Does it inform the user or otherwise stop functioning for telehealth once the signal is received? If not, then does that mean that someone is considered e2e encrypted if it in theory can support e2e encryption even if it isn't using it right now?
It looks like the situation has not been fully thought through and the government is creating a Kafka trap when its laws.
> does that mean that someone is considered e2e encrypted if it in theory can support e2e encryption even if it isn't using it right now?
No. My assumption is that certain communications are required to be end-to-end encrypted, unless the individual is under surveillance. All end-to-end encrypted communications providers are required to have a mechanism in place for disabling and MITMing e2e communications. It stops being e2e encrypted for the duration of that surveillance.
I suppose it's possible that a foolhardy government (I'm not Australian, so I can't say for sure what they've done) would word the laws in such a way that they can't technically be achieved, but there's no reason why they have to be. The laws aren't bad laws because they are logically impossible to fulfill (if they are), they're bad laws because they violate the individual's right to privacy.
Note that the law might also prohibit the government from surveilling communications between patients and licensed health professionals. In that case it would be quite possible to mandate no-exceptions e2e for those communications, and a mechanism for disabling e2e. e2e that is never disabled is always e2e.
It looks like the situation has not been fully thought through and the government is creating a Kafka trap when its laws.