Another reason was the government believed that Britain would help and give support to Australia when needed, if they supported Britain in the world war one. As a result, many British patriots encouraged conscription to ensure that Australia would be seen to have experienced the difficulties of War and, as a consequence, not relinquish it’s duty and in the process sever it’s ties with Britain. This fuelled the underlying controversies surrounding Australia's inability to assert her independence from Britain. Where as the people against the conscription believed that this is not the war to fight in. The war had no connections to Australia, and war was not good for the economy of a new country.
When China fell to the communists in 1949, fear surged through Australia that communism would eventually reach its shores, losing basic rights and freedom. The fear of Yellow Peril from the north marginalised Asians from society and caused much distrust amongst any ‘yellow’ members of
Will the Changes in Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act 1975 make Austrarian citizens vulnerable to being unfairly discriminated against or humiliated due to their race? Introduction Rutton (2013: 12) points out that Australian Prime minister and Attorney General, Tonny Abbott and George Brandis respectively, are seeking to repeal the section 18c in the racial discrimination act 1975. The changes include scrapping off Section 18c of the Act. Section 18c of racial discrimination Act 1975 protects persons and groups of people of different race or national or ethnic origin from being insulted, humiliated, offended or intimidated. Inherently, Australia is a multicultural society and each person should have a right of feeling welcome.
The soldiers being charged are Australians, then should they have not been tried by Australian court? British’s practice of imperialism prevents the Australian government from doing so. Also the trial is set up for the Australians to be found guilty; setting the Australians as examples to retain order within the British army. British once again using its practice of imperialism see Australian sacrifices’ as a small price to pay. Australian government is said to have agreed with the convict, one can assume this is due to British influence, practice of imperialism.
Fighting for the rights and privileges to possession, use and enjoyment to their own traditional land, winning the case proved extremely beneficial for the Meriam people of Australia as it was recognition of social equality and fairness. The denial of the traditional rights of the Indigenous Australians was a ‘unjust and discriminatory doctrine of that kind (which) can no longer be accepted” according to Justice Brennan. It was a significant alteration of the legal, political and social relations between Non- Indigenous people and Indigenous people, acknowledging that there was a continuing connection to the Indigenous people and their land. The High Court of Australia’s decision changed the basic principles for the whole nation, recognising that native title can accommodate and be extinguished, can be by either the Crown or Indigenous people as well as compensation can be given. The outcome resulted in a campaign against the newly-established land rights of Indigenous Australians which also changed Australia’s legal system
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 fines its citizens for not voting and we could do the same in the U.S. This would cause a lot more people to vote, because most people would not want to waste their money on a fine they could have avoided. This would also encourage minorities, who do not have enough money to vote, because they are unable to
These support the notion that interconnectedness is a fundamental aspect to our lives. Colin Long’s article ‘The Myth Of Belonging Masks Our Insecurity’ explores the dynamic, fluctuating nature of belonging in today’s society, referring to the banning of the Australian flag during the ‘Big Day Out’ festival. The writer opens with vernacular language and low modality, e.g. “perhaps as a sign”, “I wondered why…” to create a conversational tone, engaging the reader and personalizing the discussion. The first paragraph concludes with “how dare anyone ban the carrying of the Australian national flag – especially on Australia Day?” The indignant tone highlight its irony, since that is exactly what had happened.
“Sorry…mate?” As a bystander, it is outrageous to see how much effort the Australian government is putting into Aboriginal affairs even after Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s public apology to the Stolen Generations in 2008. It was necessary for the Australian government to acknowledge their past wrong-doings and apologise for the generation of stolen children whose families had been forcefully torn apart. Thinking back, this bleak moment in the Australian history was the result of an official government policy from 1909 to 1969 which allowed authorities such as the Aborigines Protection Board (APB) to remove children of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander backgrounds from their birth families. They were to be fostered or adopted into another
Soldiers at War were left helpless as pessimism increases. Newly appointed Prime Minister of Australia, William Morris Hughes, following his trip back from Britain, proposed a solution- conscription. However the Commonwealth Defence Act from 1903, gave the Australian government the power to enlist men for military service within Australia but not for overseas. This left Hughes a very problematic dilemma, whether or not to conscript men for military service overseas. This would need people to indicate their support for or opposition to a proposed change to the constitution, as Hughes did not gain enough support from parliament, so he directly appealed to the public.