..only 4 posts a day...growl..

minotaur,

"A matter which is provided" is logically not a removed, non-existent matter . Removing the Privy Council needs s 128 to make it un-provided, otherwise what does 128 apply to?

"Before the Bill was passed, however, one final change was made by the imperial government, upon lobbying by the Chief Justices of the colonies, so that the right to appeal from the High Court to the Privy Council on constitutional matters concerning the limits of the powers of the Commonwealth or States could not be curtailed by parliament."

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 128

"Mode of altering the Constitution
This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner:
The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament,. the proposed law shall be submitted in each State .. to the electors. And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent."

Abolishing the Privy Council by an Act changes the Constitution illegally. That is why s 74 still stands contrary to the 1986 Acts.

For example "The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State, voting, until the Parliament otherwise provides, as one electorate." Electoral divisions for senators can be adjusted by provisions , but are you saying the Senate House can be abolished by Pauline Hansen bargaining with the Libs to enact its removal? Can Turnbull then vote out the House of Reps and become a Putin with Hansen as Director-General of Religions and Flogging? Is the Australian Parliament just 2 Acts away from disappearing?

nicknamesstupid...I've explained how it works and if you can't comprehend that and wasting your posts then that's not my problem.

It's good when they get abusive and have no answer.

No answer? Given heaps of them and if people can't understand them then too bad. Let's try one last time...there are no legal avenues to make appeals to the Privy Council. None, nada and it doesn't matter what Section 74 of the Australian Constitution says. It has been made irrelevant. As it is irrelevant and unenforceable it doesn't need to be changed.

You want to make a legal challenge nicknamesfuckingstupid the go right ahead and make a laughing stock of yourself and waste your money on advice you already got for free. And if you want to keep wasting posts about an issue you have no case over then go right ahead. I'm not wasting anymore of my time on your or your undeveloped comprehension skills.

minotaur

"..Section 74 of the Australian Constitution says. It has been made irrelevant."
That's how Putin talks. And Duterte with his unconstitutional kill-squads and they're not stupid.

"In 1920 a unanimous High Court held that ‘[w]here a thing is declared illegal, whatever may be the object of the prohibition, the thing declared illegal is of no force or validity, and everything dependent on that thing…shares the fate of the thing prohibited’. That holding invoked the ‘void ab initio’ doctrine in relation to unconstitutional legislation .. [a] pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it. "

The Law is an ass.

minotaur (the bull-headed one?) is entitled to hold the view that my piece (Australia Day 2017) “has to be one of the worst pieces . . . ever read in OLO.” Furthermore, it is: ”A great display of nothingness and historical ignorance.”

In which part of the short essay is this historical ignorance displayed? Happily, minotaur appears to find nothing wrong with the pre-landing bulk of the work (or, at least makes no reference to it), which lets me out of everything but the “consequences” of English settlement, which was not an “invasion” as it is more generally understood. Nevertheless minotaur takes my point of the non-aggressive landing as “a load of rubbish”.

And so the criticism goes on but in sum, minotaur does not address the “humanity” reason for setting up a penal colony, and I might have expected a connection between military and invasion from so erudite a critic as minotaur but no.

Anyway, the forum has drifted into other matters, which is often the case when one starts off with an insubstantial rebuttal of the point at issue.

Good argument is the stuff of learning but offensive personal remarks are not helpful, thus minotaur’s last paragraph is ignored. For Australian history I rely on research undertaken for my B.A. Honours thesis, while my research into general history includes Greek mythology, especially Theseus’ heroic deeds