It’s time to admit that the Federation of Australian States has become a backward step to our democracy.

We don’t need the political elite from Canberra  now or in the past or future!

“ AI Overview



+4
Australia can cease being a federation either by a full constitutional overhaul via national referendum, as the Constitution calls itself "indissoluble" but allows for change, or by states unilaterally seceding, though this is legally complex, requiring amendments to the Australia Acts and potentially facing High Court challenges, as seen with WA's failed 1933 secession bid. A full break would need widespread public and state agreement through referendums, while state secession would involve complex legal maneuvers to sever ties, a path never successfully taken.
Method 1: Constitutional Change (Full Federation Dissolution)
National Referendum: The most direct way is for the Australian people to vote in a national referendum to change the Constitution, possibly to abolish the federal structure or create a unitary state, requiring majorities in most states and the nation.
Constitutional Convention: A new convention could be held to rewrite the Constitution to dissolve the federation, followed by public votes.
Method 2: State Secession (Leaving the Federation)
Australia Act Amendment: States would need to push for amendments to the Australia Acts (1986) to gain the freedom to leave, requiring requests from all states and Commonwealth legislation.
State-Level Action: A state would then need to change its own constitution, possibly via a state referendum, to sever its ties with the Commonwealth.
Historical Precedent (WA): Western Australia voted to secede in 1933, but the British Parliament rejected the petition, highlighting the legal hurdles and lack of federal consent needed.
Key Considerations
"Indissoluble" Nature: The Constitution states the federation is "indissoluble," making any break difficult and requiring significant legal and political will.
Commonwealth Role: The Commonwealth Parliament has ultimate power over constitutional change, making unilateral state departures almost impossible without its cooperation.
Public Will: Historically, referendums on Federation itself show that broad public support across states is crucial for major constitutional shifts. ”

“AI

We need to consider the removal of the  1st tier of government as it has become increasingly a  pointless tool that only serves its own interests.

Edit, thanks  Mr Greg peck

The Australian Federation is "indissoluble" which means it cannot be dissolved, ever.  It would take a civil war to dissolve the Federation.  Australia came together because of many factors, including Defence and social welfare.  It remains strong, the same factors weigh upon it.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

Daves2017 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2025 at 1:20pm:

We need to consider the removal of the 3rd tier of government as it has become increasingly a  pointless tool that only serves its own interests.

The third tier of government is local government - councils/shires.

And yes, it's not a bad idea - an awful lot of corrupt mayors out there.

Via personal experience and only a brief examination of history will confirm no ruling government is

“ indissoluble”.

There is as they say, different ways to skin a cat.

I suggest  Federation is a failed experiment in Australia and the states  and citizen are better off without the  first tier of government.

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 24^th, 2025 at 2:07pm:

Daves2017 wrote on Dec 24th, 2025 at 1:20pm: We need to consider the removal of the 3rd tier of government as it has become increasingly a  pointless tool that only serves its own interests. The third tier of government is local government - councils/shires. And yes, it's not a bad idea - an awful lot of corrupt mayors out there.

Thank you for the correction.

I believe we need the local government to ensure that the rubbish is collected and sewerage works and parks are mowed.

They need not pretend that they are responsible for anything else.

Daves2017 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2025 at 2:11pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 24th, 2025 at 2:07pm: Daves2017 wrote on Dec 24th, 2025 at 1:20pm: We need to consider the removal of the 3rd tier of government as it has become increasingly a  pointless tool that only serves its own interests. The third tier of government is local government - councils/shires. And yes, it's not a bad idea - an awful lot of corrupt mayors out there. Thank you for the correction. I believe we need the local government to ensure that the rubbish is collected and sewerage works and parks are mowed. They need not pretend that they are responsible for anything else.

I'm not suggesting we remove those services - we just pass the responsibility on to state governments.

Daves2017 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2025 at 2:08pm:

Via personal experience and only a brief examination of history will confirm no ruling government is “ indissoluble”.

I suggest you read the Australian Constitution.  It would do you some good.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 24^th, 2025 at 2:18pm:

Daves2017 wrote on Dec 24th, 2025 at 2:08pm: Via personal experience and only a brief examination of history will confirm no ruling government is “ indissoluble”. I suggest you read the Australian Constitution.  It would do you some good.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

I’m aware of the numerous breeches of our constitution by all Federal politicians and the complete disregard our Federal government has for the Constitution so if it’s completely ignored and treated as irrelevant by Federal parliament what would be the point of reading it wholly?

I suggest a confederation would be a better option for Australia.

“ A confederation is a loose alliance where sovereign states hold most power, creating a weak central body for specific tasks (like defense), while a federation is a stronger union where power is divided between a central federal government and member states (like provinces), with sovereignty shared and the central government having supreme authority in its defined powers, as seen in the USA vs. the Confederate States. The key difference is where sovereignty lies: with the states (confederation) or shared/held by the federal government (federation).
Confederation (League of States)
Sovereignty: Resides primarily with the member states; they are supreme.
Central Authority: Weak, dependent on states, often just a diplomatic body managing agreements.
Power: Delegates specific, limited powers (e.g., defense, foreign policy) to the center.
Citizens: Accountable to their own state governments, not directly to the center.
Exit: States often retain the right to leave.
Example: The U.S. under the Articles of Confederation, Confederate States of America.
Federation (Federal Republic)
Sovereignty: Shared between the federal government and the states/provinces, with federal law supreme.
Central Authority: Strong, with its own independent powers and government.
Power: Shared powers, with the federal government handling national issues (currency, military, diplomacy).
Citizens: Governed directly by both state and federal laws.
Exit: Membership is generally permanent.
Example: Modern United States, Canada, Australia, Switzerland.
Key takeaway
Think of it as a scale: a confederation is a union of strong states, while a federation is a strong central government with strong states, balancing power through a constitution. ”

“ AI

Daves2017 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2025 at 2:27pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 24th, 2025 at 2:18pm: Daves2017 wrote on Dec 24th, 2025 at 2:08pm: Via personal experience and only a brief examination of history will confirm no ruling government is “ indissoluble”. I suggest you read the Australian Constitution.  It would do you some good.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) I’m aware of the numerous breeches of our constitution by all Federal politicians and the complete disregard our Federal government has for the Constitution so if it’s completely ignored and treated as irrelevant by Federal parliament what would be the point of reading it wholly?

Really?  As  you claim to know them why haven't you reported them as, "breaches of the Constitution" to the Parliament?  What were they, please?  I have a wish to be elucidated.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

“ Key Areas of Alleged Breaches:
The 1975 Constitutional Crisis:
What happened: The Senate refused supply (money) to the Labor government, leading the Governor-General to dismiss the Prime Minister, violating established conventions about responsible government and the Senate's role.
Constitutional Link: While not a direct text breach, it challenged the delicate balance of power and conventions outlined in Sections 61 (Governor-General's powers) and 57 (deadlocks).
COVID-19 Border Closures:
What happened: States closed borders, restricting movement, which opponents argued violated Section 92 ("trade, commerce, and intercourse among the states... shall be absolutely free").
Constitutional Link: A major dispute over whether state health measures were permissible under the absolute freedom of interstate movement guaranteed by Section 92.
Section 44 Disqualifications (Citizenship):
What happened: Several federal politicians were found to hold foreign citizenship or allegiances, making them ineligible under Section 44(i) (allegiance to foreign power) or Section 44(ii) (holding public office for profit).
Constitutional Link: Clear-cut breaches of eligibility criteria, leading to resignations and by-elections, demonstrating the Constitution's strict rules for parliamentarians.
Human Rights & International Law:
What happened: International bodies (like the UN Human Rights Committee) found Australia in breach of human rights treaties (ICCPR) regarding immigration detention, which the government often rejected.
Constitutional Link: Australia has no national Bill of Rights in its Constitution, so these are breaches of international obligations, not the Constitution itself, highlighting a gap in domestic law.
Parliamentary Privilege:
What happened: Cases like R v Theophanous debated whether questioning MPs about parliamentary statements breached privilege, with courts finding technical breaches but not always overturning convictions.
Constitutional Link: Relates to the powers and immunities of Parliament (Sections 49, 50), though often managed through specific Acts like the Parliamentary Privileges Act.
In Summary: While literal text violations are rare, disputes often arise over unwritten conventions, the scope of powers (like Section 92), and the intersection of international human rights law with the limited domestic protections in the Constitution, notes the Australian Human Rights Commission”

“ AI

“ Recent "breaches" of the Australian Constitution by federal politicians generally involve legal technicalities and challenges in the High Court, rather than intentional subversions, and are often debated in the context of the High Court's interpretation of constitutional law.
Key recent issues include:

Bungled Payments (2022): A Treasury review identified 25 potential "significant legislative breaches" in 2019-2021 where four Coalition ministers (David Littleproud, Greg Hunt, Jane Hume, and Dan Tehan) had allocated funds without properly delegating payment authorisations to departmental officials, as required by law.
Energy Bill Subsidies (2025): The current Albanese government's $2.3 billion energy bill subsidies were also flagged by the Treasury as a potential technical breach of constitutional law because appropriate written approval was not attained for the payments from the Treasurer.
Implied Freedom of Political Communication
Legislation introduced by federal and state governments is frequently challenged in the High Court on the basis that it infringes upon the implied freedom of political communication in the Constitution.
Social Media Ban for Kids (2024): New federal legislation imposing a minimum age for access to most social media sites has been argued by critics to potentially contravene the implied freedom of political communication.
Protest Laws: Various state-level anti-protest laws have been ruled invalid by the High Court because they were found to impermissibly burden the implied freedom of political communication.
It is important to note that many claims of constitutional breach are political arguments that are ultimately decided by the High Court of Australia, which acts as the final authority on interpreting the Constitution. “

“AI

“ Section 109: This is the crucial part of the Constitution, stating: "When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid".
Concurrent Powers: The Constitution lists specific areas where the Commonwealth can make laws (like defence, immigration, marriage). For some of these, both the Commonwealth and states can legislate (concurrent powers), but if they conflict, federal law wins.
Federal Supremacy: This principle ensures a unified national standard in areas of federal concern, preventing states from undermining federal laws, explains the Parliamentary Education Office.”

“AI

I interpreted this to be an example where say, Victoria has introduced a voice to parliament it is in breech of the constitution because at the Federal level a referendum was held that soundly rejected any voice to parliament .

However  the breech to the constitution is simply ignored by all.

Would like me to post more?

I haven’t even started on Scomo and his secret ministries?

Yes, please.  Your problem is that you are taking only one side of the argument and ignoring the counter arguments.  Look at the matter of border closures, what was the alternative?  The spread of the disease.  Something that was unnecessary and was required by the emergency nature of the event.  Would you prefer hundred and thousand extra Australians killed? Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

I am answering your question regarding  examples of breeches of the Australian constitution.

I am not arguing about Covid laws simply stating the fact they were/ are unconstitutional.
And  the breech like all the rest was enabled and actioned by Federal Government against the Australian constitution.
Which is the point of my whole thread.

Please try and stay on topic?

“ Two former judges have questioned whether the final batch of Morrison government appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal breached the Constitution by reappointing members well before their terms expired.
Keith Mason, KC, a former president of the NSW Court of Appeal, and Leslie Katz, SC, a former Federal Court justice, say there are “serious questions” about the validity of some appointments – announced in April – that could even affect the rights of litigants in the AAT.”

“ afr

“ Confirmed and Potential 2025 Constitutional Breaches
$2.3 Billion Energy Subsidy Error: In November 2025, the Treasury admitted to a technical breach of the Constitution regarding the Albanese government’s $2.3 billion energy bill relief package. The Treasury's 2024–25 annual report disclosed that appropriate written approval from Treasurer Jim Chalmers was not attained for these payments to households and businesses.
Travel Expense Misuse (Michelle Rowland): In December 2025, Communications Minister Michelle Rowland was forced to repay approximately $10,000 in travel expenses. An investigation by the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (IPEA) found she had claimed public funds for a July 2023 trip to Western Australia that included unauthorized family holiday time.
Social Media Ban for Children: The 2024 enactment of a law banning social media for children under 16—which remains under debate into 2025—has been flagged by constitutional experts as a potential violation of the implied freedom of political communication. Critics argue it may unconstitutionally restrict young people's access to political information and support networks.
Hate Speech Legislation: In late 2025, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke announced new "aggravated hate speech" and "serious vilification" laws. Legal experts and the government have noted these laws "push the law to its constitutional limits," potentially clashing with the implied freedom of political communication.
Recent Historic Breaches (2017–2022)
Section 44 "Citizenship Crisis" (2017–2018): This remains the most significant breach in recent history. The High Court ruled 15 parliamentarians (including Deputy PM Barnaby Joyce) ineligible for election under Section 44(i) for holding dual citizenship at the time of their nomination.
Unauthorized Ministerial Payments (2022): An audit revealed that four Coalition ministers (Greg Hunt, David Littleproud, Jane Hume, and Dan Tehan) potentially breached the Constitution by making National Partnership payments without properly delegating the authority to departmental officials.
Legal Context and Challenges
Anti-Protest Laws: Governments frequently face constitutional challenges over laws that restrict protests. In 2025, legal challenges were prepared against NSW legislation intended to restrict public assembly near the Sydney Harbour Bridge, with critics alleging a breach of the implied freedom of political communication.
Religious Observance Claims: Recent debate in late 2025 has centered on whether mandating "Acknowledgements of Country" in federal departments constitutes an unconstitutional imposition of a religious practice under Section 116. ”

“ AI

What is the point  having a Government General if all they are is the Prime Minister’s best friend?

We need to return to state sovereignty and remove the failure that is federation.

Daves2017 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2025 at 6:28pm:

I am answering your question regarding  examples of breeches of the Australian constitution.

No, you are answering my questions about alleged breeches of the constitution, alleged breeches which are yet to be proven.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

Well - Victoria has de facto seceded over the issue of Freeing The Blacks.... in their eyes anyway.... their version being turning Whites into slaves to service a tiny minority part-coloured segment of whingers.

So far the Federation is sitting quiet on it.... waiting for the shelling of Fort Albury or something...

States possess no right to make treaties unlees they are Sovereign Individual states .... so that point is on the money ... a State has arrogated unto itself a 'right' that is properly within the Federal sphere - ergo - that is a declaration of secession via equal standing with the Federation.

A louse divided against itself cannot stand....

Daves2017 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2025 at 6:48pm:

Hate Speech Legislation: In late 2025, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke announced new "aggravated hate speech" and "serious vilification" laws. Legal experts and the government have noted these laws "push the law to its constitutional limits," potentially clashing with the implied freedom of political communication. .

Dead right. It clashes with 'Guy Fawkes in the 1605 Gunpowder Plot, an attempt led by Robert Catesby to blow up King James I and Parliament, motivated by religious persecution. Fawkes, a devout soldier with expertise in explosives, was tasked with guarding 36 barrels of gunpowder under the House of Lords'.

Fawkes wished to communicate his political opinion in the form of compressed air at only 2,000,000 kPa as the room volume reduced maximum explosive force. Most Lords are going deaf so this was not a significant problem but they would have noticed 36 barrels. 

Daves2017 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2025 at 1:20pm:

It’s time to admit that the Federation of Australian States has become a backward step to our democracy. We don’t need the political elite from Canberra  now or in the past or future! “ AI Overview +4 Australia can cease being a federation either by a full constitutional overhaul via national referendum, as the Constitution calls itself "indissoluble" but allows for change, or by states unilaterally seceding, though this is legally complex, requiring amendments to the Australia Acts and potentially facing High Court challenges, as seen with WA's failed 1933 secession bid. A full break would need widespread public and state agreement through referendums, while state secession would involve complex legal maneuvers to sever ties, a path never successfully taken. Method 1: Constitutional Change (Full Federation Dissolution) National Referendum: The most direct way is for the Australian people to vote in a national referendum to change the Constitution, possibly to abolish the federal structure or create a unitary state, requiring majorities in most states and the nation. Constitutional Convention: A new convention could be held to rewrite the Constitution to dissolve the federation, followed by public votes. Method 2: State Secession (Leaving the Federation) Australia Act Amendment: States would need to push for amendments to the Australia Acts (1986) to gain the freedom to leave, requiring requests from all states and Commonwealth legislation. State-Level Action: A state would then need to change its own constitution, possibly via a state referendum, to sever its ties with the Commonwealth. Historical Precedent (WA): Western Australia voted to secede in 1933, but the British Parliament rejected the petition, highlighting the legal hurdles and lack of federal consent needed. Key Considerations "Indissoluble" Nature: The Constitution states the federation is "indissoluble," making any break difficult and requiring significant legal and political will. Commonwealth Role: The Commonwealth Parliament has ultimate power over constitutional change, making unilateral state departures almost impossible without its cooperation. Public Will: Historically, referendums on Federation itself show that broad public support across states is crucial for major constitutional shifts. ” “AI We need to consider the removal of the  1st tier of government as it has become increasingly a  pointless tool that only serves its own interests. Edit, thanks  Mr Greg peck

Yes. Australia can submit to the Blue North Yankee Democrat Unionists and dissolve our con-Federation like 50 shades of Grey.
😆😆😆

Daves2017 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2025 at 4:32pm:

Victoria has introduced a voice to parliament it is in breech of the constitution because at the Federal level a referendum was held that soundly rejected any voice to parliament .

The referendum is not an act of parliament giving Cwlth authority over State law.  A referendum is not binding to compel a law being made and less so for a State, if the referendum is given to the Cwlth.
'Commercial treaties first emerged in the 17th century and were agreements made between the European fur trading companies and the local First Nations. The Hudson's Bay Company, a British trading company located in what is now Northern Ontario, signed numerous commercial treaties during this period.'
They don't have to be by sovereign nations.

chimera wrote on Dec 25^th, 2025 at 4:42pm:

Daves2017 wrote on Dec 24th, 2025 at 4:32pm: Victoria has introduced a voice to parliament it is in breech of the constitution because at the Federal level a referendum was held that soundly rejected any voice to parliament . The referendum is not an act of parliament giving Cwlth authority over State law.  A referendum is not binding to compel a law being made and less so for a State, if the referendum is given to the Cwlth. 'Commercial treaties first emerged in the 17th century and were agreements made between the European fur trading companies and the local First Nations. The Hudson's Bay Company, a British trading company located in what is now Northern Ontario, signed numerous commercial treaties during this period.' They don't have to be by sovereign nations.

That’s an interesting point and I reserve the right to consider it before making ( hopefully) an intelligent response.
Thanks for sharing something positive!

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 24^th, 2025 at 10:20pm:

Daves2017 wrote on Dec 24th, 2025 at 6:28pm: I am answering your question regarding  examples of breeches of the Australian constitution. No, you are answering my questions about alleged breeches of the constitution, alleged breeches which are yet to be proven.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

Merry Christmas Brian to you and your family.

Now back to hostilities 🤣

“ Confirmed and Potential 2025 Constitutional Breaches”

“ my quote from my post above from AI.

Please read the “Confirmed “ part.

Unfortunately when the  Governor general is both your best friend and your just gave them a huge pay rise it becomes very difficult for them to act impartial and  do their job properly!

I got go to work  now and try and help people tripping out on drugs get home without the police being called in and they wake up tomorrow in the watch house.

A lot of tired and exhausted and emotional people around ATM

I will check back during the course of the  night.

Daves2017 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2025 at 6:48pm:

We need to return to state sovereignty and remove the failure that is federation.

Sadly, States have failed and police will be withdrawn from the front line. Street vigilante squads are the cheap alternative.

'NSW traffic infringements in 2024 saw a big jump in seatbelt fines due to new camera detection, with over 183,000 reported, and significant numbers for unlicensed driving'.
Daniel Andrews is still active on the roads at all hours.

I will say that Australia's political future is more like a Yugoslavia, hopefully without the violence, than a Unification.

The Political power base will be the reversal of northern hemisphere politics like you see in Great Britain and USA which moves upwards to a single individual.

Instead, it goes downwards from an individual like a weak PM & GG to be spread out for the mass. That is - the People at large. The Common Wealth of the common people.

So in essence, the true political power will be at the Shire level which hold the power within a multitude of 'independent nations' like...
Cape York
Capricornia
Riverina
Orara
Orana
Monaro
Sydney
Avalon
Hunter
New England
Gippsland
Canberra
Wimmera
Goulburn Valley
Ngarkat
St Vincent
Eyre
Centralia
Pitjantjatjara
Arnhem
Kimberly
Pilbara
Stirling
...and more.

These will of course come together at times upon a continental level when in need against continental threats. But the strength of the Australian DOMESTIC ECONOMY will be from trade between these nations due to the differences between them and what they have to offer.

Unlike Great Britain & USA. Australia never really had to unify. It was already just one big One Nation of same sameness everywhere and with everyone.
Through the States though, difference in Cultures began to emerge like Rugby League in NSW and Aussie Rules in Victoria. Crossing the border was becoming a whole new experience to be enjoyed. Australia was moving away from being one big boring land mass.

But then, around 2000, it was obvious that Australia had regressed backwards with Aussie Rules in Sydney, League in Melbourne and basically the States had become more or less the same sameness of a One Nation selling snow to a snowman. Even with a Political Party having emerged like a Go Fund Me for a Media depending individual, as a retardation back in time.
The rednecks of Sydney were in Melbourne and the Gays of Melbourne were in Sydney but proving to be a negative, rather than a cultural positive.

During COVID Lockdown - we saw a glimmer of State identity emerge in differences and a Domestic Economy BOOM to be #1 in the world at that time until the Australian umbrella Federal level forced the States to lock down internally also like ghost towns shut for business.

Still, despite Australia's current One Nation of mediocre boring same sameness of everywhere at once.
There is still that individual regional independent cultures kicking along.
Like the accent of the Adelaide (St Vincent) area where it is distinctly different to anywhere else in Australia and the fashion of wearing Lanyards in the ACT and the cultural refusal of high rise buildings on the NSW southern coast.

When Prime Ministers through the decades have served the USA here
and Governor-Generals have served Great Britain here. Little wonder that the Shires are the true essence of serving the Australian people at its deepest level,
even if they are still being exploited by the One Nation Federal level in favour of the USA, Great Britain, China, the EU and more like millions of dollars siphoned and given to Hamas, Indonesia and more .

It makes sense in the way of Jasin.  That's over 625 embassies within this land and 5000 overseas.  Each shire gets 1/12 of the navy helicopter ships.  50 houses of parliament with rorts and breeches on girls, breaches for men.

Government by local communities is the ideal of Karl Marx and Communism. It is the result of mature capitalism that has gone corrupt with a decadent King Charles and Gina Rinehart. The peasants are revolting.

It would be an interesting topic for research by some of our up and coming and potential leaders.    Splitting Australia back into States and Territories is probably the simplest part.  The GST disbursement, Taxation, Defence, inter State/Territory movement, support for those states/territories that have no natural resources or other means of financial support, etc etc. and the whole idea of self governing would be great for a research project

There's the story of a little boy who announced he was leaving the family. He stood in the kitchen and his Mum asked what he wanted. He said 'Well, aren't you going to drive me?'

It's more like a case of places like Cape York, Riverina, New England and even Pitjantjatjara (which is an Aborigine ONLY region (supported by law)) voting a NO CONFIDENCE in the weak (like Anus Albo and other PMs) and corrupt Federal Level which is failing  on many and any levels.
ie: Wong gives $20m to overseas like Hamas, at the cost of Victoria via at the cost of Gippsland. The people and Council vote a No Confidence and the domino effect
It's like Carlton v Collingwood is the priority, not a unified Australia v Eire/N.Ireland overseas. To use a sporting example.

There would still be a continental EU-like version.
But the direction of priority changed from International interest to Domestic.

Currently the States are subordinate to Federal, like Australia is subordinate to the International Community.
Which does have its advantage: USA would never attack us. The whole world would be on our side  ;) ;) ;)

Jasin wrote on Dec 27^th, 2025 at 9:35am:

It's like Carlton v Collingwood is the priority

Now you've nailed it. Each footie club region is the governing territory. Head of state is 'Manager' and head of parliament is 'Captain', judge is 'Referee'.  Police are 'Linesman' and elections are 'Grand Final'.

Australia Empire as alternative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz23Bfx0gYY

New NSW ...  New New South Wales - making immigrants New New New South Welshpeople....

---

New Queensland - NUQ it from space - only way to be sure...  right about West Malaria is the sit of Crococile Colditz/Gondwanamo Bay....

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/E4DN10/state-of-queensland-australia-true-colour-satellite-image-E4DN10.jpg

---

Happy Birthday, Commonwealth of Australia!


Australia changed from a destination to a home.
By 1888 70% of Australians were native born. A continent for a nation and a nation for a continent.