(Really, if you believe you're in a hostage situation then revolution is the only way out). You're describing it as if the social contract was premised on mutual consent, missing the larger point that consent of the governed has historically been just a stopgap against revolution. They're describing the modern nation state as if totalitarianism and a Hobbesian state of nature were the only two alternatives, sprinkled with revolution. I think you and the parent you're responding to agree more than you realize. A more rational and educated stance, undertaken by generations of civil rights activists before you, is not to dismiss the entire premise of government as a pure ugly display of power, and instead to fight tooth and nail against the individual attempts that culminate in its going out of control (in contrast to saying they'll get away with everything up until there's a revolution - which again, is defeatist posturing). Worse is to believe you actually are a victim suffering under it and have no choice but revolution. It's all nice and great to have theories about how everything is fucked and all government is corrupt, from the relative security of a permissive western country where you've never lived under anything resembling totalitarian oppression. I responded to the child comment, but I do have to say that this kind of dismissive aerial view of all world history and the progress made toward freedom in liberal democracies in the last 200 years really irks me, and has a decidedly millennial / tweet-like ring to it. (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. (b) the Minister, by writing, withdraws the nomination. (a) the nominated AAT member ceases to hold an appointment described in subsection (1) or (3) A nomination ceases to have effect if: (b) has been so enrolled for not less than 5 years. (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 (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:
(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: This is just the digital equivalent of a police officer being able to arrest you without a court order. The AAT's decisions "are subject to review by the Federal Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia" (Wikipedia). Subsection (4) is about immediate threats. (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. (a) provide as much information as the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member considers is reasonably practicable in the circumstances and (5) If subsection (4) applies, the applicant must: The 'without a judge' part is strongly misleading: It's not "rushed through parliament in 24 hours", it's been in a process since at least December 2020. 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.