TOPIC:

Isn't it a little contradictory, to on one hand be arguing for "independence" for WA, and on the other hand, bemoaning the passge of the 1986 Acts, which, in the the words of the High Court (as reported in wikipedia)

the whole Court (including Kirby) took a more comprehensive view: that the Australia Act in its two versions, together with the State request and consent legislation, amounted to establishing Australian independence at the date when the Australia Act (Cth) came into operation, 3 March 1986.

perhaps, but that is the ambiguity the the 1986 Acts have created in our political and legal framework. Like, I said, Jack, to avoid any doubt, all they had to do was put the 1986 Acts to a federal referedum; they did not, because they knew that it could be controversial in states, such as, WA and QLD.

There is no doubt that the acts increased the powers of the Commonwealth; just be thankful I am not Norman Moore, because I think he could make an argument in the High Court about the Acts as a new precedent in terms of a way to change the federal constitution without a referendum.

I am not suggestting, he would necessarily win, but the argument is there because of the legal imapct of the acts.

ArkRoyal wrote: The thing is Baz that the 1986 Act might not have actually changed the federal Constitutuon, but that is hardly the point. What it did do, was give the Commonwelath powers over states, particularly in relation to the position of the Crown in each state, something it was never givei in 1901.

The appropriate thing to do would have been to have a referendum Weatern Australia on the act.

It was a power grab by Canberra dressed up with Australian nationalism and too many people got sucked in by the ALP.

I'm not to sure how you get that, because the Commonwealth is limited by S 51 on what it can legislate, if all the states agree they can legislate on their behalf for certain matters, which is what happened in 1986.

I cant see how you can see it as a power grab when all it did was reduce another countries ability to make laws over us in WA? The British had already lost power to legislate over the Commonwealth but still had a residual power over the States. To me it was entirely appropriate to remove it.

true Baz -- but it was a power they never used -- why did the people in the East -- because it was the people in the East whom puched for it, want to get rid of it? Because if they left it, at least in theory, London could override Canberra on a Western Australian issue.

ArkRoyal wrote: true Baz -- but it was a power they never used -- why did the people in the East -- because it was the people in the East whom puched for it, want to get rid of it? Because if they left it, at least in theory, London could override Canberra on a Western Australian issue.

Every State Parliament agreed to it, and rightfully so , it was a dormant antiquated imperial power we no longer needed. The last thing we need is another country passing laws over us here.

the other point about it, Baz, is that because the act interferred in WA's relationship with London -- increasing Commonwealth powers without a federal referendum -- it also broke the WA Constitution -- a constitution, which, as you know, pre-dates the federal one by twenty years.

legally I am right Baz -- politically most people will agree with you. The two things are not the same. I will be waitiing for more antics from Shorten in the future startting with his plebescite on the crown.

Baz: Have you seen that Albanese has sided with us on the statue business?

Oh well State Libs have officially passed the motion to go ahead on WA leaving the Federation.

Bazza wrote: Oh well State Libs have officially passed the motion to go ahead on WA leaving the Federation.

Not quite

The motion called for the state council to establish a committee with three former members of Parliament and three members of council to "examine the option of Western Australia becoming a financially independent state".

The motion did not initially contain the word "financially" but an amendment was passed to make it "financially independent".

www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-03/wa-libera...it-committee/8867918