jboywonder, Thanks for pointing out my error re: figure for Bennelong. I had written in 10,000 until I had a chance to check the figures. I forgot to do so before posting.

Nevertheless, the figures still confirm my argument re: 10000 (really 38326) out of about 19 million not really representive of a majority. Indeed, without considering the preferential system, 38326 out of 76814 isn't even a majority in his own electorate of Bennelong. What I am having a go at is not John Howard but his and the Liberal's media machine's constant bellowing that they have a mandate based on a majority. The only way to find out that would be to have a referendum on every issue, which is laced with its own problems.

Parliamentary democracy is not perfect but is the best system around. Having saidd that I also think it needs to be seen for what it is and that, I think, means we need a Bill of Rights.

Nothing I have done justifies your, jboywonder, dishonest response and exploitation of my mistake to make entirely false accusations and innuendo. Thanks again for pointing out my mistake. (Sunflowers)

chek, there is no such thing as an independant committee the politicians either appoint the judiciary or the selection committee, the end result is the same.

I believe the Bill of Rights advocates want to be able to protect their views by simply paying a lawyer rather than getting off their backsides and changing the government if they believe it is doing the wrong thing, because gee politics is so below me and dirty

talk of a bill of rights is a waste of time. only the citizens of a democracy can have a bill of rights,and australia is not a democracy.

have a look at what aristotle had to say about democracy, and oligarchy, and you will discover we are in the latter class.

people in an oligarchy can have privileges, but privileges can be withdrawn by the power holders who extended them in the first place. only members of the power elite can have rights. rights are in fact just the label put on power by the powerful.