> For example the Australian constitution is literally an act of Parliament. While that is historically accurate (you could even say it's an act of the UK Parl

> For example the Australian constitution is literally an act of Parliament. While that is historically accurate (you could even say it's an act of the UK Parliament too) -- it is unlike any other act in Australia. Parliament cannot amend it by themselves, and Parliament's legislative power is derived solely from the Constitution. Every country with a codified constitution considers their constitution to be the supreme law in their country and has special rules for amending it -- that's simply what a constitution is! Yes, Americans do love to fetishise their constitution but that's a social distinction not a legal one. If you look at countries without codified constitutions (New Zealand or the UK for instance), then there is a much stronger argument that their entire concept of their law is just a series of acts of Parliament and there is no supreme law. But Australia does have a codified constitution. > There's an implied freedom of political speech. Which is incredibly limited in scope. > The rest can be regulated by law. Which could be trivially amended by later governments. And newsflash -- we don't have laws for freedom of speech in this country. We're the only developed nation in the world that is in this situation.