Mark Dreyfus wants interim bill to be passed to extend scrutiny that was ‘cut short’

This article is more than 1 year old

This article is more than 1 year old

In a rare split of bipartisanship on national security issues, Labor and Coalition members of the parliamentary intelligence committee have broken over how to move ahead in considering the government’s new encryption laws.

For the first time in more than a decade, Labor committee MPs have warned they will be handing down a dissenting report over the government’s so-called “back door” legislation, which would allow security agencies access to encrypted communications.

The legislation had been labelled critical to the nation’s security by the home affairs minister, Peter Dutton. But it has also been criticised for being too broad in nature by industry groups, encryption and tech companies, as well as the Senate president, Scott Ryan, who raised issues of parliamentary privilege.

Senate president warns encryption bill could erode parliamentary privilege Read more

Dutton had been putting increased pressure on the committee to deal with the legislation, with the government setting itself a deadline of passing it before parliament rises for the year on 6 December.

But Labor MPs said that does not leave the committee with enough time to consider the legislation, considering the criticisms which have been levelled against it given its scope.

In a letter to the attorney general, Christian Porter, committee member Mark Dreyfus said the committee had worked together since 2014 to pass 15 pieces of legislation related to national security, and recommended more than 300 amendments, but on this bill it had been pushed too far.

“Under Prime Minister Morrison, its processes appear to have broken down, thanks due to the interference with the committee by key ministers in your government, and ultimately, the subversion of the democratic parliamentary committee process,” Dreyfus wrote.

“Labor listened to the evidence put forward by agencies regarding the urgency of the [bill] and we accepted it. Labor’s position is that an interim version of the Access bill should be passed, to give the agencies the powers they said were necessary now, on an interim basis, while the committee continued its scrutiny of the Access bill.”

Dreyfus said Labor considered that a workable offer, “considering the extraordinary pressure put on the committee to cut its scrutiny of the bill short”.

Asio says it urgently needs powers forcing telcos to help break phone encryption Read more

“Your government’s refusal to even work with this offer, despite written assurances of support, is extremely disappointing. To be clear, this would have clearly met the stated needs of the security agencies, while allowing the committee to identify deficiencies in this rushed legislation, which could only result in recommendations to strengthen it, not weaken it.”

But in a media release on behalf of himself and Dutton, Porter said Labor was robbing Australia’s security agencies of “vital capabilities to fight terrorists and organised criminals”.

“Labor has sought to render the bill ineffective by taking serious criminals, frontline state police and encrypted messaging services out of its scope,” Porter said.

“The government puts the security and prosperity of the Australian people at the top of its agenda.

“As the prime minister has already indicated, the government wants this bill passed before Christmas, a time of heightened terrorist focus, according to the director general of security.

“So the government will present the bill for consideration by the parliament next week.”

One of the biggest, and most repeated criticisms of the proposed legislation, is that it would allow “state actors”, the official term for hackers working for another government to interfere with another nation, easier access to Australia’s protected systems.

“… The committee heard powerful testimony that the bill in its current form could weaken Australia’s national security by creating deficiencies that allow criminals or state actors access to encrypted systems, that it could result in the loss of jobs and see some Australian companies offshore, and that it lacks adequate safeguards to balance against the increase in intrusive powers,” Dreyfus said.

“The potential implications this has for weakening online security for all Australians conducting legitimate, everyday business are profound, and surely warrants further consideration.”

Porter said the government would consider “all reasonable amendments that have been proposed, including several by Labor, while rejecting those unreasonable propositions that would render the bill ineffective”.

The committee’s report, including the dissenting report now expected from Labor members, is expected to be handed down early next week, and shortly after considered by the parliament.

National security legislation has previously enjoyed bipartisan support on the parliament floors, making the number of votes necessary to pass it a moot point.

Labor is yet to state how it plans on moving forward once the report is handed down.