I disagree because 1)
Bill Shorten goaded the PM to stay late at parliament and pass the bill “to protect Australians” with no amendments on a vague promise.
2) those with courage resign and sit on the cross bench (as we have seen recently).
Actually they voted on the promise from the Libs that the amendments they proposed would be revisited in 2019, just to make Australia safe over Christmas. Which is somehow even more boneheaded than unanimously agreeing.
> "Do I go home and say well I hope nothing happens and I hope that the Government's politics don't backfire on the safety of Australians? I'm not prepared to do it," Mr Shorten said.
And yet, that is precisely what has happened here.
I had considered that, which points to some serious issues with what dirt on they have on politicians to give them that leverage. I wish I could ignore traffic laws as it would make the morning commute shorter, but the laws on due process are there for a reason.
As for Labor, Bill Shorten may as well be a Liberal, though I would have thought Pilbesek would have been more vocal in questioning whether it was necessary. I suspect the Royal Commission into Union funding plays heavily on the level of Labor opposition.
The Greens at least opposed it, but this legislation is a bigger threat to them along with their supporters. It will be interesting if they start branding activists as terrorists and whether it has a chilling effect on groups with serious numbers like GetUp who are a major thorn in the government's side.
They portray this as being in response to the latest terrorism news, but I suspect its drafting began at least 12 months ago.
1. There is a conservative government in power, and the Murdoch press for the time being wants them to stay in power so they shape the message and direct attention elsewhere. A labor government would be less successful introducing similar laws
2. Australians overall are less frightened of their government. Any Indigenous Australians on hn can attest that does not mean everybody is safe from state violence.
Police still kill people, power is still abused, but comparing my life in the US and in Australia, most people experience the government as being more benign, and helpful than people in general experience in the US. It's not black and white, its just a few nudges along on a spectrum of grey. So most people are viewing the these laws as clumsy collective effort that they do not imagine will be abused.
There are many things that can be said about the problems with this view, but the acceptance of these laws does come from a reactionary hard line position, but rather that people find it hard to imagine that they will be abused
Labor had a series of sensible amendments that would have diminished the opportunity for any government to abuse this silly legislation. I think trying to equate both parties is disingenuous and wilfully ignores a mountain of context.
Scomo is a political dead man walking and the news that day was mostly about his failure to get legislation through parliament. Another failure would have highlighted this more, potentially even bought down the government.
Shorten/Labor let it through because they support it and won't look at it next year. We judge them on their actions not their vague promises.
Have you got a source for this? I read (can’t remebemer where, sorry) that most Greens senators voted against it. From memory, Di Natali and SHY were in the list.
The legislation was waved-through by Labor because there is an election coming up and they were afraid to be labelled as pro terrorists and child molesters.
Labor quite clearly did not do what they could under the circumstances. If the Opposition is incapable of actually opposing something they had serious reservations about they aren’t really trying.
The really concerning part is that legislation of this nature often receives bipartisan support in the Australian parliament. I don't recall if it was this bill or a different one, but the opposition released a strongly worded statement saying "we have concerns with this legislation", then voted for it ASAP. A thinner fig leaf of an excuse I have yet to see in politics.
They just put their own political skins ahead of good government and passed a law that they knew was flawed. There's been no mention of the touted amendments to fix it, as there is a federal election looming and if either side of politics proposes an amendment, the other will take the opportunity to manufacture a scare campaign and score political points.
> If the ALP had blocked the bill it would be political suicide for them.
They opposed the bill over the weekend and then backflipped because if there's an attack over Christmas they'll look like fools. I don't think that risk was worth selling out 25 million people, but maybe that's just me. They get attacked constantly in the media anyway, it's not going to make much difference.
I don't buy it sorry. They failed to protect Australias best interests. This was their opportunity to stop it, not next year. It's not like they haven't had time to examine it, they know exactly what is in the bill. If it is no good then don't let it go on until it is. It's just them trying to save face. By all means the bill is in and the damage shall begin immediately.
Executive powers in Aus aren't that strong - they'd have to pass a law to give themselves that specific power. I don't think there's one to permit this now, though I'm no expert and there are many obscure laws.
That's the good(ish) news - the bad is that restraints on the passing of bad law are generally pretty weak in the absence of a hostile Senate. This is particularly true with the current feeble opposition, and even more so given the general atmosphere of cowering obeisance that the major parties have allowed (or encouraged) to develop around any legislation involving the word 'security'.
They voted for it to cover Bill's ass on the last day of parliament and 2 weeks of Dutton and ScoMo getting dumb people scared about Xmas.
The amendments to this stupid act do gut a lot of the stupidities (not completely), so the pressure now is to make this (and the Nauru re-settlement) the only thing that the ALP allows on the first days of parliament next year.
Write to your MPs, the shadow ministers and the cross bench.
Writing to the LNP politicians is a pointless exercise.
it's bipartisan in the interests of pragmatism. Labor were forced to collude because idiot Scomo and his buddies decided to go for the cheap "keep Aussies safe over Christmas" banter. Labor capitulated with the proviso that the bill be reexamined next year. Let's reserve judgement until then.
The thing that smells bad to me is the combination of
1. They want it to be rushed through
2. It's unprecedented in the western world
3. Australian Governments never do anything unprecedented
Something else is at work, be it straight-up politics, an actual valid suspected terrorist threat, pressure from the US / 5-eyes. Whatever it is, there's no way that unprecedented legislation should be rushed through. EVER.
Somebody over on Reddit [1] went through all the submissions (there was a consultation period) and summarised and tallied them [2]. Fully 99%+ of submissions were against the bill. A sad day for democracy indeed. A church in Tasmania was in favour, because child pornography.
2) those with courage resign and sit on the cross bench (as we have seen recently).
reply