[LINK] Labor caves in, Fascist Dutton wins the day

Fri Dec 7 10:27:08 AEDT 2018

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 <kate at lancewood.net> 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 service as being outdated or just plain idiotic, and not acted on.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:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au
> > 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
> > Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> > http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>