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?