Slashdot Mirror

On the subject of constitutions...

What a government legally can and cannot do is specified by the constitution from which it was formed, and it really makes no difference whether the nation is a federation of states, a confederacy, nation-state, city-state, or whatever.

In this case, the article refers to the 'smart card' to be implemented in Australia, to be used when dealing with federal agencies including (but probably not limited to) Medicare and Centrelink (the Australian version of Social Security). Australia, by the way, happens to be a nation formed of a federation of states (just like the U.S.), and is governed by a constitution (linky). Section 52 of that constitution grants the federal government the exclusive power to make legislation regarding:

(ii.) Matters relating to any department of the public service the control of which is by this Constitution transferred to the Executive Government or the Commonwealth:

...and section 51 enumerates these matters, including:

(xxiii.) Invalid and old-age pensions:

(xxiiiA.) The provision of maternity allowances, widows' pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorise any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances:

(xxxvii.) Matters referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth by the Parliament or Parliaments of any State or States, but so that the law shall extend only to States by whose Parliaments the matter is referred, or which afterwards adopt the law:

To my reading, and I am not a lawyer, this means that this particular federal government can implement this particular national ID card as it is proposed, because the laws in question relate to the specific federal agencies over which the constitution grants the federal government exclusive power. The federal government cannot, however, implement a more wide-ranging ID card, as it does not have the power to issue drivers' licenses and the like (unless the states allow it to, see xxxvii. above).

Anyway...does anyone know of the specific sections of the U.S. constitution that specifically allows or disallows Congress from making such a law? Just curious.

Have a look here and here for handy details on the destruction of your civil liberties, brought to you by MiniTruth.

Have a look here and here for handy details on the destruction of your civil liberties, brought to you by MiniTruth.

The site was hosted on Yahoo and the domain name registeres with Melbourne IT. The site is still on Yahoo's servers and can be downloaded using an IP address and an absolute URL (so their virtual server knows which website you want. By way of explanation, here is something I previously submitted as a story:

At the request of the Australian government, domain name registrar Melbourne IT has removed DNS entries for a political opponent of a ruling political party and its policies in Iraq.

Richard Neville created a parody of one of the Australian Prime Minister's speeches and posted it on a the website www.johnhowardpm.org. After a day the website mysteriously disappeared from the Internet. Melbourne IT, domain registrar for johnhowardpm.org, and Yahoo, the website host, both denied knowledge.

Tim Longhurst has been investigating. After two days two anonymous Melbourne IT technicians have come forward and told him that "johnhowardpm.org" was removed from DNS at the request of representatives from the Australian government, without the knowledge of the domain owner. Normal proceedure is for the domain owner to at least be notified.

Australian Internet users can no longer read www.johnhowardpm.org. Yahoo's DNS server (yns1.yahoo.com) still resolves johnhowardpm.org and the pages still exist on Yahoo's server (premium7.geo.vip.re4.yahoo.com = 216.39.58.74). They may be retrieved by sending a http GET request using telnet, or by setting one's HTTP proxy to 216.39.58.74 and typing "http://www.johnhowardpm.org/" into a browser address bar.

Given that the parody was not obscene, and its facts were well backed with references the only justification seems to be political censorship by Melbourne IT and the Australian government. The Internet equivalent of a political assassination to shut someone up.

If "The Net treats censorship as a defect and routes around it.", what is the future for Melbourne IT as a registrar? The High Court of Australia has also ruled that the Australian Constitution contains a right to freedom of political speech.

Parent is correct. The Australian Constitution does not guarantee freedom of speech. From Freedom of Speech and the Constitution:

The Australian Constitution does not have any express provision relating to freedom of speech. In theory, therefore, the Commonwealth Parliament may restrict or censor speech through censorship legislation or other laws, as long as they are otherwise within constitutional power.

The above page also states that Australians do not have free speech under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights either.

Parent is correct. The Australian Constitution does not guarantee freedom of speech. From Freedom of Speech and the Constitution:

The Australian Constitution does not have any express provision relating to freedom of speech. In theory, therefore, the Commonwealth Parliament may restrict or censor speech through censorship legislation or other laws, as long as they are otherwise within constitutional power.

The above page also states that Australians do not have free speech under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights either.

Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism

Think Again.

C'mon, the source is the Hoover Institution. That's about as reputable as a Baath Party website saying Saddam's a great guy. Going through the first bit of data after going through pages of bad and obvious anti-Democratic Party propaganda, we see their list of terrorists supported by Saddam:

• Abu Nidal Organization -- Retired in 1986 if my memory serves. Definitely before 2003. Their very first claim is bullshit.
• Ansar al Islam -- An anti-Saddam organization, more well known now as "the Zarqawi organization" or "al Qaeda in Iraq". Another bullshit claim.
• Arab Liberation Front -- Never heard of them. A quick google shows they were active in the 1960s. That's before Saddam even came to power and long before 2003. Claim 3, bullshit.
• Hamas -- The only specifics I've heard about Saddam giving to Hamas has been that he established a fund to rebuild houses of relatives of Hamas members which Israel had a policy of destroying. I recall that he stopped this before 2003 but I'm not sure, so I'll call this questionable.
• Kurdistan Workers Party -- Another anti-Saddam organization and a well-known one. By the Hoover Institute's standards we can call Al-Qaeda a US-backed terrorist group because they were active in New York on 9/11.
• Mujahadeen e-Khalq -- An anti-Iran rebel group, currently in the employ of the United States. Listed by the US as a terrorist group, but this Australian report says their tactics are paramilitary rather than terrorist.
• Palestine Liberation Front -- Renounced terrorism in 1993 when Oslo was signed. More bullshit.

Of the 7 claims, 5 are bullshit and 2 are iffy. Just from the first table one can tell that their data is not going to be relevant to the situation in 2002-2003 when the invasion and run-up to it took place. The obvious conclusion is that you're a moron for linking to that page, and the grandparent stands.

Australian constitution As a matter of fact we do have a Supreme court, in fact we have A federal Supreme Court, each state and territory has a Supreme Court of their own, we just call it the High Court.
Justice, Peace and the 'stralian way....

Wrong. Dead wrong.

The Senator you are refering to is (ex) Senator Brian Harridine [0]. You can read here an interview on ABC Radio, AM (22 June, 2005) [1] on his Senate retirement. Harridine was a independent hardliner from Tasmania. The Senator you refer to is Richard Alston, Liberal Party Hack & now gracing the powers of London as Australia's High Comissioner in the UK.

'... Thankfully Alston lost his powerseat during following elections ...'

No it has to do with fixed terms in the senate. You can read this in reference 1.

'... Alston was exposed as the luddite nutjob he trully was and the sun once again shone. ...'

No (unfortunately). He was among other things appointed 'Adjunct Professor in the Faculty of Information Technology at Bond University in Queensland'.

Reference

[0] Australian Parliament Hansard, 'Validictory, Senate Hansard, 21 June, 2005':
http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document. aspx?id=2220537&table=HANSARDS

[1] ABC AM, 'Brian Harradine bids farewell to the Senate':
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1397805.htm

[2] Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade, 'Richard Alston
Australian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom':
http://www.dfat.gov.au/homs/uk.html

Wrong. Dead wrong.

The Senator you are refering to is (ex) Senator Brian Harridine [0]. You can read here an interview on ABC Radio, AM (22 June, 2005) [1] on his Senate retirement. Harridine was a independent hardliner from Tasmania. The Senator you refer to is Richard Alston, Liberal Party Hack & now gracing the powers of London as Australia's High Comissioner in the UK.

'... Thankfully Alston lost his powerseat during following elections ...'

No it has to do with fixed terms in the senate. You can read this in reference 1.

'... Alston was exposed as the luddite nutjob he trully was and the sun once again shone. ...'

No (unfortunately). He was among other things appointed 'Adjunct Professor in the Faculty of Information Technology at Bond University in Queensland'.

Reference

[0] Australian Parliament Hansard, 'Validictory, Senate Hansard, 21 June, 2005':
http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document. aspx?id=2220537&table=HANSARDS

[1] ABC AM, 'Brian Harradine bids farewell to the Senate':
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1397805.htm

[2] Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade, 'Richard Alston
Australian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom':
http://www.dfat.gov.au/homs/uk.html

The honorable minister looks like an ex-porn star. http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/homepages/im ages/photos/2m6.jpg

"Finally! Those fat cats in Canberra are taking some action to prepare for the immanant impending zombie pandemic."

They wouldn't have to look far for the source of the infection. Check this guy out;

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/member.asp?id= 0J4

He's even got the voice down right...

Hope it gets in but unfortunately there are only seven out of 76 Australian senators that are Democrats (and from the 1st of July 2005 they lose three of them). They have no members in the lower house and are a minor party unlike their US namesakes - flamebait???

They'll love slashdot, this is probably the most attention that they've had for a while.

Hope it gets in but unfortunately there are only seven out of 76 Australian senators that are Democrats (and from the 1st of July 2005 they lose three of them). They have no members in the lower house and are a minor party unlike their US namesakes - flamebait???

They'll love slashdot, this is probably the most attention that they've had for a while.

Hope it gets in but unfortunately there are only seven out of 76 Australian senators that are Democrats (and from the 1st of July 2005 they lose three of them). They have no members in the lower house and are a minor party unlike their US namesakes - flamebait???

They'll love slashdot, this is probably the most attention that they've had for a while.

The Prescription Benefits Scheme (PBS) is a part of the larger Medicare scheme that all Australians contribute to via their taxes.

Sorry to rain on your rant, but it's not the Prescription Benefits Scheme, it's the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/SP/pbs.htm

Rants have far more sway if they're accurate.

The transcript is available starting on page 55 of this PDF (called a Hansard, apparently.)

There's now an illustrated version of his opening statement here, but the questions from the senators are much more interesting and you'll find them in the Hansard.

Title: Extradition : a review of Australia's law and policy / Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.
Author: Australia. Parliament. Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.

Some interesting facts and background on Australian extradition policy. Includes statistics on extraditions.

I somehow have gotten the impression that the AUS Government is very computer hostile unless it is at the behest of large corporations or pressure groups, could anyone living in AUS give the low-down on some of the problems that plague internet users there?
Sort of right. See the goverment used to own this company called Telecom which provided telecommunications. No one else could, the goverment owned all of the phone lines in the country. Which worked ok.

The goverment finally let other carriers in and in 1992 Optus launched in Australia. In 1997 the goverment sold (I think) 25% of Telecom (now called Telstra) and in 1998 sold enough to give the goverment 51% control (A Brief History of Telstra).

Which is where we are now. Basically Telstra owns most of the lines (because they were paid for by the Australian people) and it costs a fair bit for anyone else to roll out an entire network. But Telstra obviously set the retail and wholesale prices of the lines. And strangely, sometimes, the wholesale prices are more than or equal to the retail. Optus gets around this via thier TV cable services, Alphalink rolled out wireless and iiNet are doing what article says.

There were claims that Telstra blocked the introduction of broadband for it's own benifit and that it has been unfairly competing against other carriers (but I don't think Fair Trade has upheld any of these claims).

In reality the goverement is pushing to sell the rest of Telstra and the Coalition have never quite got enough votes in the Senate to get it thru by themselves. For the last two sales they mad stupid ammendments to appease an independent who calls himself Brian Harradine, who's very into censoring everything, including the net. Thankfully he's going, but Family First managed to get one senator in (and I'm ashamed that it's in my state) and they are a party who... shock horror... want to ramp up net censorship further than what Harradine dreamed he could get.

So the simple answer is it's not that the goverment are actively computer hostile, it's just that thier short sighted plan of selling a monopoly means that they have to be mean to all of us.

I think I might have ranted a bit there, but you should get the general impression of what's happening down here. Oh... and do a search on google for Telstra suck if you need more of an idea... :)

In Australia, any Commonwealth law, provided that it is within the Commonwealth government's constitutionally assigned powers, overrides any state law about the same thing (s109. "When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid" - see Chapter V [aph.gov.au], and see Chapter 1 part V [aph.gov.au] for the Commonwealth's powers) I've not read the FTA laws, but in theory any new laws made to entrench it would fall under s51(xxix) - which basically means that they can do anything to satisfy treaty obligations (which for e.g. was used to override the Tasmanian law against homosexuality after the International Human Rights court declared it bad - so it's pretty broad). But they don't even have to go that far - s51(xviii) gives the feds power to make laws regarding "Copyrights, patents of inventions and designs, and trade marks", so while states can legislate to their hearts' content about those things, it don't mean squat if Little Johnny and his chums want to pass a law saying, essentially, "all US copyright, patent and trade mark laws apply in Australia". IANAL... yet

In Australia, any Commonwealth law, provided that it is within the Commonwealth government's constitutionally assigned powers, overrides any state law about the same thing (s109. "When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid" - see Chapter V [aph.gov.au], and see Chapter 1 part V [aph.gov.au] for the Commonwealth's powers) I've not read the FTA laws, but in theory any new laws made to entrench it would fall under s51(xxix) - which basically means that they can do anything to satisfy treaty obligations (which for e.g. was used to override the Tasmanian law against homosexuality after the International Human Rights court declared it bad - so it's pretty broad). But they don't even have to go that far - s51(xviii) gives the feds power to make laws regarding "Copyrights, patents of inventions and designs, and trade marks", so while states can legislate to their hearts' content about those things, it don't mean squat if Little Johnny and his chums want to pass a law saying, essentially, "all US copyright, patent and trade mark laws apply in Australia". IANAL... yet

If you're interested, the authority on Australian copyright law is the Australian Copyright Council. However, the current laws will change if the FTA enabling legislature is passed.

Yeah, there is a house in Canberra with your name on it.

I'm sure John Howard would love to get some spam in return.

ps - his address is john.howard@aph.gov.au

The australian constitution doesn't actually give citizens freedom of speech. See http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2001-02/02rn 42.htm

Good day,

I am contacting you because of a business concerning a huge sum of money stashed away in the treasury of the government where I work here in Australia. Though I know that a transaction of this magnitude will make any one apprehensive and worried, but I am assuring you that all will be well at the end of the day. I actually decided to contact you due to the urgency of this transaction.

PROPOSITION;

I discovered a large sum moneys owned by the Australian taxpayers, but I could not bring myself to return it to those who did not have families or incomes above $50,000 per annum. The funds have been accumulated by excessive taxation and aggressive economic rationalist policy including the sale of essential public infrastructure and amounts to over AU$2,000,000,000.00 (two billiun Australian dollars). Data collected and stored in secret Liberal party files inaccessible through FOI channels shows that the public would prefer it to be returned to the ailing health care and public education systems but we feel that only the privileged classes should be able to enjoy the full benefits of these systems.

As such, I am willing to share the spoils of this enormous sums of money with my fellow Australians. I will send you $600 per dependant child under the age of 18, and a further $3000 if you are due to have a child in the next month. All that I ask in return is that you provide your FULL NAME, FULL ADDRESS, DIRECT TELEPHONE AND FAX NUMBERS, OCCUPATION AND POSITION, NATIONALITY, DATE OF BIRTH and VOTING INTENTION to your nearest electoral official at a date yet to be named but we assure you could happen at any stage, even this very weekend!

These requirements will enable me to be continue my endeavours to subvert the democratic process in Australia and to heighten the classes distinction between privileged and working classes, and in addition to the sum of moneys already mentioned, I shall be compensating you further with very generous political and financial advantages should you meet my criteria of what an Australian should be.

If this proposal is acceptable by you, do not take undue advantage of the trust I have bestowed in you, I await your urgent mail. Please reply to my private and confidential email: john.howard.mp@aph.gov.au

Best Regards,

Mr. John Howard,

Prime Minister of Australia

i think it was meant to be john.howard.mp@aph.gov.au
one would presume that aph stands for Australian Parliament House, or something similar.

also, you forgot to add the 'mailto' link to give the email address harvesters a bit of assistance.

So, you dont have a parliament (see http://www.aph.gov.au/) whose members are elected to represent the people? 'Cause that there qualifies yer country as a republic.

Summary of the summary:

• The main concession on an IP front is Australia extending its copyright term from life+50 years to life+70 years. This was seen by the negotiating parties as Australia's main concession in the agreement, in return for US concessions in other (non-IP) areas. The US pushed very hard for this, and was prepared to concede quite a bit of ground in other areas. They wanted life+95 yrs but didn't get it. Australia gained quite a bit by holding out until making a rather late comprimise. This is apparently "more in line" with WIPO treaties that most other developed countries have already signed up for, but not the life+95 years that the US has.
• Most submissions were against the copyright extension. Reasons for this include that Australia is a net importer of IP, the US is a net exporter, and that this is a clear benefit to the US rather than Australia. A recent report (2000 or so) recommended not increasing the term of copyright, but an even more recent report comissioned since FTA negotiations started recommends it (the Committee notes that this report is dodgy).
• DFAT representatives commented that Australia does not have hard and fast obligations to adopt all the US-style copyright laws:

  If you look at that language, it talks about 'endeavouring to work together'. It is a best-endeavours clause; it does not commit Australia. There are no obligations there for Australia to harmonise anything but rather to work with the United States and where appropriate--if future governments decide it appropriate--to work together in those areas. It is a best-endeavours clause and there are no obligations there.

  And:

  It is fair to say that the response has been unsurprising in the sense that you can see continuing divergent views on some aspects of intellectual property. We have been at pains to explain to those music interests that are concerned that, whilst we have strengthened copyright in some areas, we have retained the ability to make exceptions and that, whilst we have agreed to adopt elements of United States law, we have not agreed to implement US law word for word. Therefore, continued consultations with industry about the most appropriate way to do that in the context of our regulatory and legal environment are important.

• There were a number of submissions advocating lower copyright terms for the benefit of consumers of copyrighted material. (These are more or less standard fare on Slashdot, but better worded ;) )
• Submitters argued for Australia to adopt the US's more liberal fair-use (called "fair dealing" in Aus, but quite different in what's allowed) provisions (on a related note, most owners of iPods in Australia are breaking the law, but the govt wants to get rid of such stupidities). Australia also does not have the originality requirement that the US has for copyright to apply. The govt is apparently still considering doing this, but it's not in Howard's legislation.
• The committee is concerned about the potential abuse of the extended copyright term. It thinks that US antitrust law or European law is more likely to stop abuses than Australian consumer protection law. The committee doesn't think that DFAT (dept of foreign affairs) demonstrated sufficient technical competance when answering questions on copyright law.
• The FTA provides for copyright holders to enforce more restrictions than provided for by fair-dealing by making a contract with copyrigh

General site for Pariliament of Australia
House of Representatives
Senate

General site for Pariliament of Australia
House of Representatives
Senate

General site for Pariliament of Australia
House of Representatives
Senate

for these reasons alone I love living in a place where if I'm outside it can be hard to be captured by image because of the size of the country.

the closest we have to cctv in melboure was some cameras put up in sept-oct '81 for CHOGM. This of course in under review as the 2006 commonwealth games are being planned.

But getting a shirt and some dacks at a local store on the weekend illustates how insidious observation has become. I picked up a buiness card seeing where was an online ordering option and I happened to notice the terms of condition for entry into the store.

If you refuse to have your bag searched the company reserved the right to use video images to refuse entry into *any* store in the future indefinatly.

• ``For YOUR protection, a video record of you and your establishment is being transmitted and recorded at remote locations. [insert darkglass here on shirt] All criminal acts prosecuted.''

  Steve Mann, Shooting back.

The problem for me is twofold, double standards and unnecessary data collection. Double standards becuase I bet the store owners and company in question would object if I did a steve man on them and put them under surveillance , secondly the potential for abuse or mistakes made using this approach.

In a country where noise is made about *free speach*, *innocence before guilt* and *privacy* I'll make less of a noise when pollies allow visual transmission of 100% of parliamentary procedure and not cut transmission due to parliamentary standing procedure to avoid honourary members falling into disrepute.

The Oz House of Reps (think Congress) passed enabling laws yesterday (not the agrement itself, which unlike the US will not face a vote in Oz). The Australian Senate will now vote on these enabling laws in mid-August, based on their final report which will come down around then.

Several recent reports from parliamentary reviews which in part cover the Chapter 17 issues about intellectual property:

• Joint Std Ctee on Trade report (proposing 'Fair Use' amdts): ,
• Senate select ctee interim report ,
• Dr Phillipa Dee's report to Senate critical at p15 of selective nature of harmonisation with US IP law.

See also this page for further references.

The Oz House of Reps (think Congress) passed enabling laws yesterday (not the agrement itself, which unlike the US will not face a vote in Oz). The Australian Senate will now vote on these enabling laws in mid-August, based on their final report which will come down around then.

Several recent reports from parliamentary reviews which in part cover the Chapter 17 issues about intellectual property:

• Joint Std Ctee on Trade report (proposing 'Fair Use' amdts): ,
• Senate select ctee interim report ,
• Dr Phillipa Dee's report to Senate critical at p15 of selective nature of harmonisation with US IP law.

See also this page for further references.

The Oz House of Reps (think Congress) passed enabling laws yesterday (not the agrement itself, which unlike the US will not face a vote in Oz). The Australian Senate will now vote on these enabling laws in mid-August, based on their final report which will come down around then.

Several recent reports from parliamentary reviews which in part cover the Chapter 17 issues about intellectual property:

• Joint Std Ctee on Trade report (proposing 'Fair Use' amdts): ,
• Senate select ctee interim report ,
• Dr Phillipa Dee's report to Senate critical at p15 of selective nature of harmonisation with US IP law.

See also this page for further references.

If we became a republic (which nearly happened a few years ago and will likely happen in the relatively near future), we have to decided what to replace the governor-general with and what powers that position will have. Giving all the power to the PM would be a bad idea because we'd effectively lose the executive branch of our government. Most current plans have a "President" taking the place of the current governor-general, retaining all the powers of the old position. Basically, just removing the link to England and leaving the rest as is.

See this: The Reserve Powers of the Governor-General.

Quote from their page: The Committee encourages the lodgement of submissions in electronic form. E-mailed submissions must include the author's full name, phone number and postal address.

You make them to FTA@APH.gov.au

An Australian senate committee has been set up to inquire into the effects of the Free Trade Agreement. Submissions are open until April 30th. This is an opportunity to voice opposition to copyright extensions, and extensions to patents and 'DMCA issues' and be heard.

Submissions may be emailed to: FTA@aph.gov.au

More details are on the web page: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/freetrade_c tte/

These submissions do make a difference (I submitted to a previous inquiry on broadband access). This is an opportunity for us to put a point view forward. It is hard for an inquiry to draw a conclusion contrary to the majority of submissions (or for the government to ignore the results of such an inquiry).

In addition, results are usually published, forming a permanent record of opposition.

Also, check out the 'copyrightaustralia' yahoo group and an associated web page. Regards

An Australian senate committee has been set up to inquire into the effects of the Free Trade Agreement. Submissions are open until April 30th. This is an opportunity to voice opposition to copyright extensions, and extensions to patents and 'DMCA issues' and be heard.

Submissions may be emailed to: FTA@aph.gov.au

More details are on the web page: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/freetrade_c tte/

These submissions do make a difference (I submitted to a previous inquiry on broadband access). This is an opportunity for us to put a point view forward. It is hard for an inquiry to draw a conclusion contrary to the majority of submissions (or for the government to ignore the results of such an inquiry).

In addition, results are usually published, forming a permanent record of opposition.

Also, check out the 'copyrightaustralia' yahoo group and an associated web page. Regards

Here's the listing of Australian Members of Parliament:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/mplist.htm

Write a snailmail letter (don't email) to your local member and protest this junk!

I thought this was supposed to be "stuff that matters" - since when does another little gadget that will be overtaken in two months at best qualify as "stuff that matters"

Here's something that matters: (albeit to me)

Linux Australia has written a draft position paper(or a PDF) on therecently negotiated Free Trade Agreement between the US and Australia,and is looking for feedback.

The FTA has some Intellectual Property provisions that have a severe impact on Australia. The Australian Senate has a Committee looking into it and the dead-line for submissions is: April 30.

What can you do? Sign the petition, Comment on thedraft position paper and send feedback to the JointCommittee on Treaties.

What do you the the chances are that even one thousand people would protest IP harmoniZation?

Probably we will see a media release from EFA, but they are the "ultimate doctrinaire libertarians" and not a word they say should be believed. (I'm quoting the former communications minister).

BTW, it's VB / MB / XXXX not fosters. :-)

You are wrong. Read the consitution - there's nothing about citizens' rights to carry guns.

Australia does not have a bill of rights

Well actually, we do, technically. Queen Anne's Bill of Rights of 1689 is still on the books, inherited from English Law. Some quotes:

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;

The Australian Constitution is available on the web (Naturally), and a casual read will show that it's been heavily inspired by the US one of over 100 years earlier. We like to think ours is better, but YMMV.

is fairly dull and doesn't really mention such grand concepts as freedom.

Addresses here. Don't forget the senate as Greens and Labor together may defeat any required legislation.

Don't be abusive, but explain the problem clearly. Most pollies probably aren't even aware of how dangerous such moves are to Australia's well being.

Addresses here. Don't forget the senate as Greens and Labor together may defeat any required legislation.

Don't be abusive, but explain the problem clearly. Most pollies probably aren't even aware of how dangerous such moves are to Australia's well being.

why the big quote from the U.S. Constitution? . . . Can't you quote someting Australian? :-)

No, sorry. Can't quote anything Australian on the issue of freedom of speech or the press. Australia has no constitutional clause or bill of rights on this topic. These issues seem to be decided by Australia's High Court, which since 1992 has said that there is an implied right in the Australian constitution to freedom of expression of public political topics, but not on much else.

What the Australian constitution does say is, "Chapter I. Sec. 51.The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: ... (xviii.) Copyrights, patents of inventions and designs, and trade marks." This is a great deal simpler than the version found in the U.S. Constitution: "Article I. Section 8. The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". The actual Australian Copyright Law of 1968 makes for pretty dense reading.

IANA Australian (in fact, IAA American), but it seems that Australia lacks a rallying cry to match that part of the U.S. constitution that the *IAA keeps trying to monopolize for themselves: Amendment I. Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . .

None of this should be taken as a disparagement of Australia, of course. For instance, the U.S. copyright laws are at least as dense and a good deal more restrictive besides. It just seems that prohibiting the ownership and use of presses (e.g. CD burners) in the U.S. would involve slightly more hypocrisy than doing so in Australia. It is an equally bad idea in both places.

Since when can someone search another person's property?

Quoting from this PDF, which is part of a report on enforcement of copyright in Australia by the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for the Australian Parliament ...

It is not easy to secure evidence to support a civil action for infringement, especially an action against pirates or bootleggers, who often dissemble their operations at the threat of legal action. For this reason, the courts have developed an interlocutory order that enables a plaintiff to enter and search the defendant's premises, and seize infringing material. Failure to comply with the order constitutes contempt of court. The order is known as an Anton Piller order, after the case in which it was first granted.
...
Anton Piller orders, which are sought in an ex parte application to the court, are only granted if strict requirements are met. Copyright Agency Limited (CAL) stated that courts are reluctant to grant Anton Piller orders, and that they are in any case very expensive to seek. Preparation for an application for Anton Piller orders may involve surveillance and investigative and forensic activities. The orders are also very costly to execute, since an independent team of lawyers must be present.

The key issue here appears to be that copyright infringment is a civil offence and not a criminal one, so police will not involve themselves in search and seizure of evidence. The Anton Piller order allows the search for and seizure of evidence to occur in such cases. But it's not easy to get such an order (and you need to have evidence already) and independant witnesses must be present to ensure the integrity of any evidence found.