Celebrating a national public holiday for the arrival of the first convict fleet would be okay for a colony that had not progressed, but not for an independent sovereign nation that has specific political and legal turning points in its history.

In 1788, Australia was simply Britain's so-called 'Pacific-Solution'. (I couldn't imagine Nauru claiming a 'national public holiday' from the first boat load of Australian asylum seekers.)

If present day Australians could miraculously appear on January 26th, 1788 and welcome the convict ships into the humid summer heat of Sydney Harbour. The flag waving would soon stop as they saw first-hand the suffering beneath the decks and the dead being taken away.

January 26th, divides the nation between indigenous and non-indigenous and anglo-celtic and non-anglo-celtic. Further, most Australian adults and all school children have already been on some form of annual leave when the Australia Day holiday comes around, having a public holiday whilst already on holidays deminishes its real effect.

As stated by the Chief Justice of the Australian high court in
1992: "The Australia Act 1986 (UK) marked the end of the legal sovereignty of the Imperial Parliament and recognised that ultimate sovereignty resided in the Australian people".

We have our independence day, it is March 3rd 1986, let's celebrate it.

I don't believe that the last referendum result saw Australia become a republic, but have patience. Those of us born prior to 03/03/1986 will all eventually stop voting in referenda, and Australia Day/Invasion Day will one day be forgotten by the citizens of the Peoples' Republic of Australia when the YES votes are the majority.

The day that happens would perhaps qualify as 'Independence Day' for the United States of Australia. I'm just glad that as a seventh-generation Western Australian, I won't be around to suffer it.

I'm a firm believer in Australia day being celebrated the day we became a nation. Ok For all didn't happen for a further 60 odd years (at least officially) but 1/1/1901 does it for me. 1788 simply perpetuates the white supremacy myth that insults us all.

Seano
I was born before 1986 so were my children and they agree that Jan 1 does it.

Aye what's this moving me holiday why I've been a giving ya all a holiday for 56years, now ya wanta change it come on
26/1/1954 was a good day

Thanks all
From Dave

PS ya never even send me a card

I think that any celebration of 'Australia Day' is somewhat premature. I think we should follow the American example and celebrate Independence Day - if and when it finally happens.

'I think that any celebration of 'Australia Day' is somewhat premature. I think we should follow the American example and celebrate Independence Day - if and when it finally happens.'
by CJ Morgan,

Pashence iza vurtue, pozzesz it if yo cannz,

(epic lolz)

Excuse the double-post. I wish to mention to CJ Morgan that there was a little jest in that last post and I hope it was taken on friendly terms, and to Examinator, that I have respect for Federation as well as our Western Australian Foundation Day when my great-great-great-great Grand Mother arrived on the Calista inside her mother's womb, but history recalls how we never forget to repeat the same mistakes if we do not remember to celebrate the good things as well as make amends for the bad things in our pasts, and patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings.

I cling to January 26th because I have no energy to grasp onto anything else here on this fatal shore, but there is more capacity for patience in a vital prognosis for one's future, so I am indubitably biased.

Also, Examinator, I saw your tongue-in-cheek usage of the word 'transparent' earlier today, so I would like to exclude you from the assault on the demise of English post earlier because I saw the humour in it.

Good luck to you all and sorry if my SoH is rather eccentric at times.

" ... As stated by the Chief Justice of the Australian high court in
1992: "The Australia Act 1986 (UK) marked the end of the legal sovereignty of the Imperial Parliament and recognised that ultimate sovereignty resided in the Australian people". ... "

We really do need a new Constitution I think. The reason I say this is that even now, appeals to *Lizzy Winza* in council are still enshrined in the Con, a fact about which has also been noted by a member of the High Court.

However, the australia act prohibits further appeals to the so called privvy council. And yet, this ALTERATION to the Constitution was not done by way of referendum, but rather the slime in canberra at the time merely asked the poms to make another act, the australia act, to overtrump the constitution, which of course in definition means that its not really a proper constitution at all.

And if the recognition of the right of the australian people to determine any alterations of the constitution was so easily dismissed, whose to say that the poms can't just write up some other piece of bog roll to overtrump the australia act?

The overturning of "terror nullius" on Mabo was also the recognition of the fact that the original people were not animals. And of course, as the law at the time required either a treaty or a declaration of war, coupled with the fact that neither was applied, plus of course that as a soveriegnty issue the privvy council very likely would end up having to be involved by way of appeal from the high court, makes the whole affair look very smelly to me.

Its what a I call "the tin pot law of the transplanted genocidal pom."

The Solution: !VOTE 1 *Green Browny for Prez*!

and create a new true independence day with enshrined human rights to the benefit of all.

;-)

Sense,

If Australians did celebrate March the 3rd, 1986, in any way, they would be celebrating the virtues of legalistic connivance, wholesale deception of the public, bipartisan-politicianist supremacism, and the exchange of their legislative and constitutional heritage for a proverbial bowl of pottage.

The Parliament of the United Kingdom had absolutely no business purporting to act as it did in any way dealing with the various Australian States' Request and Consent Acts in late 1985. The Statute of Windsor 1931 made that very clear.

In co-ordinating the various Australian States' Request and Consent Acts for presentation to the UK Parliament in 1985, the Commonwealth acted unconstitutionally.

Section 118 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia says:

"118. Full faith and credit shall be given,
throughout the Commonwealth to the laws,
the public Acts and records,
and the judicial proceedings of every State."

The Australia Act Request and Consent Act (Queensland) 1985 purported to make alterations in the law with respect to the Governor of that State. The Queensland Constitution Act at that time provided that any law proposing any alteration to the law as it related to the Governor of Queensland had first to be approved at a State referendum. No such referendum was ever held.

The Queensland Constitution Act was a public Act of a State. The Commonwealth was bound by the Constitution to give that Act full faith and credit. In submitting the Australia (Request and Consent) Act 1986 [and yes, I know its confusing because this was actually done in 1985, but it was meant to be so] to the UK Parliament the Australian government of the day not only made a mockery of the Constitution and the Statute of Westminster 1931, but acted unconstitutionally.

The Australia Act 1986 is all about circumventing the Constitution.

Doubtless with the approach of November 11th the minds of many in the bipartisan politicianist-supremacist movement will be turning, instead of to the commemoration of Remembrance Day, to self-serving thoughts as to the Constitutional provisions for Dismissal, and how to avoid being subject to one.

Hi Seano - absolutely no offence taken. I enjoyed the joke :)

More seriously,

DreamOn: << We really do need a new Constitution I think. >>

I agree, and Forrest's subsequent constitutional ramble reinforces that opinion. However, I can't see it happening in my lifetime.

First up - the High Court has determined that the Australia Act 1986 was validly enacted . So forget the conspiracy theories .

Prior to 5am ( GMT ) on the 3rd March 1986 an Act of the British Parliament could and would be enforced on Australian Citizens by Australian Courts - as long as the " manner and form provisions " to pass that Act were complied with ie : the request and consent of the Australian Government was received first . If those provisions were met then the British Law would be enforceable in Australia .

After the Australia Acts came into effect no ( future ) law passed by the British Parliament would be valid in Australia .

That is the legal Sovereignty of the British Parliament over Australia was terminated . ( Not in 1901 , 1920 ,1931 ,1942 or 1949 but in 1986 ).

Forrest was making sense of it now.

The last sentence of the Australia Act 1986, Act No.142 of 1985, assented to on 4 December 1985, says:

"17. (2) This Act shall come into operation on a day and at a time to be fixed by Proclamation.'"

In the Note numbered 1, (fudgingly indicated in the verbatim quote above with a single inverted comma standing in for a superscript '1') the only note to the Act, that immediately follows the last sentence in the Act we are told:

"..... [the Act] came into operation on 3 March 1986 at 5:00 AM Greenwich Mean Time (see Gazette 1986, No. S85, p. 1)...."

Forrest thought the reference to GMT must have to do with something having happened elsewhere in the world for it to have needed to be tied down to the UK time zone. He checked his old 20th century calendar, which told him that 3 March 1986 was a Monday.

Guessing that the Proclamation might have something to do with Australia (it was the Australia Act, after all), and within Australia, Canberra, the nation's capital, Forrest's mind fell to the task of calculating what time 5:00 AM GMT would be equivalent to in Canberra. That would have been 3:00 PM EST, or 4:00 PM AEDST, Monday 3 March 1986.

Forrest thought he remembered HM the Queen Herself having signed the Proclamation in Canberra. It had all happened on Sunday 2 March 1986, on a beautiful autumn afternoon. The Queen Herself had signed the Proclamation. On a Sunday.

As at 2 March 1986 the acts of the Sovereign were still subject to the provisions of the Sunday Observance Act (UK), which Act by virtue of the Imperial Acts Application Act (NSW) extended those provisions to the Sovereign being in Australia at that time. One of the provisions of that legislation was that any instrument signed by the Sovereign on a Sunday was null and void and of no effect.

Celebrating March 3rd would be celebrating a deception of the Sovereign in her grants.

Forest , as I said the High Court has determined that the Australia Acts were validly enacted . You would have to take the matter up with them .

I feel somewhat uneasy about discarding
the past - imperfect as it perhaps was.
It's part of this country's history.
Australia's early White settlers, unlike
their American counterparts who left England
to the promise of a richer and freer existence,
were dragged kicking and screaming from the
dungeons of Newgate and the hulks of Bristol
to the living death of an isolated and barren
land. They matured in a harsh land with few of
the niceties. That in itself is surely worth
commemorating.

Anyway, I'm leaning towards CJ's suggestion -
of choosing a date when, and if, we ever become
a Republic. Of course, we can always have a
Referendum?

Personally I'm perfectly ok for our national day to be on the day Australia was founded- considering it IS the only day that has anything to do with "Australia".

I'm perfectly happy to relocate it- especially if it's true that the current date is offensive to Indigenous Australians.

Although Foxy does make a good point about the history.

Yes, I too agree with Foxy. We should wait until Australia is formally made a republic, and then celebrate that day.

Naturally, Indigenous Australians are never going to be happy with celebrating Australia Day on the day they were 'invaded' by Britain. However, many countries, including Britain, were also invaded sometime in history.

I feel it is time for everyone to move on and declare Australia a Republic. I was born before 1986 and so were many of my friends and family. I haven't met many now who don't want a Republic.

*Posted by lejon, Sunday, 25 October 2009 3:03:11 PM*
" ... Forest , as I said the High Court has determined that the Australia Acts were validly enacted . You would have to take the matter up with them. ... "

That doesn't necessarily mean that all of its provisions are constitutional.

http://www.comlaw.gov.au

The great australian Con:

..

2 Act to extend to *Lizzy Winza’s* successors
The provisions of this Act referring to *Lizzy* shall extend to *Her
Lizzyiness’s* heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

..

Chapter III – The Judicature
74 Appeals to *Lizzy Winza* in Council

" .. No appeal shall be permitted to *Lizzy* in Council from a decision of the High Court upon any question, howsoever arising, as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those of any State or States, or as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of any two or more States, unless the High Court shall certify that the question is one which ought to be determined by *Her Lizziness* in Council. ... "

..

Chapter VIII – Alteration of the Constitution
Mode of altering the Constitution
" ... This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner: ... REFERENDUM ... "

This is generally accepted by the majority of Ozzies I would suggest.

BUT!

Australia Act 1986
Act No. 142 of 1985

11 Termination of appeals to *Lizzy Winza* in Council

Subject to subsection (4) below, no appeal to *Her Lizziness* in
Council lies or shall be brought, whether by leave or special leave
of any court or of *Her Lizziness* in Council or otherwise, and
whether by virtue of any Act of the Parliament of the United
Kingdom, the Royal Prerogative or otherwise, from or in respect of
any decision of an Australian court. ... "

..

Toilet Paper!

To Foxy , King Hazza and Suzeonline - there is no suggestion of denying history . The history of Australia will always remain .

But there is a lot more to our history than convicts , settlers and Diggers .

Celebrate that history by all means but don't deny our recent history . From 1770 until 1986 this country and all the people in it were members of the British Nation ( British subjects ) . British Nationality in this country was terminated by the Australia Acts 1986 . Nationality didn't end of course - a new Nation was born - the Sovereign , Independant and Federal Nation - of Australia .

Celebrating on the 26 Jan celebrates the arrival of the British nation into Australia --- on what day is the begining of the Australian Nation celebrated ? ( And that is as a separate Nation not as a part of the British Nation ).

I believe that would be Federation Day, on January 1st, 1901, if I am not mistaken.

Forrest,

Granted, there should have been a referendum. Also, the Australia Act 1986 should have probably been named the Australia Independence Act 1986, especially when you make comparisons with the Indian Independence Act 1947.

I am not suprised by the Sunday proclamation anomaly, just look at the dog's breakfast we have been left with in Section 15 of the Australian Constitution. The peons replaced the wonderfully concise and simple text, a style which is evident thoughout the constitution, with reams of modern legalistic garbage, thanks to the initial actions of Bjelke-Petersen.

With reference to the Statute of Westminster 1931, are you inferring that the UK Parliament completely lost the power to legislate on behalf of a dominion, even with consent??

In the end the highest court in the land recognises this date as the date of legal independence and law students are taught the same. It makes no sense to use a substitute.

"It makes no sense to use a substitute."
Posted by Sense, Sunday, 25 October 2009 6:35:52 PM

Precisely.

Australia gained the status of Independant Nationhood without having to become a Republic . The ( theoretical ) operating proceedures are still those of a Constitutional Monarchy but the reality is we are already a Republic . We are sometimes called a " concealed Republic " .
Elizabeth is still technicaly our Monarch but in reality it is only a titular position ( meaning powerless ). When the GG ( Kerr ) dismissed the Whitlam government he did not consult the Queen and the Queen stated that she could not intervene !

A " National Day " should celebrate the advent of a Nation not a change in the process of administration .

Remember that already Australians owe no allegiance to the British Monarch only to Elizabeth in the position of " Queen of Australia ".

... and may we say, "God save the Queen!", because nothing else but she would have saved GG Hollingworth.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2002/02/27/queen020227.html

The only valid argument I can see against abolishing Australia Day is that it would stuff up the cricket.

CJ

Would a public holiday in early march be good for cricket?

I think we could work with that, Sense. Now, all we need to do is declare Australia an independent sovereign state in early March - some year or another ;)

If it is not broken.... why bother to fix it?

Of course, if it is just an action to deny Australia's genuine heritage and invent some new version of history to appease the sentimental sensitivities of the emotionally anguished -

Then, that is an even better reason to leave Australia Day exactly where it is.

Col,

It was never right in the first place!
It seems that it's OK for The Brits to be Nationalistic to the point of advertising their, working class (natural state?) racist under belly. (stains of English superiority contrary to the historic reality of barbarism, arrogance, racism and exploitation even of the whites).
But if Australia as a sovereign country should want to show it's independence we should be bound by the shameful link.
To use a good old blighty term BOLLOCKS.

All,
When you're wrong you're wrong More publicity of the day is required to my regret I didn't realize the significance of the day. I change my mind March 3rd is fine by me.

To celebrate let think up a celebration that proves our independence..the US celebrate the Boston tea party. Perhaps a ceremonial burying of the union jack?

PS I'll give the *celebrations* a miss as I have problems with the concept of jingoism in any form anyway. Sadly the shameful comes with the pride. Nothing is ever wholey good or bad.

A bitter pill to swallow for some it would appear?

We have a "foreign" national as the Head of State with Reserve powers, a Jack the Ripper in the corner of our flag, but some how or another we are an independent sovereign nation.

Laughable! Toilet paper and Band Aids!

It's like this, if you want to have a Rule of Law, then apply it according to your own rules. Either Declare War, Make a Treaty or in the interests of unity, make a real new nation with Enshrined Human Rights,

BECAUSE

There were people here. It is post *Mabo* and the abolishment of *Terror Nullius* is a legal fact. Indeed the Original People are, and were not, animals to be administered under the Flora and Fauna Act.

Of course, some would say:
" Well we play by the make it up as you go along rules."

Well, what's the new rule then regarding the theft of this continent, for want of a better description, and the wholesale destruction of many of its people and language groups?

I tell what the rule is:
"RASPBERRY and %$#% your hat!"

OH Hear Hear, Good Show.

Still, today did bring some mirth. *IRON BAR TUCKEY!:*

"I'M NO AIR HOSTESS!"

AND THE CROWD CHEERS!

U c *Col* I'm not completely anti the Right. I appreciate a good body slam in the cage. I do hope we are going to see a tag team maneuver while he's down though?

;-)

Dream on
Not at all. Race isn't the reason why we should change the day. Read my last post on "does he have a point? topic" it applies here.
Short version we as a nation have and will continue to change. We are no more the white UK transplants any more than US or Canada. We are a different country with different interests. Our origins are of historical value only. Despite what Col and his ilk like to think we are.

Like all invasions eventually become integrated or separate from the 'home country' and neither curmudgeon or Anglophile will change it.
The question is when will we become a republic? not if. My guess is after Tizzy Lizzy dies. The monarch is supposed to be something special Liz can claim that. Charlie simply isn't special without puting a too fine a point on it he lives up to his name a right royal Charlie.

Examinator,

Your post has made my day - well done.

I won't mention the 6 billion dollars (in todays money) that the Brits extorted out of we Australians after we sacrificed a whole generation for them in WWI, nor should I mention the high interest rates that they refused to lower during the great depression, one of the reasons the depression was so bad in this country and Canada, notwithstanding the fact the Brits asked the Americans to drop their interest rates.

Nor should I mention a British General by the name of Douglas Gracey and ask why he happened to be in Indochina in September 1945. Roosevelt didn't want the Brits, the Dutch or French to reclaim their colonies in the Pacific, unfortunately he died before the Potsdam conference. I think the Brits saw Indochina as the first colonial domino to fall which may lead to their jewel in the crown India wanting independence, so they unilaterally returned the French to Indochina leading to the first indo-china war and ultimately the vietnam war.

World war one and two were all about the British, the French & the Germans; their pride; their pregidous and their racism. These wars killed upwards of 100 million people, if we don't confront pride, pregidous and racism now in the 21st century the next global war will kill us all!

But to return to the subject of this post. I think Monarchists in this country are genuinely worried about March 3rd, 1986. This why they try to fudge the truth on their web sites, claiming that there is no specific date on which Australia finally became independent from Britain. They say it simply happened so slowly over time that it is not possible to say when we actually did become independent - absolute garbage. They deliberately mix political and legal independence to confuse, obfuscate and conceal the truth.

Everytime we try to Australianise any of our colonial institutions, Monarchists claim we are being unpatriotic when in fact the reverse is true, that is if your allegiance lies only with this country.

*Examinator*
" ... Not at all. Race isn't the reason why we should change the day. ... "

It's not a question of race. Its the matter of a national day for everyone and clearly, "Invasion Day" is highly divisive and beyond offensive.

Even now, the australian guvment has been condemned for its racist laws by the UN visa vi micromanage BlakFellas, but if it is a neglectful or abusive whitey parent, well, no worries.

Seriously, just so many goldfish in their bowels pumped up on the delusion that everything is sugar and spice and all things nice.

I believe that would be Federation Day, on January 1st, 1901, if I am not mistaken.Posted by Seano, Sunday, 25 October 2009 6:25:23 PM

Unfortunately you are mistaken regarding the begining of Australia as a Nation Seano .

Sir Ninian Stephens -
" the Australian colonies became the new Commonwealth within the British Empire . To do this , an ImperialAct was essential . There was no rebellion against British authority . "

Anne Twomey ( Senior Lecturer in Law , University of Sydney ) --

" Federation did not transform Australia into an independent sovereign nation . It merely consolidated six colonies into one Federated larger colony . Australias colonial status remained .Australia was still a self governing colony which could not enter into treaties in its own right or declare war or appoint its own diplomatic representaties ( etc. etc. I can't copy it all ! ) .

There are numerous other references - ( incl. Section 8 of the Aust. Const. Act 1901 )

Note all " Australians " remained British subjects until 1986 .

Where was this post GrahamY?



"I am not suprised by the Sunday proclamation anomaly
[with respect to the Australia Act 1986],
just look at the dog's breakfast we have been left with
in Section 15 of the Australian Constitution.
The peons replaced the wonderfully concise and simple text,
a style which is evident thoughout the constitution,
with reams of modern legalistic garbage,
thanks to the initial actions of Bjelke-Petersen."




Thank you very much, Sense, for the 'dog's breakfast' description as to Section 15 of the Constitution. It is nice to know
I am not alone as to how Section 15 should be regarded. I call Section 15 'the Colston Amendment', after Dr Malcolm Colston, who was at the time the person who would, at the time of the death of then ALP Senator Bert Milliner, by the convention that had existed whereby the next unelected person on the preceeding Senate election ALP ticket, have been appointed by the Parliament of Queensland in the place of the then recently deceased Senator Milliner.

I suppose one could equally call Section 15 the 'Frazer Amendment', as it was proposed at a referendum instigated by the Frazer government and held in 1977. I am ashamed to say I voted 'Yes' in that referendum. I now know better. Just look at the all-but-unreadable opacity of that disgraceful page-and-three-quarters of verbiage. All just to give political party machines status in our Parliament! In the ultimate, that amendment now puts a premium upon politically motivated murder, as the replacement of a deceased Senator dying in office now MUST be the relative, in the eyes of the voters at that last election, nonentity endorsed by a political party, not the Parliament of a State, as was originally intended by the Constitution's founders.




You are quite wrong to ascribe the opprobrium that rightly attaches to Section 15 to Bjelke-Petersen. He but held up a mirror that reflected the ALP hierachy of that time: in it were the reflections of Patrick Albert Field and Malcolm Colston.

Remember Senator Colston?

Er - Forrest - I'm not sure what the purpose of your post is ?
Are you trying to debate the Law ? If so you are 23 years too late !

The purpose of Section 15 is to assert the Sovereign Nation status of Australia . That was the whole purpose of the Act . ( see preamble ) .

Absolute Sovereignty had to be transferred from the British Parliament to the Australian Commonwealth ( which includes both Federal and State levels ).

The Statute of Westminster 1931 was an Act of the British Parliament ( even though passed at the request and with the consent of the British Dominion of Australia ) that actualy still restricted the full Sovereignty of the Commonwealth - especially in Section 8 of the Statute . Sect. 15 remedies that situation but leaves " a manner and form " restriction on the use of that new absolute Sovereignty ie: both the Federal and State governments - must agree - before that power can be used .

I don't know whether you realize it yet or not, lejon, but stuff is starting to fall off the barrow you are trying to push.



I am going to assume the post to which you refer is mine, the one now visible on OLO that replaced an earlier all but identical one apparently lost during all the server problems OLO has recently been experiencing, that of Wednesday, 28 October 2009 at 9:35:25 PM.

Just to clear up any confusion, my post was in reference to the now-amended Section 15 of the Constitution, which dealt with casual vacancies in the Senate, and was originally posted in response to Sense's post of Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 6:35:52 PM, and began with the words "Sense writes, on Sunday, 25 October ....".

It appears from your use of the words

"Er - Forrest - I'm not sure what the purpose
of your post is ? Are you trying to debate the Law ?
If so you are 23 years too late !"

that it is to the Australia Act 1986 to which you refer in your post of Thursday, 29 October 2009 at 3:34:05 AM, to which post I am now responding.

In answer to that I say that I am not late at all. The Australia Act 1986 has not been, as yet, validly proclaimed, a point which Sense acknowledged in the post to which I responded. As Section 17, sub-Section (2) of that Act says, "This Act shall come into operation on a day and at a time to be fixed by Proclamation.". In saying this, I do not seek to suggest that the Australia Act 1986, No. 142 of 1985, could not be brought into operation. All that would be required to do that would be a Proclamation by the Governor-General.




The question we must all ask ourselves is: was this failure to validly proclaim the Australia Act 1986, No. 142 of 1985, an unintended feature of the national high farce to which this legislation provides scenery, or was that failure deliberate?

Quo vadis?

Lejon,

Forrest was talking about Section 15 in the Australian Constitution, not section 15 in the Australia Act 1986.

If you compare the original section 15 to the one that replaced it, via the 1977 referendum, the original text was a little over 200 words, the substitute nearly 900. The vision, the care and the skill of the founding fathers simply astounds me - I wish we could bring them back - we need them.

Nevertheless, they certainly did a much better job drafting the text of the Australia Act 1986 than they did rewriting Section 15 of the Australian Constitution.

I think celebrating March 3rd 1986 would bring focus on our legal history, the politicians, school teachers and the population at large would have to take an interest in our constitutional history, this would lead the internet generation back to our constitution and possibly some respect for the people who wrote it.

Section 15 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, before its substitution by the Constitution Alteration (Senate Casual Vacancies) 1977, provided as follows:




"15. If the place of a senator becomes vacant before the expiration of his term of service, the Houses of Parliament of the State for which he was chosen shall, sitting and voting together, choose a person to hold the place until the expiration of the term, or until the election of a successor as hereinafter provided, whichever first happens. But if the Houses of Parliament of the State are not in session at the time when the vacancy is notified, the Governor of the State, with the advice of the Executive Council thereof, may appoint a person to hold the place until the expiration of fourteen days after the beginning of the next session of the Parliament of the State, or until the election of a successor, whichever first happens.

At the next general election of members of the House of Representatives, or at the next election of senators for the State, whichever first happens, a successor shall, if the term has not then expired, be chosen to hold the place from the date of his election until the expiration of the term.

The name of any senator so chosen or appointed shall be certified by the Governor of the State to the Governor-General."




Gedit tells me there are 205 words in the original wording of Section 15, 206 if you count the '15.' itself. My source for this wording is:

http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/constitution.html#note1




Sense, on Thursday, 29 October 2009 at 7:01:46 AM:

"I think celebrating March 3rd 1986 would bring focus
on our legal history, the politicians, school teachers
and the population at large would have to take an interest
in our constitutional history, this would lead
the internet generation back to our constitution
and possibly some respect for the people who wrote it."




It may well indeed, and that is why the bipartisan-politicianist-supremacist cabal won't let it happen.

Forrest,

Yes, sadly I think you are correct.
I was given the following link by a Federal Minister.
http://www.jennymacklin.fahcsia.gov.au/internet/jennymacklin.nsf/content/australia_day_23jan09.htm

I think Rudd was onto it straight away when I sent the following comparison to his department late last year, requesting the date be changed to March 3rd.

Indian Independence Act 1947 (4) No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed... shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to either or the new Dominions as part of the law of that dominion unless it is extended thereto by a law of the Legislature of the Dominion.

Australia Act 1986 (Cth) (1) No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed... shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to the Commonwealth, to a State or to a Territory as part of the law of the Commonwealth, of the State or of the Territory.

Re link to Jenny Macklin -- of course that's the reply you will get .

First rule of politics = stay in power !

Quickest way out of power = do something radical . ( ask Gough )

Do you make a change because one person emails you - No .

Would you make a change if 6,575,000 people emailed you ? - Hmmmm .

It's like the Republic issue -Rudd is a republican but has said there will be NO MOVE toward a Republic unless there is a groundswell for that move . That doesn't make him a member of an "evil cabal " . It just means he has to " crunch the numbers " . We don't .

Note the language - " we have no plans to " ......................................................( at the moment ) .

Lejon,

I have requested that my last comment be deleted.

But, I do think that the Australia Act 1986 should have been called the Australian Independence Act 1986.

Indian Independence Act 1947 (4) No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed... shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to either or the new Dominions as part of the law of that dominion unless it is extended thereto by a law of the Legislature of the Dominion.

Australia Act 1986 (Cth) (1) No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed... shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to the Commonwealth, to a State or to a Territory as part of the law of the Commonwealth, of the State or of the Territory.

Yes Sense I guess it should have been called Australian Independence Act 1986 because that's what it acheived .
It would have saved a hell of a lot of debate and confusion .
It was a little easier for India - they were not " ethnicaly " European . Australians were struggling with the complete separation from the "homeland " .

Sorry, but ignoring for a moment the legalese - how is Australia "independent" when we have a foreign Head of State whose local representative still has the power to dismiss a government that has been democratically elected by the Australian electorate?

CJ Morgan , because there is now only a " personal union " relationship between Elizabeth and Australia .
Elizabeth as " British Monarch " no longer exists as far as Australia is concerned .
Remember Australians are no longer " British subjects " meaning they are no longer subject to the British States jurisdiction .( final jurisdiction terminated by the Australia Acts 1986 ) .

In the words of the High Court - " Australians now owe a different allegiance ".

BUT - Australia still operates as a Constitutional Monarchy - so we need a Monarch and the Australian Parliament has given its assent ( or permission ) for Elizabeth ( an individual foreigner ) to occupy that position ( as " Queen of Australia " ) .
The position is however " titular " and the Queen has no executive power - see Queens own website . The GGs position has some executive power ( from the Constitution ) which in extreme situations can be exercised .
Australia is now independant not because of who occupies the position of " Head of State " but because the final remnants of the British Parliaments Sovereignty over Australia was terminated on the 3rd March 1986 .

CJ,

The only role the Queen plays today is to sign letters of appointment. I cannot think of one occasion where the Queen represented Australia as its Head of State whilst overseas, especially since 1986.

check out the GG's Web Site:
It states:

"In fact, since the passage of the Australia Act in 1986, the only action performed by The Queen under the Constitution is the appointment of the Governor-General, on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister."
See Copy of GG's Letter of Appointment or Commission.
http://www.gg.gov.au/governorgeneral/content.php?id=11