While I agree with the author’s view, I am troubled by the observation that this policy is a dangerous shift in the balance between an individual’s rights and Australia’s need to protect itself from terrorism.
Why? Because there are no individual rights in Australia. No Bill of Rights, nada, zip. There is a narrow freedom of speech for certain classes of political speech that the court found was implicit in the AU constitution. But that’s it.
The structural failure of Australia to provide constitutional-level protection for individual rights leaves little opportunity to challenge government actions that infringe on what are considered individual rights in western democracies.