"Guilloutining" a Bill in the Senate

suggests that there is more than some disquiet about it.

Today is the last sitting day of our Federal parliament for this year and they have at least twenty items to push through and vote on. Some will be relatively uncontroversial. They will pass without difficulty. Others require support from people who may be wavering or who need "sweeteners" for their own purposes.

Then there are the bills which are controversial but have enough support to get through but where debate is being deliberately curtailed. One of those bills is the one relating to banning under-16s from social media. 

There was a brief window of opportunity to comment on this Bill at the committee stage. By brief I mean a week. There was very little notice given and almost nobody had a chance to appear in front of the committee - not even the "big tech" people most affected by the implementation of this. 

In addition to this some sections of the media, those in no way affected by the ban, have come out so strongly in support of the legislation. This is so much so we are being led to believe there is almost no opposition to it. 

The reality is different. There is disquiet - perhaps it is fair to say extreme disquiet - among people I know. It is seen as a step towards monitoring everyone and monitoring them all the time.  It raises questions about privacy (and the use of VPNs), about free speech, about healthy debate, about political power and influence...and much more. The failure to allow time, a lot of time, for extensive information collecting and a proper debate in the Senate suggests there are more problems in the legislation than have already been raised.

Yesterday I was asked if the government actually has the power to pass the legislation under the powers granted in the Constitution. My answer to that was, "I am not sure but it is possible that, at least in its present form, it does not." Yes, it is possible that this legislation goes too far. It is too intrusive. It is in contradiction to some international obligations to which we are signatories and more. The government obviously feels the claimed intent of the Bill protects them from being subject to these obligations but I doubt this is actually the case. 

It appears this Bill is being rushed through for political purposes and not in the best interests of those it claims to protect. Attempts to administer it are likely to result in challenges in the High Court. This may make the legal profession happy - but I doubt anyone else will be.