While I vocally opposed that piece of legislation (and are included in the public comments collection), that is not an accurate description of the law. The government that can force you to add backdoors in certain circumstances, and you cannot tell people about it. Yes that is utterly abhorrent, but that isn't the same as "government mandated backdoors in every software product" -- though funnily enough, the US Senate actually did try to pass a law like that in June[1].
Sorry, you're right. The government that can demand backdoors in any software product. That's a lot better. /s
I didn't say the US Senate is a lot better, but to be completely fair there isn't a backdoor law in the US yet. It's possible Australia was the testing ground for that type of legislation though.
I didn't say it was better, I said that the description wasn't correct. If we're going to criticise something, we should describe it accurately -- otherwise our opponents can simply say "they're being hysterical and don't know what they're talking about".
Heck, that's exactly what the ASD did when the vast majority of people were screaming about employees being individually targeted by the legislation (which wasn't accurate). Now, the ASD also did misrepresent the legislation too -- but now it's less obvious to the general public who is actually being sincere.
[1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/senates-new-anti-encry...