Psycho-Babble Social | for general support | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

australian constitution

Posted by alexandra_k on September 16, 2022, at 19:58:41

In reply to imploding, posted by alexandra_k on September 16, 2022, at 19:43:22

the australian constitution states quite clearly that new zealand is a state of australia.

it is named very specifically.

the constitution says that various states have consented to unite in a federation..

it says western australia hasn't been asked yet, or hasn't replied yet, but they anticipate western australia will consent. So they ask for it to be regarded as part of the federation since it will consent.

i suppose it is slightly unclear what would have happened if it said that it did not consent. if that would mean that it was part of the federation even though it did not want to be... or if that would mean that he would not be part of the federation.

regardless, it consented. apparently. nobody questions, today, to the best of my knowledge, that western australia consented and that it is part of the federation of australia. by consent.

the constitution says specifically that it is expedient to regard new zealand to be a state even though it hasn't asked or replied. that means to say they did not care about whether new zealand consented, or not. the relevant issue was one of what was expedient. it was decided that it was in fact expedient to regard new zealand to be part of the federation of australia and that expediency was enough.

it is true that england witnessed this document and signed off on it. acknowledged the federation of australia (comprised of various states and western australia - on some presumption of consent perhaps - and the inclusion of new zealand on grounds of expediency).

but the thing that is really really really really really really really relevnat is that australia regarded new zealand to be one of the original states on grounds of expediency. Nobody is questioning that it was in fact expedient for them to have regarded it to be a state without caring about consent.


There is a process for changing the constitution of Australia. It involves voting etc etc. I guess if people are required to vote they need to know something about what the issue is that they are voting on...

Australia refuses to supply voting papers to New Zealanders.

I guess the idea is that New Zealand only represents expediency to Australia. That means or is to say that what is actually written into the Australian Constitution ist hat New Zealnd is whatever Australia regards as expedient for it to be. So, if it is expedient for Austrlaia to treat NZ as a back door to Australia (perhaps)... E.g., to treat NZ as a prison camp or detention centre of Australia...

Where people are held without Australian wages (States are not allowed to oprint their own money but Australia arranges for New Zealand Dollars to be printed on plastic in Canada, I believe)...

And so on...


They are making a big deal of it, now...

Aboriginal people of Australia were not counted in census etc until 1960's apparently.

Australians are very racist. With explicit 'white Australia' laws up until very recently about wanting to curb the migrants from countries that are not western / white in appearance and culture. Wanting to limit the number of migrants from China and Japan and Asia etc.

Sort of 'Neighbours' or 'Home and Away' propaganda on what it is or means to be Australian. To be white. The cultural aspects of that.

'Home and Away' is particularly... Urm... Given the Stolen Generation. What it is to be in state care. Living in a trailor park?? Propaganda...



They are making a big deal of including mention of Aboriginal people being represeted in the constitution now. They were purposely excluded before. It isn't about the census so much as the withholding of voting papers. Withholding of information so that they were in teh position of being able to vote.

It matters that New Zealanders are excluded from voting in this recent idea to have a vote on whwether or not to include aboriginal voice in Australian Constitution.

Because New Zealanders are (I would imagine) more likely to vote that there should be an Aboriginal voice.

But New Zealanders don't count. THey just do whatever is expedient...


Australia refuses to acknowledge that New Zealand is a State of Australia.

Australia refuses to supply voting papers to New Zealanders so they can vote in federal elections.

Australian payroll systems refuse to pay australian wages to people employed as teachers and doctors and nurses etc in New Zealand.

The Australian National University refuses to acknowledge they have received complaints from New Zealanders. Refuses to train studnets (refuses to supply evidence of supervision of research). Refuses to get studnets work to external examiners...

The Australian National University apparently 'does not care' if I take tehm to Federal Court over their refusal to provide evidence of supervision to me, refusal to properly process application to enrol (asserting they now have no capacity to supervise and they have no capacity to identify a writing sample when they already have 3 on file as having been received from previous applications that were suffient for them to put to me to 'work' on summer scholar and phd student rates)...

They don't have universities.. they don't have functioning judiciary.

Apparently the Federal Courts no speak-y english.

The problem must be all the MIgrants. Yeah, right.




Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Social | Framed

poster:alexandra_k thread:1120683