LaurieAG:
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.
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.
Do you want an example of state political abuses directly due to the lack of checks and balances.
Yes please. Along with your suggested solution to the problem.
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.
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?
You appear to be out of touch, but then again you are just avoiding answering my questions with boondoggle.
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.
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.
You could try voting for politicians who will put your proposal to referendum. Or run for Parliament yourself.
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.
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?
Our state and federal politicians have been off their leash since 1986 and they don't want checks and balances to hinder their activities.
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'd actually prefer the pre 1986 setup to what we have now (kleptocracy or mediocrity?).
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.)
