It wasn't a "bipartisan bill". The Opposition had zero input - they moved amendments that were rejected by the Government.

I've explained how the LNP is responsible for it - it was their bill, written by them and passed through a process they control.

Make no mistake, they had the numbers to pass it regardless of what the Opposition did on the floor. The Opposition's vote either way was merely symbolic - and frankly I find it hard to fault them for making the cynical political calculation that their future political chances could only be hindered by a pointless vote against it.

In regards to metadata retention, the shadow Comms Minister at the time outright said Labor had no plans to amend or repeal the legislation if elected.

I don't buy this "they're secretly anti-surveillance!" line. They are complicit.

It's also puzzling how you imply that amending these bills would fix them. As if one more check and balance would make them not a horrific disaster. In fact, Labor's "amendments" to "fix" the AA bill was adding mandatory judge approval for mass surveillance -- sounds fixed to me!

Labor are pro surveillance and have been for a very long time. They have voted for every single surveillance bill. Their MPs ignore feedback about surveillance from constituents.

Implying they should trash fundamental principles by voting for this stuff just to cling to power is pretty weak. They won't change anything, they support it.

The metadata retention bill that Labor vehemently supported has already been viciously abused. Originally touted as being a bill designed to combat terrorism and child abuse, it's now used to investigate things like littering(!!!). Federal police have been caught using it to stalk girlfriends repeatedly. Labor support this.

The ALP were in government for 6 years between 2007 and 2013. What bills like this did they pass when they were in charge?

I don't imply that "amending the bills would fix them". I am pointing out that the Government rejected all other input on these bills, so they cannot be meaningfully described as "bipartisan".

Implying they should trash fundamental principles by voting for this stuff just to cling to power is pretty weak.

I imply nothing of the sort.

"Cling to power"? What power?

I am stating that voting against a Government bill that has the numbers to pass anyway is a quixotic action, and in this case probably both a strategically poor option.

You know what's a fundamental principle? The principle that you get the laws that the Government you vote in wants to make. The Opposition can't save you from the Government you voted for.

What do you believe is the role of the opposition if not to oppose/raise awareness about contentious legislation?

By definition they represent the minority (or else they would be the government) so almost any action they take will be "quixotic".

To me the fundamental job of the opposition is to point out the failures of the government and paint alternative paths forward. The opposition can move the public sentiment and there are enough poll watchers in the government to respond to pressures.

They have done this so they're not portrayed as soft on terror by the (mainly Murdoch) media. Yes, they're complicit, but I doubt they would have instigated this level of law if they were in power (though it's not out of the question).