but what herman fails to explain is that even an ozzie can see where the democratic process is working not the behind closed doors procedure that the ozzy governmtn abuses to teh nthdegree and in caseyou haventread my othe post herewstheref tot the famous ozzy constitution that evryone thinks they have !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitution

The Constitution of Australia is the supreme law under which the Australian Commonwealth Government operates. It consists of several documents. The most important is the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Constitution was approved in referendums held over 1898 – 1900 by the people of the Australian colonies, and the approved draft was enacted as a section of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp), an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
The Commission of Assent was signed by Queen Victoria on 9 July 1900, upon which the Constitution became law. The Constitution came into force on 1 January 1901. Even though the Constitution was originally given legal force by an Act of the United Kingdom parliament, the Australia Acts removed the power of the United Kingdom parliament to change the Constitution, and only the Australian people can amend it (by referendum).
Other pieces of legislation have constitutional significance for Australia. These are the Statute of Westminster, as adopted by the Commonwealth in the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, and the Australia Act 1986, which was passed in equivalent forms by the Parliaments of every Australian state, the United Kingdom, and the Australian Federal Parliament. Together, these Acts had the effect of severing all constitutional links between Australia and the United Kingdom. Even though the same person, Queen Elizabeth II, is the monarch of both countries, she acts in a distinct capacity as monarch of each.
No wonder the government hides it from the world as if it doesn’t exist. IT DOESN’T!
So go to the queen of Australia with your bitches and complaints. I am just stating FACTS not personal opinion related to some meager comprehension of what exists. I am still hissing myself about the democracy referendum result.

Now that tomfromtacoma has calmed down he correctly points out, that we don't really have a constitution or more precisely "A Bill of Rights". In fact "the argument in Australia has been whether we actually need one or not".

What's interesting about this, is historical. The modern Australian that we imagine ourselves to be was originally born of the Eureka uprising which was effectively a rebellion against authority. The poor and downtrodden managed to claw their way out from under the Union Jack temporarily but not much changed and most of it's conventions remain. This is why today's Aust Flag represents a compromise with the UJ in the top right hand corner. I think todays Ozzies still retain a healthy mistrust of authority and/or the symbols of authority (like flags etc) deep down even today.

I think we do need a bill of rights tom and others. Apathy is our problem. It's part of our historical paradigm to let the dust settle and wait to see what happens. We've been doing this since Eureka and the dust has been settling for about 150 yrs. We haven't even started to think about what rights we would have in our country have we?. History has it's effect on the future.

The American right to bear arms is most probably born of the American Civil War. Would it be correct to suggest that a lot of Americans (back when their constitution was born) felt that it was wise to mistrust each other and possibly even now feel in their own historical paradigm that Govt can govern as long as they can individually bear arms and have the protection of a bill guarantee-ing their individual civil rights .

I mention this not to compare or criticize but to pose the question, "Would we have a right to bear arms in our constitution/bill of rights?. Would we feel the need to bear arms or not?

Peter Hume
From the ridiculous to the absurd hey peter
And to thinker2
So you ADMIT what I was saying about your research into the post that’s now turned into a political correct behavior proposition. Claims that YOU didn’t check out are correct, thanks for that.
A retraction is in order I think. Roflmao.
And if you read the constitution carefully (IF indeed you can read? you can it on disc book if need be) the 2 amendment right bear arms 1791 was for militia and the protection of the personal property in time of conflict. Which when you consider the period it was written was appropriate. That’s if you want to wax lyrical about history. That’s during time 1850 odd where the white Americans were fighting a civil war for the rights of the black Americans. Something I have yet seen in Australia the pent up feeling that country would go to civil war about black right.
But just to clarify your insinuation that I am a pro gun lobbyist I aint.
And just to clarify the Australian law doesn’t work, in that guns used for crime m are now isolated to the criminals and police (although I gotta admit it’s difficult to tell them apart in oz). The recent gun armistice, god how many do we need? After the government wasted so much money disguised as a Medicare levy. Real democratic process that huh.
That the confidence in the SAPD is 10% pro 90% against and reported crime in oz is 30% compared to 21 % here.

And that the feeling of safety in oz is 62 % compared to 82 % here in the USA if you want to quote stats that can be VERIFIED.
But all you want someone to massage your brunt ego, rather than correct and ideological failing of the Australian government.
You see you problem is you can’t admit your wrong about a little thing like the UN- Australian constitution (amongst others), so you rant and rave about everything but the truth, which is all I am after. Someone who will actually think about what my criticisms are not wear handle that says so, as you do.
So please explain if you can the result s of referendum 1967. And when you do explain it that w999ker Hume, so I don’t have to bother reading these ridiculous attempts to entrap a personal opinion.
Whitewash that about the democracy referendum again. ROFLMAO

thomasfromtacoma,

I would like to apologise on behalf of my fellow Ozzies here. You are right - it seems they that rather than make you feel welcome here on our quintessential Australian political chat site, they have gone out of their way to argue with you. Sadly they often take the Australian penchant for free, open and honest debate to such raucous levels outsiders have trouble for seeing it for what it is.

This is not good. You have shown us what polite, well mannered, quietly persuasive, and self defacing people you Yankees really are. They should be thanking you.

But as they haven't, allow me to do so now - Thank You.

Well thank you rstuart for the deep and heartfelt apology. Reminds me of the scene in saving Private Ryan when Tom Hanks says similar. More over its says lot for the aussie power for forgiveness being such god created beings of course that they can forgive this Australian born American. Just warms the heart god dang it. Still hissing myself over the democracy referendum though.