Bret Walker says government is ‘deplorable’ to accuse Labor of lacking commitment to national security

'Not up to the job': former security monitor blasts Dutton for politicising encryption

Peter Dutton’s claim that Labor does not support the government on national security proves he is “not up to the job”, the former national security legislation monitor has said.

Bret Walker also warned that the “fracturing of efficient cooperation” between Labor and the government would delay the telecommunications access and assistance bill that the home affairs minister claims is urgent.

On Friday Dutton and the attorney general, Christian Porter, accused Labor of “[ending] any claim to bipartisanship on national security when it opposed government legislation to give Australian security and police agencies vital capabilities to fight terrorists and organised criminals”.

“To denounce [those calling for more scrutiny] as opposed to national security is – in my view – yet another demonstration the current minister is not up to the job,” Walker told Guardian Australia.

Labor dissent on encryption bill a rare break in security bipartisanship Read more

Walker said the government had behaved “very badly” and it was “deplorable” to accuse Labor of bad faith or a lack of commitment to national security rather than accept the opposition had “genuine doubts about the efficacy and prudence” of the bill.

“How could they say that about their opponents? It is really inappropriate and [Peter] Dutton has to ask is this really the proper way to carry on with this issue?”

Walker said Dutton had not even tried to explain why the government had left the legislative push so late, if the bill was so urgent.

Porter and his shadow, Mark Dreyfus, met again on Monday, attempting to negotiate a bipartisan deal on the parliamentary intelligence and security committee after Labor warned on Friday it might issue a dissenting report on the Coalition’s bill to give security agencies access to encrypted communications.

Labor wants the committee to issue an interim report recommending passage of the new powers – but only for investigation of terrorist offences and child sex crimes – while it further scrutinises the bill, which has drawn widespread criticism from industry players who fear it will open backdoors in their products.

It also wants greater judicial oversight and clarity to ensure tech companies cannot be required to introduce “systemic weaknesses” in products.

On Sunday Labor accused Scott Morrison and Dutton of having “[blown] the process up” by demanding the bill be passed unamended, but on Monday Dreyfus said the government had “returned to its senses and come back to the negotiating table”.

No deal was reached on Monday and a further hearing is scheduled on Tuesday.

The Australian Industry Group and the Law Council of Australia have both pushed for a pause in the process, rejecting Coalition demands that parliament pass the bill in the final sitting week.

On Monday Walker told Guardian Australia “the issue is urgent” and “has been urgent for years” – as Asio chief Duncan Lewis told the committee.

But claims that the bill itself was urgent were just the Coalition attempting to “boost” the legislation, Walker said. “It is important that a bad bill not be passed and that a bill that is good is passed.”

Senate president warns encryption bill could erode parliamentary privilege Read more

Walker warned that national security legislation was “not like many laws where we can say we won’t make the perfect the enemy of the good” because they “alter security settings for everyone in the community and once done it may not be able to be fixed”.

Walker warned against Labor’s compromise of passing the powers for national security agencies and child sex crimes, because “to say the genie can grant wishes to certain parts of the law and order and security community” means it is “out of the bottle”.

Ai Group’s chief executive, Innes Wilox, said in a statement that those who questioned the bill “are clearly not opposed to its national security requirements and should not be condemned for raising legitimate concerns about its implications and reach”.

“Encryption of communications and information passed between businesses and their customers is fundamental and there is a clear risk that the measures in the bill could weaken the security of these businesses,” he said.

“It could make them more vulnerable to hacking and undermine trust between business and their customers.”

The Law Council of Australia president-elect, Arthur Moses, said the bill was “far too complex to be rammed through parliament in its entirety in just four days”.

“Failing to properly scrutinise this bill risks unintended consequences which may impact on the privacy and rights of law-abiding Australian citizens, the media and corporate sector,” he said.