - and then seed - a vulnerability on "one or more target > technologies > > that are connected with a particular person". > > > > Passage of the bill was achieved after it looked destined to fail. > > > > It was only a last-minute offer - made through a press conference by > > Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus > on > > Thursday night - that cleared its path. > > > > Shorten said that Labor wanted to pass the encryption bill into law > tonight > > “so we at least give our intelligence agencies some of the tools they > need”. > > > > “We offer to let the bill go forward, without the amendments which are > > needed...provided the government agrees on the very first sitting day, to > > pass the amendments we say are needed,” Shorten said. > > > > “What we say to the government right now is if you agree to do the > > amendments that you’ve already agreed to do to the encryption laws in the > > first week of next year, we will pass the encryption laws - > unsatisfactory > > as they are - right now. > > > > “I’m not willing to go home and see a terror event happen - which we’re > told > > is less likely than more likely - but I’m not going to have on my > conscience > > [Prime Minister Scott] Morrison’s hostage-taking tactics where he cancels > > his own work, goes home and lets Australians swing in the breeze.” > > > > Shorten indicated Labor had reached agreement with the Coalition on the > five > > sets of extra amendments the party sought to introduce to the senate > > tonight. > > > > As a result, he was seeking a commitment that agreement would carry in > good > > faith if Labor waived the encryption bill through the senate. > > > > The leader of the government in the senate, Matthias Cormann, said the > > government would accept the offer. > > > > "I confirm that the government has agreed to facilitate consideration of > > these amendments in the new year in government business time," he said. > > > > "I also confirm that the government supports in principle all amendments > > that are consistent with the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint > > Committee on Intelligence & Security (PJCIS) in relation to this bill." > > > > However, Attorney-General Christian Porter later said the consideration > of > > the amendments was conditional. > > > > "To ensure the passage of the bill through the Senate tonight, the > > government has agreed to consider Labor’s proposed amendments in the new > > year if any genuinely reflect the recommendations of the parliamentary > joint > > committee on intelligence and security," Porter was quoted by several > media > > outlets as saying. > > > > Senate caught off-guard > > > > Labor's shift caught even the senate off-guard, and led to farcical > scenes > > as senators learned that the amendments they were debating had been > pulled. > > > > It was also a sizable backdown on Labor’s position throughout Thursday. > The > > party repeatedly stated its support for the encryption bill was > predicated > > on the approval of extra amendments to be raised in the senate. > > > > With the lower house adjourning for the year, that meant the encryption > bill > > was as good as dead, since any amendments introduced in the senate would > > need to go back to the lower house for final approval. > > > > The first available option for that to occur was February 12 next year. > > > > But Labor shocked observers by saying the bill’s powers could not wait, > and > > that it would pass the bill even though it considered the text > “inadequate”. > > > > Earlier, Labor had said that the encryption bill as it stood did not even > > reflect the findings of a rushed report by the PJCIS tabled at nearly 8pm > > Wednesday night. > > > > The government started the day by providing Labor with a 50-page > document of > > 173 amendments in response to the PJCIS interim report at 6.30am. > > > > The same set of amendments was published at 9.22am, giving MPs other than > > from the major parties no time to even consider their substance before > being > > asked to vote on them. > > > > Even Labor complained that the few extra hours it had to go through them > had > > not been enough. > > > > But it did not stop Labor passing the bill in the lower house and > sending it > > to the senate. > > > > Deal scrapped > > > > By lunchtime, the encryption bill appeared destined to fail as Labor > accused > > the Coalition of reneging on a written commitment between > Attorney-General > > Christian Porter and shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus. > > > > The commitment was that “the government commits to introduce the new > agreed > > amendments in the senate, subject to the passage of the bill through the > > House of Representatives without amendment”. > > > > Manager of opposition business Tony Burke and Mark Dreyfus said the > > government had reneged on that deal by introducing changes into the > House of > > Representatives, and asking Labor to vote them through without having > time > > to review them. > > > > Burke said that in the short time Labor had had to review the amendments, > > they fell short of Labor’s demands and the recommendations of the PJCIS > > report. > > > > Therefore, he said, “we will pursue further amendments in the senate > which > > will then come back to this house for this bill to be finalised.” > > > > Porter countered that PJCIS’ late report - tabled a few minutes before > the > > 8pm close of parliament last night - forced the government to alter its > > approach to the bill. > > > > “It is the case that I indicated in a letter that we were intending to > move > > the amendments in the Senate,” Porter said. > > > > “That was based on an agreement between the shadow Attorney-General and I > > that the PJCIS would report [Wednesday] in a way that would allow us to > move > > the bill through the House of Representatives yesterday. > > > > “So the undertaking to move the amendments in the Senate was based on the > > agreement that this bill would already be in the senate [by Thursday > > morning].” > > > > Porter also accused Labor of breaking the deal by having too many MPs > speak > > during the debate, rather than simply pass the legislation up to the > senate. > > > > “We agreed, if I recall correctly, that there would be a very small > limited > > number of speakers so we would be able to facilitate this bill through > the > > house yesterday, and that didn’t happen and that agreement was breached,” > > Porter charged. > > > > “The idea that we’re somehow in breach of an agreement is totally false.” > > > > Political pawn > > > > For a farcical period on Thursday, the encryption bill also morphed into > a > > piece of political leverage. > > > > Labor and other parties had sought to pass a bill in the senate to allow > > medical evacuation of refugees on Nauru. Had that bill passed, it would > have > > been sent to the lower house where the government appeared to lack the > > numbers to defeat it. > > > > In response, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said he would consider closing > > the lower house early. > > > > Knowing the government was also desperate to pass the encryption bill, > Labor > > tried to use that as leverage to keep the lower house open - long enough > to > > also see the refugee bill through. > > > > The refugee bill was scuttled by filibustering in the senate, and the > lower > > house closed for the Christmas break. > > > > However, the lower house’s adjournment meant it also could not consider > any > > changes to the encryption bill that were introduced by the senate. > > > > That raised the distinct possibility that the bill would be delayed until > > February. However, Labor ended that possibility by backing down > completely. > > > > -- > > Roger Clarke mailto:[email protected] > > T: +61 2 6288 6916 http://www.xamax.com.au http://www.rogerclarke.com > > > > Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA > > Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Law University of N.S.W. > > Visiting Professor in Computer Science Australian National University > > _______________________________________________ > > Link mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link > _______________________________________________ > Link mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link > _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
