Post by Pelican Post by news18 Post by Max
Seems a bit strange that state politicians are not subject to the same
requirements as federal politicians.
Historical. when the states were established, basically the powers that
be were citizens of the old country and the native/locally born didn't
have the numbers to force such a requirement.
The States were established at the same instance that the federation was
established in the Australian Constitution. You mean the colonies, not
The colonies were all established from 1788,
"After" would have been a better word.
Post by Pelican
and were given their
separate Constitutions under legislation by the Imperial Parliament.
Basically it was Sydney and all the known east coast, then the offshoot
of Tasmania for the penal colony came under its own management but
subservient to Sydney. I think Batman went from Tasmania to start
Melbourne as a private colony but the empire took over. Somewhere along
the way, there was WA then SA and Qld carved off NSW.
The whole thing, after a place to keep prisoners serving time and keep
the place from the French, was largely who thought they could benefit
from grabbing a piece of this newly discovered 'continent(?)'.
Who, what and when really related to the discovery/coastal exploration/
ship routes over time. E.G what became Tasmania was known first because
ships went west to east and keep bumping into it and surviving to report
it. Somehow, the Portugese managed to keep bumping of bits of what became
WA, but didn't twig that the it was the expected Great South Land.
Post by Pelican
that time, nationality wasn't the issue it is today, and there was no
such thing as Australian citizenship until after WW2.
Post by news18
When it was written Federally, being a British citzen wasn't seen as a
conflict of interest. first they wantyed to exclude the non-british,
then they estabnlished the country of australia and finally they
finally acted to make sure they were committed to stay here and not
decamp like the usual action of scumscammers/etc.