5 ms·

There are no constitutional protections of rights in Australia (particularly related to excesses of the police and legal system), so there was probably very lit

There are no constitutional protections of rights in Australia (particularly related to excesses of the police and legal system), so there was probably very little legal basis for Apple to refuse.

jacques_chester 8y ago
Australia's Constitution does have some explicit rights and protections: right to jury trial (s80), religious freedom (s116), right to trade freely between states (s92), acquisition only made on "just terms" (s51(xxxi)) and protection from discrimination by the laws of a state other than their own (s117). Probably more notable is the implied rights built up by the High Court. The most important of these are a right to vote and freedom of political communication. But nothing as sweeping as the US Bill of Rights.
- nailer 8y ago
  Probably worth chasing a constitutional amendment for the right to privacy
  - jacques_chester 8y ago
    Constitutional amendments are very difficult to get up, the majority of attempts have failed. If either major political party opposes an amendment, it's essentially dead in the water. On current form the Coalition would drumbeat against it and Labor would do the bigger-badder-tougher-meanie-poo dance to try and neutralise the wedge. Consider the fact that we are in the middle of an ongoing constitutional crisis, for which the political class knows an amendment is the only effective solution, but nobody in either major party wants to even try.
    - nailer 8y ago
      I'm Australian but left in 2008 (for what should be obvious reasons as we're discussing this on HN). What's the constitutional crisis?
      - chottocharaii 8y ago
        I believe your parent is referring to the 'citizenship saga'. This isn't a constitutional crisis in the 'dismissal' sense. It's just the operation of s44 of the constitution causing a headache for parliament. Its been found that many of the parliamentarians are dual citizens, which is forbidden, and their seats in parliament have been nullified by the high court.
  - shakna 8y ago
    Australia's Constitution is very different from the American. It likely isn't the right place for such laws. (It requires a national referendum to make changes, it may predate independence, depending on how you date that). However, there are other laws with constitutional significance. The Statute of Westminster, and the Australia Act. But, most rights are guaranteed by Common Law, that is, any precedent or judicial opinion in any Commonwealth nation can be used for grounds that a right should be preserved when a decision is being examined by the High Court.
- zinckiwi 8y ago
  It's the constitution, it's Mabo, it's justice, it's law, it's the vibe and... no that's it, it's the vibe.
  - jacques_chester 8y ago
    I have called on this scene several times since moving to the US.
- jussij 8y ago
  > The most important of these are a right to vote As an Australian, I would love the Government to take this one step further and also give us the right to not vote.
  - retrogradeorbit 8y ago
    It is my understanding you actually do have that right. But it's a bit of rigmarole. It is only compulsory to vote if you are on the electoral roll and you can actually disenroll.

There are no constitutional protections of rights in Australia (particularly related to excesses of the police and legal system), so there was probably very little legal basis for Apple to refuse.

jacques_chester 8y ago

Australia's Constitution does have some explicit rights and protections: right to jury trial (s80), religious freedom (s116), right to trade freely between states (s92), acquisition only made on "just terms" (s51(xxxi)) and protection from discrimination by the laws of a state other than their own (s117). Probably more notable is the implied rights built up by the High Court. The most important of these are a right to vote and freedom of political communication. But nothing as sweeping as the US Bill of Rights.

nailer 8y ago
Probably worth chasing a constitutional amendment for the right to privacy
- jacques_chester 8y ago
  Constitutional amendments are very difficult to get up, the majority of attempts have failed. If either major political party opposes an amendment, it's essentially dead in the water. On current form the Coalition would drumbeat against it and Labor would do the bigger-badder-tougher-meanie-poo dance to try and neutralise the wedge. Consider the fact that we are in the middle of an ongoing constitutional crisis, for which the political class knows an amendment is the only effective solution, but nobody in either major party wants to even try.
  - nailer 8y ago
    I'm Australian but left in 2008 (for what should be obvious reasons as we're discussing this on HN). What's the constitutional crisis?
    - chottocharaii 8y ago
      I believe your parent is referring to the 'citizenship saga'. This isn't a constitutional crisis in the 'dismissal' sense. It's just the operation of s44 of the constitution causing a headache for parliament. Its been found that many of the parliamentarians are dual citizens, which is forbidden, and their seats in parliament have been nullified by the high court.
- shakna 8y ago
  Australia's Constitution is very different from the American. It likely isn't the right place for such laws. (It requires a national referendum to make changes, it may predate independence, depending on how you date that). However, there are other laws with constitutional significance. The Statute of Westminster, and the Australia Act. But, most rights are guaranteed by Common Law, that is, any precedent or judicial opinion in any Commonwealth nation can be used for grounds that a right should be preserved when a decision is being examined by the High Court.
zinckiwi 8y ago
It's the constitution, it's Mabo, it's justice, it's law, it's the vibe and... no that's it, it's the vibe.
- jacques_chester 8y ago
  I have called on this scene several times since moving to the US.
jussij 8y ago
> The most important of these are a right to vote As an Australian, I would love the Government to take this one step further and also give us the right to not vote.
- retrogradeorbit 8y ago
  It is my understanding you actually do have that right. But it's a bit of rigmarole. It is only compulsory to vote if you are on the electoral roll and you can actually disenroll.