England is the 'motherland', so is still a popular destination for some and for Brits wanting to visit the colonies.
I think the New York route might be harder to fill but I suspect it has more to do with carving out a new market for Qantas, as there is a lot of competition flying to California.
Do people actually talk this way? I live in England and I have never heard anyone refer to going to visit their family/friends/whatever in Australia as "visiting the colonies"
Then you should be used to British humor.. err humour ;) - and don't forget, don't mention the war![1]
http://www.indymedia.org.au/2010/11/12/australia-is-still-le...
This is one reason why section 44 has suddenly turned into such a landmine. After the Australia Acts, Britain is considered a foreign power.
But the Queen is still the head of Australia, so how does that work?
The same as how Elon Musk is CEO of Tesla and SpaceX at the same time but they're different companies.
Is there an independent board who can keep a check on the queen?
I can't design analogies to answer questions that you haven't asked, mate, and you can't stretch an analogy from one question to answer any other.
They are not independent when you look at from the queen's perspective, she still rules both of them. That is the point.
You might call the independent board "Parliament".
How do you know they will get deposed, you are talking about hypothetical situations.
(Corruption of government starts with its secrets, and Australia has .. many .. that would startle its citizens into rebellion, which is what the political system of Australia is truly designed to police, not serve..)
Its Section 4 - giving only the Queen the right to select the Australian Governor General - that is the real issue, though.
And my local constitutional lawyer (a quite famous one, whom I know through a family connection), tells me "its a legal grey area with no finite position possible - sure, we have sovereignty on paper, but we are still governed by the Queen in practice..."
The Constitution is interpreted under Constitutional law, as stated by the High Court. It can only be applied in the context of that legal meaning, which is not the same as a reading by an interested but untrained citizen.
> we are still governed by the Queen in practice...
I feel as though you may be misquoting your famous family connection.
In a constitutional crisis, do you sincerely think the High Court would say "oops, I guess we're the personal colony of a Queen who suddenly upended hundreds of years of Parliamentary Supremacy somehow"?
If you know a bookie who'll lay odds, I'll happily take this wager.
Do you wanna debate that we're in the Coalition, currently destroying the middle east, willingly, for example?
>we're the personal colony of a Queen who suddenly upended hundreds of years of Parliamentary
We're locally sovereign, but not internationally sovereign. Even our own courts have admitted this - but of course, its not for the Australian people to know this, or even have any power to do anything about it. After all, we're all just struggling to be able to afford cool shit.
'K' and 'S' are about 50 years apart on my keyboard.
> We're locally sovereign, but not internationally sovereign.
The majority in Sue v Hill conclusively ruled that Britain is a foreign power. It has not been overturned and it never will. There is no Imperial Crown.
There are Crowns, which are legally distinct. The Prime Minister of the UK cannot advise the Crown in right of the Commonwealth of Australia; an Australian Prime Minister cannot advise the Crown in right of the United Kingdom; the Premier of New South Wales cannot advise the Crown in right of Victoria and so on.
Again: I will happily lay money on this question.
http://www.cirnow.com.au/fileuploads/AustraliaConcealedColon...