There is another official flag that could perhaps be dealt with in the same way.
The Torres Strait Islander Flag.
The copyright is held by a council of islanders, since the original designer is deceased.
Hypothetical. Few things subject to political might are fixed forever. Predictability is not a given. Change unforeseen.
That our current leadership has seized the opportunity to act differently after so much time is a complete surprise! In context is it a win for those who have a heart felt symbolic connection, for consumers in general, or opportune marketing? Likely a bit of all 3, noting itâs firstly symbolic of a nation, IMO.
OK, I got that horribly wrong. This 1990s blunder from the then government, coupled with the current government, has cost the taxpayer $20 million. 
(Edited to correct decade of blunder from 1980s to 1990s.)
Looks like not everyone agrees to the ânationalisationâ of the aboriginal flagâŠ
Concerns being that use was controlled possibly for the right reasons in the past, where now anyone can use it for any purpose they see fit providing it is used in a ârespectful and dignified wayâ.
I would be more impressed with this position if the leaders of peak aboriginal bodies expressed it.
While I agree with much of their platform there are times when the only target The Greens can see is their own feet.
Is there any legal basis for that? ScoMo can say that such a proviso exists but unless well it actually exists, it doesnât.
Unless such a proviso exists then
But who decides what is considered ârespectful and dignifiedâ?
is not relevant.
To be fair, even before this change, the restrictions on the use of the flag may not have obligated someone to be ârespectful and dignifiedâ. The restrictions were more of a commercial nature. You pay the money, if required. You get the licence on the terms of the licence. If you are non-commercial then you could previously have been disrespectful or undignified.
There are protocols established for the Australian flag, which is likely to be adopted for the Aboriginal FlagâŠ
The Commonwealth has entertained the enactment of legislation to prevent the desecration, dishonouring or destruction of the Australian National Flag, the Australian Merchant Navy Ensign, the Royal Australian Navy Ensign and the Royal Australian Air Force Ensign (and possibly would also encompass the Aboriginal Flag if the bill was ever enacted), It has not been enacted, however, the bill is still availableâŠ
1 Like
Or as stated in the first linked document: âguidelinesâ. This is consistent with the Flags Act, from which I quote
The Governor-General may make, and cause to be published, rules for the guidance of persons in connexion with the flying or use of flags or ensigns referred to in, or appointed under, this Act.
(my emphasis)
Respect and dignity are not legally enforced.
Your second link is also a good summary of the issues that any government in Australia would likely face if attempting to enforce legally.
In particular I would draw attention to the obvious
might they extend to disfiguring or spoiling an image of the Flag for instance, as part of a campaign to change the Flag itself?
You would have to think that disfiguring the flag would be entirely legitimate political communication as part of such a campaign, and that the High Court should take a dim view of a law that prevents it.
That is only one small part of the act of disfiguring the flag in the context of a more general protest, an expression of discontent with the government, or the country as a whole, as represented by the flag.
And what flagsâŠis it only an official one made by an authorised or government approved flag makerâŠor a home made flagâŠa photograph, photocopy or printout of a flagâŠor how about a product which has a flag on it such as a t-shirt or a bagâŠdesecrating any of these can give a âentirely legitimate political communication as part of such a campaignâ.
Possibly this is why the legislation is never likely to get groundsâŠthe reasonableness or criminality I expect could easily be questioned.
1 Like
A different legal system but one only need look toward the USA to see how it once went and now goes making a flag essentially a proxy for a country and a monarch.
1 Like
MacDonalds arguing a look alike product called a âBig Jackâ infringed on its trade mark and would mislead consumers into thinking it was a Big Mac.
As a consumer of the occasional burger, itâs comic that either chain might need to argue any of us donât know which chain one is about to drive thru or walk into when purchasing any said burger.
An unexpected outcome, the court also found,
The meat in the Big Jack was found not to be 25 per cent bigger than the meat in the Big Mac as the Hungry Jackâs ad had claimed.
âThe average cooked weight of the BIG JACK beef patties coming in no more than 15 per cent greater than the Big Mac,â Justice Burley said.
âHungry Jackâs has engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in breach of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law.â
Choice might like to get itâs teeth into a taste test/review of who makes the least worst fast food burger, and how do the stack up for value/nutrition vs a good homestyle Choice test kitchen favourite. @BrendanMays
Itâs a worrying aside if the patties donât come up to weight, given both chains market their product on the weight of the key ingredient.
2 Likes
Both should have been found quilty of false advertising, because their burgers as served up look very little like the pictures.
And hasnât the advertising spiel of HJs been for many years, the burgers are better. Test that!
