In case you missed it, the government last week, tacked on an amendment to an unrelated bill that would give police the power to recommend the cancellation of social security payments, before a conviction. All you need is an outstanding arrest warrant and a police officer who decides it is a serious enough crime and the recommendation can be made.
That completely overturns the principle of innocent before guilty as well as sets up a double standards – politicians facing charges are paid until a court has delivered a verdict. It risks abuse on the most marginal people and then being used against protesters or anyone else police and the government decide is a ‘risk’.
You can read more about that here.
It looks like there has been some action since the government slipped this all in – Lidia Thorpe plans on moving an amendment to the unrelated bill this amendment is tacked onto to remove it all together in the senate and it looks like some others like ACOSS and Economic Justice Australia are getting involved. Groups like the Antipoverty Centre and Nobody Deserves Poverty as well as advocates like Tom Studans were among the first to raise concerns over the amendment, which had been not been raised during the inquiry into the original bill.

2 Comments
hey it's us!
First they came for our metadata, and we said nothing because we didn't even know what it was;
then they came for our citizenship, and we said nothing because we weren't dual citizens, why should anyone have more than us anyway ;
then they came with their control orders and preventative detention orders, and we said nothing because they sounded like good ideas as long as it was applied to someone else;
then they had their secret trials, and we said nothing because we didn't know;
then they had their secret imprisonments, and we said nothing because it was over when we found out and it wasn't us;
then they came for the facial coverings antiwar protesters were using to protect themselves from pepper spray, and we said nothing because it wasn't us;
then they came for the anti-genocide protesters, and we said nothing lest we hurt the feelings of the genocide supporters;
then they came for the Greens, and we said nothing because they can take care of themselves, so we thought;
then they came for the social security payments, and we said nothing because we're sheep and being on a social security payments means forfeiting having a conscience, and speaking to truth against power, right?