| Thanks for the cluestick. This is unworkably bad, and I look forward to Ed Husic making good on his promise to amend the law. I had not read the bill, I have only read commentaries. I can't believe the law officer of the land permitted a bill to be drafted which requires this kind of behaviour because it feels like even resigning from your employer would be a breach of the act, since you cannot disclose you have been served with a notice in resigning. But, if you deliberately insert or attempt to insert subverting code, you are implicitly undermining the integrity of your employers code. I repeat what I said before: This feels like a legal minefield which a competent defense could drive a tank through. Just because it passed the chambers doesn't make it right, we have the kind of system which permits the high court to overturn manifestly unjust law. Not to implicitly believe everything said in defence of this bill could you comment on: https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us/our-portfolios/natio... in particular this bit: This law can compel employees to work in secret without the knowledge of their organisation Media reporting that has proposed this scenario is incorrect and misleading. The industry assistance framework is concerned with getting help from companies not people acting in their capacity as an employee of a company. Requests for assistance will be served on the corporate entity itself in line with the deeming service provisions in section 317ZL. A notice may be served on an individual if that individual is a sole-trader and their own corporate entity. A company issued a notice can disclose information about it under paragraph 317ZF(3)(a) in connection with the administration or execution of that notice. This allows an employer to disclose information to their employee and vice versa in the normal course of their duty. Additionally, a company may disclose statistical information about the fact that they have received a notice consistent with subsection 317ZF(13). Further, companies and their specified personnel may disclose notice information for the purposes of legal proceedings, in accordance with any requirements of law or for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. The notices themselves are therefore not ‘secret’ but information about their substance is controlled to protect sensitive operational and commercial information. The same page says this: Penalties for individuals in the legislation are for the purpose of potential enforcement proceedings against sole-traders and individuals acting as businesses. Which means by intent (but possibly not in words in the act) the idea was not to exclude telling your employer: the point is that sole traders and individuals can be compelled the same way companies can. Which I read, probably hopelessly optimistically, as that a requirement would almost never be placed on you, and not simultaneously on your employer: They know you are being asked to modify the code. The chance of being unable to "disclose" to your employer here feels quite limited. |