Well, it's really straight forward, because in the Kim Davis instance, you're basically siding with what I presume is Trump's attitude to banning muslim's entry. You're basically saying, yes, Kim Davis can practice her religion, just not in the US public service as she's required to obey the law. Similarly, Trump hasn't banned the practice of Islam, because those people denied entry aren't in the USA, and their rights aren't being prevented on US soil, and likewise, they would be required to obey the law by not returning, just like Kim Davis is not to exercise her freedom of religion, whilst at work.
So when you swap the boundaries of the US public service, with the boundaries of the USA, you are essentially lumped with very similar sets of circumstances, as she can't go to work (nevermind the jail part) just like Trump is suggesting muslims can't enter the country, yet, you arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions.
As a NSW resident, the 3D printing aspect is just one part. There has been some reporting of backyard manufacture of firearms, usually machine pistols. This legislation, doesn't just prohibit 3D printing blueprints, but also specifically prohibits blueprints for electronic milling machines as well (CNC mills).
This isn't going to change anything much at all. They didn't ban manufacture of firearms through these methods, the people who can legally manufacture firearms, are exempt from these restrictions. What is dangerous about it is that it's basically banning knowledge, to some extent. Will they ban drug recipes? What about chemistry books if they have instructions that can aid drug manufacture? The possibilties are endless, and that's where the US first amendment is such a powerful right, which few other nations have granted to their respective serfs.
Actually the legislation covers that very scenario, basically defining 'being in possession' across jurisdictions. Bottom line is, there was some media talk about 3D printed firearms, the police tried some out and put out videos of them blowing up, but after the sydney siege late last year, they couldn't let a crisis go to waste, so put out this legislation. It's just politicians trying to look like as if they're doing something, but in reality, are powerless to do anything.
To answer your question though, yes, anything can be banned here, we have almost no protected rights, so anything can be given, or taken, at the whim of parliament.
Trust me they won't get any less distraction now without Abbott, and it's because the media is running the narrative of public discourse, and the media is filled to the brim with ideologues. They're too busy spreading their doctrine on their holy trinity of refugees, gay marriage and climate change.
I just look at their coverage, when they do, of tech things, and on topics that I'm knowledgeable about, the Australian media is invariably hopelessly wrong.
I know what I said is a simplification, but it's true in the context of the real world, and not the idealised parliamentary procedure. Take voting for the greens, they're a fringe party that struggles beyond 10%, they're popularity is also amongst the wealthiest inner city class, whilst deeply unpopular among the poorest classes in Australia. Now, we don't operate strictly in a two party system, but in practice we do. Technically speaking, when our parliaments were first formed, there wasn't a concept of a political party. It was meant to be that each member operated on their own. This was unworkable, as no one could agree to anything, starting parties alleviated this and really did allow political progress. Technically speaking, the constitution still doesn't recognise or allow for political parties. It probably explains why we're having such political turmoil with so many state and federal leaders shuffled along, because there's too many competing interests going on, and no actual vision from our leaders, rather focus group driven policy.
I am extremely dissatisfied with the erosion of personal liberties in Australia. I definitely won't be voting for Labor, Coalition, nor the greens, because they all have the same authoritarian streak in them. The problem is, most people do vote within the two party system, so that's why with preferential voting system, at some point you do have to choose where your vote goes, and pick the lesser of multiple evils. The only choice I have is to either vote informal, or decide where my election funds go with my vote (your upper and lower house votes are worth >$5 in election funds so always pick your most preferred candidate first).
You're so obviously biased. Now that Abbott is gone, do you realise that the mastermind behind this policy is in charge! After all Turnbull was communications minister up until a month ago, this is his policy!
I've mentioned in a previous post though, the issue got bipartisan support, so the public have no say on this. Then the anti-Abbott campaign run by the ABC and fairfax really just shows how the news cycle was dominated by ideologues out for revenge. Meanwhile, important news, I end up reading about on websites generally for a US audience (this isn't the first time, it seems to be a recurring trend actually). Go figure, our media sucks, its just trying to brainwash, as it's definitely not trying to inform.
This isn't even for monitoring. It's so that they have data to sift through after the fact, in other words, if you come to the attention of the police. Maybe at a later date they'll start to automate thingsand go through the metadata as it comes in, but at this stage, it's just requiring ISP's to store it for an extended period of time.
Bottom line is, there's bipartisan support in parliament, so the public literally have no say on the issue.
Computer programmers do it byte by byte.