Secondly, our flag still displays the Union Jack on the canton, which is the position of honour. This shows that the British Empire controls Australia, which is not true. Australia is not a colony anymore, but an independent country. Foreign citizens do not recognise our flag, but instead they question why we belong to Britain. We are part of the world’s mature nations, not an infant still needing a mother’s protection.
Australia's identity is said to piggy-back off the English and Americans, the key countries that influence Australia. In the article "Australian identity: who the bloody hell are we?" it is written that "It’s a case of stealing someone's heritage and pasting in your own; except not everyone knows the Australian version yet." The article expresses the struggle for Australia to generate its own unique identity. This problem with this is that fact that Australia does not have the Revolutions of France and America, neither the rich history of the Spanish or Chinese, Australia is too young.
True Blue? On Being Australian "Australia needs sudden shocks of reorientation within its society that will divorce it from the largely irrelevant problems of the British, make it possible to speed necessary changes and to develop some new sense of identity, some public feeling of being a people who can be described - even if incorrectly - as such-and-such a kind of nation, and act at times as if it were so. Australians are anonymous, featureless, nothing-men. This modest anonymity reveals itself in the argument that Australia does not run to the kind of person we could turn into a president. "Donald Horne - 1964 Australia is a country filled with so much multiculturalism that it is often hard to distinguish what qualities and values
It is clear that under statute law, no right or even desire for fair access to justice exists. This is in direct contrast to the rich history of the common law right to procedural fairness, and the right to a fair trial implied by Chapter III of the Australian Constitution. The question that must be asked is why this is allowed to occur. The simple answer is the unfortunate truth of representative democracy, what is believed by the majority is not necessarily morally right. As said by the Honourable Justice Michael Kirby; Majorities can certainly err.
And therefore he suggests that “Shearing the Rams was not an icon of Australian legend at the time of its making…”5 It merely was connecting with the relationship of a class ideology and subsequently became one. Although this suggestion is disheartening to many current Australian’s it is justified when you consider that “nationalism is not an ideology: it is an appeal to the social units made specific by the class ideology and interests which call on it at particular times.” 6 This means that at a later date the image of bush labour and pastoral life, the foundation which the country was built on, became a strong ideological symbol of what it meant to be Australian. Probably the most different reading is Tim Bonyhady’s ‘Contrasting Lights’ as he does not, like Burn’s and Smith, analyse the ideological and class interpretations of the audiences at the time. Instead, he concentrates more on stylistic influence and emergence of the Heidelberg
There is no such thing as a definite true Australian identity. Rather, there are multiple constructed versions, where no one version can be decisively labeled correct of wrong. Both the novel The Secret River and the poem ‘We are Going’ portray an alternative reading of national identity which is resistant to the dominant versions that are based on the twin myths of the Bush and the Anzacs. The first myth is based upon the achievements of the white settlers in an unknown and foreign land, and the second celebrates the courage of the Anzacs. However, these dominant versions work to silence or marginalize particular groups in Australian society.
Whitlam was ineffective at understanding Sir John and gravely misread him, Whitlam expected Kerr to enforce his, and only his, judgements, as is the political convention in Australia. When questioned about his relationship with Sir John, he stated “[The Governor General must] unquestionably only act on the advice of the Prime Minister”. The Governor General has the power under the constitution to ignore the advice of the Prime Minister but it was convention that he followed it, and this convention had not been broken since federation. Another aspect of Kerr’s power that Whitlam overlooked was his ability to appoint and dismiss members of the government (section 64) and particularly his readiness to use this power. The convention here was not to invoke this power but Kerr broke the convention on the 11 November 1975, dismissing Gough and ending the Constitutional crisis
‘Australia does not need a Bill of Rights, whether constitutionally entrenched or by ordinary statute. Such a Bill would reduce parliamentary sovereignty, politicise the judiciary, increase the costs of the legal system, complicate human rights protections and constitutional arrangements and encourage trivial and vexatious complaints. Moreover, there is no convincing evidence that such a Bill would significantly enhance Australia’s human rights protection given Australia’s good record on human rights protection, particularly when compared internationally and given Australia’s commitment to parliamentary democracy.’ Regrettably many of the premises in this argument, however sound they may seem, do not hold up when examined. Australia has been regrettably seen as a wolf in sheep’s clothing when it comes to the issues of human rights On one hand it championed and was given responsibility in 1948 to the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and has since been a leading member of the UN in adopting their Treaties. However the most recent period since September 11 2001, legislative and executive practice, has seen the erosion of human rights in Australia.
It is a day where the citizens of Australia come together as a nation and celebrate the positives of Australia as a country and being an Australian, and also to reflect on what Australia has achieved as a country and how we can make it a better place. Although there has been a lot of controversy with the date of Australia day as Australia day is seen racist to the ingeniousness people. They see it as January 26th was the day they lost their land, and their
Indigenous Traditions - Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Origins Australia has two indigenous peoples – Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. It is not possible to speak of one Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander religion, as there were many. There are, however, shared cultural traits, economic and ceremonial dealings, and a customary system of land-tenure law. It is misleading to try to separate Australian indigenous religious experience from other aspects of their life, culture and history. It is also difficult to speak of origins, because an indigenous conception of time connects past actions and people with present and future generations.