s no immediate threat on Australian soil, so the act could not come under the defense powers of the Commonwealth. Defense powers differ to others, when in times of war they are played out at their fullest. Justice Kirby has a valid quote,
             "The Communist party case is a decision that I have a personal reason to remember quite vividly. It was, in my view, Dixon J's wisest and finest judicial hour. It is appropriate that we in Australia (and perhaps of our friends elsewhere) should remember the case at a moment, such as the present, when unrestrained voices are raised urging us to cast aside our traditional liberties in response to the perceived threat of terrorism."
             This evidence supports Shane's statement that judges appeared to be fearless at a time in history when it was considered easier to conform, they stood up for individual rights and I believe it would be fair to assume that individual rights genuinely existed in Australia at that time. Jane subtly agrees with Shane's comment however she has a more specific focus on the situation in the present day. Jane believes that individuals have so many restrictions imposed on them and that successive elected governments have employed measures geared towards imposing their will on the people of this country and scaring them into submission. I strongly disagree with Jane's statement. As a part of federalism we have the separation of powers in Australia. Both of them imply constitutional limits on the states power, through the use o
             ...