It can't. But the people get to vote in politicians who will put the referendum questions they want put. No. The crown didn't change 36 years ago. The Queen remains Australia's Head of State. Which ones are you most concerned about? We do get to choose our head of state. The Constitution says who the head of state is, and the people get to amend the constitution, via their popularly elected representatives. Not at the moment. Why do you ask?
I'll ask What do we loose if we decide via referendum to become a (whatever - personally I don't want a republic) We loose Elizabeth II as Head of State and Rep here in Australia yes? Did Kerr act beyond his authority with his dismissal of Goff without checking with his boss Elizabeth II first who in all probability would have said "no you cannot let the silly politicians work it out"? So back to loosing Elizabeth II and GG and now we are a (whatever) What have the people gained? under (whatever) they did not have under Elizabeth II and GG who I would have considered to have only ceremonial powers like Elizabeth II is coming to Oz, break out the best silverware and find a few photo op places she can visit duties Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As I stated, removing the State Governors power to withhold or disallow legislation (i.e. veto) and their right to make independent judgements. These are checks and balances on the political process. Do you want an example of state political abuses directly due to the lack of checks and balances. AND SINCE 1986 THE PEOPLE HAVE ONLY BEEN ASKED TWO TRIVIAL QUESTIONS RE THE PREAMBLE BUT ALL OF THE BLOODY PUBLIC ASSETS HAVE BEEN SOLD OFF, EVEN THE WATER. You appear to be out of touch, but then again you are just avoiding answering my questions with boondoggle.
I don't expect a referendum soon. I suppose the politicians will wait for QEII to pass and then will cook up another Constitutional Convention that will deliver their preferred option or kick the can along the road another 36 years. That was another thing we lost in the Australia act 1986, as subjects of the ruling monarch we no longer have the opportunity to appeal to the court of our monarch. Our state and federal politicians have been off their leash since 1986 and they don't want checks and balances to hinder their activities. I'd actually prefer the pre 1986 setup to what we have now (kleptocracy or mediocrity?).
I was unaware that option was still around in 1986 But what do we have currently that would be lost is we, just as an example became a republic, (personally I don't fancy becoming a republic - to many republics at the moment give being a republic a bad name Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) Somehow need to have the job of being a politician taught. Taught as being the head of a large household The money coming in to politicians (taxes) are the household budget and you need to manage said input equally across the assets of the country (yes you mentioned water being sold off - disgraceful) Other assets have been sold off into private hands All Government would be left with would be Army Navy Airforce and Secret Service Overseas diplomats at country level and at local level Police Fire Ambulance Prisons (the grubby stuff) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
LaurieAG: Are they, though? Weren't you complaining just a few posts ago about individuals holding all the power? But now you're telling us that you want certain individuals to have a lot of power. Specifically, you want State Governors to have veto powers that they don't currently have. That is, you want to remove some legislative power from state parliaments, which have representatives of the people, and place it in the hands of a few unelected individuals. Or do you want direct election of Governors, too? An American-style system in which legislative and executive powers are separate, perhaps? You're not being very clear on what your proposed power-sharing model would be. Yes please. Along with your suggested solution to the problem. Is sale of the public assets a constitutional matter? What would you like to put in place to prevent sale of public assets? Should such sale ever be allowed? If so, under what conditions? To me, you appear not to have a particular proposal to push. Instead, you just seem to have some vague complaints that you want to blame on the Australia Acts, for some reason. You probably should decide what you want to happen, in an ideal world. Then you could suggest concrete steps to progress towards your goal. You could try voting for politicians who will put your proposal to referendum. Or run for Parliament yourself. You want to reinstate appeals to the British Privy Council, making the Australian High Court no longer the highest court in Australia? You want British judges to decide on Australian matters of law? Why? You still haven't explained what changed in 1986 to let them all off the leash. How, prior to the Australia Acts, were they on a leash? I'm getting that, loud and clear. I'm just now sure why you think that something pivotal happened in 1986. Were politicians less mediocre prior to 1986? Did I miss a Golden Age of Australian Politics? (I was alive before 1986.)
In the early 2000's the state legislative assembly of Queensland, there is no senate it was abolished, modified the state constitution to add a clause from the UK Imperial Bill of rights 1688 which made it impossible to impeach a sitting Queensland MP outside of state parliament. They then introduced a state law to prevent any sitting MP from being impeached inside the state parliament. If you don't understand what this meant, and how the Australia Act 1986 aided and abetted these ends, I cannot help you as you seem to fail to understand what political checks and balances are.
LaurieAG: I'm not very familiar with the state Constitution of Queensland. Are you telling me that's there's no way a Queensland state MP can legally be removed from office, for example for gross misconduct? (Is this what you mean by "impeach"?) Obviously, they can still be voted out, but surely there must be other mechanisms in place (?)
There was a state law in Queensland that was repealed after Labor politician Gordon Nuttall left state parliament in September 2006. This law prevented Gordon Nuttall from being prosecuted for lying to parliament. https://www.ccc.qld.gov.au/corruption/outcome/investigation-former-minister-gordon-nuttall
Lying to Parliament https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/should-lying-in-parliament-be-a-crime/ Dismiss - bar them and family from holding any public office Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is how the political weasels sidestepped criminal charges in parliament back then, excerpts from the Introduction and end of the Crime and Misconduct Commission report. From your link, I got it arse about. There are still other moral issues that came about as a result of the lack of checks and balances arising due to the Queensland parliament no longer having an upper house and a State governor who is legally bound to follow the direction of the State Premier under the Australia act 1986. I was 16 when they lowered the age of consent from 18 to 16 years in Queensland. While the age of consent in Queensland has not been lowered any further any child aged between 12 and 16 must prove that consent was not given for rape to be charged!
While most European countries set 16-17 as the age of consent, several others, including Malta and Vatican City, require young people to be at least 18 before legally having sex. Europe's lowest age of consent is 14, which applies in countries including Austria, Italy, Serbia, Germany, and Portugal. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/age-of-consent-by-country Decided to check Age of Consent as I was under impression Vatican City was 14 (I'm sure it was) But is now 18 Did not know other countries were 14 and still are???? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
