Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Hansard source

He seems to think—he's interjecting now—that meeting with Apple is a sufficient form of consultation. The reality of this is that the member for Hume and the government didn't meet with the thousands of Australian small- to medium-sized businesses who are going to be affected by this bill. They should be ashamed of themselves for that alone.

Committee recommendation 17 makes it very clear that the bill must be amended so that an agency cannot sidestep a warrant requirement by asking a provider to give voluntary technical assistance. That called for an amendment to the bill. The government's 173 amendments, covering 50 pages, regrettably ignore this recommendation of the committee entirely.

We're also concerned with the government's proposed definition of 'systemic weakness' and proposed definition of 'systemic vulnerability'. This, of course, is at the core of the committee's consideration. It's at the core of public concern about this bill. The government brought a bill that didn't even attempt to define 'systemic weakness' or 'systemic vulnerability'. What they've now done, in response to the committee's recommendation, is to include—as recommended—a definition of these two terms, but they're now using a definition that nobody can understand. They've used the term 'whole class of technology'. What does that mean? No ordinary person could understand it and no lawyer could understand it. Is new technology a class? Is old technology a class? We proposed a workable alternative to the government yesterday afternoon. Regrettably, the government hasn't responded, so we'll be moving amendments in the Senate—if this bill passes the Senate with these amendments—in order to ensure that the bill is fit for purpose and not the inadequate piece of legislation the government brought here. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

See this speech in context