On the Third of March 1986, the Australia Acts 1986 commenced into effect rendering Australia an independent nation from the United Kingdom. However this historic day has been forgotten by many Australians, leading many to believe that Australia is still yet to achieve complete independence. We the signatories of this petition hereby assert our belief that Independence Day for Australia should be made a national bank holiday. There is criticism of Australia Day, held on the 26th of January, and referred to as Invasion Day. The 3rd of March can be identified as our National Independence Day from the United Kingdom and we can celebrate both days.

To those sceptical of Australia’s Independence, here is an excerpt of a persuasive piece written by this petition’s creator.

 A common claim by republicans is the claim that Australia will become an independent nation if it becomes a republic. This is not true. Australia is already an independent nation and has been since the passing of the Australia Acts of 1986. These two acts, one British and the other Australian, ensured that the legislative, executive and judicial branches of Australian government were all independent: the British parliament lost the power to pass laws over Australia, the Privy Council was virtually abolished as the highest court of appeal and the Queen, Governor-General and State Governors could no longer be advised on Australian matters by British Ministers, only Australian Ministers. Nevertheless, Republicans still insist that we are ruled by a foreign leader; the Queen of the United Kingdom. This still isn’t true. Ever since the passing of the Royal Title and Styles Act 1973 by the Right Honourable Gough Whitlam, Australia has been ruled by the Queen of Australia. To avoid confusion, an analogy may be used. In Australia, the Queen of Victoria* can sue the Queen of New South Wales* in the High Court which acts on behalf of the Queen of Australia, despite them all being the same person. The same occurs with the United Kingdom and Australia. The queen acts as two separate people for Britain and Australia and no decision she makes for the United Kingdom can affect a decision she makes for Australia because they are two separate offices. Some may claim that this is merely an argument over semantics but this is not true. In 2013 the United Kingdom passed an act of Parliament that replaced male-preferred primogeniture with absolute primogeniture. This Act may be used by Republicans to argue that Australia is still subject to British law but this isn’t true. That act only affected the Succession to the British Monarchy not the Australian Monarchy. It wasn’t till 2015 when the Succession to the Crown Act 2015 was passed did the line of succession change. In fact if in 2014 the queen and the next 27 heirs all died, Australia and Britain would have ended up with different monarchs. A person being two separate monarchs for two independent countries has happened before. In 1603 Queen Elizabeth I of England died. Because she lacked children, Her Cousin King James IV of Scotland became King James I of England. However England did not lose sovereignty to Scotland nor did Scotland lose sovereignty to England. Both countries were still independent and had separate parliaments and separate thrones.

 *Actually the offices/corporation soles are called the Queen of Australia in right of Victoria and the Queen of Australia in right of New South Wales (some found it confusing when both were inserted so the analogy was simplified)