Talk:Anti-Terrorism Act 2005

message: *potential for almost unlimited restrictions on named individuals ...
*significant restrictions on the right of any citizen to express certain opinions ...
:Rather than saying "Violation of human right X: government agency Y can now do Z", a more NPOV description would be "Government agency Y can now do Z. This has been criticised by organisation A as an erosion of the right to X". Wikipedia should not be concluding that the intention (as opposed to a side-effect) of the bill was to stifle right X: at most it should note allegations that that is the case. 
Andjam 02:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the wikipedia article doesn't mention anything about the judicial branch, ie which powers require a court order or don't. Andjam 02:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Help needed here.  Usually I can grok legal jargon, but this defeats me.
What does p77 mean when it says 
"(2) Recklessness applies to paragraphs (1)(a), (b) and (c)"
Dito for clauses (4) and (6).
Are they saying that even if you didn't mean to (eg) incite violence but did so by accident, it's still sedition?  
Also, 80.2(5) makes it an offense to incite violence against a group, if the use of force would threaten the peace, order _and_ good government of the Commonwealth.  [My empathsis]
But 80.2 doesn't apply if a person "points out in good faith matters producing ill-will between groups, in order to remove those matters" 80.3(1)(d).
I don't understand this.  I'm sure 80.3(1)(d) doesn't mean that you can in good faith incite violence?  But I don't know what it does mean either.  Help?
Another question.
The Attorney General no longer needs to give written consent before proceedings for an offence of sedition can begin.  (80.1(3)is repealed and not replaced.)
What difference will this make in practical terms?
Yet Another Question.
Under the crimes act of 1914 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca191482/s24a.html)
it is already seditious to " (g) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects so as to endanger the peace, order _or_ good government of the Commonwealth;"  [again, my empathis]
This seems to be watered down in the new bill, by replacing "or" with "and", by changing "promote feelings of ill-will and hostility" to "use force or violence".
And I think I can now answer my own earlier question re good faith violence.  The good faith clause is more or less the same as the current clause in 
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca191482/s24f.html
It's just having replaced ill-feeling with violence, the clause no longer makes much sense.   Sound right?
:Recklessness means that you had actual foresight of the probable consequences, that is, you knew what was likely to happen when you did something, and you did it anyway. So in this case, if you knew that your actions would probably incite violence, and then did them, and they did in fact incite violence, then you would have recklessly incited violence. 80.3(1)(d) is protection for journalists etc. (PS, please sign your posts on talk pages.) --bainer (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what the purpose of the Attorney-General no longer needing to give written consent is. Possibly it's there to reduce the chances of someone getting off on a technicality? --RaiderAspect 23:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sedition 

message: Thanks, whoever changed "drawn the ire of" phrase-I should have changed it myself as it was a bit strong Georgeslegloupier 03:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc Changes 

message: 103.2 Financing a terrorist
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person intentionally:
(i) makes funds available to another person (whether
directly or indirectly); or
(ii) collects funds for, or on behalf of, another person
(whether directly or indirectly); and
(b) the first-mentioned person is reckless as to whether the other
person will use the funds to facilitate or engage in a terrorist
act.
Penalty: Imprisonment for life.
(2) A person commits an offence under subsection (1) even if:
(a) a terrorist act does not occur; or
(b) the funds will not be used to facilitate or engage in a specific
terrorist act; or
(c) the funds will be used to facilitate or engage in more than one
terrorist act.
Regards, Ben Aveling 20:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reckless Funding 

message: It's possible to see from reading the legislation that any judge can be asked to issue any number of control or detention orders, and that there isn't any restriction on the number of times a control order can be sought from different judges.
But I agree, we should have a cite or something before we can just say so.
Maybe http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/read/2005/2418069228.html or http://www.abc.net.au/news/items/200510/1490449.htm?queensland
Regards, Ben Aveling 08:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judicial Oversight 

message: ::Today the Government will introduce into the House of Representatives an urgent amendment to Australia’s counter-terrorism legislation and seek the passage of the amendment through all stages tonight. The President of the Senate will recall the Senate for 2pm tomorrow. It is the Government’s wish that the amendment be law as soon as possible.
::The Government has received specific intelligence and police information this week which gives cause for serious concern about a potential terrorist threat. 
I don't get it.
::A person commits an offence if the person does any act in preparation for, or planning, a terrorist act.
::Penalty: Imprisonment for life 
This isn't proposed law, this is the current law. 
Why then do we need this urgent action?
Regards, Ben Aveling 09:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urgency 

message: Of course, this is already law in Australia - the offence of 'sedition'.  There have been no prosecutions of sedition in Australia in 45 years.  220.237.187.254 
:Well, no.  There are major changes to the law that make it apply differently.  Some things that used to be OK to say now aren't, and probably vice-versa.
:And the max penalty has gone way up.
:And the Attorney General no longer needs to give approval before charges are laid.
:So there are important changes.
:Regards, Ben Aveling 05:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We probably need a separate section in the article discussing the sedition laws. They seem to be a major issue and particularly controversial given that it is looking like they may well go through the upper house, although a Senate committee rejected (I think it was unanimously, but can't find the source for that yet)them . Of particular interest is Phillip Ruddock's comment that the laws would be reviewed further AFTER they were passed, which I believe is supposed to be rather unusual. Georgeslegloupier 05:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The final part of that committee Hansard hasn't been published yet, but when it is it will be available here, under the heading "Anti-Terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2005". --bainer (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a page Australian sedition law we can perhaps draw on.  Regards, Ben Aveling 02:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sedition (cont) 

message: I have removed this:
Notwithstanding all the above questions, the fact that this legislation has been passed with the concurrence of all the State governments under secion 51(xxviii) of the Constitution, which authorises the Commonwealth government to exercise any power held by the Westminster parliament on 1st January, 1901, (which in practice means they can do anything except amend the constitution), it seems likely that the High Court will rule the legislation valid.
from "Constitutional issues". There is no citation, the section in question is incorrect (I think the poster meant s 51(xxxviii)) but most importantly I'm fairly certain it's wrong. The grant of power which could previously be exercised by the UK Parliament would be ignored if inconsistent with the separation of powers. The more specific rule takes precedence over the more general. There's also another grammatical error (just in case anyone wants to re-insert): in last line it should be "would" not "will" after High Court as there is no current challenge (AFAIK). Could probably also do with a bit of wikification - HCA, Westminster, Constitution etc. mjec 02:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutionality per s 51(xxviii) 

message: The title of the Commonwealth Act is Anti‑Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005. The State / Territory acts have various titles. Therefore, this article should be entitled, "Anti-Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005" - the title "Australian Anti-Terrorism Act 2005" gives the false impression that this is the proper short title of the act, when it is not. (The qualification "Australian" is unnecessary, since I am sure that no other jurisdiction has an act with the short title "Anti‑Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005". If there were, then it should be qualified as (Cth), as per usual custom.) --SJK (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has wrong title 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Anti-Terrorism Act 2005. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090727121318/http://www.abc.net.au:80/news/newsitems/200510/s1483482.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1483482.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110211232033/http://www.abc.net.au:80/news/newsitems/200510/s1483113.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1483113.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090113160904/http://www.abc.net.au:80/news/newsitems/200510/s1490489.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1490489.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051227170318/http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au:80/common/story_page/0,5744,17066880%255E12250,00.html to http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17066880%5E12250,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Anti-Terrorism Act 2005. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070313155504/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/nm/20051020/wl_nm/security_australia_laws_dc to http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051020/wl_nm/security_australia_laws_dc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Anti-Terrorism Act 2005. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17031762%5E1702,00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/read/2005/2418069228.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Anti-Terrorism Act 2005. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090113162831/http://www.abc.net.au:80/news/newsitems/200512/s1525147.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1525147.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Anti-Terrorism Act 2005. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040813064307/http://www.nswccl.org.au:80/issues/terrorism.php to http://www.nswccl.org.au/issues/terrorism.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Anti-Terrorism Act 2005. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928062717/http://www.nswccl.org.au/docs/pdf/Anti-Terrorism%20Bill%202005%20%28consolidated%29.pdf to http://www.nswccl.org.au/docs/pdf/Anti-Terrorism%20Bill%202005%20%28consolidated%29.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0%2C5744%2C17066880%5E12250%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nswccl.org.au/issues/terrorism.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060305174630/http://www.freespeechoz.com/ to http://www.freespeechoz.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051111145211/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2005/11/rights-at-risk-my-dissent-from.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2005/11/rights-at-risk-my-dissent-from.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Anti-Terrorism Act 2005. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1490610.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2005/s1493765.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1494855.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://newsunleashed.com/australia-accused-of-rushing-shoot-to-kill-terror-laws.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928062717/http://www.nswccl.org.au/docs/pdf/Anti-Terrorism%20Bill%202005%20%28consolidated%29.pdf to http://www.nswccl.org.au/docs/pdf/Anti-Terrorism%20Bill%202005%20%28consolidated%29.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the Constitutional issues section the statement that "Former federal Treasurer Peter Costello has adopted a more cautious attitude, stating that "you never really know" the answer to the vexed question of constitutionality "until such time as the courts decide on these things"." is followed by a citation of "(SMH, 27 October 2005)". This is not precise enough. The citation should cite the actual article, like: 
* 
I found the above article with a simple search. Although this particular article is about the subject, it does not support or verify the quote by Treasurer Costello. So what other SMH article does? A full citation is needed to locate and verify what Costello said, to ensure that Wikipedia doesn't put words in Costello's mouth. Because if the citation is the following article then Wikipedia is taking Costello's words out of context.
*
What Costello really said was "You can get various opinions from lawyers and you never really know, of course, until such time as the courts decide on these things, but every due discussion should take place between the lawyers, and they should try to come to a consensus of opinion," ... "Unfortunately nobody ever finally knows these things until such time as the court rules." Viewed in context, Costello is not talking about "vexed question of constitutionality" but the difference between legal opinions and court decisions. He is also saying more discussion is needed and the Courts need to be involved. In effect, he is disagreeing with his Prime Minister's statement recorded in the previous sentence. BTW: At the time he made the statement, Costello was THE "Federal Treasurer ..." of the time. He only became a "former" Treasurer after 2007. The same applies to the then Queensland Premier Peter Beattie. Wikipedia should not be referring to these people as former anything, because they were the officeholders of the time concerned. Both MOS:TENSE and MOS:BLPTENSE also recommend using past tense when writing about historical events, which these are, and these people were the participant in the events of the time. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for SMH article on 27 October 2005