3 ms·

It took me just a couple of minutes to find the bill in question, read up on it and find that most of the claims made in this article are incorrect. It's not "

by 8372049 5y ago

It took me just a couple of minutes to find the bill in question, read up on it and find that most of the claims made in this article are incorrect. It's not "rushed through parliament in 24 hours", it's been in a process since at least December 2020. The 'without a judge' part is strongly misleading: (5) If subsection (4) applies, the applicant must: (a) provide as much information as the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member considers is reasonably practicable in the circumstances; and (b) not later than 72 hours after the making of the application, send a duly sworn affidavit to the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member, whether or not a warrant has been issued. Subsection (4) is about immediate threats. The AAT's decisions "are subject to review by the Federal Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia" (Wikipedia). https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6623_aspassed%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6623_aspassed%2F0000%22 https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.... This is just the digital equivalent of a police officer being able to arrest you without a court order.

javajosh 5y ago
5.b ...or what? In practice these kinds of rules are unenforced because governments tolerance for their own busy schedules, giving exceptions for unavoidable delay, is infinite. And then it happens so much it's standard practice and attorneys lose social credit for even bringing it up.
- 8372049 5y ago
  I would say it depends. If it takes 80 hours to get approval and it turns out that the warrant was, well, warranted, then I don't consider it to be a big problem. If it takes 80 hours and it turns out to be abuse, then heads would probably roll. However, in most cases these things are legitimate. I've worked in government and most people have good intentions. We don't have to protect ourselves, as a society, against the legitimate cases, we have to protect ourselves against the abuse.
  - lobocinza 5y ago
    Good intentions means nothing. Most people have good intentions but that doesn't prevent them from abusing power, lying and causing damages intentionally and unintentionally.
    - 8372049 5y ago
      Then we mean different things by "good intentions".
      - audit 5y ago
        Good intention still implies that the implementation allows for 'bias'. Prosecutorial bias, judicial bias. Allowed bias is necessarely a bad thing, because that means bad behaviour can be hidden behind a shield of 'plausable deniability'. I think any legal system that allows for prosecutorial and judicial discretion in anything that can lead to criminal charges, is destinet to become a system of entrapment over time. I even have my own 'adage' to offer: 'A bad behaviour rewarded by sufficent increase economic or political power, will eventually corrupt and subvert any law that allows for prosecutorial discretion in determining guilt'
  - javajosh 5y ago
    What if it turns out to be 30 days?
  - traloid 5y ago
    Unless there are stated penalizations for violations, rules mean nothing.
hazza_n_dazza 5y ago
"Judge or nominated AAT member" AAT members are not judges, so does a judge need to nominate these AAT members? Even if they do, I think many would argue that the AAT should not be fulfilling this role. Only judges should, as they are talking about crimes with seven or more year sentences.
- 8372049 5y ago
  13 Nominated AAT members (1) The Minister may, by writing, nominate a person who holds one of the following appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to issue warrants under this Part: (a) Deputy President; (b) senior member (of any level); (c) member (of any level). (2) Despite subsection (1), the Minister must not nominate a person who holds an appointment as a part‑time senior member or a member of the Tribunal unless the person: (a) is enrolled as a legal practitioner of the High Court, of another federal court or of the Supreme Court of a State or of the Australian Capital Territory; and (b) has been so enrolled for not less than 5 years. (3) A nomination ceases to have effect if: (a) the nominated AAT member ceases to hold an appointment described in subsection (1); or (b) the Minister, by writing, withdraws the nomination. (4) A nominated AAT member has, in relation to the performance or exercise of a function or power conferred on a nominated AAT member by this Act, the same protection and immunity as a Justice of the High Court has in relation to proceedings in the High Court. Source: Section 13 of the law https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00193 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00193
raxxorrax 5y ago
I don't see the necessity and equivalency to be honest. A police officer isn't allowed to search your apartment for example, why should he be allowed to search you documents without court order?
- 8372049 5y ago
  In many jurisdictions, a police officer is allowed to search your apartment under special, urgent circumstances. I'm sure you can think of cases where immediately issued warrants make sense, whether its for apartments or documents.

javajosh 5y ago

5.b ...or what? In practice these kinds of rules are unenforced because governments tolerance for their own busy schedules, giving exceptions for unavoidable delay, is infinite. And then it happens so much it's standard practice and attorneys lose social credit for even bringing it up.

8372049 5y ago
I would say it depends. If it takes 80 hours to get approval and it turns out that the warrant was, well, warranted, then I don't consider it to be a big problem. If it takes 80 hours and it turns out to be abuse, then heads would probably roll. However, in most cases these things are legitimate. I've worked in government and most people have good intentions. We don't have to protect ourselves, as a society, against the legitimate cases, we have to protect ourselves against the abuse.
- lobocinza 5y ago
  Good intentions means nothing. Most people have good intentions but that doesn't prevent them from abusing power, lying and causing damages intentionally and unintentionally.
  - 8372049 5y ago
    Then we mean different things by "good intentions".
    - audit 5y ago
      Good intention still implies that the implementation allows for 'bias'. Prosecutorial bias, judicial bias. Allowed bias is necessarely a bad thing, because that means bad behaviour can be hidden behind a shield of 'plausable deniability'. I think any legal system that allows for prosecutorial and judicial discretion in anything that can lead to criminal charges, is destinet to become a system of entrapment over time. I even have my own 'adage' to offer: 'A bad behaviour rewarded by sufficent increase economic or political power, will eventually corrupt and subvert any law that allows for prosecutorial discretion in determining guilt'
- javajosh 5y ago
  What if it turns out to be 30 days?
- traloid 5y ago
  Unless there are stated penalizations for violations, rules mean nothing.

hazza_n_dazza 5y ago

"Judge or nominated AAT member" AAT members are not judges, so does a judge need to nominate these AAT members? Even if they do, I think many would argue that the AAT should not be fulfilling this role. Only judges should, as they are talking about crimes with seven or more year sentences.

8372049 5y ago
13 Nominated AAT members (1) The Minister may, by writing, nominate a person who holds one of the following appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to issue warrants under this Part: (a) Deputy President; (b) senior member (of any level); (c) member (of any level). (2) Despite subsection (1), the Minister must not nominate a person who holds an appointment as a part‑time senior member or a member of the Tribunal unless the person: (a) is enrolled as a legal practitioner of the High Court, of another federal court or of the Supreme Court of a State or of the Australian Capital Territory; and (b) has been so enrolled for not less than 5 years. (3) A nomination ceases to have effect if: (a) the nominated AAT member ceases to hold an appointment described in subsection (1); or (b) the Minister, by writing, withdraws the nomination. (4) A nominated AAT member has, in relation to the performance or exercise of a function or power conferred on a nominated AAT member by this Act, the same protection and immunity as a Justice of the High Court has in relation to proceedings in the High Court. Source: Section 13 of the law https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00193 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00193

raxxorrax 5y ago

I don't see the necessity and equivalency to be honest. A police officer isn't allowed to search your apartment for example, why should he be allowed to search you documents without court order?

8372049 5y ago
In many jurisdictions, a police officer is allowed to search your apartment under special, urgent circumstances. I'm sure you can think of cases where immediately issued warrants make sense, whether its for apartments or documents.