Talk:Australia Act 1986

message: We've abolished appeals to the Privy Council, but I'm wondering if there's any technical reason why an Australian can't still be appointed as a member of the Privy Council.  Did the Australia Acts prevent this happening, or is just that it's become the practice, certainly for our Prime Ministers, not to accept such appointments if offered.  --  JackofOz (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC
The Australia Acts had the effect of making Australian citizens foreign nationals in relation to the UK - it would be up to the British Government to determine who they would appoint - either way it would be of no real interest to Australia. Lejon (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Appointment of Australians to the Privy Council

message: So does the UK not have and power in Australia what-so-ever now? Flosssock1 (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No (assuming I understood your vaguely worded question).  --  JackofOz (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, sorry, I don't know how I ended up wording it like that. So the UK no longer has the slightest bit of power or say in anything that Australia does. Infact what about their say in things that other independent nations do? Flosssock1 (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: By "the UK", do you mean "the British/UK government"?  The British/UK government certainly has no say in Australian affairs.  This hasn't really been the case since the appointment of Sir Isaac Isaacs as Governor-General.  The UK government tried to intervene and have King George V appoint Birdwood instead, but James Scullin stood firm and demanded the king accept the advice of his Australian Prime Minister.  There was still, however, the theoretical possibility that the UK Parliament could legislate to amend the Australian Constitution and get its way that way.  The Australia Act put even that theoretical possibility to rest.  However, what power the UK government may still have with other Commonwealth realms is not something I can talk about with confidence.  What power it has over other countries of the Commonwealth, or countries not even in the Commonwealth, would be zero, I imagine.  But this has nothing to do with the Australia Act, so you'd be best advised to ask your question elsewhere.  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I did. And thanks, but theres just one last thing. I don't know about her power within the Australian government but in the UK there is no law or legislation over what our queen can do within the British government. Over time the role of the British monarch within the British government has come from him/her being advised by his/her ministers and him/her at the front, to today, where the monarch only advises her ministers and they make all the major decisions. But as I said, there is no written law or act etc over what she could do. Effectively she could be a dictator, if she wanted to be. However, more to the point, if the same applies to her position within the Australian government (or any other Commonwealth Realm for that matter) then surely she could shift power from one countries government to anothers. Not saying that she would ofcourse, but it would be possible wouldn't it? Flosssock1 (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See Monarchy of Australia#Constitutional role. "By the Australia Act 1986, the monarch's only role in the federal sphere is the appointment of the Governor-General... the written constitution of Australia places most executive power in the hands of the Governor-General." Road Wizard (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the UK the Sovereign is constitutionally one with his or her Parliament. She has no authority without it. The sovereign therefore may not refuse assent to its acts. The same is true in Australia, where the Constitution describes Parliament as the Queen, Senate and House of Representatives. In neither the UK nor Australia may the Queen act independently of her Parliament. If she were so mad as to do so, Parliament would be rent asunder. In 1936 Edward VIII was wondering whether to act against the will of his Parliament(in bothe the UK and Australia). Constitutionally, he could not do so, and so abdicated.--Gazzster (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK - Australia 

message: The caption of the inset image of the Act reads "Assent original of Australia Act 1986 (UK), located in Parliament House, Canberra", but the description at File:Australia Act 1986.jpg  reads "Photo of the Australia Act 1986 document, as located in en:Parliament House, Canberra." If there is no source for the wording "Assent original..." it should be replaced so as to read: "Photo of the Australia Act 1986 document, as located in Parliament House, Canberra." See also "Caption for image of the Act" at Talk:Monarchy of Australia. --Qexigator (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Qexigator, you have noted a good source, which however states:  "At the ceremony Queen Elizabeth presented Prime Minister Bob Hawke with an original of the Proclamation, and the Assent original of the Australia Act (UK)."  So the caption was correct and I have gone back to that wording, keeping your note although moving it into the text.--Wikiain (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain what that source means by "Assent original"? Does it refer to one of two or more of the documents which had been engrossed as originals for assent in the UK parliament, with the intent that one of those originals should be taken for the Queen's sign manual to be added in Australis contemporaneously with the proclamation? Qexigator (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This source (which I have added to the text) is more expansive: "to which she had signed her assent on 7 February 1986".  I understand it to mean that it was a copy that she had signed in the UK.  Her practice, as can be seen with the photo of signing the proclamation, is to sign on the front.  To have added another signature in Australia - and as Queen of what? -  would have created just the sort of confusion that the existence of Cth and UK Australia Acts was designed to avoid.  However, I'll see what I can find in my Library.--Wikiain (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So far so good, and noted, per , the information that Australian Constitution (Public Record Copy) Act 1990 (c. 17) refers to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. But since when has it been the UK practice for the Queen's sign manual to appear anywhere on an assent original, record copy or other? That was the purport of my question above. Maybe your library will reveal. Qexigator (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I mentioned the 1990 act in a timeline (on the monarchy talk page) in which both the Australia Act (UK) and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp) have come to reside in Australia.--Wikiain (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But unless the UK parliament has legislated for the 1986 act as was the case with the 1900 act, the question remains, and the description of the captioned document as "Assent original" remains doubtful (see below) unless authoritatively confirmed. This is not given in that timeline. Qexigator (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

text: +The text of the proclamation given by Bennion's 'MODERN ROYAL ASSENT PROCEDURE AT WESTMINSTER' suggests that, under the Royal Assent Act 1967  the identity of the Act/s  thereby assented to is ascertained only by the short title/s in the schedule, and not by the Queen's sign manual on a print of any of them: '...Her Majesty does not have before her the texts, or even the long titles, of the Bills to which she signifies assent. Indeed these are not even communicated to officials of the Queen's Household.' Normally, only two official copies of the act are pepared on vellum, one for the records of the House of Lord and one for the PRO, according to Essentials of the English Legal System by John Wheeler, 2006. --Qexigator (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption for the Act