>> In the second half of 2017 alone Apple received 2,601 requests for access to devices from Australian law enforcement agencies and granted them in 87% of cases.
…align with the famed Apple refusal to comply with the request to unlock an iPhone in the US a while back. Is the jurisdictional context different (re: the 4th amendment) or is this something different to unlocking a device?
They don't have your iphone passcode on file so they can't provide it to law enforcement.
Could also very well be that the author didn't distinct between the two sufficiently.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As an Australian, I would love the Government to take this one step further and also give us the right to not vote.