Showing posts with label fascism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fascism. Show all posts

Friday 12 November 2021

So what do you know about the people behind management of the Morrison Government's punitive Cashless Debit Card? Perhaps it's time to meet Indue Limited's board of directors & their industry partners


 

IMAGE: news.com.au, 30.01.2019


Just as night follows day, if Scott John Morrison and the Liberal-Nationals Coalition win the federal government election, by the last quarter of 2022 he will announce all government cash transfers to citizens will in future come via the highly restrictive and punitive cashless debit card scheme.


So who has been milking the cash cow as they constructed the mechanism for Morrison's dream of a frightened, deprived and suppressed working class he could strut before?


Well that an easy question to answer - just hit this link 

https://www2.indue.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/J0982-Indue-Annual-Report-2021_WEB.pdf  and scroll down to pages 14-15 to see their six self-satisfied faces along with a brief bio.


A bit of background......


Sometime in early 2016 the Australian Government through its agency the Dept. of Social Services entered into a contract with Indue Limited, currently valued at $70,340,628.60 (original value: $7,859,509). This contract period now extends from 26-Feb-2016 to 31-Dec-2022.


Indue Limited documents clearly state that its investors-shareholders are “the owners of the company” and that those who contract the company’s services are its “clients” or “customers”.


In relation to the cashless debit card scheme it administers, it appears that the relatively large class of mandatory users of this card during this extended trial period & the somewhat smaller number of voluntary users are simply end product consumers.


How Indue Limited sees itself:……..


Indue Limited ABN 97 087 822 464 (“Indue”) is a bank and Authorised Deposit-Taking Institution (“ADI”) that is regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. Indue is owned by financial institutions, each of which is also an ADI. Indue provides transaction processing and settlement services to credit unions, building societies, church funds, mortgage originators, commercial clients and the Australian government. Many clients would be too small individually to be able to provide a competitive alternative financial services offering without Indue.


Indue has over 40 years’ experience in the payments industry and as a financial product issuer since 1992. Indue is a principal member of Visa, MasterCard and eftpos, and holds an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL). It is also a reporting entity pursuant to the Anti-Money Laundering (AML)/Counter-Terrorism Financing (CTF) legislation. [Submission to the Australian Treasury. 7 September 2018, excerpt]


Indue Limited has 7 major partners which includes it being a principal member of Visa licensed to issue all Visa card products including credit, debit, prepaid, commercial and premium cards; ia member of eftpos and licensed to issue eftpos card products. These cards may be used in ATMs and eftpos terminals throughout the domestic Australian eftpos network; and, ia member of BPAY allowing us to offer both payer and biller facilities to clients.


2019-20


Indue’s vision is to be the leading partner of payment solutions to our customers. Indue’s mission is to drive competitive advantage for our customers by helping people pay….


Wholly owned Group

The Company does not have significant restrictions on its ability to access or use its assets and settle its liabilities other than those resulting from the supervisory frameworks within which Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions operate.

Transactions with related parties are conducted on an arm’s length basis….


Against this backdrop [global COVID-19 pandemic] Indue delivered a before tax profit of $3.127 million, a solid result given the prevailing headwinds…..


Events Subsequent to Balance Date

At the date of approving these financial statements, the Directors are of the view the effects of COVID-19 do not change the significant estimates, judgements and assumptions in the preparation of the financial statement…..


Likely Developments

Information on likely developments in the operations of the Company and the expected results of operations have not been included in this annual financial report because the Directors believe it would be likely to result in unreasonable prejudice to the Company. [NOTE: Likely relying on s299A(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 in order to conceal expected future progression of the federal government cashless debit card scheme]

[Indue Limited, Annual Report 2019-2020]


2020-21


It is pleasing to report a lift in profit, despite the ongoing influence of the COVID-19 pandemic. ….


A more positive outlook has contributed to our improved performance, with a Profit Before Tax (PBT) result of $3.6 million, an increase of 24% over the previous year….


An operating profit after tax of $2.583 million (2020: $2.091 million) was achieved this year….


Indue’s capital position remains sound. Our Tier 1 ratio rose to 15.5% at the end of FY21, an increase of 35 basis points on last year.


In relation to dividends, we have a good record of rewarding owners for providing investment capital. With an improved economic outlook and stronger financial performance, we are pleased to be able to declare a fully franked dividend of $7.50 per share for FY22….


After nearly 50 years, our partnership with Westpac is coming to an end in 2022. We are moving to become a Tier 1 provider for Direct Entry services, which is well-aligned to our strategy. We look forward to continuing to support our clients in this important payment channel.


Our core focus continues to be delivering sustainable value for our clients and shareholders….


We will continue to support our clients, so they can focus on growing their businesses – while we navigate the changed world of payments on their behalf….


The constitution of the Company provides for two Groups of Directors, both elected in accordance with the constitution. Group One Directors, referred to as ‘Industry Directors’, must be officers, employees or associates of a member. Group Two Directors, referred to as ‘Independent Directors’ must not be officers, employees or associates of a member. Industry Directors are not remunerated by the Company. Independent Directors are remunerated by the Company, with shareholders determining the maximum annual aggregate amount of remuneration that may be provided to them ….


The following persons were Directors of Indue Ltd during the financial year:

Chair – Non executive [Independent]

F[rank] Gullone (appointed 28 August 2020)

R Burns (resigned 27 November 2020)

Non executive Directors [Independent]

S Collier (resigned 27 November 2020)

M[ichael Francis] Currie

P[eter Robert] Townsend

P[eter Hooper] Wright

A[nthony] De Fazio

S[usan] Rix (appointed 8 January 2021) [my yellow highlighting]

A Cheadle (appointed 8 January 2021, resigned 27 May 2021)....


The Company’s Authorised Share Capital is $17.265 million. All issued shares [total of 126,182] are fully paid ….


In August 2021 Indue entered into a share buyback arrangement for a small number of issued shares….


Total Contributed Equity, Reserves, Retained Earnings, Balance at 30 June 2021 = $58,650,000 ” …..


Government grants

Government grants, including JobKeeper, are recognised when there is a reasonable assurance that the Company will comply with the conditions attached to the grant, and the grant will be received.

The Company became eligible for JobKeeper in June 2020 after meeting the specific obligations, and remained eligible until September 2020. All expected grant payments were received by October 2020…...

[Indue Limited, Annual Report 2020-2021, excerpts]


The Guardian, 4 November 2021:


*The company contracted by the federal government to run the controversial cashless debit card claimed $2m in jobkeeper payments before increasing its revenues during the pandemic.


Payments firm Indue, which was handed a $26m, two-year extension to its contract to keep running the scheme late last year, received about $2.1m in jobkeeper wage subsidies in total. That comprised $632,700 in June 2020 and $1.49m between July and September 2020, according to its annual report.


The company’s revenue increased in 2019-20 and 2020-21, leading to profit of $2.1m and $2.5m, the report shows.


Under the jobkeeper program, businesses were required to estimate whether their turnover would decrease by 30-50% when compared to the previous year, depending on their size. There is no suggestion Indue did not qualify for the payments under the rules of the scheme.


Controversially, the government elected not to include a clawback provision to recoup money from those companies that outperformed expectations…..


https://www.scribd.com/document/538531113/INDUE-LIMITED-Current-Historical-Company-Extract

Tuesday 12 October 2021

Echoes of Northern New South Wales' past and a timely reminder of its present potential to resist bad government policy


The Echo, on 7 October 2021, reminding the Northern Rivers region from Clarence Valley right up to Tweed on the New South Wales-Queensland border that our combined voices followed up with action are powerful:


Ian Cohen surfing the nose of
a nuclear armed warship
Photo: Robert Pearce
Following the Nuclear Disarmament Party’s close loss with front man Peter Garrett in 1984, nuclear issues were at the forefront of people’s minds. We extended our influence far beyond our Shire. The pending arrival of nuclear armed warships sent the local region into overdrive. Benny Zable from Nimbin rolled out his ‘radioactive’ barrels for street theatre. Dean Jefferys based in Brunswick Heads came with his ultralight, Hoss (Ian Hoskens) of Main Arm with his megaphone voice and me with my surfboard. 


September 1986 heralded the arrival of the largest assembly of international ships in Sydney Harbour’s history. Many were nuclear armed. 

Our north coast contingent was vital to the success of the protest actions. Driven by a reckless, but heartfelt, desire to impact on the nuclear arms race and send a direct message to US President Ronald Reagan and USSR’s Yuri Andropov. 

The mad concept of surfing the nose of a nuclear armed warship was mine, but Sydney Morning Herald photographer, Robert Pearce, from a media barge directly in front of myself and the warship, captured the image of a vulnerable surfer hanging onto the nose of a nuclear armed destroyer that went global.

Dean backed it up with a paint bomb delivered from his ultralight. It missed, (fortunately it was water based paint). He was more accurate several days later delivering a bouquet of flowers from the air into a missile silo as the HMS Illustrious departed. Dean landed himself in jail.

Channon local, Ian Gaillard, worked with the anti-nuclear vessel Pacific Peacemaker and crewed it on the long haul through the Pacific to confront the launch of the world’s largest nuclear submarine in Seattle. They travelled through the Pacific garnering local support along the way.


During the 1980s Jim Mitsos had moved to Byron and bought up most of what is now Suffolk Park. A Communist developer, creating real affordable housing he was also a tireless anti-nuclear campaigner promoting the concept of Nuclear Free Zone signs in Byron that spread to councils throughout NSW. He laid the groundwork of awareness for follow up actions. Perhaps we need those signs again?


Ian Cohen surfing the nose of a nuclear armed
warship. Photos Robert Pearce

In 1995 I was the first Green elected to NSW Parliament. With the efficient support of Byron’s future mayor, Jan Barham, I spent the first break organising an international contingent of politicians to be part of a flotilla of ships to descend on Papeete (Tahiti) and support islanders in their opposition to upcoming nuclear tests at Moruroa. We learnt much about the global phenomenon ‘Ships of Shame’ where seafarers are abused and exploited, the impossibility of chartering a flotilla, and decided to fly 30 Australian politicians over to Papeete.


Meetings under the palms with President Oscar Temaru, inspired, along with marches and forums in Papeete, the contingent of politicians including Richard Jones MLC, another Byron Shire local, who met with the French Ambassador to deliver thousands of petitions.


Greenpeace had other ideas for a small crew. A private boat was organised to transport an international selection of politicians to Moruroa 1,150km away. In my last interview before our departure I was informed that the French had announced a $150,000 fine and 12 months in jail for anyone entering the exclusion zone.


Halfway there an international news broadcast announced the French had detonated the first bomb in the series on Moruroa. The little boat continued on course, without deviation, as we sailed into the eye of the global nuclear storm. That was the last French nuclear test in the Pacific.


Times change, but some things regarding the nuclear industry and international political posturing remain the same.


Our PM, Scott Morrison, struts the world stage, vilifies China (some of it deserved), but in the process is locking in Australia’s subservience to US foreign policy while guaranteeing increased US troop access and US spy stations on Australian territory for the future. Add to this the crippling cost of procurement of nuclear powered subs and the possible return of Donald Trump to ‘guide’ our nation into the future.


This sabre rattling at an external enemy will allow Morrison some catch up in the polls while the ALP is wedged. The huge crime here is to make a decision without debate in the Federal Parliament. An external enemy worked for Thatcher (Falklands War). In Australia we had weapons of mass destruction touted in Iraq while George W Bush labelled Howard a ‘Man of Steel’ for sending our young soldiers to war.


Whilst recognising the repressive political leadership in Bejing, there is a better road to peace through diplomacy, and when necessary, trade sanctions.


In the depth of the Cold War nuclear capable warships, either conventional or nuclear powered, did not cruise the world’s oceans unarmed and race back to San Diego or Hawaii in an emergency to load. In the 1980s their mantra was; ‘We neither confirm or deny these ships have nuclear weapons on board’. Today, nuclear weapons have been removed from surface ships. They are still on nuclear submarines. Just what arsenal will Australia obediently accept when it hires or purchases US submarines?


In 1975 there were 6,191 US nuclear weapons afloat. Arms control agreements have reduced the number of weapons deployed at sea to 1,000 in 2015.


Morrison’s recent ‘All the way with USA’ is cementing increased US control over future Australian Foreign Policy. We do not benefit from this association. In fact, we as a nation are making ourselves a target.


As for their vulnerability in port, we need to look no further than 9/11 in New York, the US heartland.


Sunday 24 January 2021

STATE OF PLAY 2021: We live in dangerous times



Kentan Joshi, 17 January 2021:


In March 2019, an Australian white supremacist walked into a mosque, armed with a shotgun, and killed 51 people, including a two year old boy. The man who enacted those killings wanted to wipe out those he’d been told were replacing white people, and erasing white culture. The first thing on my mind when I saw that was this article published only a few months prior.





Though complaints were made to the Australian Press Council, no action was taken to remove the article or punish the media outlet. The reason this article prompted little outcry among the employees of News Corp is because white supremacy, racism and the deadly ideology of the ‘Great Replacement’ belief system are viewed as harmless thought experiments – rather than things that lead to children being murdered by Australians with shotguns.


I wrote, a few days after the Christchurch attack:


Politics and media are each split into two factions: a large number of people who are explicitly racist, and a large number of people who refuse to accept that the other people could ever be explicitly racist. Together, they create an environment necessary, (though, on its own, insufficient) for the spawning of far-right terror and large-scale massacres”


People are already dying. Movements are coalescing. The broader media feedstock into this system hasn’t changed enough, certainly not in Australia. There are no more chances to fuck this up. Stubbornness means lives are lost. A tin ear means innocents suffer. There are no more chances, and there is no more time.


Bannon


in 2018, Australia’s national broadcaster aired a long interview between Four Corners reporter Sarah Ferguson and alt-right, Nazi-adjacent grifter Steve Bannon. Ferguson said she’d heard others call Bannon racist, and declared that “there’s no evidence that that’s what you are”. That’s the same Bannon who, prior to that interview, complained too many CEOs in Silicon Valley were Asian, and said of black Americans being murdered by police, “What if the people getting shot by the cops did things to deserve it? There are, after all, in this world, some people who are naturally aggressive and violent”.


The problem with that interview is that it provided a stream of content for Youtube videos of Bannon ‘owning’ establishment media and gave him legitimacy on Australia’s most trusted media outlet. Bannon’s goal is not making a good argument – it’s prominence and platform. The format of an interview simply gives liars a free substrate in which to deploy their craft. But the criticism of that interview was not received well by Australia’s journalists…..


Much of this problem comes from the simple fact that Australia’s media landscape is mostly white, and therefore free to see racism as a cute thought experiment. Seeing footage of police officers begging white nationalists to spare their lives because they have children hasn’t really changed that.


How do we know it hasn’t changed? Charlottesville based activist Molly Conger received a long direct message on Twitter from (at the time) unspecified journalists seeking to “interview members of the far-right”; right after Four Corners reporter Sarah Ferguson announced her departure to the US along with Tony Jones, to cover the white nationalist terrorist attacks. After some wry jokes from Twitter folks, Conger confirmed that it was indeed Four Corners and Sarah Ferguson asking to interview white nationalist terrorists. In her original post she included her reply, pleading with the team not to provide a platform.


Don’t lend them the legitimacy of your institution. Don’t publish their words uncritically. Don’t’ publish them at all unless you have a subject matter expert to dissect them and present them as the falsehood they are. This is life and death for us”.


That last sentence has a grave and terrifying reality to it, given Conger lives in Charlottesville. “I get so many death threats I can catalogue them by the gunmaker mentioned”, she wrote in 2019. Of course, it’s completely baffling why they wouldn’t ask for Conger’s perspective. More telling is that they expect her to happily pass on the contact details of people who explicitly want to kill her.


In fact, many American anti-racist activists now refuse to speak to journalists if those same journalists are giving a platform to white supremacists (in much the same way climate scientists had to deny comments if those stories also featured deniers).


A smattering of Australian journalists are tuned into the tactics of white supremacists, the alt-right and terror groups, and are figuring out new approaches to dealing with the rising terror threat of white supremacists…..


This comes at a time when these terror groups are beginning to ramp up in Australia: “Far-right violent extremism constitutes up to 40% of the Australian domestic spy agency’s counter-terrorism caseload, up from 10-15% before 2016″. A teenager from Albury in New South Wales was planning a “mass casualty attack” just prior to being arrested. Australia’s anti-terror regimes are failing to do much of anything about it. An inquiry will focus on social media, but has no mention of television, print or legacy digital media: Andrew Bolt is free to write about the white race is being wiped out by dirty ethnics, as much as he pleases.


These terror groups aren’t growing in the widespread air of suspicion and paranoia that surrounded Islamic terror in the 2000s. They’re free and unhindered. They have the support of sympathetic voices in police, political and media establishments, and they have the support of people who can’t process that they’re a direct threat to our safety. They have journalists hunting tirelessly to find ways to elevate their voices to larger audiences……


Journalists: please, don’t wait until a mass casualty attack in Australia before you decide to stop playing directly into the hands of white supremacists. There are no more chances. We are here now, and we are in danger.


Read full article here.


Saturday 30 May 2020

Finally Twitter starts to fact check Donald Trump with a live link below two tweets. Trump responds by threatening to create a punitive executive order if any social media platform dares to fact check his egregious lies. Then Trump is faced with the reality of the Internet


This is a snapshot of a May 2020 tweet posted by Donald J. Trump on a Twitter account he created in March 2009, seven years before he received the Republican Party presidential nomination which eventually saw him elected 45th President of the United States of America in November 2016.

It is one of only two Trump tweets under which social media platforn Twitter inserted a low key active 'fact check' link.

Trump's reaction was to threaten to create an executive order designed to punish any social media platform, website or search engine which factchecks the est. 16,000 egregious lies he has told in the last four years.

A draft of this six-page executive order has been released.
https://www.scribd.com/document/463420840/Draft-Presidential-Executive-Order-Created-by-Donald-J-Trump-allegedly-to-prevent-online-censorship

This draft executive order describes fact checking or the removal of inappropriate content under terms of service as "selective censorship". 

It also seeks to establish a right of the Trump Administration to monitor and create watch lists of those fact checking conservative politicians or using/interacting with any general search engine, social media platform or individual account (by way of likes, follows, time spent) allegedly employing this "selective censorship" and, to monitor all other online activities of such people.

On 28 May 2020 the White House press Public Pool noted that an executive order had apparently been signed*:

From: Thomas Howell 
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 4:01 PM 
Subject: In-town #14 — EO signing remarks 

Trump is at his desk in Oval for EO signing ...Bill Barr is here 
“We’re here today to defend free speech from one of the greatest dangers,” referring to tech ‘monopoly’ 
Says “They’ve had unchecked power” to censor and restrict human interaction “We cant allow that to happen” 
He says these tech companies have “points of view“ 
Sees bipartisanship, says Democrats are saying ‘this is about time something is done’ 

Says Twitter is acting as an editor ‘with a viewpoint’ 
Complains about fact check, calls it ‘political activism’ 
Says tech platforms have more reach than newspapers and other media 
Notes Twitter et al get liability shield based on neutral platform 
EO would 
-Looks to regulate Section 230 to remove liability shield if companies act to censure or edit content 
-Says AG Barr will work with states on own regs
- will Develop policies to make sure tax dollars don't go to companies that suppress free speech 

Trump predicts lawsuit, wants legislation though 
‘We’re fed up with it’ 
Asked why not delete his account, Trump says: 
‘The news is fake’ 
‘If we had fair press in this country I would do that in a heartbeat’ 

Barr: 
Barr says tech companies are acting as ‘publishers’ after amassing huge power Says EO would return section 230 to intended scope 
Will draft legislation for Congress 
‘A bit of a bait and switch that’s occurred in our society”
Referring to networks that were supposed to be free forums, but now flexing power 

Tom Howell Jr. White House correspondent 
The Washington Times 240-xxx-xxxx (mobile)

Donald Trump - lacking insight or adequate impluse control - then upped the ante on 29 May 2020 with another two tweets. The second of which threatened use of lethal force against U.S. citizens. 

This caused Twitter to restrict viewing so that a reader had to make a concious decision to look at that particular tweet by clicking on "View":


At 10:17pm on Friday 29 May 2020 an official White House Twitter account @WhiteHouse retweeted Trump's tweet which threatened lethal force and Twitter restricted viewing on the retweet as well.




What is happening here?

A social media company hosting realtime micro-blogging is firmly insisting that it has a right to enforce its rules of service on all 45 million of its accounts world-wide without fear or favour.

Trump may be finally crossing the social media Rubicon and is now fated to metaphorically die in a few inches of muddy river water before reaching the other shore.

Note
* Final text of Executive Order signed on 28 May 2020 not yet released

Wednesday 20 May 2020

Australian Minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton makes a grab for even more surveillance powers



Crikey, 15 May 2020:

The government’s proposed scheme to enable foreign intelligence services to spy on Australians will enable Australia’s intelligence agencies to circumvent measures designed to protect journalists from unfettered pursuit of their sources.

Labor’s Mark Dreyfus yesterday exposed the loophole, with Home Affairs officials left unable and unwilling to explain why their minister Peter Dutton was proposing a runaround on existing procedures designed to protect journalists’ sources.

The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020 will to pave the way for agreements between Australia and the United States, and other “like-minded countries”, for the direct accessing of surveillance information, including real-time wiretapping, by intelligence agencies from both counterpart countries. In Australia, such requests would be signed off by members of the Security Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which is heavily stacked with former Coalition MPs and staffers.

In hearings before the intelligence and security committee yesterday, shadow attorney-general Dreyfus asked Dutton’s bureaucrats why existing protections around accessing the metadata of journalists were not part of the proposed process.

When the Abbott government introduced mass surveillance laws in 2015, the mainstream media belatedly realised that journalists’ phone and IT records would be easily accessed by intelligence and law enforcement agencies under “data retention” laws. In response, a “Journalist Information Warrant” (JIW) process was hastily put together that would require agencies to apply for a special warrant, with more stringent thresholds and procedural safeguards, like a Public Interest Advocate, if agencies wanted to obtain data relating to a journalist’s sources.

No such safeguard exists under the International Production Orders (IPO) process, meaning that if a journalist’s data was held by a US company — such as Google, Apple, Facebook or Microsoft — it could be obtained by ASIO or the Australian Federal Police (AFP) from those companies through an IPO without a Journalist Information Warrant, unlike information held by a local company such as Telstra.

Are you able to tell us why an Australian journalists whose telecoms data is held by a US carrier should have fewer protections than an Australian journalist whose telecoms data is held in Australia?” Dreyfus asked Home Affairs bureaucrats…..

Dreyfus pressed further. The Journalist Information Warrant process was not replicated in this bill, was it, he asked.

It is not replicated,” Warnes had to admit, before insisting an AAT authorisation was enough protection.

Dreyfus went further. “The Journalist Information Warrant process has a public interests monitor provided. There is no such public interest monitor provided in the authorisation process that is provided under this bill is there?”

That’s correct,” the bureaucrat admitted.

So it’s not the same level of protection for journalists whose data is held by a US carrier. It’s a lesser level of protection isn’t it?” said Dreyfus.

Different considerations at play, yes,” Warnes , humiliated, had to admit.

Dreyfus also pointed out that the Journalist Information Warrant process had additional criteria that had to be considered in granting warrants. They weren’t in the IPO scheme, were they?

That’s correct,” Warnes said.

So why should an Australian journalist whose telecoms data is held by a US carrier have fewer protections than an Australian journalist whose telecoms data is held in Australia?”

I don’t have anything further to add,” Warnes said.

Dreyfus told him to come back to the committee with a better explanation for why the loophole was being pursued by the government…..

Friday 24 April 2020

The fact that Minister for Home Affairs & Liberal MP for Dickson Peter Dutton is always lurking in the shadows during national crises continues to be a worry


"I’m going to keep going until I get the numbers. I’m not stopping" [Minister for Home Affairs & Liberal MP for Dickson Peter Dutton on the subject of his desire to be Australian prime minister, quoted in "The Bigger Picture", April 2020]

It has become notable that since September-August 2018 when Peter Dutton's bid to topple then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull succeeded but his bid to become Australian prime minister failed - primarily because he and Turnbull were both outfoxed by a duplicitous Scott Morrison - Dutton disappears into the shadows during the worst phases of national crises or major political scandal.

One suspects he does so as he doesn't want voters to negatively associate him with either crises or scandal, because he hasn't given up his ambition to be prime minister after the next federal election.

As Dutton's worldview is as much a threat to democratic processes as is the worldview of current prime minister Scott Morrison, voters would do well to keep in mind what Dutton would like to impose on Australian society.

Sydney Criminal Lawyers, 20 April 2020:

Peter Dutton Proposes Prison for Refusing to Provide Passwords

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton has been absent from the media spotlight in recent times, ever since he contracted coronavirus.

And many are asking where the man at the helm of curtailing civil liberties on a federal level has been in the midst of the current pandemic.

The man at the helm of the surveillance state

Mr Dutton has been credited with proposing a wide range of laws designed to increase the power of authorities at the expense of individual liberties.

Perhaps most recently, Mr Dutton proposed laws which would result in prison time for those who fail or refuse to hand over their passwords or PINs when requested to do so by authorities.

Peter Dutton has said the laws are needed to help police catch criminals who are hiding behind encryption technology – a line we have heard many times before as the country’s law makers put in place draconian measures to grant police and other authorities surveillance powers that encroach upon our privacy.

Under the proposals, which is currently on hold, people who are not even suspected of a crime, could face a fine of up to $50,000 and up to five years’ imprisonment for declining to provide a password to their smartphone, computer or other electronic devices.

Furthermore, anyone (an IT professional, for example) who refuses to help the authorities crack a computer system when ordered will face up to five years in prison. If the crime being investigated is terrorism-related then the penalty for non-compliance increases to 10 years in prison and/or a $126,000 fine.

Tech companies who refuse to assist authorities to crack encryption when asked to do so, will face up to $10 million in fines. What’s more, if any employee of the company tells anyone else they have been told to do this, they will face up to five years in gaol.

Under the legislation, foreign countries can also ask Australia’s Attorney General for police to access data in your computer to help them investigate law-breaking overseas.

Australia’s hyper-legislative response to September 11

Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, the Australian parliament has responded to the threat of terrorism here and overseas by enacting more than 80 new laws and amending existing laws – many of them with wide-reaching consequences, such as the terrorism laws used to conduct raids on journalist Annika Smethurst’s home and the ABC’s head offices, as well as charge former military lawyer and whistleblower David Mc Bride with offences that could see him spending the rest of his life in gaol.

Controversial metadata laws too, introduced in 2015, seriously impact our personal privacy requiring telecommunications companies to retain metadata including information on who you call or text, where you make calls from, and who you send emails to.

The problem is that once these kinds of extraordinarily heavy-handed powers are legislated, they are very seldom retracted or rescinded. In many cases, over time, they are expanded. Australia’s oversight body the Australian Law Reform Commission can review laws that are already in place, but it has limited powers which only enable the commission to make recommendations for change, not to actually change the laws themselves.

Police already have the power to seize a phone or laptop if you have been arrested.

Border Force has even more extensive seize and search powers.

The extensive powers of border force

In 2018, Border Force made headlines after intercepting an British-Australian citizen travelling through Sydney airport seizing his devices.

Nathan Hague, a software developer was not told what would be done with his devices, why they were being inspected or whether his digital data was being copied and stored. He believes his laptop password was cracked.

Australian Border Forces have extensive powers to search people’s baggage at Australian airports. These are contained in section 186 of Customs Act 1901 (Cth). These include opening baggage, reading documents, and using an X-ray or detection dog to search baggage.

The Customs Act allows officers to retain an electronic device for up to 14 days if there is no content on the device which renders it subject to seizure. And if it is subject to seizure, the device may be withheld for a longer period.

ABF officers have the power to copy a document if they’re satisfied it may contain information relevant to prohibited goods, to certain security matters or an offence against the Customs Act. A document includes information on phones, SIM cards, laptops, recording devices and computers.