A Political Question (188)
AgentAjax: So what power do you think the queen has over Australia these days? The queen can no longer remove our government since the law was changed in 86?
The High Court is THE QUEEN
robplum: The High Court is THE QUEEN
sorry Rob not since 1986 I already posted the link.I really appreciate the discussion, but I think I am going to join the Greens.
AA you should like that - they are pro-republican (and I still disagree with that.)
The concern for not only the environment, but for the individual rights is quite appealling. But I still want to meet them before I commit.
They signed me on to the electoral role at the citizenship ceremony so I will be eligible to join a party as soon as it is processed.
AA you should like that - they are pro-republican (and I still disagree with that.)
The concern for not only the environment, but for the individual rights is quite appealling. But I still want to meet them before I commit.
They signed me on to the electoral role at the citizenship ceremony so I will be eligible to join a party as soon as it is processed.
AgentAjax: sorry Rob not since 1986 I already posted the link.
the politicians are having a loan of them sleeves, they have the right to make laws yes, even call referendums but they cannot dissolve the High Court, they are off there rockers.
Our indissoluble Federal Commonwealth; all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of very State and of every part of the Commonwealth, yes.
The legislative power of the commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate and a House so Representatives, however the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of the Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.
AND however the power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia.
Indissoluble Powers that are incapable of being dissolved because our politicians are only a part of the make up of parliament. The Queen is also part of parliament with all her powers vested in the High Court. The politician cannot legislate away the High Court, that impossible.
robplum: the politicians are having a loan of them sleeves, they have the right to make laws yes, even call referendums but they cannot dissolve the High Court, they are off there rockers.
Our indissoluble Federal Commonwealth; all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of very State and of every part of the Commonwealth, yes.
The legislative power of the commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate and a House so Representatives, however the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of the Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.
AND however the power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia.
Indissoluble Powers that are incapable of being dissolved because our politicians are only a part of the make up of parliament. The Queen is also part of parliament with all her powers vested in the High Court. The politician cannot legislate away the High Court, that impossible.
Our indissoluble Federal Commonwealth; all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of very State and of every part of the Commonwealth, yes.
The legislative power of the commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate and a House so Representatives, however the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of the Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.
AND however the power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia.
Indissoluble Powers that are incapable of being dissolved because our politicians are only a part of the make up of parliament. The Queen is also part of parliament with all her powers vested in the High Court. The politician cannot legislate away the High Court, that impossible.
I dont think so Rob
However, due to specific exemptions in the Statute of Westminster, Imperial law continued to be paramount in Australian states. This was altered by the Australia Act 1986, which was passed in substantially the same form by the Commonwealth parliament and the British parliament, at the request of each state. In addition to ending the British Parliament's power to legislate over Australian states, the Australia Act also cut the last avenues of appeal from the Australian courts to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. As a symbol of the significance of this legislation, Queen Elizabeth II travelled to Australia to personally sign the proclamation of the law.For the Constitution, the impact of these two laws is that the Constitution as in force in Australia is now separate from the text in the original Act. While the British Parliament can amend or repeal the Imperial Act, that would not affect Australia. Instead, the Constitution as in force in Australia can only be amended following the referendum mechanisms set out in the Constitution. Conversely, any amendment to the Constitution in Australia following the referendum mechanisms would not affect the text of the Imperial Act as in force in the United Kingdom.
I'll learn ya Rob
AUSTRALIA ACT 1986
TABLE OF PROVISIONS
Long Title
1. Termination of power of Parliament of United Kingdom to legislate for Australia
2. Legislative powers of Parliaments of States
3. Termination of restrictions on legislative powers of Parliaments of States
4. Powers of State Parliaments in relation to merchant shipping
5. Commonwealth Constitution, Constitution Act and Statute of Westminster not affected
6. Manner and form of making certain State laws
7. Powers and functions of Her Majesty and Governors in respect of States
8. State laws not subject to disallowance or suspension of operation
9. State laws not subject to withholding of assent or reservation
10. Termination of responsibility of United Kingdom Government in relation to State matters
11. Termination of appeals to Her Majesty in Council
12. Amendment of Statute of Westminster
13. Amendment of Constitution Act of Queensland
14. Amendment of Constitution Act of Western Australia
15. Method of repeal or amendment of this Act or Statute of Westminster
16. Interpretation
17. Short title and commencement [see Note 1]
AUSTRALIA ACT 1986
TABLE OF PROVISIONS
Long Title
1. Termination of power of Parliament of United Kingdom to legislate for Australia
2. Legislative powers of Parliaments of States
3. Termination of restrictions on legislative powers of Parliaments of States
4. Powers of State Parliaments in relation to merchant shipping
5. Commonwealth Constitution, Constitution Act and Statute of Westminster not affected
6. Manner and form of making certain State laws
7. Powers and functions of Her Majesty and Governors in respect of States
8. State laws not subject to disallowance or suspension of operation
9. State laws not subject to withholding of assent or reservation
10. Termination of responsibility of United Kingdom Government in relation to State matters
11. Termination of appeals to Her Majesty in Council
12. Amendment of Statute of Westminster
13. Amendment of Constitution Act of Queensland
14. Amendment of Constitution Act of Western Australia
15. Method of repeal or amendment of this Act or Statute of Westminster
16. Interpretation
17. Short title and commencement [see Note 1]
Arkayos: I really appreciate the discussion, but I think I am going to join the Greens.
AA you should like that - they are pro-republican (and I still disagree with that.)
The concern for not only the environment, but for the individual rights is quite appealling. But I still want to meet them before I commit.
They signed me on to the electoral role at the citizenship ceremony so I will be eligible to join a party as soon as it is processed.
AA you should like that - they are pro-republican (and I still disagree with that.)
The concern for not only the environment, but for the individual rights is quite appealling. But I still want to meet them before I commit.
They signed me on to the electoral role at the citizenship ceremony so I will be eligible to join a party as soon as it is processed.
Greens? Tell me what attracted you the greens policies? Is it the cost and the burden they inflict on our already fragile economy?
AgentAjax: I'll learn ya Rob
AUSTRALIA ACT 1986
TABLE OF PROVISIONS
Long Title
1. Termination of power of Parliament of United Kingdom to legislate for Australia
2. Legislative powers of Parliaments of States
3. Termination of restrictions on legislative powers of Parliaments of States
4. Powers of State Parliaments in relation to merchant shipping
5. Commonwealth Constitution, Constitution Act and Statute of Westminster not affected
6. Manner and form of making certain State laws
7. Powers and functions of Her Majesty and Governors in respect of States
8. State laws not subject to disallowance or suspension of operation
9. State laws not subject to withholding of assent or reservation
10. Termination of responsibility of United Kingdom Government in relation to State matters
11. Termination of appeals to Her Majesty in Council
12. Amendment of Statute of Westminster
13. Amendment of Constitution Act of Queensland
14. Amendment of Constitution Act of Western Australia
15. Method of repeal or amendment of this Act or Statute of Westminster
16. Interpretation
17. Short title and commencement [see Note 1]
AUSTRALIA ACT 1986
TABLE OF PROVISIONS
Long Title
1. Termination of power of Parliament of United Kingdom to legislate for Australia
2. Legislative powers of Parliaments of States
3. Termination of restrictions on legislative powers of Parliaments of States
4. Powers of State Parliaments in relation to merchant shipping
5. Commonwealth Constitution, Constitution Act and Statute of Westminster not affected
6. Manner and form of making certain State laws
7. Powers and functions of Her Majesty and Governors in respect of States
8. State laws not subject to disallowance or suspension of operation
9. State laws not subject to withholding of assent or reservation
10. Termination of responsibility of United Kingdom Government in relation to State matters
11. Termination of appeals to Her Majesty in Council
12. Amendment of Statute of Westminster
13. Amendment of Constitution Act of Queensland
14. Amendment of Constitution Act of Western Australia
15. Method of repeal or amendment of this Act or Statute of Westminster
16. Interpretation
17. Short title and commencement [see Note 1]
5. Commonwealth Constitution, Constitution Act and Statute of Westminster not affected
Commonwealth law over rules state law, so i understand you can't appeal to privy council or house of lords.
A. the people have already voted in the republican debate and said NO.
B. Politicians cannot piss off the HIGH Court
I dunno why you would entertain removing our head of state anyway, we already know all POME are barmy, and you might like to ask what ex-servicemen thinking of your ideas, and the meany Australian families that didn't just recently blow into town
My understanding is Whitlam was unable to fund his proposals.
Anyway seems to me deals have been done between the two parties, like its your turn now Labor you've got ten or so years then its our turn, something like that is what i believe has been going on.
Government (two main parties) some how together work out six or seven months prior to calling an election what they want the sheep to vote on. All the sheep become profoundly knowledgeable on the five six subject matter politicians limit there debates to. Never anything of much substance the country form rock solid opinions and cast there votes.
At one stage it appeared to me, in closely at the time following Australian politics, it appeared to me there are a handful of power brokers controlling things in both houses.
AA I am a serving soldier in Her Majesties Armed Forces, the people have already spoken they said NO, Commonwealth law over rules state legislation, if Gillard, Turnbull and others push there thoughts on the people next year as you appear to have indicated there will i'm certain be big trouble.
Martia I agree with most of your assessment of policemen's son Bob Brown, who is actually a friend of a friend of mine and that friend of mine also like AA wants to piss off our head of state, me i disagree in that regard.
I was in Tasmania in St Helens camped alongside two fires, one the one that burnt St Marys I took a really photo very very large vapor cloud behind the fire. I was told the poor fries, to there dismay, found the forests roads had been blocked by the greenies to stop 4x4 drivers from accessing the bush, in many places access to the water points were blocked.
Anyway seems to me deals have been done between the two parties, like its your turn now Labor you've got ten or so years then its our turn, something like that is what i believe has been going on.
Government (two main parties) some how together work out six or seven months prior to calling an election what they want the sheep to vote on. All the sheep become profoundly knowledgeable on the five six subject matter politicians limit there debates to. Never anything of much substance the country form rock solid opinions and cast there votes.
At one stage it appeared to me, in closely at the time following Australian politics, it appeared to me there are a handful of power brokers controlling things in both houses.
AA I am a serving soldier in Her Majesties Armed Forces, the people have already spoken they said NO, Commonwealth law over rules state legislation, if Gillard, Turnbull and others push there thoughts on the people next year as you appear to have indicated there will i'm certain be big trouble.
Martia I agree with most of your assessment of policemen's son Bob Brown, who is actually a friend of a friend of mine and that friend of mine also like AA wants to piss off our head of state, me i disagree in that regard.
I was in Tasmania in St Helens camped alongside two fires, one the one that burnt St Marys I took a really photo very very large vapor cloud behind the fire. I was told the poor fries, to there dismay, found the forests roads had been blocked by the greenies to stop 4x4 drivers from accessing the bush, in many places access to the water points were blocked.
robplum: 5. Commonwealth Constitution, Constitution Act and Statute of Westminster not affected Commonwealth law over rules state law, so i understand you can't appeal to privy council or house of lords.
A. the people have already voted in the republican debate and said NO.
B. Politicians cannot piss off the HIGH Court
I dunno why you would entertain removing our head of state anyway, we already know all POME are barmy, and you might like to ask what ex-servicemen thinking of your ideas, and the meany Australian families that didn't just recently blow into town
As you remember the removal of the Whitlam Government by John Kerr 1975? It was due to that fact that the law was changed so it will never happen again. Today Australia has a governor general of commonwealth virtually powerless she cannot remove or appoint a prime minister. I don’t entertain the idea Rob, that my friend is a fact.A. the people have already voted in the republican debate and said NO.
B. Politicians cannot piss off the HIGH Court
I dunno why you would entertain removing our head of state anyway, we already know all POME are barmy, and you might like to ask what ex-servicemen thinking of your ideas, and the meany Australian families that didn't just recently blow into town
AgentAjax: As you remember the removal of the Whitlam Government by John Kerr 1975? It was due to that fact that the law was changed so it will never happen again. Today Australia has a governor general of commonwealth virtually powerless she cannot remove or appoint a prime minister. I don’t entertain the idea Rob, that my friend is a fact.
Wouldn't a President be the same..... just a different title
Or! if given some powers ( the voting public would expect that)wouldent it be stepping into shark infested waters again surely.
Cant see the ruling party at that time and thier Prime Minister agreeing to it either HmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmDODGY
AgentAjax: As you remember the removal of the Whitlam Government by John Kerr 1975? It was due to that fact that the law was changed so it will never happen again. Today Australia has a governor general of commonwealth virtually powerless she cannot remove or appoint a prime minister. I don’t entertain the idea Rob, that my friend is a fact.
there was something in the news the other week about stopping the commonwealth from over turning NT legislation. I didn't look into what was what, But yeah republicans working away on it, Rudd promised he wouldn't be pushing it until after HM died.
got to go thunder storm bye
Martia: Wouldn't a President be the same..... just a different title
Or! if given some powers ( the voting public would expect that)wouldent it be stepping into shark infested waters again surely.
Cant see the ruling party at that time and thier Prime Minister agreeing to it either HmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmDODGY
Not much changes except for couple of name changes Republic and President. You would have your existing parties that would represent the same values and the congress would have to vote and agree upon any changes. BUT as a multicultural nation we would benefit in unity separate from the monarchy. Or! if given some powers ( the voting public would expect that)wouldent it be stepping into shark infested waters again surely.
Cant see the ruling party at that time and thier Prime Minister agreeing to it either HmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmDODGY
robplum: there was something in the news the other week about stopping the commonwealth from over turning NT legislation. I didn't look into what was what, But yeah republicans working away on it, Rudd promised he wouldn't be pushing it until after HM died.
got to go thunder storm bye
Like I explained before the law changes were not due to any republican movement. It was to protect the independent right of the individual voter in Australia.got to go thunder storm bye
AgentAjax: Not much changes except for couple of name changes Republic and President. You would have your existing parties that would represent the same values and the congress would have to vote and agree upon any changes. BUT as a multicultural nation we would benefit in unity separate from the monarchy.
But my dear little pumpernickel
We the public would not want to vote on someone who is just a figurehead 
in fact why even vote in the first place waste of money. 
May as well make a plaster bust of someone ....like an idol
might even get a few worshippers. 
Martia: But my dear little pumpernickel We the public would not want to vote on someone who is just a figurehead in fact why even vote in the first place waste of money.
May as well make a plaster bust of someone ....like an idol might even get a few worshippers.
we the public will and we would have voted for a republic in the past if we the public agreed on how we would elect a president. Why are you for the monarchy making your place to living in Australia? May as well make a plaster bust of someone ....like an idol might even get a few worshippers.
See this is the bit I don’t understand you have no problem telling other nation to stay away yet you have a problems accepting Australia as its own independent country… please explain?
Arkayos: Thanks Martia, I have no intention of joining anyone without talking to them, and finding out how different the real position and the position paper are.
My leanings are also conservative, but as a conservative socialist. I think the government only exists to serve the society and the individual.
Yes I have environmental concerns - I wrote an article on climate change in 2006 after doing extensive research into the subject (the article was published in several magazines, including a few in the US.) Climate change is the biggest threat to the human race's survival. So In my view that issue is a threat to our society. I know you dissagree with me on that.
With a bit of experience in a few other economies (including the US and China) I can say that without mining and China, the Australian economy would still be in better shape than the US. I think many Australian's don't know how good it is here. I choose to live here because it is the best country on earth. And one of the reasons is because of it's robust economy. (Business writers will always claim the sky is falling.)
Yes I know the Greens have a radical element. (Then again conservatives in the US have a radical element called the Tea party.) But good policy and popular support can moderate the radical elements. (Not to mention actually making something good happen.)
I'm not a tree hugger, neither are most Green party members today. Although the party may have been founded by tree huggers, they have now become much more mainstream.
I have many disagreements with Green policy. But on the whole I can agree with much of their position.
I would like to read it.My leanings are also conservative, but as a conservative socialist. I think the government only exists to serve the society and the individual.
Yes I have environmental concerns - I wrote an article on climate change in 2006 after doing extensive research into the subject (the article was published in several magazines, including a few in the US.) Climate change is the biggest threat to the human race's survival. So In my view that issue is a threat to our society. I know you dissagree with me on that.
With a bit of experience in a few other economies (including the US and China) I can say that without mining and China, the Australian economy would still be in better shape than the US. I think many Australian's don't know how good it is here. I choose to live here because it is the best country on earth. And one of the reasons is because of it's robust economy. (Business writers will always claim the sky is falling.)
Yes I know the Greens have a radical element. (Then again conservatives in the US have a radical element called the Tea party.) But good policy and popular support can moderate the radical elements. (Not to mention actually making something good happen.)
I'm not a tree hugger, neither are most Green party members today. Although the party may have been founded by tree huggers, they have now become much more mainstream.
I have many disagreements with Green policy. But on the whole I can agree with much of their position.
AgentAjax: we the public will and we would have voted for a republic in the past if we the public agreed on how we would elect a president. Why are you for the monarchy making your place to living in Australia?
See this is the bit I don’t understand you have no problem telling other nation to stay away yet you have a problems accepting Australia as its own independent country… please explain?
sheez sorry Martia that first bit didn’t make much sense See this is the bit I don’t understand you have no problem telling other nation to stay away yet you have a problems accepting Australia as its own independent country… please explain?
Okay Arky, now a true blue Aussie, it is time to make a difference. Unfortunately, us Aussies are quite happy the way things are going and "if she ain't broke, don't fix it."
I am glad you are taking an interest in our country's wellbeing. Most Aussies are really conservative in everything but the political sense. Most Aussies had realised Einstein's Theorem of "every action has an equal but opposite reaction" many years before him. He just spoke it out loud.
Many many of us supported the changes brought about by the Whitlam Govt in the 70s (me too). But many of us voted him out because they were too radical (me too). And I, like many others, have paid the price for supporting those radical but much needed changes. Don't get me wrong, the ideas were very good, just the implementation which is still having a profound impact 40 years later.
What ever party you choose to join, it is your decision. Very few people will give out their full agenda, usually what will give them the vote. So if you decide on the Greens, I hope you can do it with a rational mind.
But the good news, Arky, is that you are one of us.
I am glad you are taking an interest in our country's wellbeing. Most Aussies are really conservative in everything but the political sense. Most Aussies had realised Einstein's Theorem of "every action has an equal but opposite reaction" many years before him. He just spoke it out loud.
Many many of us supported the changes brought about by the Whitlam Govt in the 70s (me too). But many of us voted him out because they were too radical (me too). And I, like many others, have paid the price for supporting those radical but much needed changes. Don't get me wrong, the ideas were very good, just the implementation which is still having a profound impact 40 years later.
What ever party you choose to join, it is your decision. Very few people will give out their full agenda, usually what will give them the vote. So if you decide on the Greens, I hope you can do it with a rational mind.
But the good news, Arky, is that you are one of us.
More Threads
A question
The world is as you see
What's going on
"Emotions at the Crossroads"
Too many fake profiles here ...
Wondering
Blast From The Past
the death nail for dating websites
It's been a long time....
Note
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
I don’t think for the individual it would make all that much difference. Most laws under the present system don’t affect you or me, neither would the laws under the presidency. What effects individuals mostly middle class is your local politics, such as council rates, roads, parking and all other general cervices.
On a grand scale of things having a republic does and I strongly believe would make immense difference. A) For a start we would be making a statement, telling the world we have matured as a nation. B) As a multicultural nation it would be easier to unite as one people. C) because of England’s past history we are frowned upon. We are not English we are not, Dutch German, Yugoslav, Russian…etc we are nation of many invited over here by the government of the 60’s and 70’s to make Australia home and not England.
Hmmm Answer to A)The world doesent give a stuff about what and who we are,they have bigger things to worry about.
B) It will take a lot more than that.....
C)I think there would be a few more Countries overtake that score by a long way this century.Except the french mind of course .