January 26 is not the anniversary of Cook's arrival in Australia.

[Jerry_Atrick]

6 hours ago, Marty_d said:

I don't have birthday cake on the Queen's birthday holiday

What! Is that no longer a treasonous offence?

 

As a wage slave and previously an independent, most public (or, as they are referred to here, bank) holidays are a day off and, weather permitting, a bbq or day out. With the exception on Anzac Day (there is no equivalent in the UK - thought one of the May days were, but they aren't apparently), I don't really celebrate the purpose of the holiday, but appreciate may people do. To me Easter should be renamed cheap, but costly chocolate appreciation holiday, and Christmas should be renamed exchange of presents  that you will use for 2 weeks day. But, for others, they both are a little more solemn than that, and to call them by their date would somehow sanitise life a bit.. well, to me, anyway. 

 

 

23 hours ago, old man emu said:

1. The British Parliament had to give up its powers to make laws applying to Australia, and Australia had to formally say that no British law affecting Australia was enforceable in Australia.

Yes.. I get that, but, technically, if the UK repealed the act, they would no longer have given up their ability to make laws for Australia.

23 hours ago, old man emu said:

2. The Queen gave her assent to the separate Acts at different times because if she wasn't in Australia, the G-G was the one to do it. Hawke thought that the effects of the Acts were pretty important and historic, so he waited until the Queen  was actually in Australia to giver her assent. However, just becasue an Act has received assent, it is still not in force until it is proclaimed. That's why the two Acts were proclaimed to come into effect at the same instant in time, but due to time zones, the clock time was different. If the Australian Act came into force at 1600  Eastern Summer time, then the British Act came into force at 0500 GMT ( AEST = GMT + 11)

Very interesting, and thanks. On reading the UK's Australia Act, I couldn't work out why they had to be passed at the same time, so either our constitutional lecturer was telling us porkies to keep the imperialists nostalgic, or I recall it incorrectly (most likely the latter). 

23 hours ago, old man emu said:

Yes. But the Australian Act remains in force, so repealing the British Act would have no legal effect. 

I think that is my point about Australia couldn't give a stuff. But I see no where in either act that declares Australia's independence, therefore, technically, does the UK reserve the right to terminate the ability to make law for Australia if they repeal their act. Strangely, the 1986 referendum doesn't appear to have changed the constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_Australia , so in theory if both acts were required to make the changes legal, then the repeal of one no longer accords the same affect to the other?

[spacesailor]

AND

It was the politicians who made the Feds & states.

OR

We could have been  a WHOLE country like New Zealand ! .

WHO decide to NOT join our Federation .

sspacesailor

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Strangely, the 1986 referendum

There was no referendum in 1986 at all. The Australia Act 1986 was the result of several Heads of Government conferences. The preamble to the Act says:

WHEREAS the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth and the Premiers of the States at conferences held in Canberra on 24 and 25 June 1982 and 21 June 1984 agreed on the taking of certain measures to bring constitutional arrangements affecting the Commonwealth and the States into conformity with the status of the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, independent and federal nation:

 

The English Australia Act has the preamble

Whereas the Parliament and Government of the Commonwealth of Australia have, with the concurrence of the States of Australia, requested and consented to the enactment of an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom in the terms hereinafter set forth:

 

Without my going through both Acts, it seems that the wording is identical in most clauses.

 

Could Great britain repeal its Act? Yes. Would it? It is hardly in a position to fight another colonial revolution.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Blimey - my memory has lapsed somewhat.. Must stop inviting Wolfie around.  although, last night, I am sorry to say, it was a Frenchman from the Beaujolais. 

 

Anyway, yes, in all practical senses, Australia is an independent state, and has really been since the 40's. 

 

I was posing the question purely from a legally academic perspective. Since Brexit, Britain needs the 0.8% GDP growth it hopes to get from Australia over x years more than Australia needs Britain, so, they have no appetite (nor budget) to defend a revolution. It is interesting that still, technically, Australia is not independent though.  Anyway, they don't need to. Last time I worked in Melbourne, there were more pommies, scots, and Irish than Aussies (well, not really - but it seemed like it).

[willedoo]

Bogans are pushing for a national day on May 8 because it sounds like Maaate.

[old man emu]

What makes a Nation independent? Surely not being independent can't rest simply on the fact that the Head of State is determined by heredity. Japan has an hereditary Head of State and no one would say that it is not independent. What about Thailand? What about the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark?

 

Australia is unique in that our Head of State does not reside within the physical boundaries of the Nation. Our Constitution sets out the tasks of the Head of State, and how they will be carried out in the physical absence of the Head of State. For that situation our Constitution allows for a Federal viceroy and State viceroys.

 

"viceroy": person ruling as representative of a sovereign, 1520s, from French vice-roy, from Old French vice- "deputy" (see vice-) + roi "king,". During the reign of Elizabeth II, we could have been using a word like vicereine, which simply is vice-queen, but as Humpty-Dumpty said, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more or less."

 

The political leader of our Nation is the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister leaves the country, the Deputy Prime Minister takes on the leadership. A deputy is a person appointed as a substitute with power to act. Used c. 1400, "subordinate officer, one given the full power of an officer without holding the office," from Anglo-French deputé, noun use of past-participle of Old French députer "appoint, assign" (14c.). The meaning "person appointed or elected to act in the place of another or others" is from 1769.

 

Australia is a constitutional monarchy in which the monarch's power is subject to a constitution. 

[Old Koreelah]

49 minutes ago, old man emu said:

…Australia is unique in that our Head of State does not reside within the physical boundaries of the Nation.

Almost unique… (a bit like being almost pregnant.)

What about Canada, NZ and other members of the Commonwealth?

[facthunter]

You'd have to be infinitely rare to be unique... Some old vehicle parts are made of Unobtainium.. It's rarer than rocking Horse poo. Nev

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, Old Koreelah said:

Almost unique… (a bit like being almost pregnant.)

What about Canada, NZ and other members of the Commonwealth?

I stand corrected.

Now can I sit down? My feet are killing me.

[facthunter]

Didn't anybody say "AT EASE" at the beginning of all this? .. Nev

[old man emu]

I prefer to "STAND EASY". Then I can brush the flies away without getting barked at by a Drill Sergeant.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Well I voted for the republic and I thought that the idea of 2/3 of all pollies would ensure a bi-partisan governor-general. Alas, we were beaten by an awful lot of lies " If you vote for the republic, you are voting for the politician's head of state" etc.

I always wanted to ask Turnbull if he was an idiot or did he deliberately throw the referendum.

[Jerry_Atrick]

I think Turnbull was like David Cameron (ex UK PM) campaigning against Brexit. They both did such a had job, you'd think they were plants from the other side.

[facthunter]

There were other Big players involved with  "Killing" that.  H.R. Nicholls society  Howard etc. Nev