Hello everyone,

With the news of the ban on gay marriages supported by both the Liberal and Labor parties, I'm wondering if Australia really is as progressive as I've always thought it was.

So I'd like to ask about how tolerant and egalitarian Australia is toward women, visible minorities, immigrants, and drugs. Even if women and minorities are "equal" under the law, are they viewed as such in society?

Which areas are most conservative and which are most liberal? Generally rural areas tend to be conservative and cities are liberal, but are there any places that stand out for their progressive/traditional attitudes?

I guess liberal and conservative are relative terms. A U.S. mainstream liberal is similar to a mainstream Canadian conservative. Could someone place Australia on this scale?

Conservative <---> Liberal :

Saudi Arabia ------------- U.S. --------- Canada / Northern Europe


- Vince

On that scale I'd put Australia somewhere between Canada and the US...New Zealand could probably join Canada and Northern Europe (does this mean Scandinavia?) at the end of the scale - I find New Zealand to be very progressive.

Australia has been under the governance of a conservative government for three terms (since 1996), and the influence of this has obviously had an effect on the country's opinions and mindset, in a general sense. Personally I think this is a real shame.

As they say, John Howard is the most presidential of Australian Prime Ministers.

The Liberal Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Australia used to be somewhat similar in views: Canadian Libs went left, Aus Libs went right.

Canadian Libs are now just like the Aus democrats, left of Centre and the Aus Libs are probably similar to the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada (well before it merged).

But then again, in Australia, social democratic / labour (ALP) has a much higher influence than in Canada (NDP).

Just like to point out:

Same sex marriage wasn't allowed before the amendment to the marriage act was passed. Same sex marriage is not allowed now the amendment has passed. It's just making the law clearer on what it means by marriage.

The amendment does actually increase rights for same sex couples. Previously, in a same sex dependent relationship, should one partner unfortunately die, the superannuation of that partner will be given to the other.

There are several departments of Australian Government that recognise same sex relationships as de facto relationships, and give them the same rights as heterosexual couples. One such example is should a non-citizen be involved in a long term same sex relationship with an Australian citizen, that partner would be eligible for a permanent residents visa.

Yes, my mind has been warped. Senator Vanstone gave my class a guest lecture today at Uni. I have been assimilated into the Liberal Party. Resistance is Futile.

Australia is definitely more liberal than the United States, but I wouldn't go as far as saying it's up there with Western Europe. There are arguments both ways. South Australia, I believe, was actually the first government in the world to allow women to vote. Then there's the "White Australia" Policy of the mid 20th century.

^^ SA was the second state in the world to grant women's suffrage. The first was an American state.

I stand corrected.

tsk tsk, Amanda will have to punish you now for that Ducka ;)

Kinky.

Poor Amanda Twentystone dosent anyone love her?

Australia doesn't exactly have Universal Health care does it? i though it did. can anyone explain the system for me?

Yes, it does. There's the public Medicare, and private health insurance is subsidised. Funding, and whether private systems should get public money, is subject to length debate on all sides of politics.

It's really great to see Australia going in the direction it is. Rejecting a republic, now banning Gay marriages. Good calls, Australia.

Hopefully, this direction will continue and Howard will be reelected. He has been the best PM there is a long, long time.

Just like to point out:

Same sex marriage wasn't allowed before the amendment to the marriage act was passed. Same sex marriage is not allowed now the amendment has passed. It's just making the law clearer on what it means by marriage.

The amendment does actually increase rights for same sex couples. Previously, in a same sex dependent relationship, should one partner unfortunately die, the superannuation of that partner will be given to the other.


Same sex marriage is still "not allowed" in some parts of Canada but there is no "ban" anywhere, to my knowledge. EDIT: After last year's court decision, they're neither illegal or legal. For the last 6 years, Canada has recognized same sex common law relationships as equal to heterosexual.

It's just surprising to me that Australia would ban same-sex marriages before even the U.S. This is not a constitutional amendment, is it?

What percentage of Australians would vote for Bush? In Canada, the Communist Party has a greater chance of winning the elections than the Republican Party.

It's just surprising to me that Australia would ban same-sex marriages before even the U.S. This is not a constitutional amendment, is it?

Changing the constitution is damn near impossible. This was just legislation and thus can be overturned at any time by any government if they can get the votes in the upper house.

It's really great to see Australia going in the direction it is. Rejecting a republic, now banning Gay marriages. Good calls, Australia.

Hopefully, this direction will continue and Howard will be reelected. He has been the best PM there is a long, long time.
Please tell me your kidding!

^^ No Unfortunately some turd who chooses a Klu Klux Klan, white supremeist type of screen name wouldn't be kidding. Fits the bill and typical of a looney that would be knowing of the track record of Howard lies and still support his government.

It's really great to see Australia going in the direction it is. Rejecting a republic, now banning Gay marriages. Good calls, Australia.

Hopefully, this direction will continue and Howard will be reelected. He has been the best PM there is a long, long time.

I wouldn't say the Republic was rejected. Howard fixed to the vote by making the public choose a particular type of Republic. The Question was not, do you want to become a Republic? It was, do you want to have a Republic with a President elected by a 2/3rd majority of parliment.

Knowing most Aussies dislike of politicians that was never going to win, die hard republicans who were in favour of an elected President were campainging against the Republic.

Even with all that, it only lost by 55-45, in a fair vote, it would pass with ease.

Personally I don't like the idea of a president in the American sense. Too much power for one person in my opinion.

Well pretty much att he moment I think Howard has that same level of power - he has the ability to send this country to war on his say so - Bush at least had the courtesy to put it before congress! The role of the GG is to sign a bill into law right, they have the power to say yes or no and they're the final check in the system, the last time they said No was during the constituational crisis involving Gough Whitlam, it seems to me something about the role is flawed if the one time it is exercised it causes chaos, they should just get rid of the GG and make the prime minister the highest authority.

JJ, the US President has the power to say no to any bill as well. Our PM does not have that veto power, meaning an opposition member could (in theory) propse a bill.

I understand that - but have you ever in your lifetime see the Govenor General say no to a bill? I can't recall it happening - the only example I've ever heard of is the whole Gough Whitlam affair, and even then I don't think he said no to anything he just sacked the guy! I'm comparing the Prime Minister to the President on the basis that they both run the cabinet, in America the cabinet is seperate from the house of reps and the senate, in Australia the cabinate is part of the parliamentary system rather than being a separate entity - I'm not sure which system is better or fairer frankly. I worry that having the cabinet made up of MPs and senators means that they are compelled to vote along party lines at all times rather than in the interest of their constituents - who they should be representing - in the US senators and congressmen cross the floor in votes all the time.

JJ, the US President has the power to say no to any bill as well. Our PM does not have that veto power, meaning an opposition member could (in theory) propse a bill.

which is precisely what Private Members' Bills are

which is precisely what Private Members' Bills are

Cheers. But we all know most have a snowball's chance of getting though the House of Reps.

depends if the Government will permit a conscience vote on it.

Australia is pretty liberal when compared to places like USA - or a closer comparison would be Singapore or Malaysia where, like the US, many things are frowned upon, still.

I hope that Australia never becomes like the United States - but then again we have Howard who is trying to his best to lower Australia to the conservative level of the US - 1950s here we come!

We should be more like CANADA!!!

JT

I wouldn't say the Republic was rejected. Howard fixed to the vote by making the public choose a particular type of Republic. The Question was not, do you want to become a Republic? It was, do you want to have a Republic with a President elected by a 2/3rd majority of parliment.

Knowing most Aussies dislike of politicians that was never going to win, die hard republicans who were in favour of an elected President were campainging against the Republic.

Even with all that, it only lost by 55-45, in a fair vote, it would pass with ease.

why wasnt that a fair vote? Isnt that the way most presidents are elected when they have no real power?? It would seem absolutely fair, and if australians dislike politicians then why do you want another one?

55-45 is a pretty clear result compared to most elections/votes in the world

why is everyone apparently favouring a republic, yet the vote was lost?

because the president wasn't going to be elected. People want to have the right to vote for their head of State. Unfortunately, the problem is that it will upset that apple cart in terms of Responsible/Westminster Government...

Because the model put forward gave executive power to a politician who wasn't even elected by the people.

why wasnt that a fair vote? Isnt that the way most presidents are elected when they have no real power?? It would seem absolutely fair, and if australians dislike politicians then why do you want another one?

55-45 is a pretty clear result compared to most elections/votes in the world

why is everyone apparently favouring a republic, yet the vote was lost?

There were 3 different models for the future,

1. Stay as things are
2. Have an elected President (Republic)
3. Have a parliament appointed President (Republic)

But in the referendum, only the option to have an appointed President against staying as things are was voted upon. Many people want an elected President, someone the people choose, not some ex-political party old boy\girl given the job by other politicians.

Each of the above options probably had about a third support in the country (voting in Australia is compulsory), but because the question wasn't "Do you want a Republic", but instead, deliberately worded by a monarchist PM to split the pro Republic vote, it lost.

In a fair vote, it would have passed by around 65-35.

The question will be asked again, soon, and pass, it was a shame it wasn’t in time for 2000.

why wasnt that a fair vote? Isnt that the way most presidents are elected when they have no real power?? It would seem absolutely fair, and if australians dislike politicians then why do you want another one?

55-45 is a pretty clear result compared to most elections/votes in the world

why is everyone apparently favouring a republic, yet the vote was lost?

It is not a fair vote because it divides the support of republicans. A fair vote would have been in 2 stages - 1) do you want a republic, and if so 2) what type of model do you want?

still think it sounds like a bit of an easy explanation.
If people wanted the republic, then vote for that and then change it later would seem obvious

the version on offer is surely the most widespread in the world.
A directly elected president would carry quite a public mandate and it could become messy if he is at odds with the government.

are there really no other explanation for such a clear loss?

Having experienced several EU referendums, there is little doubt that there is a large amount of resistance to change and a feeling among "average" people that these issues are just ideas of the elite etc.

how is this strange compulsory voting enforced?
armed police forcing voters kicking and screaming into the booth....

still think it sounds like a bit of an easy explanation.
If people wanted the republic, then vote for that and then change it later would seem obvious

Can you explain to me why that's obvious? Because here you say we can flippantly change to different republic models all will, yet later on in your post you note "a large amount of resistance to change". Not so obvious to me and you seem to think so yourself.

I think what the different republican camps thought was to wait until John Howard either retired or was voted out of office, and his subsequent replacement as Prime Minister, whether Labor or Liberal, would put the issue back to a vote, this time unrigged. It's a lot easier to wait 10 years for another vote, than to institute a change from a Monarchist model to one particular Republican model, and then change it again to one more people seem to want.

Better yet. Two questions would have done the trick. The first..Do you want a republic? The second...What type would you prefer?

But no, Howard leads us...

still think it sounds like a bit of an easy explanation.
If people wanted the republic, then vote for that and then change it later would seem obvious

the version on offer is surely the most widespread in the world.
A directly elected president would carry quite a public mandate and it could become messy if he is at odds with the government.

are there really no other explanation for such a clear loss?

Having experienced several EU referendums, there is little doubt that there is a large amount of resistance to change and a feeling among "average" people that these issues are just ideas of the elite etc.

how is this strange compulsory voting enforced?
armed police forcing voters kicking and screaming into the booth....

What's so strange about compulsory voting? I think it's the best way - it means that people are made quite aware of the policies of the different parties (unless they choose to live under a rock) and you know that the final verdict is decided by just about everyone.

And obviously, the main way it is enforced is by fining those who don't turn up to vote on the day. Quite simple really - nobody likes to have to fork out money, and it is such a simple process to actually vote that there is no need to avoid it.

As for the Republic referendum, I can guarantee you absolutely that if the question was simply "Do you want Australia to become a Republic" then that is what we would now be. It was a rigged question and everyone knew it - it was just Howard's way, being a staunch Monarchist, of acting as though he was giving Australian's what they want, but getting it his way in the end.

It's really great to see Australia going in the direction it is. Rejecting a republic, now banning Gay marriages. Good calls, Australia.

Hopefully, this direction will continue and Howard will be reelected. He has been the best PM there is a long, long time.

John Howards ruined our country.. He single handedly is giving the world the impression that we're all conservatives, Which realistically is the minority in Australia.

I hope he doesn't get re-elected, I'd rather Costa for Pm.

It appears Cee_em_bee is offended. But is WASP is entitled to his opinion, and write "Fxxk off back to Stormfront please" is childish don't you think?

There's nothing wrong of being conservative. I don't agree with gay marriages. It will only open a new can of worms and problems in terms of family and children upbringing. Being gay is a right, but should not to forced upon a child. And because some don't agree they will say: "too conservative", "Not with the times", "Not modern". There is nothing wrong with a normal family values.

^Just as being straight shouldn't be forced upon a child...

Why not? God created Adam and Eve to have children.
Not Adam and Steve. I know many times, when I believe these values I'll be called a bigot or anti gay (I don't care).

If it wasn't for your mum and dad, you not be here.
Even if don't believe in God, you can't deny the fact, it impossible reproduce without a female and a male. Its same as all acts of nature.
We can't also deny the fact were either male or female.

Whether you believe these values it up you. But important for children at young age, know why created that way. When there 18 years old, it up to them decide. As much you had a choice.

So?

I'd like to see one anti-gay argument that doesn't refer to religion.

And I doubt any gay parent would force "being gay" onto their child. Any parent who cares about their child's happiness would let them choose for themselves.

Why not? God created Adam and Eve to have children.
Not Adam and Steve. If it wasn't for mum and dad, you not be here.

It seems to me that Adam and Eve created god to justify their oppression of Adam and Steve.

It appears Cee_em_bee is offended. But is WASP is entitled to his opinion, and write "Fxxk off back to Stormfront please" is childish don't you think?

Thats why I changed my post.

Sorry for offending

"But is WASP is entitled to his opinion"

Well, WASP is a card-carrying racist...so you might want to rethink that.






"I'd like to see one anti-gay argument that doesn't refer to religion."

I'd like to see one arguement that DOES refer to the bible against homosexuality....homosexuality is only wrong in the bible when heterosexuality is wrong.




"God created Adam and Eve to have children.
Not Adam and Steve. I know many times, when I believe these values I'll be called a bigot or anti gay"


More accurately...you would be guilty of being ignorant of scripture.






"Any parent who cares about their child's happiness would let them choose for themselves."


Maybe you people should read or something....a gay parent can't "make" you gay...that's so uneducated. The only attribute common of children from gay parents, is they grow up NOT being homophobes.







"God created Adam and Eve to have children. "


Well, first of all, Adam and Eve were "perfect"...a far cry from you obviously. And secondly, pro creation was nothing more than a temporary situation to simply populate the earth to a finite number...it is neither necessary for all people to procreate, nor necessary for people to live the way the bible teaches in a male-female situation.

You are obviously the sad product of some warped interpretation of scripture.


Oh....any Australians I've met have been very open-minded and progressive...but maybe they are just the minority that visit Toronto?





KGB

This arguement is quite amusing.

Adam and Eve never existed and religion is pretty much a construct of someone's imagination. Who cares if it was adam and eve or adam and steve it's fiction anyway. Gay parents have just as much right to having children as any parents but the probability that the children will be gay is heightened, not by socialisation but by genetics. This is a proven fact and people of homosexual origin are almost exclusively born and not made.

I dont have a real problem with Howard and his gay marriages stance - marriage as an institution has less and less relevance in today's society anyway - two people that love one another do not require a couple of vows, a cake, some rings and a garter to create a meaningful and life-long bond. People may desire equality but really marriage is a union of man and woman and I don't see why gay couples crave it so much - if they want their wedding just go have a fake one with all the pomp and ceremony - afterall a wedding is only a bit of paper and a celebration.

Gay couples do deserve equal standing when it comes to the legalities of being in a relationship so each partner is protected. Right now I believe most of the laws that apply to male-female couples also applies to same sex relationships.

On the Labour/Liberal joust... I hate labour, Latham is a dickhead and so are labour's policies... if labour had been in power in the last few years Australia would now be a banana republic.

"Adam and Eve never existed and religion is pretty much a construct of someone's imagination. "


Well geez...there we go...avatar has solved the whole problem!! Everybody go home now. LOL!!!

Dude...that's about as useless an approach to dealing with the situation as the one where people who profess to live their lives by "jesus", when they in fact do nothing of the sort.







"the probability that the children will be gay is heightened, not by socialisation but by genetics. This is a proven fact and people of homosexual origin are almost exclusively born and not made."


Well, this is NOT a "proven fact" at all. It certainly "appears" that sexual orientation may be at least partly genetic, but they haven't found a "gay gene" yet. And if there is a genetic connection, it's not something you would necessarily get from a "gay" parent. If you had the first clue about genetics, you would know that everyone could very well be carrying the "gay" gene, but it simply needs something to trigger it. If you only got a "gay" gene from a "gay" parent, then there would be a hell of a lot less gay people in the world.





"Right now I believe most of the laws that apply to male-female couples also applies to same sex relationships."


Why should "most" be satifactory. Equal means equal...not "mostly" equal. And the rights they don't have (in progressive countries) are important ones. If the rights they did not have were of no consequence, it wouldn't be an issue.






KGB

I going back to skyscraper forum. Not to debate on gay issues

KGB, you said that it is not nessacary for all couples to reproduce. True, and it is impossible for a gay couple to do so. It IS unfair on the child, no matter how u look at it. The child will be abused, and im sorry but it is UNAVOIDABLE. unless u hide the kid somewhere where it has no contact with the averge child it WILL get abused about having gay parents.

This is unfair, therefore gays should not be able to have children.

Second, i dont care if gays get married. thats their own choice.

Third. I dont care about John howard... i cant remember havin anyone else so i cant compare.

^the only reason a child WILL be abused (debatable) is because the children who are abusing the kid with gay parents would've been brought up in an insular, narrow-minded family. If children were brought up to have an open mind, we wouldn't have that problem...

Okay, assuming such abuse would occur ( and i know many situations where it hasn't) what do you think would cause the worse abuse: a student being gay or their parents being gay? For example, I know a 15 year old girl whose parents are lesbians. Her natural mother and father broke up when she was 4 or 5. She has said that she hasn't been abused, she hasn't been seriously affected and she has no problem with her natural mothers situation (though she did at some point, but people get over such things). Put simply, she is well balanced. It is just because of her that I don't really have a problem with gay parents having children. Don't pretend that such situations don't already exist, with de facto gay couples looking after children.

Zion, you mentioned in a previous post " let them deciede when they are 18". Um...many people have decieded before then...

^to continue with that, it's not really a decision you make to be gay or straight. You can't choose what you are, just as you can't choose to be black or white.

"KGB, you said that it is not nessacary for all couples to reproduce. True, and it is impossible for a gay couple to do so. "


Well, there are many heterosexual couples that are either physically incapable of having children, and some who just choose not to. A same-sex couple can obviously not produce children amongst themselves, but it is quite popular to have one of the pair be the natural parent with a surrogate. And then there is of course the whole issue of addoption.

Of course a gay couple can make just as good parents as a hetero couple. And how many hetero couple have children...that certainly shouldn't?






"It IS unfair on the child, no matter how u look at it. The child will be abused, and im sorry but it is UNAVOIDABLE. This is unfair, therefore gays should not be able to have children"



So...using your logic, children of mixed ethnic parents should also have their right to be parents taken away, as this is also something other kids will tease them about?







"unless u hide the kid somewhere where it has no contact with the averge child it WILL get abused about having gay parents."

Kids tease other kids over a million different things....you cannot hide a child from it. And unless you haven't figured it out yet, it's young people who are more ok with gay issues than "adults" are.

And kids are not born homophobes...they learned it from adults.

In the end, why would anybody not be a parent because of any possible bad behavior on the part of society? That's gotta be one of the most insensitive and STUPID excuses I've ever heard.






KGB

Can you explain to me why that's obvious? Because here you say we can flippantly change to different republic models all will, yet later on in your post you note "a large amount of resistance to change". Not so obvious to me and you seem to think so yourself.

I think what the different republican camps thought was to wait until John Howard either retired or was voted out of office, and his subsequent replacement as Prime Minister, whether Labor or Liberal, would put the issue back to a vote, this time unrigged. It's a lot easier to wait 10 years for another vote, than to institute a change from a Monarchist model to one particular Republican model, and then change it again to one more people seem to want.

Better yet. Two questions would have done the trick. The first..Do you want a republic? The second...What type would you prefer?

But no, Howard leads us...

surely the big historic step would be going from monarchy to republic, not from republic A to republic B... or are people just part-time republicans.. sounds quite illogical and an easy reasoning for republicans which all australians seem to be except when voting... but hey whatever you say

I do find compulsory voting very strange. If people have no idea about the issues why have them "distort" the result. Most likely there will be a few % of people unaware of who is the current PM etc, cant see why they should be forced to vote.

very few nations on earth has completly accepted gay marriage perhaps the supporters should just calm down. Its still legal to be conservative or believe in god, I think.

^^^^
While, yes, moving from a monarchy to a republic would be more historic than form one type of republic to another, I don't know what that has to do with anything. I do not mean this insultingly, I really do not understand.

The proposed republic that was presented at the referendum had serious issues, which even staunch republicans, such as myself, would agree to. The problem wasn't that Australia doesn't want to become a republic, it is that it didn't want to become that kind of republic.

So lets just pretend that this flawed design got the majority vote: it is implemented the way it is proposed to be. How long before changes are made to get it the way Australians acutually want it? 5 years, 10 years? Longer than that? To implement a republic would be bound to cost a lot, and now you want to change it. You would have the monarchists screaming "the repulicans have made a mistake that we all have to live with and now everyone has to pass the cost of them wanting to change it".

I'd say most people thought it would be easier to wait until the issue is raised again, so that they would acutally get what they want (or what they thought they want) the first time arround.

Remember that this was a referendum: Every single person who has thoughts that Australia should become a republic didn't congregate in one place to agree to vote for this model. Most people aren't that empashioned about it. People are resistant to change, and especially if that change isn't what they really wanted.

I think that the republic issue will come up again. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

surely the big historic step would be going from monarchy to republic, not from republic A to republic B... or are people just part-time republicans.. sounds quite illogical and an easy reasoning for republicans which all australians seem to be except when voting... but hey whatever you say

Quite clearly it would take just as much effort to change from Republic A to Republic B as it would from a monarchy to a republic. The constitution would have to rewritten, new laws and regulations made up, new checks and balances have to be put in place, it would be a mammoth effort in both Monarchy to Republic or Republic A to Republic B situations. You make it sound like the difference between Republican model A & B can be written on the back of a beer coaster.

I'm not sure what you mean by part-time Republicans, but the tone seems to be a discrediting and patroninsing one...maybe you can enlighten me? As for all Australians seeming to be Republicans except when voting, maybe it's because we're mostly young males here on the internet and we're far more more likely to vote for a republic than little old ladies. As they say, every new day republicans are born and monarchists die.

Australia is a conservative Christian nation. The Liberal Party is in power with John Howard, the Prime Minister of conservative Australia. Gay marriages is now officially ban thanks to the Liberals who voted as well as some Labor party members in Parliament. The next thing is to abolish abortions permanently. We can't allow the killings of the unborn to go unjustified.

Looks like Australia is going to the conservative route than the United States.

In fact, the largest church in Australia is located in largely "labor" Sydney called Hillsong Church, a church with a membership of 15,000 on average. Many of them are Liberal Party supporters.

Australia is a conservative Christian nation. The Liberal Party is in power with John Howard, the Prime Minister of conservative Australia. Gay marriages is now officially ban thanks to the Liberals who voted as well as some Labor party members in Parliament. The next thing is to abolish abortions permanently. We can't allow the killings of the unborn to go unjustified.

Looks like Australia is going to the conservative route than the United States.

Dream on, Woor20... we'll never be as radically conservative as the USA, thank God.

The only thing that we, conservative Americans are thankful is your guy named Rubert Murdoch. Without him, Fox News Channel would never exist in America. Thanks Australia.

The only thing that we, conservative Americans are thankful is your guy named Rubert Murdoch. Without him, Fox News Channel would never exist in America. Thanks Australia.

And you're welcome to keep him. :)

Out of curiosity, what's your reaction towards the Liberal Party members as well as some Labor Party supporters who voted to officially ban Gay Marriages in all of Australia recently?

Out of curiosity, what's your reaction towards the Liberal Party members as well as some Labor Party supporters who voted to officially ban Gay Marriages in all of Australia recently?

I think it was predictable and disappointing for both parties, but it's not something that concerns me greatly. There's more important issues to be worried about, and it's a law that can always be overturned later.

The amendment to the marriage act did not outlaw gay marriage as gay marriage was never legal to begin with. It was a no-effect piece of legislation with the main purpose of splitting the ALP. The ALP's more traditional, blue collar base and the larger group of more socially aware supporters would disagree with each other. The result is a few voters angry at the ALP may vote Greens or Democrats, meaning less primary votes for Labor.

It was an attempt at wedge politics by the Howard Government, and actually increased the rights of a gay couple in regards to superannuation.

What percentage of Australia are visible minorities? What percentage are foreign-born? Do the minorities integrate, or do white Australians tend to not associate with them? Are most immigrants from Europe or Asia?

Here are the Canadian numbers for comparison:

Canada is 13.44% visible minorities (non-white)
Toronto metropolitan area is 36.84%, Vancouver 36.88%

Canada is 18.4% foreign-born
Toronto metropolitan area is 43.7%, Vancouver is 37.5%.

Between 1991 and 2001, we had 1,830,680 immigrants:
- 42,645 from the UK
- 51,435 from the U.S.
- 315,200 from the rest of Europe
- 116,005 from Central/South America
- 84,005 from the Caribbean
- 139,770 from Africa
- 162,220 from West-Central Asia and the Middle-East
- 423,325 from Eastern Asia (does not include southern Asia)
- 480,775 from South and South-East Asia
- 15,380 from Oceania

(Statistics Canada 2001 Census)

OVERSEAS-BORN POPULATION

* At 30 June 2002, Australia's overseas-born residents comprised 4.6 million people, 23% of the total estimated resident population (19.6 million).

* From 30 June 2001 to 30 June 2002, the number of overseas-born residents increased by 1.9%. This is slightly higher than the rate of growth in the total population, which was 1.2% over the same period.

* At 30 June 2002, 7.5% of the Australian population had been born in North-West Europe. Most of these people (5.7% of the Australian population) were born in the United Kingdom. People born in the three Asian regions (South-East Asia, North-East Asia and South and Central Asia) together comprised 5.7% of Australia's population.

* Although 63% of the overseas-born population at 30 June 2001 lived in either New South Wales or Victoria, Western Australia had the highest proportion of overseas-born residents in its population (29%). Tasmania had the lowest proportion (11%), and the Northern Territory the second lowest (16%).

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/e8ae5488b598839cca25682000131612/2c6d9db6b7ef7c97ca2568a9001393d5!OpenDocument

See also here: http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/04da2deb0e42459bca256b350010b3f9!OpenDocument

What percentage of Australia are visible minorities? What percentage are foreign-born? Do the minorities integrate, or do white Australians tend to not associate with them? Are most immigrants from Europe or Asia?

Here are the Canadian numbers for comparison:

Canada is 13.44% visible minorities (non-white)
Toronto metropolitan area is 36.84%, Vancouver 36.88%

Canada is 18.4% foreign-born
Toronto metropolitan area is 43.7%, Vancouver is 37.5%.

Between 1991 and 2001, we had 1,830,680 immigrants:
- 42,645 from the UK
- 51,435 from the U.S.
- 315,200 from the rest of Europe
- 116,005 from Central/South America
- 84,005 from the Caribbean
- 139,770 from Africa
- 162,220 from West-Central Asia and the Middle-East
- 423,325 from Eastern Asia (does not include southern Asia)
- 480,775 from South and South-East Asia
- 15,380 from Oceania

(Statistics Canada 2001 Census)

In addition to the stats provided by Randwicked, I should also mention that in Australia we do not measure "visible minorities". With the exception of Aboriginal and Torres Islanders, but thats not so much a metter of skin I don't think, as a matter of who was here before the Europeans arrived in 1788. The idea of "visible minorities" seems to me to be a very superficial rate to be measuring.

For example, a German immigrant would probably have more difficulty associating with the Australian culture than someone from New Zealand of Maori background - despite being white, compared to someone who is a "visible minority". So what exactly is the point in knowing how many people have this colour skin and how many people have that colour skin? May as well ask for everyone's hair colour in the next census! ;) :)

wasp stands for white anglo-saxon protestant. an example of the ruling classes limks back to colonial times. i don't know why someone would want to associate themselves with this term. This links back to page one.