https://www.zdnet.com/article/labor-roasted-over-inconsistent-stand-on-australias-encryption-laws/
> Senate debate has highlighted Labor's confused approach to Australia's > controversial encryption laws. The politics is grubby and the brain worms > are numerous. > The Labor Party has attempted to distance itself from its role in the mess > surrounding the passing of Australia's encryption laws in December 2018. > > It has failed. > > A Senate debate on Monday showed that while Labor may talk the talk when it > comes to balancing the needs of cops and spooks against our privacy and > freedoms, it's still likely to cave in when faced with any pressure. > > Monday's debate was over the Telecommunications Amendment (Repairing > Assistance and Access) Bill 2019, which was introduced by Labor's > spokesperson for home affairs, Senator Kristina Kenneally. > > It's intended to fix some of the problems with the controversial > Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) > Act 2018. > > In its draft form, these encryption laws were often called the AA Bill, but > it's now usually referred to as the TOLA Act. > > Labor's Bill envisions inserting judges into the approval process and > attempts to clarify what law enforcement and intelligence agencies could and > could not demand from communications providers, among other things. > > First, though, a recap of the mess of December 2018. > > Labor had drafted appropriate amendments, like those in Kenneally's new Bill, > and spent hours of Senate debate railing against the laws as written. But > they voted for them anyway. > > This was done "in the interest of national security", Kenneally reminded us > on Monday. > > In reality, a last-minute political deal was done. > > Labor agreed to pass the encryption laws with an understanding from the > government that Labor's amendments to the encryption laws would then be > debated in early 2019. > > To use a phrase popular in another country recently, it was a quid pro quo. > > However, Labor's subsequent attempt to amend the encryption laws was stranded > before the election in May 2019. > > Government 1, Labor 0. > > So back to 2020 and Monday's debate. > > "Labor upheld our side of the deal," Kenneally said in a lengthy complaint. > > "This has left Australia with flawed legislation that must be resolved by > this parliament." > > But as Liberal Senator Eric Abetz quite rightly pointed out, Labor did > actually vote for the legislation. > > "Yet here comes Senator Keneally, condemning the whole process as somehow > some great infringement of human rights, et cetera," he said. > > "Today we have a tawdry attempt by Senator Keneally to amend the legislation > when there are two separate inquiries underway to consider the functioning of > this legislation." > > Indeed, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM) is due > to report by June 30. That analysis will feed into the ongoing review by the > Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS), which is > due to report by September 30. > > Abetz noted that Kenneally is a member of that committee and was involved in > approving the timelines for these inquiries. This included the extension of > the PJCIS inquiry deadline to September 30 "to consider it more and in > further detail". > > "Now she's in here with this tawdry attempt to circumvent the committee > inquiry," Abetz said. > > "There is, to use polite language, a considerable degree of inconsistency in > the approach shown by the honourable senator in this matter." > > Grubby, grubby politics from both sides of the floor. > > Greens Senator Nick McKim was equally scathing. > > "The government should not have proceeded with the legislation as it did, > knowing full well the recommendations of the [PJCIS], but neither should > Labor have rolled over and allowed the government to tickle their collective > tummy on this issue," McKim said. > > "Labor talked tough on the legislation that this bill seeks to amend... But > then, as we have seen before, when push came to shove, Labor capitulated and > voted the bill through." > > For your writer though, some of the most telling comments came from Labor > Senator Jenny McAllister. > > McAllister noted correctly that in late 2018, the government had "forcefully > prosecuted" the need for urgency "in the media, not in the committee". > > "National security agencies subsequently gave public evidence to the > committee that they needed the powers contained in the 2018 Bill in order to > respond to the heightened risk of terror over the Christmas period," she said. > > "In response to that evidence, the committee did the only thing that I think > was available to it at that time: it finished its inquiry early." > > Labor voted for the legislation, McAllister said, "because of the advice from > our national security agencies that these powers were needed". > > "We take seriously the task of making sure legislation is appropriate, and > that is why we're going through this process today." > > But if Labor does take that task seriously, why then vote to give agencies > these new powers without the clarity and oversight you already said was > essential? > > There may well have been a heightened security threat over Christmas 2018. > But in a true modern liberal democracy you don't give the cops and spooks new > powers just because they asked for them. > > Well done, Labor. > > To be clear, the TOLA Act is deeply flawed and Labor's Bill does address at > least some of the more serious concerns. Good. > > These proposed changes are based on PJCIS recommendations dating back more > than a year. There's no need to delay them further. > > But when it comes to the debate over Australia's encryption laws, or any > other security laws, the brain worm infections seem particularly strong. -- Kim Holburn IT Network & Security Consultant T: +61 2 61402408 M: +61 404072753 mailto:[email protected] aim://kimholburn skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
