1. A lot of these creepy proposals never get past the proposal stage. Take the Australia Card.
2. Australia's legal institutions have proved reasonably effective in dealing with such creepy laws. E.g. laws banning the Communist Party were struck down in the '50s.
3. This latest proposal is about law enforcement, not censorship. Creepy anti-terrorism laws aren't a peculiarly Australian vice.
4. The government doesn't have a majority in both houses; it needs the complicity of non-government members to make laws.
None of this is to say that this is a good thing. It's creepy and embarrasing and I wish they'd stop.
The Australia Card was very nearly law - the Hawke Government went to the 1987 double dissolution election on it, and won, and the scheme was only defeated because of a small technical error in the pre-dissolution legislation which deferred the commencement date of the legislation to regulations (which can be disallowed by the Senate, where the coalition had a then majority).
Because the legislation couldn't be changed when it was presented to a potential joint sitting, this technicality is what killed it. Not popular opposition.
My mistake. Thank you for the correction. I certainly agree that popular opposition to creepy laws isn't an area where Australia has covered itself in glory over the years. That's not a specifically Australian failing, though.
1. A lot of these creepy proposals never get past the proposal stage. Take the Australia Card.
2. Australia's legal institutions have proved reasonably effective in dealing with such creepy laws. E.g. laws banning the Communist Party were struck down in the '50s.
3. This latest proposal is about law enforcement, not censorship. Creepy anti-terrorism laws aren't a peculiarly Australian vice.
4. The government doesn't have a majority in both houses; it needs the complicity of non-government members to make laws.
None of this is to say that this is a good thing. It's creepy and embarrasing and I wish they'd stop.