Editing Right to privacy (section)

=== Australia ===
{{see also|Privacy in Australian law}}
Australia does not have a constitutional right to privacy. However, the ''[[Privacy Act 1988]]'' ([[Commonwealth of Australia|Cth]]) provides a degree of protection over an individual's [[personally identifiable information]] and its usage by the government and large companies.<ref name="AU Research Note March 2005">{{citation|title=Do Australians have a legal right to privacy?|first=Morag|last=Donaldson|date=14 March 2005|access-date=14 November 2021|url=https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/prspub/CBHF6/upload_binary/cbhf64.pdf|work=[[Parliament of Australia]]}}</ref> The ''Privacy Act'' also outlines the 13 Australian Privacy Principles.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/australian-privacy-principles|title=Australian Privacy Principles|work=[[Office of the Australian Information Commissioner]]|access-date=14 November 2021|archive-date=14 November 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211114123208/https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/australian-privacy-principles|url-status=live}}</ref>

Australia also lacks a [[tort]] against [[invasion of privacy|invasions of privacy]]. In the 2001 case of {{cite court |litigants=[[Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd]]|vol=208|reporter=[[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]]|opinion=199| postscript=none }}, the [[High Court of Australia]] explained that there stood the possibility of "a tort identified as unjustified invasion of privacy",<ref name="ABC v Lenah Game Meats">{{cite court |litigants=Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd|vol=208|reporter=[[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]]|opinion=199|pinpoint=pg. 249|court=[[High Court of Australia]]|date=15 November 2001|quote=In the course of his judgment, Latham CJ rejected the proposition that under the head of nuisance the law recognised a right of privacy (232). But the decision does not stand for any proposition respecting the existence or otherwise of a tort identified as unjustified invasion of privacy.}}</ref> but that this case lacked the facts to establish it.<ref name="AU Research Note March 2005"/> Since 2001, there have been some state-based cases{{emdash}}namely the 2003 case {{cite court |litigants=Grosse v Purvis|reporter=QDC|opinion=151| postscript=none }}; and the 2007 case {{cite court |litigants=Doe v Australian Broadcasting Corporation|reporter=VCC|opinion=281| postscript=none }}{{emdash}}that attempted to establish a tortious invasion of privacy, but these cases were settled before decisions could be made. Further, they have received conflicting analyses in later cases.<ref>{{cite web|title=A common law action for breach of privacy in Australia?|date=27 March 2014|access-date=14 November 2021|work=[[Australian Law Reform Commission]]|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211114122126/https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/serious-invasions-of-privacy-in-the-digital-era-dp-80/3-overview-of-current-law/a-common-law-action-for-breach-of-privacy-in-australia/|archive-date=14 November 2021|url=https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/serious-invasions-of-privacy-in-the-digital-era-dp-80/3-overview-of-current-law/a-common-law-action-for-breach-of-privacy-in-australia/}}</ref>