Why did the issues for the American colonials not become issues for the Canadians and Australians?

Why were issues such as taxation without parliamentary representation or expansion to other regions not a strong sticking point for the colonials in Canada and Australia?

Was it that these issues were addressed by Britain following the loss of the 13 colonies or was it related to the differences in the people themselves?
 
Why were issues such as taxation without parliamentary representation or expansion to other regions not a strong sticking point for the colonials in Canada and Australia?

Was it that these issues were addressed by Britain following the loss of the 13 colonies or was it related to the differences in the people themselves?
Essentially this. Britain learned from the experience of the American Revolutionary Wars and did not repeat the same mistakes. This partly included granting various stable forms of self-government to the regions, and partly just listening in general and addressing concerns when they arose.
 
It also helped that both of those colonies were much smaller, population-wise. The US population at the 1790 census (so, after a decade of population growth, but also after the emigration of the various loyalists) was just under 4 million. Canada wouldn't reach that population until the 1870s, and Australia not until the 20th century, by which time the British had far more profitable (and less white) colonies to try to mismanage, so granting them self-government was less of an issue (especially as the British had already reformed some of the worst abuses of their own government system to make it less unrepresentative).

Canada also had the advantage of a large, expansionist neighbor constantly threatening them (it's worth remembering that the 13 Colonies didn't start agitating against the crown until after the French and Indian War had eliminated the French as a threat).

But, as noted, the example of the American Revolution as "what not to do" in terms of managing a colony was very much in people's minds, both in the UK and in Canada/Australia. It's certainly worth comparing the reaction of the British government to e.g. the Canadian rebellions in 1837 to how they reacted to the much less significant Boston
 
It also helped that both of those colonies were much smaller, population-wise. The US population at the 1790 census (so, after a decade of population growth, but also after the emigration of the various loyalists) was just under 4 million. Canada wouldn't reach that population until the 1870s, and Australia not until the 20th century, by which time the British had far more profitable (and less white) colonies to try to mismanage, so granting them self-government was less of an issue (especially as the British had already reformed some of the worst abuses of their own government system to make it less unrepresentative).

Canada also had the advantage of a large, expansionist neighbor constantly threatening them (it's worth remembering that the 13 Colonies didn't start agitating against the crown until after the French and Indian War had eliminated the French as a threat).

But, as noted, the example of the American Revolution as "what not to do" in terms of managing a colony was very much in people's minds, both in the UK and in Canada/Australia. It's certainly worth comparing the reaction of the British government to e.g. the Canadian rebellions in 1837 to how they reacted to the much less significant Boston

In Canada, two other factors: in Québec, the Catholic Church was very supportive of the British régime, which had given it great power. This weakened the early nationalist movements (the modern independence movement has arisen in a much more secularized Québécois society). As for English Canada, many of the early settlers had been Loyalists who had fled the American Revolution. To leave your home on the US east coast and move to a cold wilderness for political reasons suggests a quite strong commitment to that principle. Political ideology can often be passed on for generations, as we also see in Northern Ireland.
 
In Canada, two other factors: in Québec, the Catholic Church was very supportive of the British régime, which had given it great power. This weakened the early nationalist movements (the modern independence movement has arisen in a much more secularized Québécois society). As for English Canada, many of the early settlers had been Loyalists who had fled the American Revolution. To leave your home on the US east coast and move to a cold wilderness for political reasons suggests a quite strong commitment to that principle. Political ideology can often be passed on for generations, as we also see in Northern Ireland.
Which is why monarchism remains popular in Canada; the national identity is built on it.
 
partly just listening in general and addressing concerns when they arose.
when you read about the circumstances leading up the war, it's obvious that the American colonies had benefited from 'benign neglect'... basically, the UK ignored what went on in the colonies, didn't bother to collect most of the taxes owed them, turned a blind eye to smuggling, and foisted incompetent governors on them who didn't bother to do their job. The revolt really came when the UK decided to correct all that...
 
when you read about the circumstances leading up the war, it's obvious that the American colonies had benefited from 'benign neglect'... basically, the UK ignored what went on in the colonies, didn't bother to collect most of the taxes owed them, turned a blind eye to smuggling, and foisted incompetent governors on them who didn't bother to do their job. The revolt really came when the UK decided to correct all that...
Definitely. It's no coincidence that one of the first largescale acts of violence was the seizure of the Gaspee, a revenue cutter policing smuggling. One major lesson the British learned was that the small amounts of extra taxes they could squeeze out of their settler colonies were not worth the expense of fighting another American Revolution (which basically bankrupted everyone involved).
 
Top