Dear AGIR,

There was an excellent article
in, "The Age," Saturday, July 10, 2010. In
the "Insight" section, page 8.

The article states that, " ... a debate about
stopping the boats is as cruel as it is absurd.
...both sides of politics must lay out policy
ground rules that meet Australia's legal and
humanitarian obligations. Unless the debate is
to be about withdrawing from the United Nations
Refugee Convention, Labor and the Coalition need
to explain how they intend to meet the legal
obligations of being a signatory. Under the Howard
government, Australia was reckless in this regard
and its policies caused enormous human misery..."

Whatever system is in place, as "The Age," points
out, Australia is legally bound to assess each
asylum claim on its merits.

It is a complex issue to both political parties,
especially with an election just
around the corner.

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am too well aware Australians have an identity crisis not knowing their true identity and on my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati I have posted articles about this.
“Australian citizenship” is constitutionally not a nationality but rather embraces a persons political standing such as franchise.
The true constitutionally national flag remains to be the Union Jack and so also the national anthem God safe the Queen.
And Edmund Barton, born in NSW, made clear on 2 March 1898 “we are all alike Subjects of the British Crown”, and no s.128 referendum can change this!
Those who don’t know or don’t understand this simply better go back to sleep while people more alert at least are aware what is constitutionally applicable. The commonwealth of Australia is not a country, dominion, kingdom, dominion, empire but is nothing else but a POLITICAL UNION as like the European Union!

Dear Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka,

This thread is actually about our
international reputation on the global stage,
and the way that we're perceived overseas,
and why we should be concerned about it.
It is not about the Constitution
of Australia, but Thank You for your input
nevertheless.

I rather like Dennis Pryor's
summary of the "Constitution of Australia,"
which he sums up in his satirical dictionary,
"Political Pryorities: How to get on top of
Australian Politics," (with his tongue lodged
firmly in his cheek - where he exposes all the
vanity and hypocrisy of our leaders, bureaucrats,
journalists, and party hacks). Pryor tell us that:

" The Constitution of Australia -
A document providing a sumptuous living for lawyers
since its invention by the British Parliament in
1900. Written in clogged legalese (the American
constitution begins 'We the people,' the
Australian "Whereas the people,") it is a
promiscuous combination of USA Federalism and the
Westminister System. The founding fathers designed
it to keep power in the hands of the states and to
make constitutional changes as difficult as possible.
It contains a number of booby traps such as the powers of
the Senate and the reserve powers of the Crown which
were used to dismiss a government which still had a
majority in the House of Representatives..."

.
HANSARD 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
We want a people’s Constitution, not a lawyers’ Constitution
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE
.
It is not the constitution that is at fault but the people who are abusing/misusing their powers and for the outside world we better get it right so we do not remain to be a laughing stock not even knowing our own identity.

Our identity in 1777 was different to our identity in 1820. Our identity in 1820 was different to our identity in 1880. Our identity in 1880 was different to our identity in 1920. Our identity in 1920 was different to our identity in 1960. Our identity in 1960 was different yo our identity in 1990. Our identity in 1990 was different to our identity in 2010.

ALL countries go through major changes. NO country remains untouched by change.

If someone loves this country just the way it is now, then something can be absolutely 100% guaranteed ............ at some stage in the future our country will NOT be the way it is "now". As sure as the sun rises, as sure as we need air to breathe, "CHANGE" is a part of everyday existence in EVERY country.

Some people have real and serious problems with accepting and recognising the inevitability of "change". They want things to remain forever just as they are, or just as they were in some type of Utopian past. Guess what folks? That will NEVER happen. It NEVER has happened, and it's not happening now. "Change" is a part of life itself.

National identities are constantly changing, have done so since the beginning, and will continue to do so forever.

Dear benq,

Brilliant!

Absolutely brilliant!

Bravo, well said!

The only constant is change.

Spot on!