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.
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.
The ANZUS Treaty was signed by Australia, New Zealand and the United States in 1951, during the Korean War. This treaty was formed due to the fear of communist expansion in the Asia-Pacific region. The ANZUS Treaty benefited Australia as it bound each of the three powers to assist each other in the event of an attack. In 1954, the SEATO treaty was signed to develop a ‘collective defence’ as large poverty-stricken populations were rising up to become communists, supported by China. To Australia, this treaty was to combat communism alongside the US.
The 1975 Constitutional crisis of Australia is arguably the most significant political event of the period of 1945 to 1990. It arose during the Whitlam governments’ time in office from 1972 to 1975. The crisis saw the breaking of many political conventions that served to uphold the effectiveness of the political system and culminated with the Prime Minister Gough Whitlam’s dismissal by Sir John Kerr. At the time the crisis shook the very foundations of Australia’s political system, however it is argued that, with better management of the key factors that were influential during the crisis years by those involved, the crisis itself could have been avoided almost entirely. The years of the Constitutional Crisis are pockmarked with numerous short-comings and failures, mainly perpetuated by the key political figures involved in the crisis.
Therefore even though there were variances between the colonies (especially NSW) over free trade this idea and more notably the economic difficulties of the 1890’s, inclined that a federation might better organize commercial development. As well as these arguments that went for a Federal Government to bring together all the colonies in Australia there were also many arguments that went against this idea. The idea of federation brought fears to the smaller colonies, for if it continued and there was a constitution the larger colonies might dominate the rest such as NSW and Victoria. Queensland had only just become independent of NSW 11 years and South Australia was less than 50 years old. This was one reason that went against federation being brought around.
Sir Winston Churchill wanted our Second AIF members to stay in the European war which Australians were nervous about because the Japanese were seemingly getting closer and closer to Australia. Churchill stated that as long as Singapore remained in British hands, plenty of protection will be there for a Japanese attack. The Australian PM sticked to his wishes, but as soon as Singapore fell; the Australian prime Minister brought the AIF back to the Pacific War. When the returning soldiers were on their way back to Australia, Churchill wanted them to quickly stop by and defend Burma. The Australian Prime Minister said no and this was officially the first time Australia had ever said no to England.
Strains were already in place with the depression, and this didn’t help. The game had begun to turn into politics – it was no longer a game for the motherland and the colony, but a fierce rivalry began to boil. The world was already in a crisis with World War II potentially a threat of breaking out – and Australia needed to keep secured to the motherland. The controversy of course did not stay on the field for some Australians, with the government taking part. The Government had a big role to play to keep things economically under control – with the tension between the two countries the politics came into play to ensure economically all was well, this was the job of J.H Thomas; the British Minister for
These occurrences led to the questioning of the Australian identity, whether Australians could or could not accept Aboriginal Australians as a part of us. One other memorable speech delivered by Keating was the Redfern Speech, urging white Australians to achieve reconciliation. Keating’s speech to the Unknown Soldier was delivered on Remembrance Day of 1993, when he was Prime Minister and the links to the few surviving ANZACs were being lost. The significance of Remembrance Day is that it gave Keating’s audience a common sense of purpose and focus, that is, to honour the
Attacks on Australia in World War II World War II from 1941 – 1945, was a pioneer experience for Australia regarding its involvement in The Pacific War and its direct attacks from Japan in the form of the Darwin bombing and various other incursions throughout North Australia and Sydney. Although this was conceived by many of the Australian public to be the launch of an invasion, no invasion by Japan ever transpired. The extent of the Japanese incursions were immensely censored by the Australian Government although this did slight to ease the upheaval and fear of people living in Australia, particularly in Northern areas, at the susceptibility and likelihood of Australia under attack. Whilst the Japanese incursions were a genuine concern they have been mythologised in Australian history. This is evident through the analysis of the attacks on Australia, the public response,
The Australian electorate is exceedingly careful about constitutional change, and it is unlikely that even a very limited Bill of Rights could be added to the Constitution. Once added, it would be largely up to the Cabinet to draft more bills to enforce these rights, the Parliament to pass more Acts, and the judiciary to whimsically interpret the Constitutional changes and the new laws. People like Ben could still be denied access to the processes put in place to defend their rights. If Australia had a constitutional Bill of Rights, and Ben's supporters had the money to mount a High Court case, the process could well have taken a much longer period than Ben could sustain his hunger strike, and he would find unacceptable such a long and difficult road to securing basic human