Just look at what’s happening now - in the last few days - Morrison and Joyce claimed they’re going to bring a bill to outlaw anonymous posting on social media sites - for the sole reason that some people were talking about a rumour that the just departed NSW deputy Premier was allegedly having an affair with Joyce’s daughter… That’s just an insane basis for legislation!
However, I would like to point out the legislation to force people to provide ID to use social media and dating sites has been in the works for some time.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Hou...
Also note ALP's remarks on the bill, which call for sooner action and do not disagree with the report's findings.
Again, I'm not here to discuss partisan politics. I am only saying these laws seem to enjoy wide support.
They also are the the Ministers that promulgate regulations under those bills and direct their Departments to implement them.
The LNP owns this.
I've explained how the LNP is responsible for it - it was their bill, written by them and passed through a process they control.
Make no mistake, they had the numbers to pass it regardless of what the Opposition did on the floor. The Opposition's vote either way was merely symbolic - and frankly I find it hard to fault them for making the cynical political calculation that their future political chances could only be hindered by a pointless vote against it.
I don't buy this "they're secretly anti-surveillance!" line. They are complicit.
It's also puzzling how you imply that amending these bills would fix them. As if one more check and balance would make them not a horrific disaster. In fact, Labor's "amendments" to "fix" the AA bill was adding mandatory judge approval for mass surveillance -- sounds fixed to me!
Labor are pro surveillance and have been for a very long time. They have voted for every single surveillance bill. Their MPs ignore feedback about surveillance from constituents.
Implying they should trash fundamental principles by voting for this stuff just to cling to power is pretty weak. They won't change anything, they support it.
The metadata retention bill that Labor vehemently supported has already been viciously abused. Originally touted as being a bill designed to combat terrorism and child abuse, it's now used to investigate things like littering(!!!). Federal police have been caught using it to stalk girlfriends repeatedly. Labor support this.
I don't imply that "amending the bills would fix them". I am pointing out that the Government rejected all other input on these bills, so they cannot be meaningfully described as "bipartisan".
Implying they should trash fundamental principles by voting for this stuff just to cling to power is pretty weak.
I imply nothing of the sort.
"Cling to power"? What power?
I am stating that voting against a Government bill that has the numbers to pass anyway is a quixotic action, and in this case probably both a strategically poor option.
You know what's a fundamental principle? The principle that you get the laws that the Government you vote in wants to make. The Opposition can't save you from the Government you voted for.
By definition they represent the minority (or else they would be the government) so almost any action they take will be "quixotic".
To me the fundamental job of the opposition is to point out the failures of the government and paint alternative paths forward. The opposition can move the public sentiment and there are enough poll watchers in the government to respond to pressures.
As far as most people would be able to tell, the Federal Police would have just raided you on an anonymous tip, seized your computers and found material you never knew was there…
It’s still heinous misconduct, but they’ve legalised 80% of the process and the level of secrecy around these agencies is so ridiculously high and the accountability so low, so it’s a lot less of a stretch now than it was just months ago - if they really feel you deserve it…
You would need to both know it happened, and be able to prove it happened, and the usual targets for something like this (journalists) can usually only suspect the former at most.
It's one of the most dystopian laws I've ever seen.
However, entrapment as a legal defense is less an overall a defense and rather a reason to exclude a particular piece of evidence from the case. There will also likely be no punishment for those who attempted the entrapment, even if the evidence ends up being excluded.
Australia does have other mechanisms by which something similar may sometimes be used, such as conflict of interest (such as in the Lawyer X trials) are more appropriate defenses, where the US may simply use entrapment.
They are waving through these laws so that they cannot be portrayed as "weak on security/law-and-order" by a predominantly hostile (read: News Corp) press.
It is extremely disappointing to see Labor raise all sorts of concerns about similar legislation and then wave it through anyway when the Libs refuse to make any amendments.
If you'd like an explainer on how security laws such as TOLA are enacted, this channel is a great resource:
Democracy dying with a whimper. Complacent is an understatement.
I'd also go as far as to say this is what Australians want. Many people believe these laws won't be used against regular citizens and will assist in law enforcement efforts.