“The laws also introduced the power to make control orders – which can include curfews, travel bans, tracking device requirements, and prohibitions on speaking to particular people or going to certain places – to prevent a future crime.”
Wow what a bunch of dystopian bullshit. Aussie legislators must be smoking George Bush’s crack pipes
The worst part is all these laws always have bipartisan support. People really need to stop preferencing the two majors.
Emergency powers are just like bandaid solutions.
Usually permanent.
I don’t know if I’m crazy but there’s always something weird about these. So many of these laws come into Australia and I legit never hear it ANYWHERE besides a random Reddit or Lemmy post, like it’s being removed from the news.
And it always seems to have support from both side, so that they go in quietly. These sides will literally argue anything just because they’re on a different side, but never with these laws that affect freedoms.
IMO Australia also seems to be the “test” country, as I usually see these laws then try to start in UK and US a couple years later citing “Australia does it”.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
These preventive detention orders were acknowledged to significantly infringe on human rights, but were justified by the extraordinary terror threat Australia faced at that time.
The laws also introduced the power to make control orders – which can include curfews, travel bans, tracking device requirements, and prohibitions on speaking to particular people or going to certain places – to prevent a future crime.
The powers were supposed to cease in December 2015, after a decade, but have been extended four times since and were due to lapse at the end of this year.
Rosalind Croucher, the AHRC’s president, said the proposition of holding on to extraordinary powers “just in case” they were needed at some later point was not very convincing.
“We have drawn attention to the change in the security environment, but that’s not our primary reason for wanting these laws to sunset,” said the AHRC’s deputy director legal, Graeme Edgerton.
“I think we have to be conscious in this that we are dealing with fallible institutions, and to be perfectly frank, the role of the AFP in that case demonstrated the risks of having [overly] broad powers.”
The original article contains 735 words, the summary contains 189 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Australia: “The toughest laws in the free world”
