Shorten this arßhole !!

[Al Bundy]

This was NOT about refugees !!!

Yes, Thala Dan makes that clear in his second post, which was correct, that was what I was asking.

Liberals(pretty sure Dutton as nobody else probably even knows what encryption means) want total access to our devices and communication with backdoors provided by all the tech companies.

Labor(apparently somebody knew a little bit why encryption is important) said that bill is flawed, needs more discussion and amendments about what and when these things can be accessed.

So it was Liberal Legislation, introduced, obviously by the Liberals, and poorly written, so I would see that as the Liberals fault not Labor (Shorten), in the first instance, and yes I am aware, as Enf points out , crap legislation gets through all the time.

Shorten(who knows absolutely nothing) said fvck that, lets just pass it they way the Liberals want and he can go on holidays.
He now thinks he is as a hero because he doesn't support terrorism.

No argument there, Shorten is an absolute tool, and I see that the AG (Porter) has accused Shorten of playing politics, however, due to the poor reporting I can't discern whether Porter was saying this before Labor backed down, and thus Porter was suggesting that the poorly written legislation (written by the Liberals) should pass, or he was saying it after Labor backed down, in which case it is still the Liberal party's fault for introducing such terribly written legislation....

All the brain dead in our parliament have now given terrorists a new playing field for cyber-terrorism as these backdoors will eventually become accessible some way or another.

More about the consequences here:
!!!

Oh and if some smart arse says "I don't care, I have nothing to hide" tell them to post their username and password for their online banking here.

Couldn't agree more with what you say here as well, but lets apportion the blame fairly, to me, both sides need their arses kicked until their noses bleed, as I said I think Shorten is a tool, I also believe he is an opportunistic arsehole, yep I don't like him, and I predominantly vote Labor, but the description I just outlined of him, could fit any number of the trough browsing a'holes we have in government at the moment, both Federal and State (regardless of which state, I'm sure we all have them) and in this particular instance I actually believe it to be unfair to lay the blame squarely at any individual's feet.

Thank you all for bringing me up to speed.

[enf]

..................................

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if we had been reliant on Ministers of the Crown to make all of the decisions affecting our lives since 1901, we'd probably still be making our way around the place on horses and living in bark humpies

Yeah, exactly. Ministers are just spokesmen, and overall broad policy drones.

The problem currently is that ministers hire advisers whos opinions agree with theirs and their party rather than get the free and frank advice from a professional public service as they used to. The professional hangers on run things as most politicians are as thick as two short planks at best.

[Thala Dan]

Shorten(who knows absolutely nothing) said fvck that, lets just pass it they way the Liberals want and he can go on holidays.

You've got that a little base over apex.

Shorten wanted to send the Bill back to the House of Reps.........but then found out that they'd all gone on holidays.

Meanwhile, the Coalition were playing little word games:


Labor resists pressure on Government’s controversial encryption bill as fight turns ugly

The Coalition has returned fire by playing the terrorism card.

“Christmas is a heightened security issue for us and we need to make sure people are as safe and as secure as possible,” Assistant Home Affairs Minister Linda Reynolds told reporters in Queensland on Sunday. “It is the lives of Australians at risk, because the threat is real.”

The trouble with that little scare campaign is that there is 28-day consultation period attached to this Bill (as with most).....if the Bill was signed into law the day after it was passed in the Senate, the relevant Security agencies would not be able to use its provisions until after New Years Day.

So much for a safer Christmas.


For those interested, here is the preliminary report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security detailing the 17 recommendations that Scott Morrison found so threatening:




I say "preliminary" because the committee will continue to meet and review the legislation until around mid-2019.

I'm not saying that I agree with the legislation..........I am saying that we have been witness to one of the most disgraceful exhibitions of political theatre in a long time.

What used to be bipartisanship on all things of National Security has been turned on its head, and converted into a fabricated election issue by a desperate Coalition.

[enf]

..............................................

What used to be bipartisanship on all things of National Security has been turned on its head, and converted into a fabricated election issue by a desperate Coalition.

That was a pretty good summation I reckon, right up until this little piece of faith based opinion.

National Security (border protection, blah blah) has RARELY been a bipartisan issue. I suppose bipartisanship caused Kev to dismantle the pacific solution and allow the boats back in. I suppose bipartisanship was the cause of ABBOTT trying to recover the situation, or the ALP before that desperately trying to restore offshore processing when they finally got it through their heads that they were unpopular.

I fully agree with the desperation you accuse the coalition of. It's plain for all to see and rather pathetic.

IMO, and that's all it is, Shorten NEEDS to soften the issue prior to the congress to appease the left of the party. He is cynically using the issue to shore up his position. Bipartisanship cynically abused by the coalition only? Phhhhhhhht!

Cynical abuse of conventions is a national disease practiced by all.

[peteramjet]

The trouble with that little scare campaign is that there is 28-day consultation period attached to this Bill (as with most).....if the Bill was signed into law the day after it was passed in the Senate, the relevant Security agencies would not be able to use its provisions until after New Years Day.

So much for a safer Christmas.

This is the most disappointing part of this fiasco - the urgent reason the Libs gave to pass the bill, and the urgent reason the ALP gave for agreeing with and permitting the bill to pass, are both based on a flawed, false and incorrect premise.

The carry on that one side is better or worse than the other, or that one side is more ‘trustworthy’ than the other is simply that - carry on. Both major parties, and I’d go so far to say most minor parties, are so flexible with the truth that they end up bordering on being completely dishonest.

The issue is not so much politicians, it is the party politics that is at play. I don’t however know how to solve the problem.

[Thala Dan]

That was a pretty good summation I reckon, right up until this little piece of faith based opinion.

National Security (border protection, blah blah) has RARELY been a bipartisan issue. I suppose bipartisanship caused Kev to dismantle the pacific solution and allow the boats back in. I suppose bipartisanship was the cause of ABBOTT trying to recover the situation, or the ALP before that desperately trying to restore offshore processing when they finally got it through their heads that they were unpopular.

I fully agree with the desperation you accuse the coalition of. It's plain for all to see and rather pathetic.

IMO, and that's all it is, Shorten NEEDS to soften the issue prior to the congress to appease the left of the party. He is cynically using the issue to shore up his position. Bipartisanship cynically abused by the coalition only? Phhhhhhhht!

Cynical abuse of conventions is a national disease practiced by all.

Sorry, enf.....no faith involved, just facts.

You said it yourself......right there in bold font.

.....desperately trying to restore offshore processing when they finally got it through their heads that they were unpopular.

Yes, that's right.........unpopular.......not because it was an issue of national security.

I fully agree with the desperation you accuse the coalition of. It's plain for all to see and rather pathetic.

It sure is, and it's causing them to do all sorts of dumb things.......like throw issues of national security to the wind and try to make them election winners.

Throughout this thread you have tried to conflate the topic of the Encryption Bill with that of refugee/immigration policy.

Congratulations......that is exactly what the Coalition is trying to do as well......talk about faith-based opinion.

Potential terrorism is one minor aspect of what the Encryption bill seeks address.

The Bill is aimed at organised crime, child exploitation, drug trafficking, and weapons importation (among others)....which do you think is the bigger problem in Australia....organised crime or terrorism?

Another kid has died at a dance festival today from a drug overdose, and 16 more in hospital, three in a critical condition......140 taken to hospital in all.

Which do you think is the bigger problem in Australia..........drug importation and distribution or terrorism?

You are snapping at the shadow whilst the substance evades you.

[Uncle Fester]

You've got that a little base over apex.

Shorten wanted to send the Bill back to the House of Reps.........but then found out that they'd all gone on holidays.

Meanwhile, the Coalition were playing little word games:


Labor resists pressure on Government’s controversial encryption bill as fight turns ugly

That link is an old report.

Since you started posting in this thread you have only created confusion.
Had you read my OP and clicked on the link I referred to, maybe you might have got a better picture what I was on about. That is why people here post these links.

It certainly was not about refugees and Shorten DID suddenly pass the bill despite all the very valid concerns the Labor Party originally had for quite some time, now giving Liberal more or less free hand to this disasterous bill.
Sneaky Shorten has no backbone and obviously can now bend his little Labor party around his finger at his wish.

I originally thought we might survive Labor and get some fresh wind, but after this... OMFG !!!

Do you understand me now?

[enf]

Sorry, enf.....no faith involved, just facts.

You said it yourself......right there in bold font.

.....desperately trying to restore offshore processing when they finally got it through their heads that they were unpopular.

Yes, that's right.........unpopular.......not because it was an issue of national security.



It sure is, and it's causing them to do all sorts of dumb things.......like throw issues of national security to the wind and try to make them election winners.

Throughout this thread you have tried to conflate the topic of the Encryption Bill with that of refugee/immigration policy.

Congratulations......that is exactly what the Coalition is trying to do as well......talk about faith-based opinion.

Potential terrorism is one minor aspect of what the Encryption bill seeks address.

The Bill is aimed at organised crime, child exploitation, drug trafficking, and weapons importation (among others)....which do you think is the bigger problem in Australia....organised crime or terrorism?

Another kid has died at a dance festival today from a drug overdose, and 16 more in hospital, three in a critical condition......140 taken to hospital in all.

Which do you think is the bigger problem in Australia..........drug importation and distribution or terrorism?

You are snapping at the shadow whilst the substance evades you.

Yeah...WYS.

The encryption bill is a different kettle of fish. Nice to see the ALP not support these sorts of freedom removers (IMO they are) instead of supporting them for their own benefit later. I don't blame them mind.

[lsemmens]

The moment any task is given to another (i.e. a delegate) it is "outsourced" because the responsible party is not longer performing that task. (I'm playing semantics here, just like the pollies)