Talk:Government of Australia/archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Other Archives:


Contents

***

Just though I would drop off a list of Government departments I scavenged from the history of the Australian Politics page. Night be useful in the construction of a Government of Australia page here. Martyman 05:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Departments (and major Authorities)

The principal Government internet portal is www.fed.gov.au.

Ministers administer the following Departments. Look at each site for details of the Ministers and subsidiary organisations.


I don't see the point in discussing this any more, so I've made a start on this page. It's just the paragraph on government from Politics of Australia, plus some lists I threw together. This is not my area of expertise, so be brutal in reorganising and expanding it. - Borofkin 06:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Crest / Logo

I have sent an email requesting permission to use the official Government Crest in the article. Martyman 07:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No response yet. Martyman 02:51, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Commonwealth Public service

Should they pop up in this article?--nixie 05:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The departments are already listed, and definately, yes they are part of the government. Martyman 09:27, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Title of Article

I've been tring to look for other "Government of..." pages. Most appear to redirect to "Politics of..." pages. Federal Government of the United States was on I did find. Should this page be Federal?--ZayZayEM 05:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since Australia has multiple levels of government, I think that describing this page as Federal government of Australia would be best --nixie 06:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Assuming no one wants to add information about state governments to this article. Martyman 06:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps a diambiguation (this appares to be Politics of Australia--nixie 09:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)) page for government of Australia and then Federal government of Australia and the state governments each with their own page along these lines California government and politics --nixie 09:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Exactly what I was thinking --ZayZayEM 12:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So are we going to have a vote or something?--nixie 05:27, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No voiced dissent, move going ahead.--ZayZayEM 12:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is no such thing as the "Federal government of Australia." There is the Australian Government, which could also be called the Commonwealth Government or the Government of Australia or more formally the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia. "Federal government" is a colloquial term and should not be used as the title of this article. It should be changed back. Adam 13:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is a discussion further up the page. No one seemed to have a problem with it. I am fine with a move to Commonwealth Government of Australia. I do beg to differ that Federal government is not a valid term for it as well. But will accept that Commonwealth is better as official name.--ZayZayEM 01:06, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I didn't see the earlier discussion at the time. "Federal government" is a common colloquialism but it has no official status. "Commonwealth Government of Australia" is also wrong. It would have to be "Government of the Commonwealth of Australia," but that is unnecessarily long. What is wrong with Government of Australia? There is a country called Australia, and it has a government. That is both the simplest and most correct title. There can be links to separate articles about the governments of the states if people feel like writing them.

My suggestion is that this article return to the title Government of Australia, and that the new article you have created with that name be renamed Australian governments and provide links to this article and the state and territory articles. Adam 02:53, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agree with this idea Adam. A short link Australian governments shoudl be palced at the top of Government of Australia which should be extended include a link to Parliaments of the Australian states and territories --ZayZayEM 12:03, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Where would the article Parliaments of the Australian states and territories fit in? - Borofkin 22:26, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Parliaments and governments are two different things, but the articles should obviously all link to each other. Adam 22:59, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section needs to summarise a lot of the content in the actual article. That is part of what a lead section does. Dates are important parts of this, as well as the extent of the governmental powers. If you feel you can word it better please do so.--ZayZayEM 01:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Before I alter this section to reflect a more realistic view of who our head of state is, I'd like to call for discussion. This is certainly an area where NPOV is going to have some effect.

To begin, nowhere in Australia's constitutional documents is the position of "head of state" defined, let alone mentioned. People pushing the view that the Queen is Australia's head of state typically refer to external websites, such as that maintained by the CIA, a patently unsatisfactory position.

The constitution does not define a head of state, nor has the High Court provided an opinion.

At the time of Federation, the new Commonwealth was seen as being an integral part of the British Empire, and as such the Governor-General was indeed the representative of the British Government (described as "the Queen"). Those arrangements changed in the period 1926-1931, formalised in the Statute of Westminster, and henceforth the Governor-General was recognised as standing in the same position to the Commonwealth as did the monarch to the United Kingdom. i.e. as head of state. The British Government henceforth provided a High Commissioner to perform the functions previously exercised by the Governor-General, and the source of advice to the monarch on Australian affairs passed to the Commonwealth government. This provided an immediate source of controversy when Australian Prime Minister James Scullin advised King George V to appoint Sir Isaac Isaacs (an Australian-born ex-politician) as Governor-General. The King personally disagreed with the advice, but as there was no other source of advice, he had no option but to accept it. The wording in the announcement from Buckingham Palace reflected his personal displeasure.

Further developments in the seventy plus years since then have seen the roles of the UK and the monarch in Australian affairs diminish to the point where they are virtually non-existent. The only significant role remaining to the monarch is the appointment of the Governor-General, and as that power is laid down in the Constitution, it cannot be altered without referendum. This power of appointment (and removal) is all but a rubber stamp and it is a widely held opinion that we Australians can do this for ourselves.

The Governor-General does not act as an agent or deputy of the monarch, despite the impression given by the use of the word "representative" in the Constitution. Inglis Clark and Harrison Moore recognised this at the time of Federation, and the Hawke government belatedly put this into effect by advising the Queen to withdraw her "Instructions to the Governor-General" and to issue new Letters-Patent.

As can be seen in the Constitution, the Governor-General's powers are laid down in that document and cannot be modified or withdrawn without the consent of the Australian people. s2 of the Constitution implies that the powers of the Governor-General are at the pleasure of the monarch, but this does not and cannot affect the constitutional powers. Only the Australian people can withdraw these powers.

The most critical power is that of selecting the government. The Governor-General may appoint ministers of state (including the Prime Minister) and these ministers do not even have to be members of parliament, as was the case for the first Commonwealth government led by Edmund Barton. Of course, it is conventional to invite the leader of the lower house majority party to form a government, but this is not always the case, most notably during the second Parliament when neither of the three main parties in the House of Representatives enjoyed a majority and more recently in 1975, when a minority government was appointed for a short time. Though these decisions were questioned at the time, there was no doubt as to the legality of the actions.

The bottom line is that the Governor-General derives his considerable powers directly from the Australian people, he does not act under instruction from the monarch, and it is entirely fitting that he be recognised as the Australian head of state rather than the all but powerless monarch.

I intend to alter the article to remove the assertion that the Queen is the sole Australian head of state and to replace it with statements of the two points of view. before I do this, I would like to see some informed discussion on the subject. Skyring 23:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The view that the GG is head of state is very much a minority one
Do you have a source for this comment? Skyring
made mainly by David Flint and David Smith, and only when the possibility of becoming a republic emerged. See the comprehensive rebuttal here
That's not even a rebuttal, let alone a comprehensive one. Skyring
and, the comments by George Winterton, professor of constitutional law at the University of Sydney,
Professor Winterton's piece is truly a rebuttal in that it addresses the arguments of Sir David Smith, but I find your version of his conclusion is not sustained by the evidence. A summary of his argument merely highlights the fact that there are differing views, and he himself concludes that there are two heads of state: "An objective assessment can lead to only one conclusion: Australia's legal or formal head of state is the Queen. The Governor-General is the effective or de facto head of state of the Commonwealth, but not of Australia." Skyring
and Sir Anthony Mason, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia.
I listened to Sir Anthony put his arguments in a lecture at the ANU Law School some years ago, and frankly I was unimpressed. He seems to think that the Governor-General's constitutional powers stem from s2, when this is clearly not so. Sir David Smith provided a rebuttal of Mason's opinions.
Greg Craven, another prominent legal scholar, currently Professor of Government at Curtin University and formerly Dean of Law at Notre Dame University, states in this essay that the Queen is Australia's head of state. Even John Howard rejected the claim in his opening address to the constitutional convention:
In my view, the only argument of substance in favour of an Australian republic is that the symbolism of Australia sharing its legal head of state with a number of other nations is no longer appropriate.
That word 'legal' again. In fact in an interview in 1999 John Howard subscribed to the two heads of state view:
"JOHN HOWARD: The Queen is the Queen of Australia as a matter of law, but the Governor-General effectively is the head of state."
I find it rather odd that you should try to present the Prime Minister as holding one view when clearly he holds a different opinion. Skyring
The position that the GG is head of state is worthy of brief note, but to present it as an widely-held opinion amongst experts on the topic, or the public, would be a gross mischaracterisation. A fuller discussion of the Smith/Flint position might be appropriate on another page and linked to from this one--Robert Merkel 00:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to do some research on this matter, but clearly the evidence you put forward does no more than support the position that opinion is divided between those who view the Queen as undisputed HoS, those who claim that there are two heads of state, and those who see the Governor-General as our HoS. Skyring 01:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Whether you are impressed with the arguments made by Winterton, Mason, and so on is not relevant for the purposes of writing a Wikipedia article.
I suggest that you are quite mistaken on this point. Much as I'd like Winterton, Craven and so on to collaborate on a Wikipedia article, I don't think it's going to happen. Do you? Skyring 03:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I also think you mischaracterise John Howard's position, but we'll let that one lie for the moment.
How so, precisely? You tried to present him as supporting the Queen as HoS view, but the reality is that he holds to the Two HoS view, as he says in his own words. Skyring 03:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The key point I am trying to make is that the overwhelming majority of constitutional scholars and jurists, and politicians in this country - the recognised experts in the area - disagree with you, Smith, and Flint.
As I pointed out, that is not the case. Winterton supports the Two HoS view in the article that you provided as a reference. Where do you get this "overwhelming majority" business from? Skyring 03:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The NPOV policy explicitly points out that minority views do not have to be given "equal time", as you seem to think. Unless you can provide evidence that my characterisation of the small minority nature of the "GG is HoS" position, the page should stay largely as it is on this topic. --Robert Merkel 02:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Quite clearly there are differing points of view. I suggest that you read your own sources. Skyring 03:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that in practice the GG performs all the functions of a head of state and the Queen performs almost no such functions in relation to Australia. But that does alter the fact that a country cannot have two heads of state (yes I know Andorra and San Marino do, but they are not comparable), and if the GG is Australia's head of state then the Queen cannot be. And if the Queen of Australia is not Australia's head of state, then what is she? So long as there is a Queen or King of Australia they must be described as Australia's head of state, even though that term is not used in the Constitution. It is indisputable that in 1901 Queen Victoria as Britain's head of state was seen by Australians as their head of state also, since the British Empire was seen to be a constitutional unity. This was so axiomatic that it was not thought necessary to state it, which is why no head of state is designated in the Constitution. The Constitution itself was after all an Act of the Imperial Parliament deriving its status from the Queen's Assent. The Statute of Westminster and the Australia Acts have changed the legal status of Australia to that of a fully sovereign state, but they have not changed the status of the Queen (now styled Queen of Australia). She is Australia's head of state. The GG exercises virtually all her functions, but they are her functions not his. Adam 00:40, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The meaning of the Constitution alters over time depending on the rulings of the High Court. For instance, without any alteration in the Constitution to that effect, the High Court found in Sue vs Hill that the United Kingdom was a foreign power, when clearly it had not been at the time of Federation. So too has the role of the monarch diminished over time to the point that the Queen is a foreign monarch in a distant land and has no real power in Australia. The reality is that the Governor-General is given his powers by the Constitution, they are given to him and not the Queen, and the Queen cannot do anything about this. Only we the people can modify or remove or add to the Governor-General's constitutional powers. Skyring 01:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Skyring we know you are a conservative and a monarchist but please stop trying to push that POV into articles under the guise of "NPOVing" them - there have been multiple complaints about your behaviour. PMA 01:36, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Your ill-informed speculation is not helping the discussion. I'm a republican. I have made this point repeatedly in public forums since the referendum, and I joined the ARM in 2000. I support the removal of the Queen from our affairs. I make no apologies for being a conservative republican - I believe that minimal changes to our constitution are far more likely to gain approval from the people than complicated and wide-ranging reforms, such as the addition of a directly elected president to our Westminster system of government. Skyring 02:10, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For someone who says they are a republican your edits to 1999 Australian republic referendum certainly slanted the article towards a monarchist POV - pointing out the "flaws" in the model while not pointing out the "no" case's use of fear tactics etc etc. Please do not try to insult me - i have only acted on complaints from other people. PMA 02:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Pardon me if I correct errors. Scare tactics are a given in any constitutional referendum, but the overwhelming reason why the 1999 referendum failed is because the model was deeply flawed. In particular, it rebadged the Governor-General as President but introduced complex methods of appointment and dismissal, at variance with the perceived image of how a President should be appointed and dismissed, namely that we should follow the example of the USA, the republic most familiar to the voters. I was a member of the Press Gallery during the convention and I watched as the ARM took a reasonable model and proceeded to amend it so as to secure the support of non-ARM delegates. The end result was quite accurately described as what you'd expect from a committee, and the public gave it the treatment it deserved, despite majority public support for a republic.
I am not trying to insult you, but I have been less than impressed at your assistance to a new member of the team. I thought that discussion and negotiation was a key aspect of the Wiki community. You may also wish to suggest a better place for this current discussion than an article's talk page, but I am happy to follow your example. Skyring 02:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I intend to remove all references to head of state until someone can come up with a definitive source, that isn't clearly opinion. I also intend to remove all references to "Crown" unless they explicitly refer to the government as a whole. The relationship with the Queen needs to be clarified. Skyring 22:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Current debate on whether Australia is a republic

I have edited this article to bring it into line with recent changes to other articles.

Some may be surprised to see Australia described as a republic but that is the case, as unlike the United Kingdom where Parliament is sovereign, in Australia sovereignty resides in the people by virtue of s128 of the Constitution. The Queen neither possesses nor exercises any significant power.

There are several opinions as to whether Australia has one or two heads of state and who occupies that position. As the term is not defined in the Constitution, nor has the High Court been asked that question, I have removed anyt reference to the term, save to point out that the Governor-General exercises the powers of a head of state, which he does, those powers having been given to him by the people in the Constitution. The Queen's role has diminished over the years since Federation and her sole remaining function of any importance is to appoint the Governor-General, which is essentially a rubberstamp power exercised on the sole advice of the Australian Prime Minister.

I have clarified the paragraph on the 1999 referendum. The proposed president was to assume the position and powers of the Governor-General, not the Queen. Skyring 06:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no difficulties with Skyring's edits, except his eccentric opinion that Australia is a republic. This is contrary to the established modern usage of the word republic, which is a state whose head of state is a president, as opposed to a monarchy, constitutional or otherwise. Australia's head of state is the Queen of Australia and it is therefore a constitutional monarchy. Adam 06:09, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The position of head of state is a matter of opinion and should be labeled as opinion if you wish to include it. The republic article says "A republic, in its basic sense, is a state in which sovereignty derives ultimately from the people (however defined), rather than from an hereditary principle." This is hardly a new or surprising notion. Skyring 06:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not responsible for the content of the republic article. The generally accepted meaning of the word in this context is a state whose head of state is a president, and it is generally counterposed to a monarchy, a state whose head of state is a monarch. Australia's head of state is the Queen of Australia, and Australia is therefore a constitutional monarchy. That is why we have the Australian Republican Movement and Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy. Skyring cannot simply redefine the word to suit his theories. If Australia is a republic then so are the UK, Sweden, Japan etc. This in effect renders the word meaningless. Adam 07:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Later: I have now read the republic article, which is not very good and is locked for some reason. But it makes it clear that my definition of republic is the correct one, when it says: "In modern times, the head of state of a republic is usually formed by only one person, the president, but there are some exceptions such as Switzerland, which has a seven-member council as its head of state, called the Bundesrat, and San Marino, where the position of head of state is shared by two people." And again: "It is not necessarily the case that republics are more democratic than monarchies or vice versa." The article clearly accepts that republics and monarchies are counterposed categories. Adam 07:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition of republic, quoted above, includes Australia. Your definition looks to be out of step with Wikipedia's. Are you proposing that we have two definitions, one for Australia and one for the rest of the world? You say that if Australia is a republic then so too are the UK, Sweden etc. As I have pointed out, Australia's arrangements are quite different to those of the UK. In Australia, the ultimate authority resides in the hands of the people and we are, therefore, a republic. This is not true for the UK, Sweden, Japan, etc. As for the ARM and ACM, using partisan views for an objective definition is a very dodgy proposition. I am happy to go along with Wikipedia's definition and I suggest that if you believe your view is superior, you alter the Wikipedia article. Skyring 08:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When it is unlocked, I will. Ultimate authority lies in the hands of the people in the UK just as much as it does in Australia. So if Australia is a republic, so is the UK. In fact they are both constitutional monarchies. You are using a 19th century definition of "republic" as a synonym for "democracy," but that is not the way the word is now used. I cited the ARM and ACM is evidence that in general usage the terms "republic" and "monarchy" are antithetical. Adam 08:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please don't cram words in my mouth, Adam. It just gives me the opportunity to spit them out. In the UK, parliamentary sovereignty applies. This is not the case in Australia, where the ultimate authority rests with the people. Both are democracies. I am not using republic as a synonym for democracy. I am looking at the ultimate source of power. We the people drew up and approved our constitution in a process that is, so far as I know, unique. The words are ours, they define the basic structure of government, they give powers to various offices, and they may not be changed without the direct approval of we the people. We are a sovereign people and that makes us a republic, even if we dispensed with representative democracy entirely. So long as s128 remains intact, we are a republic. The presence of an all but powerless monarch in our affairs does not alter this fact, and we have long been called "a crowned republic". The Wikipedia definition of republic includes Australia, and so long as that remains the fact, I see no reason not to rely upon it, regardless of the partisan opinions of you or the ARM. In point of fact, ACM does not use your definition. Go here and look up their glossary. Skyring 10:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The last time I checked the UK House of Commons was elected by the people. You can expostulate all you like, but the fact is that Australia is a constitutional monarchy and therefore cannot be a republic, and I will continue to revert any edit which says otherwise. Adam 10:45, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Skyring, this argument is well below your usual standard of erudition, and furthermore you won't get any support for this if you insist on having a revert war. You cannot use an encyclopaedia to promote your eccentric theories. Adam 12:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Adam, with all due respect, may I suggest that you do a little research and come up with something other than your opinion and the partisan views of the ARM. My view that Australia is a republic is neither individual nor eccentric. The phrase "crowned republic" has been used to describe our constitutional status since Federation and is an entirely apt way to describe our situation where the monarch holds no real power and the executive power is derived directly from the people and exercised by a non-hereditary officer. The mere presence of a monarch does not negate the republican aspects of our government, which is why I agreed to your reinstatement of the description of Australia as a constitutional monarchy. I added that we were also a republic because both descriptions were true.

Using Wikipedia's own definition, we are a republic. Should that definition change to exclude Australia, then and only then should we remove the description of Australia as a republic.

And may I point out that your language is often imprecise and misleading. In what seems to be a response to my mention of Parliamentary Sovereignty, you say that the UK House of Commons is elected by the people. That is correct so far as it goes, but the House of Commons is not equivalent to Parliament, now is it? Furthermore, even if it was, a Government is not bound by the wishes of the people. In the UK as well as Australia, a government may make laws that the people would reject, if asked. Parliamentary sovereignty does not equate to popular sovereignty, and frankly I am disappointed that you should attempt to pretend that it is.

You say you cited the ACM as evidence that monarchy and republic are antithetical, but I gave you a source showing that this is not the case - the ACM holds to the view that we are a crowned republic.

In your third revert, you make an appeal to popular opinion. In constitutional matters, this is an admission of defeat, because the ignorance of the populace on such things is legendary. The Civics Expert Group and the following ANOP survey found that only 40% of people could correctly name both houses of parliament and that fewer than one in five showed some understanding of the Constitution. But you want to replace the result of sourced research with popular fantasy.

Adam, I don't mind if you insert your opinions or those of partisan bodies such as the ARM. All I ask is that you label them as such, and that you don't use opinion as an excuse to remove fact. Skyring 13:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is by far the worst lot of specious nonsense I have seen from you yet, laced with your usual unpleasant snobbery and sarcasm, which I have come to recognise as your standard tactic when you are losing an argument. This absurd line that Australia is already a republic was invented by the monarchists during the referendum campaign as part of their successful effort to muddy the waters about the issues. You have told us that you are a republican, which in an Australian context means someone who thinks Australia ought to be a republic. Now you tell us Austalia is already a republic. Make up your mind.

Briefly:

  • If the Wikipedia definition of "republic" does not make clear the current definition of the word (a state which is not a monarchy), it is wrong (as are many other things at Wikipedia), and I will change it when the article is unlocked.
  • Your claim that somehow Australia is a republic but the UK is not is ridiculous. There is no essential difference between the practice of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy in the two countries. Either they are both republics or they are both monarchies. Since they both have a monarch as head of state, they are both monarchies.
  • There is no such thing as a "crowned republic." A country cannot be both a republic and a monarchy. A republic is a country whose head of state is a president. The fact that the ACM uses this term is excellent evidence that it is a specious fabrication invented for political purposes.

Adam 23:22, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You just don't get it, Adam. No matter how many times you keep on repeating your own or popular opinion, you aren't going to change the facts. Adding abuse to your hand-waving merely underscores the shallowness of your position. May I once again suggest that you present some research instead of your own opinion?

It was pointed out during the federation conventions that the inclusion of a popular vote in s128 would have the effect of making us a republic. See Quick and Garran on the subject: 'The Constitution is the master of the legislature, and the community itself is the author of the Constitution ... Sovereignty resides in [those] in whom is ultimately vested the power to amend a Constitution of Government'.

The phrase crowned republic has a long history and has been applied to Australia since Federation. It is certainly not the creation of ACM.

Your assertion that There is no essential difference between the practice of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy in [the UK and Australia] is patently incorrect. Two major differences are that the executive power is directly given to an appointed officer, not a hereditary position; and the people rather than parliament hold sovereignty. There are a host of other differences, not least being the fact that Australia is a federation of States, reflected in the composition of the Senate and the way that powers are divided between Commonwealth and State.

Your essential argument is that the Queen is our head of state and we are therefore a monarchy and we therefore cannot be a republic. Both points are weak. Firstly, there is no firm definition of head of state and it is a matter of opinion as to who occupies that position, or whether we have one or two heads of state. At the moment, there is no consensus of opinion. Secondly, your argument that a republic and a monarchy or mutually exclusive rests entirely on your own definition, one that is not supported by Wikipedia as it stands. Perhaps you would prefer the Macquarie definition if you don't like Wikipedia's?

According to the Macquarie Dictionary, a republic is 1. a state in which the supreme power resides in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. 2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.

That's us, Adam! Skyring 00:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Skyring, you are wrong. It is not possible to be both a constitutional monarchy and a republic, representative/parlimentary democracy are clearly different concepts to republicanism. If you read the republic article you will notice that it says it has only been after the French Revolution that one sees republic being used interchangeably with democracy, they are not however interchangable concepts which is where you seem to have confused your argument, and where your Maquarie dictionary definition is sorely lacking. As always, the superior Oxford english dictionary clears things up:
2. a. A state in which the supreme power rests in the people and their elected representatives or officers, as opposed to one governed by a king or similar ruler; a commonwealth. Now also applied loosely to any state which claims this designation.--nixie 03:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. May I again state that I am not using republic as a synonym for democracy? If you read my comments above, we could remove representative democracy from the Australian Constitution, and so long as s128 remains intact, sovereignty continues to reside in the people, making us a republic. Please read the discussion before jumping in and making a splash. It will save a good deal of time and confusion.

I think you'll have to explain how you see the OED definition as excluding Australia, as we fill all three criteria:

  1. the supreme power rests in the people
  2. we are not governed by a monarch
  3. we are a commonwealth.

Certainly the Queen has a place in the Constitution, but she does not govern us. The executive government is handled by the Governor-General and the Executive Council, and the notion that we are somehow ruled out of Buckingham Palace is incorrect. The Queen has no powers to interfere in our government, but if you think she has, I would be obliged if you were to list them. Skyring 04:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have revised the article to make plain that the term "head of state" is not a matter of consensus, and to note that the Governor-General's executive powers are his own. I have refrained from reinserting republic because it is probably best that we wait until the republic article has reached a state of stability. Skyring 04:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • The Govenor-Generals powers are assigned by the Queen, Chapter 1 of the constitution. The same chapter details all the ways that the GG can dissolve the government etc. The Royal Powers Act, 1953 says that the Queen can do anything that the GG can do, if she is in Australia. In s128 even if the states agree to change the constitution it still must be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent --nixie 08:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks, nixie! No offence, but you'd do better to read some commentary on the Constitution rather than try to interpret the thing as it stands. Some parts don't mean what they say, and others have changed in meaning and effect in response to outside events, such as the Statute of Westminster. First off, s2 seems to give the impression that the Governor-General is only the Queen's agent and he only has what powers she gives him as she pleases. At Federation he was most definitely the agent of the British Crown, a situation which remained for three decades until the relationship between the UK and the dominions changed and thereafter a British High Commissioner took over that function. The Queen's Instructions to the Governor-General were seen as superfluous at Federation and formally withdrawn on advice in 1984. Neither the British Government nor the Queen can issue instructions to the Governor-General in respect of his constitutional powers.
    • The Queen may make an assignment of some of her prerogative powers - that is, the common law powers pertaining to the monarch - but these don't amount to much, relating to matters of diplomatic appointment and honours. The actual constitutional powers of the Governor-General, the power to appoint ministers, dissolve Parliament and so on, are given to him in his own right and not to the Queen. The Queen cannot touch them because she is unable to change the text of the Constitution. Only we the people may do that.
    • You should read the Royal Powers Act again, because it doesn't assign any of the Governor-General's constitutional powers to the Queen, only his statutory powers, meaning those given to him by legislation. Of course Parliament cannot make a law that supersedes the constitution, unless explicitly provided, such as those that govern the conduct of elections. 1975 demonstrated this all quite plainly. The then Governor-General kept the Queen informed, but he did not discuss his intentions with her and she did not issue any instructions to him. He acted in his own right, and while personally I think he should have given due warning to Whitlam and Fraser of his concerns and options, he did not. Although the then Speaker wrote to the Queen, the reply made it quite plain that the executive power of the Commonwealth was in the hands of the Governor-General and the Queen could not intervene.
    • As noted, only we the people may change the Constitution, and though you are quite right to point out that the Governor-General must assent to a constitutional amendment bill, this is merely a formality. The bottom line is that the Governor-General's constituional powers are given to him directly, nobody but he (or an administrator) may exercise them, and nobody but we the people may withdraw or alter them. Skyring 01:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Missing information

Shouldn't the divisions of goverment into three tiers be mentioned in this article? We don't seem to have anything on the distinctions between Federal, State and Local government. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:57, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the long-standing first line of the article may be of some help to you. Skyring 08:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Republic?

What sort of nonsense is this? We are a constitutional monarchy, not a republic. I have unblocked Adam Carr. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The two terms are not mutually exclusive. On the issue of head of state, opinion is divided amongst constitutional scholars. Suggest you read the discussion before diving in. Skyring 06:08, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since the deatils that you are trying to insert into the article based on arguments of 'constitutional scholars' bacically constitute original research, I'd suggest making a much reviled POV fork and sticking them in another article, called Constitutional debate in Australia or something--nixie 08:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. What, precisely, do you see as "original research", and how? Skyring 08:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What Nixie means is that your theory that Australia is a republic is well outside the mainstream view and is therefore unecyclopaedic. Encyclopaedias must reflect the generally accepted view of any topic and not reflect the personal theories of editors. You can't use Wikipedia as a hobby-horse for your pet theories. Adam 10:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When talking about constitutional issues, I very much prefer to be correct than in line with the public view, which is usually dead wrong. The fact is that Australia is a republic according to just about every definition beyond the utterly simplistic. You seem to have a problem with this, but you haven't yet come up with any good reason why except that you have a problem with it and lots of other people who wouldn't know a republic from their elbow have a problem with it and people who are pushing a partisan barrow have a problem with it.

Your view of Wikipedia as reflecting the generally accepted view is demonstrably false. If you were to ask around, 99 people out of a hundred would say that Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of England. They would be quite positive about their opinion. They would put money on it. Yet Wikipedia does not support this mainstream view, nor does any encyclopaedia worthy of the name, because it is simply not true.

Nixie came up with a authorative definition of republic which she thought excluded Australia, but she was wrong because the Queen is not the head of government in Australia. Maybe you'd like to have a go?

Perhaps the solution is for you to come up with a definition of republic that is accurate, excludes Australia, and is acceptable to the editors of the republic article, of which you propose to be one when it is again made available.

How long do you want? Skyring 10:44, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A republic is a state whose head of state is a president and not a monarch. Australia's head of state is the Queen of Australia, a monarch. Therefore Australia is not a republic. QED. Adam 11:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see. Do you have a non-partisan source for your view that the Queen is the head of state? Apart from yourself, of course? Skyring 16:57, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have already quoted the present Governor-General, who said: "Her Majesty is Australia's head of state but I am her representative and to all intents and purposes I carry out the full role." Is he sufficiently non-partisan for you?

Good quote, and I wish I could have found one of Hayden's that wasn't quite so elliptical, but if your ultimate say-so is the Governor-General, does that mean all we need is another Hayden to say he's the HoS and in your eyes the Queen is no longer the head of state? Hmmmm? What if Jeffrey changes his mind?
I accept the point you are making that Jeffrey is non-partisan, but I don't really think he's the source for your view. Personally, I'd be astonished if Jeffrey thought that he was the head of state. As a serviceman he's been brought up to believe that there's always someone in authority over him, he's spent his working life wearing badges with crowns on and the flag, monarch and imperial tradition is in his blood.
It would help if the Constitution wasn't silent on the matter, or if the High Court had been asked the question, but realistically, all we've got is opinion, and the cream of our constitutional scholars have various opinions, often tainted to some extent by participation in the referendum thing a few years back.
My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that we're in a state of transition, as we have been since the days of the old Queen and the scales have been tipping ever more solidly in favour of the Governor-General. The fact that those who say that the Queen is HoS tend to rely on the black letters of the Constitution and to skip over anything since, such as the Statute of Westminster, confirms me in this belief - one wants to say that the Queen is HoS, one pretends that it's 1901 - and that's a rather dishonest sort of way to look at it. I think that as the years pass, we're going to see a lot fewer monarchical symbols around. A new Currency Act when Charles assumes the position, and he'll probably just be on one coin, not all of them. As the old timers die off, there'll be fewer and fewer who want to keep the Royal in Royal Woop-Woop Bowls Club. Fewer to make a Loyal Toast. It's happening all around us every day. And yet you get the zealots at the ARM desperately trying to pump up the role of the Queen, while at the same time saying we don't need her. I really can't see this as a winning strategy. Skyring 04:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We have already had this debate somewhere else, but let me re-iterate:

  • The Preamble to the Constitution says: "the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."
  • The Constitution says: "The legislative power of the Commonwealth is vested in a Federal Parliament comprising the Queen, a Senate and a House of Representatives." (s1)
  • It also says: "The Governor-General is appointed by the Queen" (s2)
  • The GG is appointed by the Queen as "Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth," and is authorised to "exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him." (s2)
  • Further, Ministers of State are the Queen's Ministers of State and not the Governor-General's Ministers of State. (s64)

Questions for Skyring: If the Queen is not Australia's head of state, by what authority does she appoint the GG? If the GG is a head of state, why is he appointed by a foreign monarch?

Adam 23:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My problem with all of the above is that it's just the two of us swapping personal opinions. None of that says that the Queen is the Head of State - it's just you selecting the bits that pump up the Queen, and you know very well that I can pick out the bits that pump up the Governor-General. Sure, the Constitution is full of stuff about the Queen. That's the way it was in those days. But it's all just symbolism, the real power is placed squarely in the hands of the Governor-General in his own right and he doesn't have to ask the Queen about anything important. The only real role she plays in our affairs nowadays is that she appoints the Governor-General. Does that make her the head of state? i don't think so. It makes her the person who appoints the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister. The republican model that went down the tubes in 1999 changed the title of the Governor-General to President, and gave the appointment function to Parliament. Parliament appoints the President - does that make Parliament the Head of State? Using your own logic.

Now, I notice that you haven't actually provided a source that says the Queen is the head of state. One that can't be rebutted, I mean. Trot out a constitutional expert who says the Queen is head of state, and I'll trot out another who says the Governor-General is, AND I'll throw in one who says they both are.

So where does that leave us? Wikipedia-wise, I mean. Do we include all the diverse opinions - or none of them? Skyring 04:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If someone can get a hold of this 'Who is the Australian Head of State?', Research Note No. 1, Parliamentary Research Service, Department of the Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 28 August 1995., it apparently goes over the debate, and may be useful for an article on the Australian head of state. --nixie 04:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think this is the one you're thinking of. It doesn't give an opinion - that's not the Library's job. It just sets out other people's opinions.

Not that one, I've emailed the library for a pdf of the the research note I mentioned--nixie 06:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In reply to Skyring, I suggest the following wording:

The term "head of state" is not used in the Australian Constitution, so the question of who is Australia's head of state is a matter of convention. At the time the Constitution was written, the view that the Queen was the head of state of all parts of the British Empire was so axiomatic that it did not occur to the authors of the Constitution to spell this out. It is the view of most authorities that Queen Elizabeth II, who holds the title Queen of Australia, is still Australia's head of state, despite the great reduction in the role of the Monarch over the past century. The current Governor-General, Major General Michael Jeffery, said in 2004: "Her Majesty is Australia's head of state but I am her representative and to all intents and purposes I carry out the full role." The Queen's role today is, as Jeffery suggests, almost entirely symbolic. As Prime Minister John Howard said at the 1998 Constitutional Convention: "As a matter of law, Elizabeth II is Queen of Australia. As a matter of undisputed constitutional convention, the Governor-General has become Australia’s effective head of state." Some commentators have gone further and suggested that the Governor-General is Australia's head of state in law as well as in practice, but this is not generally accepted.

Adam 05:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where are you getting this "some" and "most" from? Have you done a survey? Nor have you mentioned the majority view - that there are two heads of state - de jure and de facto, or ceremonial and effective. Skyring 05:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • The "some" and "most" are my opinions, which are as good as anyone else's and better than most, being based on my close observation of Australian public affairs over the past 30 years.
  • It is not the majority view that there are two heads of state. A country cannot have two heads of state (yes yes I know about Andorra and San Marino, but they are not comparable).
  • If you did a survey on the question "who is Australia's head of state?", my guess is that 70% would say the Queen, 20% would say John Howard and 10% would say the Governor-General.
  • I am trying to suggest a compromise here, because I am in a good mood this afternoon. If you carry on with your carping bullshit I will retract it and we can go back to trench warfare.

Adam 06:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's very gracious of you, Adam!

Point by point. Your opinions, and I'm glad you labelled them as such, are just that. I'd say that I've got a better handle on the contemporary debate amongst constitutional scholars, having attended their lectures, attended conferences, heard them debating for the past ten years. I've spoken with them, asked them questions, corresponded with them. I've literally hung on their words at the Constitutional Convention and read their published opinions afterwards. I have their books on my bookshelf. The simple fact is that very few of them say that either the Queen or Governor-General is the one ambiguous head of state. Most of them are in the middle somewhere and the trend is towards the Governor-General, in line with our continued movement away from British ties.

I don't know why you downplay Andorra and San Marino (and other nations with a plural HoS) unless it is out of rankist behaviour. If a nation is sovereign, then it may do whatever it bloody well wants about its internal affairs. Our constitutional history is unique in many respects, and the fact is that we do not draw upon the British source quite so much as our British Commonwealth siblings such as New Zealand and Canada. The Queen does not play as great a role in either our Constitution or affairs as she does in other dominions. She sits at the top of the tree, but we don't need her authority, nor do we need her direction. We need her to appoint the Governor-General, and that's it - a function, as I have said, that we Australians should do for ourselves.

You can do all the surveys you want. Popular opinion does not dictate constitutional reality. If this were the case, then we could have an unambiguously Australian head of state by simply believing it to be so. I've mentioned the "Queen of England" thing already, but even though 99% of Australians would say that the Queen is Queen of England, this does not, cannot make her so. Citing popular opinion to back up your position, Adam, is an admission of defeat.

As is your use of abuse. You repeatedly skip away from addressing the points I make, and you very rarely provide anything in the way of research. Do you seriously expect me to be impressed by hand-waving and name-calling? Would you be swayed if I resorted to the same tactics? Skyring 00:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since this debate seems to have exhausted itself, I have installed my proposed text as a new Head of state section.

Incidentally, I refer Skyring to the article by Allison Henry on page 13 of today's Age as an illustration of the actual, as opposed to theoretical, usage of the word "republic" in contemporary Australia. Language changes over time, and the "correct" meaning of words is ultimately determined by usage, not dictionary editors. Adam 23:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I take your point, Adam, but it's really a very circular argument when you get down to it. Defining a republic as a state without a monarch says nothing about republicanism itself. What common characteristics link North Korea with Ireland? Iran with South Africa? You want to put everything in the titles and the symbols, but the fact is that despite popular opinion, the Queen doesn't have any great deal of power here, nor does she direct how we do things. I suppose that I should be grateful that you at least accept this, even if you aren't willing to say in public anything that goes beyond the platform of your party. Skyring 00:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You just can't help yourself with your childish and stupid insults, can you? If you knew anything about me you would know that I say a great many things that go beyond the platform of my party: I supported the Iraq war, for one thing. This is not a political question, it is a simple question of usage. The word "republic" has an established modern usage, which is different from the theoretical and archaic definition you tried to foist on this article. What does Iran have in common with Ireland? Their heads of state are presidents, not kings. They are therefore republics. I don't see why this should be so hard for you to grasp. I guess you are just naturally obtuse. Adam 02:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You just can't help yourself with your childish and stupid insults, can you?

Geez, just listen to yourself, Adam!

No offence intended, but if you could just slow down, read what I say, not what you think I say, and take the time to read over your own material and you'll see my point. You aren't addressing the points I raise - just saying the same old thing over and over again and adding abuse, as if that somehow helps your argument.

I take back what I said about you following a partisan line, if you say that's not the case. Skyring 02:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I changed "a matter of convention" to "a matter of contention" to reflect the reality. There is genuine debate amongst constitutional scholars and the wider community as to the identity of our head of state. If you want to say that there is a convention, please state your source - I can point to long usage of the Governor-General being described as the head of state in books and newspaper articles, for instance.

Perhaps it might help if we looked at the published views of constitutional scholars and took a tally. I suggested this some months ago but nothing came of it. Skyring 02:56, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have quoted both the Governor-General and the Prime Minister on the established and conventional view about the respective positions of the Queen and the GG, and that is what the article should reflect. The opening section notes that there are some views dissenting from that convention, and that is all it needs to do, given that this is not actually the subject of this article. I am opposed to encumbering this section with "views of constitutional scholars" on a matter which is tangential to the article. (Especially if, as I suspect, your scholars are David Flint and Sir David Smith). Adam 03:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Either are better than Adam Carr, and neither inclines to the "two heads of state view" which I said was the majority opinion. Do you actually read what I write, Adam, or am I just wasting my time?

My position is that we should leave "head of state" out of the article, but if it must go in, then let's be honest and label the views as opinion. You seem to be trying to push your opinion as established fact, when it isn't. If you want to quote the current Governor-General, then you won't mind if I mention that others have had contrary opinions? Skyring 03:53, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes I read what you write, and yes you are wasting your time, because I will continue to revert your absurd edits. It is not the majority view that Australia has two heads of state. It is the majority view, the conventional view and the correct view that the Queen of Australia is the head of state. If she isn't, what the hell is she? Why does she get to appoint the GG, who according to you is her co-head-of-state? Can you name a country whose head of state is appointed by the head of state of another country? The article has to say who Australia's head of state is, and the quotes from the GG and the PM are in my view definitive on this question - they operate the current system, after all, and if anyone reflects the working assumptions of the system they do. Adam 04:02, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More abuse, no facts. I prove you wrong time and again, and you just pretend it didn't happen. You can't use the popular view, because the people don't know beans about the Constitution, as demonstrated by the Civics Expert Group and any number of polls. You can't use the Governor-General as a definitive source because other Governors-General have had different views, and using your logic, we'd change our head of state with the Governor-General's opinion, a clear absurdity. The opinion of constitutional scholars and the High Court are about as close as we are going to get, and you won't find any consensus there apart from the fact that both Queen and Governor-General are the head of state to various degrees: the "symbolic or formal head of state and the effective or defacto head of state" view. Professor George Winterton inclines to this view, for example, as does the Prime Minister. Professor Greg Craven and Sir David Smith are opposite examples of the "sole head of state" view. There is no consensus, no convention, no definitive statement, and you take too much upon yourself to provide one. Skyring 04:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Answer my questions. And here's some more while you're at it. Why does the GG take an oath of allegiance to the Queen, and not vice versa? Why does the Queen's head appear on Australian coins and stamps and not the GG's head? Why do we have QCs and not GGCs? Adam 05:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Happy to answer your questions, though I note that you rarely answer mine.

  • If the Queen isn't the head of state, then what the hell is she? Not the head of state. Was that a rhetorical question?
  • Why does she get to appoint the GG, who according to you is her co-head-of-state? She appoints the Governor-General because someone has to and at Federation she was seen as the most appropriate person by we the people. But to take your question to the next logical step, may I ask who appoints the Queen? Or the President of the USA? Wouldn't that make that person or body the head of state? And where, precisely, did I say that the Queen is a co-head-of-state? You just made that up, didn't you?
  • Can you name a country whose head of state is appointed by the head of state of another country? Tibet. But our affairs are our own. The Governor-General is appointed by the Queen, and of course that's just a rubberstamp, the Prime Minister nominating the Governor-General.
  • Why does the GG take an oath of allegiance to the Queen, and not vice versa? Because that way we the people wanted it at Federation.
  • Why does the Queen's head appear on Australian coins and stamps and not the GG's head? Because that's what the Currency Act specifies. Are you saying that whoever appears on the coinage is our head of state?
  • Why do we have QCs and not GGCs? We have Senior Counsels nowadays. Are you saying that the title of senior lawyers determines the true head of state?

You'll have to agree that we have moved on and made many changes in our affairs since 1901. The UK is now a foreign power, when it was not so at Federation, despite not a word of the Constitution having changed. The Constitution contains many archaic provisions, some that are spent, some that are moribund, some that are unenforceable.

If we were to describe our situation now, we would not use the same terminology. You seem to be trying to force Australia into the form it occupied at Federation, when the fact is that we have moved on.

And having said all of the above, so what? My opinion isn't important if you are seeking a definitive answer to the question of who is Australia's head of state. Neither is yours. We should look elsewhere. Skyring 06:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I expected, your flippant, fatuous, dishonest and generally pathetic answers to my questions demonstrate the pointlessness of debating this question with you further. Adam 07:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You insist I answer your questions, but when I give factual, honest answers, you abuse me and refuse to answer my questions, which are intended to show the lack of fact or logic in your argument. Obviously we disagree on some points, but I think we should keep working together to find some consensus using authoritative sources. You're a better writer than I am. My forte is pointing out errors, and the simple fact is that there is contention amongst constitutional scholars as to who is the head of state, as I have shown. Skyring 07:51, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can you name a country whose head of state is appointed by the head of state of another country? Tibet. You call that a factual and honest answer, do you? Adam 08:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. What's wrong with it?

Tibet is not an independent state, as you know perfectly well. It is a stupid, flippant and fatuous answer, and typical of your conceited arrogance. Adam 08:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I suppose we could argue over the definition of "country", if you really want, but you asked for an example and I gave one and I got abused for answering your question! Skyring 10:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Could you please explain why, if the Queen is our one and only head of state, the powers she holds and exercises in the UK as head of state, including the all-important reserve powers were not given to her at Federation, but explicitly assigned to the Governor-General? Skyring 08:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow, tough question! Because that's how the authors of the Constitution decided to resolve the problem of a head of state who lived in London, duh. The question suggests that there is in same way a contradiction between these two facts. But of course their isn't. Sam Griffith was obviously a lot smarter than you. Are you seriously suggesting that he intended that anyone other than the British Monarch would be Australia's head of state? Adam 08:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And you accuse me of heavy handed sarcasm. I ask because, as I pointed out earlier, our constitutional arrangements are quite different to those of New Zealand and Canada, whose development parallels ours. In both those dominions, the executive power is given to the Queen and the Governor-General is not given any powers of his own, let alone the reserve powers. I also note that the term "head of state" was not one in general usage at the time of Federation, and it is quite wrong of you to try to cram your terminology into the mouth of Samuel Griffith, or any of the other framers of the Constitution. Whether you like it or not, the fact is that the term is not defined in the Constitution, the High Court has not been asked the question, and the best we have to answer the question as to who is our head of state are constitutional scholars who are not of one mind, and your view is a minority opinion amongst them. Skyring 10:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Constitutional Scholars

I think it's high time we started a roll call of current constitutional scholars and what are their thoughts on the matter of whether Australia is a republic and who is the head of state. Maybe I'll make it into an article with tables and everything and we can all have some input. Here are a few opinions to be going on with and I welcome the addition of more, so long as they are checkable and authorative.

Dr Brian Galligan: "the political scientist, Brian Galligan, has long argued that the head of state issue is a relatively minor matter. His central argument is "that Australia's constitutional system is essentially that of a federal republic rather than a parliamentary monarchy" (1995:12). The system is republican, according to Galligan (1995:14), "because the constitutions, for both the Commonwealth and the States, are the instruments of the Australian people who have supreme authority". He points to the role of the Australian people in drafting the Constitution and in the endorsement of the draft constitution by the people voting at referendums (1995:26). He also attaches significance to the 'Australianising' of the offices of the offices of Governor-General and State Governor (1995:21). He concludes: "Removing the language of monarchy from constitutions and changing the titles of the offices of head of state is but the final step in regularising the Australian federal republic, which has only been thinly disguised by formal monarchic language and symbols" (1995:24). Galligan, B 1995 A Federal Republic: Australia's Constitutional System of Government, Cambridge University Press.

Prime Minister John Howard: The Queen is Queen of Australia. However, under our present constitution, the Governor-General is effectively Australia’s head of state. The only constitutional duty performed by the Queen relates to the appointment of the Governor-General which must be done on the recommendation of the Prime Minister of the day.

Sir Richard McGarvie: Thus the Commonwealth of Australia has a Governor-General who performs the duties of head of state in respect of Australia.

Professor George Winterton: An objective assessment can lead to only one conclusion: Australia's legal or formal head of state is the Queen. The Governor-General is the effective or de facto head of state of the Commonwealth, but not of Australia.

I shall add to this list as time goes by - it is most certainly only a fraction of what we can dig up, but the process of research is necessarily time-consuming. Skyring 02:22, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Two of these sources indicate that the Governor-General stands in for the Queen as head of state, which does nothing to advance the point that Australia is a republic. The other two are from the website of the Australian Republican Movement, an organization whose stated objective is "working towards an Australian republic, with an Australian as our Head of State." This objective obviously implies that Australia is not currently a republic, and therefore refutes the argument you are trying to advance. I leave the head of state argument to Adam, who handles it ably below. In spite of all the blathering, this page has no evidence of any serious scholarly disagreement on either of these questions. --Michael Snow 22:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Your logic is spurious. The question of whether Australia is a republic is distinct from whether the Queen is the head of state. See the republic and Head of state articles for definitions. Using these definitions, Australia is a republic because sovereignty derives from the people, and the Queen is not a head of state because she exercises none of the powers or functions of a head of state. The head of state article specifically refers to the Australian Governor-General as the head of state, for instance. Skyring 00:15, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sure they're distinct, but you raised both questions and offered this evidence in support of both propositions. By its very existence, the ARM refutes your argument that Australia is a republic. The republic article, which is a pretty mediocre piece of work anyway, does not point to Australia as an example of a republic, and if extrapolations based on Wikipedia articles are the only thing behind your claim, then it lacks evidence. As to the head of state article, yes it mentions the Governor-General, but it doesn't get into detail about his precise relationship with respect to the Queen, which is the distinction between acting as and being the head of state that Adam is patiently trying to explain below. --Michael Snow 00:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The existence and name of the ARM does not refute my argument, any more than the existence of the Republican party in the USA means that the USA is not a republic, or the existence of the Australian Democrats means that Australia is not a democracy. Using the same flawed logic, you might likewise argue that the existence of Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy implies that Australia is not a constitutional monarchy, but that there is a group of Australians working hard to make it so. Can you see how your logic is invalid?
I notice that you shied away from accepting that the definition in the republic article includes Australia. Instead you say that it does not mention that Australia is a republic. Neither does it mention the Republic of South Africa. Or Ireland. Or France. Perhaps you feel that these nations are not republics?
You suggest that extrapolations from Wikipedia articles are my entire argument. This is patently untrue and I am surprised that you should make such a suggestion. It does nothing to enhance your credibility.
The head of state article does more than mention the Governor-General. It mentions him as a head of state. I notice that again you prefer not to discuss the definition of head of state given in that article. Perhaps you prefer your own definitions rather than Wikipedia's and if so perhaps you can put them forward here.
The purpose of the quotes from constitutional scholars above is to show that there is a diversity of opinion. I intend to add to them, and I fully intend to provide quotes of contradictory opinions. Please don't make the same mistake as Adam did by assuming that I hold all the opinions of the people I quote. I have a broad mind, but not that broad!
As to Adam's "patient explanations", I can't say that I am impressed by his word games, which as I have noted, steer well clear of complete honesty. Skyring 01:12, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I could have been more precise in saying the objective of the ARM, not just its existence, is the real point, which would have been repeating what I said just before and you ignored. The definition in the republic article does not address Australia directly; saying that the definition includes Australia is your own interpretation, and we are not here to provide our own interpretations. Accordingly, other sources must be cited.
On the head of state article, it says pretty clearly in the introduction that in a monarchy, the monarch is the head of state. Australia is a constitutional monarchy, so the monarch (the Queen) is the head of state. Do you have any sources that say Australia is not a constitutional monarchy? The country has become more like a republic, and there are efforts to convert it into one, but the monarchy is still ultimately present. --Michael Snow 02:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Your honesty in admitting your faulty logic above is noted. Again I point out that the definition in the republic article does not address France, Ireland or any identifiable nation directly, a circumstance which you claim supports your view that Australia must be excluded. Can you see the problem in your logic? The definition includes those nations as well as Australia, but let us take up your suggestion, and use other definitions.
  • Oxford English Dictionary (cited by User:nixie above):
2. a. A state in which the supreme power rests in the people and their elected representatives or officers, as opposed to one governed by a king or similar ruler; a commonwealth. Now also applied loosely to any state which claims this designation.
As noted above, Australia fits this definition of republic.
  • Macquarie Dictionary (also cited above):
1. a state in which the supreme power resides in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. 2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
Incidentally, one wonders why nixie didn't cite the OED's primary definition. Perhaps someone would care to supply it?
Well spotted that the article states that in a monarchy, the monarch is head of state. I should have noticed that. However, this statement conflicts with its own definition, and thereby creates a paradox. Perhaps we'd best use other sources, and I return again to the primary purpose of this section - see above. Skyring 06:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Galligan does not address the question of who Australia's head of state is. The other three all agree with me that the Queen of Australia is Australia's head of state, even though her functions are carried out by the GG as her representative. When you can quote someone who says that "The GG is Australia's head of state" we can resume discussion. Adam 02:35, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Galligan says we are a republic. The other three say that the Governor-General is Australia's head of state, contrary to your assertion above. The key point is that they see Australia as having two heads of state, usually qualified as ceremonial and effective, de jure and de facto. Please don't try to misrepresent the quotes given as supporting your opinion when they clearly do not. Skyring 03:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If by that you are conceding that the Queen is the de jure head of state, you are conceding the entire argument, for which I thank you. I have never disputed that the GG acts as a de facto head of state. But when we ask "who is a country's head of state?", we of course mean the head of state at law, not who carries out the functions of the role. (An analogy: When George III was mad and the Prince Regent carried out all his functions, no-one argued that George III had ceased to be the head of state.) Therefore the article correctly states that (a) the Queen is Australia's head of state and (b) the GG carries out all the head of state functions. I'm glad we have now agreed on that. Adam 08:43, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Only one of the quotes above says that the Queen is the de jure head of state. I don't know where you came up with acts as, because it's not in any of the quotes above. Stop making stuff up, Adam. It's not helping.

The Governor-General carries out the head of state functions, not because he is representing somebody else but because he is given those powers in his own right, and he was given those powers by the people, not the monarch. This is not the case in the UK, where a regent exercises the powers of the monarch, much as an Administrator exercises the powers of the Governor-General in s4. Your view is a minority opinion, so far as I can see. Skyring 09:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gee, I try to be conciliatory and all I get is more of your obfuscatory crap. You have conceded that the Queen is the de jure head of state, and that is all you needed to concede to end this debate. That is what the article says and will go on saying. Adam 10:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have conceded nothing, Adam. I have provided a quote showing that Winterton considers that Australia has two heads of state. I suppose, following your reasoning, if I provided quotes from two different people showing contradictory views, you would either accuse me of holding both views at the same time, or whatever view best suited your purposes.

I suggest that you hunt up some opinions from constitutional scholars that support your opinion, and we can go from there. If you have some useful material, then present it. I can certainly be swayed by solid checkable facts, but expressing your own opinion forcefully and abusively is not a persuasive method of debate. For me, at any rate. Skyring 17:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On this topic Adam's position (that the overwhelming majority view is that the Queen is HoS and the GG is nominally her representative) is right, and Skyring is wrong. It's that simple, despite the reams of text Skyring has generated on the matter. --Robert Merkel 04:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please point out to me an incorrect statement of mine, Robert. My position is that opinion amongst constitutional scholars is divided and that Adam's view is a minority position.

When it comes to popular opinion, it may well be that most view the Queen as HoS (though neither you nor Adam have bothered to provide a checkable source for this view), but this is immaterial - if the head of state is determined by popular opinion, then we may change our head of state with an advertising campaign. Unhappily, this is not the case, and popular opinion is frequently wrong, as I have pointed out several times. Adam is at perfect liberty to say that it is opinion that the Queen is head of state, and I will not contradict him. But when he says that it is a matter of fact, he is wrong. Skyring 04:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


The Australian Republican Movement appears to believe that Australia is not a republic, as they say they are working toward one. See below from their website. SlimVirgin 02:03, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

The Australian Republican Movement is an organisation that is committed to working towards an Australian republic, with an Australian as our Head of State.

Since the disappointing Referendum result in November 1999, interest and support for an Australian republic has not waned . . .

If you would like to express an interest in Australia becoming a republic, there are many ways to show your support . . . [1]

Thanks, but I don't really think we should rely too much on partisan sources. Skyring 02:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They're partisan, but in a manner that might be expected to support your position, if your position had merit. It would suit them to claim that Australia is already a republic and therefore may as well take that extra step. SlimVirgin 02:22, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know why they don't do this. As I have noted above, they are in the position of having to keep pumping up a deflating monarchy. As an ARM member for some years I also note that they put a lot of effort into pumping up declining membership levels and waning public interest. Nevertheless, they have adopted their position and they are sticking with it. If you really must include the ARM, then you must then, in all fairness, allow the use of ACM's definitions, which, oddly enough, are often the direct opposite of those provided by the ARM. Do you think that this approach is going to be helpful? Skyring 06:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From the same website:

Australia is a constitutional monarchy and in accordance with these principles the monarch is considered Australia's Head of State. The Governor-General is not the Head of State of Australia, but a representative of the Queen in Australia. "Her Majesty is Australia's Head of State ... I am her representative" Governor-General His Excellency Major General Michael Jeffery, 6 November 2004 [2]

And here for their definition of republic. [3]

I forgot to add above: you've cited the Wikipedia article Republic several times. We're not allowed to use other Wikipedia articles as sources, for the simple reason that at any point they could be changed and may not be accurate, or may no longer contain the point it was used as a reference for. In any event, that article also states that a republic does not have a hereditary head of state. To which you'll doubtless argue that the Queen is not really a head of state because she doesn't function as such. And this is why you're being accused of doing original research, because you're arguing to make a case, and regardless of the evidence that's presented, you continue to further it. Your argument may be a good one, but it remains your argument. SlimVirgin 02:20, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

I take your point about Wikipedia articles, and as Adam has noted, the republic article is a bit of a battlefield at the moment. May I remind you of the purpose of this section, and ask why you are accusing me of performing original research when I am presenting the published opinions of constitutional scholars? Skyring 06:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ultimately Skyring must acknowledge that however passionately he holds his view that Australia is the world's only republic with two heads of state, one of them a hereditary monarch and the other appointed by a hereditary monarch, it is not a view that anyone else here supports, or that is accepted by most people with any knowledge of Australia's constitutional and political system. This is not the Journal of Constitutional Speculation, it is an encyclopaedia, and must reflect both the majority view of its editors and the mainstream view of informed people, while of course acknowledging that other views exist. Thus Wikipedia currently says that Harold Holt drowned, and was not taken away in a Chinese submarine, as Anthony Grey believes. Grey's view is noted, but the mainstream view is stated as a fact. The same principle must apply here. Adam 03:15, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Specious logic not supported by the facts, Adam. As I never tire of pointing out, our opinions don't matter, a point you don't seem willing to accept. I say that rather than reflecting the result of some sort of democracy of editors, an encyclopaedia must be correct, and if a statement is demonstrably incorrect although widely supported, it should either be rejected or labeled to indicate its lack of definitiveness. Yet you continue to call upon popular opinion, when it has been shown that the level of constitutional knowledge of the Australian people is low and that many falsehoods are widely believed. Again I raise the example of the Queen of England, a non-existent office that is widely and strongly believed to be filled by Queen Elizabeth II. I say that regardless of how passionately you hold your opinion, and regardless of how passionately you believe I hold mine (and I must say in passing that I am frequently charmed to hear you declare that I hold views that in actuality I reject), we must rely on published opinions of constitutional scholars, because there is no other credible source.

I say that those opinions are a matter of contention. There is no consensus of opinion. That is why I think that we should leave the matter of head of state unstated, because otherwise we are going to have to include large chunks of confusing opinion and counter-opinion that do little to help anyone turning to Wikipedia for knowledge. Skyring 06:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The content of this encyclopaedia isdetermined by a democracy of its editors, and so far you are outvoted. Eventually you will either accept this or be barred from further reversions (I know this because it has happened to me before). There is no need to include large chunks of anything. All that needs to be said in this article is that the Queen is Australia's de jure head of state (that is, the head of state according to law), while the GG carries out all the functions of a head of state. You have said this yourself above, so I don't know what you are now arguing about. Adam 08:24, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I cannot say that replacing abuse with threats is any great advance in your way of argument, Adam. Continued dishonesty is likewise unattractive. Again I point out that in quoting a constitutional scholar, I am not saying that I hold these views. Again I point out that if I quote two such scholars holding opposing opinions, it does not mean that I hold both opinions. Surely this is a matter of common sense. Do I have to keep on repeating it until you accept this, or are you to continue putting words into my mouth that I may spit them out??

I shall add more opinions from constitutional scholars as I go on. The reality is that the matter is contentious - there is no consensus of opinion amongst those best placed to give it, and it is wrong of you to pretend otherwise. Skyring 09:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Skyring, the criterion for entry into Wikipedia is verifibility, not truth; and the propositions we call factual are simply an overview of the most prevalent beliefs held by sources we regard as reputable and authoritative. Other views are represented if held by significant minorities, but are not represented as fact, and tiny-minority views need not be represented at all. So the correct question is not: "Is Australia a republic?" The correct question is: "What do most people and institutions call Australia?" To answer that question we check whether the Australian govt calls itself a republic; the UN, other Western governments, reputable encyclopedias, and so on. And these people do not call it a republic; therefore, we follow suit. If there is a debate about republicanism in Australia, reference to that debate can be included. If other governments were split on the issue, we would say: "A is a republic according to X, but according to Y, it is a . . ." But governments are not split on the issue. Attempts to portray minority views as fact are regarded as POV pushing or original research, and often both.
Regarding the Queen of England example, insofar as people may believe there is a Queen of England, this is probably because England is routinely used as shorthand for the United Kingdom. By the way, I checked the Queen's website and she also believes she is Queen of Australia. SlimVirgin 09:01, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
That's probably because she is. We gave her that title in 1953 and made it explicit in 1973. Regarding the Queen of England thing, explaining an error does not make it any less of an error, but it still must be labelled as incorrect, even if it's eminently understandable.
Following your logic, I take it you would have no problem with a verifiable statement that Australia is a republic, based upon authoritative definitions of a republic and the opinions of constitutional scholars, provided that there was also a caveat that popular opinion sees otherwise? The fact is that Australia has long been described as "a crowned republic", we have a republican form of government, and the only non-republican aspect is the all but powerless presence of the Queen, whose Australian role is limited to signing a new commission for the Governor-General every five years or so.
I appreciate that describing Australia as a republic is controversial, but I am not going to stand by and see Australia described as a nation ruled by a monarch, with the Governor-General merely exercising the delegated powers of the Queen. That is patently untrue. We are quite independent and do all our own governing.
You mentioned other governments a moment ago. The fact is that when the Queen visits other countries, she is not described as the head of state of Australia, now is she? She is described as the British head of state, because that is what she is. But when our Governor-General visits abroad, he is described as Australia's head of state. He is given a 21 gun salute because he is a head of state and entitled to it. This is not my opinion, this is solid, verifiable fact. In your own words "Governments are not split on the issue." Skyring 10:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, your argument is not following my logic. It is, in fact, exactly the opposite of what I wrote. SlimVirgin 11:00, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm using your logic. I'm just not using your content. You said the criterion for entry into Wikipedia is verifibility, not truth. Am I now to understand that you support this view only when it suits you? Skyring 11:15, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Skyring is just going on with this the endless repetitive wank out of stubbornness and vanity, and should be ignored. The head of state section of the article is fine as it is and he should not be allowed to reinsert his pet theories. Adam 11:19, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Abuse, threats and handwaving don't work with me, Adam. Skyring 11:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is all about your ego now, isn't it? Adam 11:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I see it, Adam, you're stumped. Your position is that the Queen is the one and only head of state, but so far you have managed to find only one constitutional authority who supports your view - the current Governor-General, and I have shown that a previous Governor-General has the opposite view. You are reduced to word games, abuse, threats, and blatant misrepresentation, and frankly I had expected better of you. And no, it's not about my ego - see how many times above I've said "My opinion doesn't matter".

What matters is informed opinion, and bluster as you will, the fact is that very few constitutional scholars see the Queen as the one and only head of state. Can you come up with some useful (and verifiable) sources to support your point of view? Skyring 22:21, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am unable to find where you have shown that "a previous Governor-General has the opposite view." Could you point me to where that is? --Michael Snow 22:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Bill Hayden, in his autobiography. The Governor-General of Australia article has the quote and the page number(s) may be found on the Discussion page. It is clear what view he holds, but he is just a touch elliptical in his statements - the quote from the incumbent is an excellent one, and while I make no doubt that Hayden said something equally as direct elsewhere, I haven't been able to find an example. I have the transcripts of the Constitutional Convention in a wardrobe somewhere - I might pull them out and look through Hayden's contributions. Skyring 23:50, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, the quote seems to be more about what the form of government should be than what it is. In other words, much like the ARM position. --Michael Snow 01:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
...to change the title of head of State from Governor General to President. This is actually the direct opposite position to that of the ARM. They stoutly deny that the Governor-General currently holds the title of Head of State. Skyring 01:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Considering that the quote is supposed to be describing "The predominant objective of the republican movement", then your rebuttal would seem to imply that Hayden doesn't have his facts straight in the first place. I think it's more sensible to read that passage in the context I just indicated, as a comment about republican goals rather than an attempt to define the current situation. It's not a statement on the question of whether the Queen or the Governor-General is the real head of state, it's a description of a possible future state of affairs. Insofar as somebody's title would be changed (in other words, somebody filling the same function but with a different office) that would be the Governor-General, because he could still exist under some name in a republic, but the Queen could not, so there's no point for Hayden in mentioning her. --Michael Snow 18:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Typo in lead graph

Hi, all, an explanation for why I edited a protected article: we had an obvious typo in the lead paragraph of what I expect is a relatively important article; not exactly a good mark for the project. So I elected to go ahead and fix just that (missing " i", turning "centuryt" into "century it"), hope that's OK. Noel (talk) 13:46, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Source material

I got parlimentary research note on the Australian head of state in the mail yesterday, it goes over the agrument about whether the Queen of the GG is the head of state, making no conclusions. It may be a useful source for summarising the argument here. If anyone wants a copy leave a note here or on my talk page and I'll scan it and email it to you.--nixie 23:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Parliament is an excellent source of material. They put together bound themed collections of papers, Senate Occasional Lectures and so on from time and these are available free for the asking.

I have been attending Senate Occasional Lectures for ten years now and they are excellent, usually held in the main committee room (sometimes the theatre). Presenters include public figures such as Geoffrey Blainey or Hugh Mackay, scholars such as George Winterton and Greg Craven, authors, High Commissioners and many others. You may ask questions of the presenter, request a transcript of the lecture, and put your name down for notifications of upcoming events. An added bonus is being able to admire the artwork in and around the room, such as the huge Red Ochre Cove, Tom Roberts' The Big Picture, and a few others. Some of the portraits outside (of Prime Ministers and significant MPs) are stunning, many Archibald Prize winners are represented. But this is all by the by. Getting back on topic, the fact that the parliamentary research office does not give a definitive statement is a statement in itself. Skyring 23:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not their job to give definitive statements, as I'm sure you know. It's their job to provide arguments for both sides.

On your comments above. If as you say your opinion doesn't matter, then you will graciously accept that the consensus here is against your position and withdraw from this debate (as I have done many times at Wikipedia in other debates, including some with you), and allow the article to be unprotected without the threat of further edit wars. Adam 00:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for both sides. So you accept that there are sides to the debate and that the issue is a matter of contention, not convention.

I note that you aren't providing verifiable sources for your point of view. Instead, you are trying to use Wikipedia editors as authorities. In that case, why did you bother providing the Michael Jeffrey quote? That was an excellent quote and if you can come up with a lot more like it from constitutional authorities, I'll accept that yours is more than a minority view. Skyring 01:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ARM's statement on Aust head of state

See [4]:

Who is Australia's Head of State?

Elizabeth II, the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is Australia's Head of State because:

The Constitution of Australia defines the Parliament as "the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives" and vests the Federal legislative (law-making) power in the Parliament (section 1, Constitution).

The executive power (the governing and administrative power) of the Commonwealth of Australia is vested in the Queen (section 61, Constitution).

The Queen has the power to disallow any law within one year of it being made even after the Governor-General has given his assent (section 59, Constitution).

The Governor-General only holds office "during the Queen's pleasure" which means that the he can be dismissed by the Queen at any time (section 2, Constitution).

Lastly, but probably most importantly in a symbolic sense, is the Schedule to the Constitution that requires all Federal Parliamentarians to swear an oath or declare an affirmation of allegiance to the Queen. This oath of allegiance can only be changed by alteration of the Constitution — unlike the Citizenship Oath, which can be changed by an Act of Parliament, or the Ministerial Oath which can be changed by Proclamation.

The Governor-General is not the Head of State of Australia because

The Governor-General is appointed to represent the Queen, not Australia (section 2, Constitution).

It is clear from the above provisions, such as sections 2 and 59, that the Governor-General is subservient to the Queen.

Even the Governor-General's power given by section 68 as Commander in Chief is vested in him as "the Queen's representative".

No Oath of Allegiance is required to the Governor-General by any member of Parliament or official.

Australia is a constitutional Monarchy and in accordance with these principles the monarch is our head of state. Both the above provisions of the Australian Constitution and custom make it clear that the Queen is intended to be the embodiment of the Commonwealth of Australia.

A recent example of the symbolism and custom in regard to this was the visit by President Clinton to Australia in November 1996 during which reciprocal toasts were given to each nation by giving a loyal toast to the head of state of each nation as the embodiment of the nations. To honour the United States of America, a toast was given to the President. President Clinton responded by giving a toast to the Queen, not to the Governor-General.

The Queen also sees herself as Australia's Head of State

The following is quoted from the Monarch's website on the page entitled 'Commonwealth Realms':

"A Commonwealth realm is a country where The Queen is the Head of State. The Queen is Queen not only of Britain and its dependent territories, but also of the following realms: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St Christopher and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu."

The Royal Titles Act 1953 provided that legislation on the Royal Title was to be enacted separately by each of The Queen's Commonwealth realms, i.e. each Commonwealth country that retains a monarchical constitution recognises The Queen as Head of State. The form that this takes in each realm includes a common element: the description of the Sovereign as 'Queen of Her other Realms and Territories and Head of the Commonwealth'.

But what is the difference between a Sovereign and a Head of State?

The Macquarie Dictionary defines "Sovereign" as a monarch, "having supreme rank, power or authority" and being "above all others in character and importance".

By definition, the Sovereign has higher rank, authority and importance than our Governor-General. Therefore, by definition, the Governor-General cannot possibly be our Head of State.

If you would like more information, please read the interview with former Chief Justice, Sir Anthony Mason.

If the ARM sees the head of state as the Queen, and Australia as not a republic, I don't think there is much credibility for many other views. By all means state them, but do it on another article and put a very brief wikilink to mention it. I will oppose anything else. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He's had this pointed out to him, and in fact knew it already, but it makes no difference. The Queen could personally edit this page as User:Head of State, and he still wouldn't listen. (Of course, there's no need to listen to her. Australia's a republic, after all.) SlimVirgin 02:17, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

The ARM is a partisan organisation, and if you want to quote the ARM, then you should also allow that other partisan organisations hold different views, views that have considerably more scholarship than those of the ARM. Be fair. Skyring 02:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But they don't. Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy also see the Queen as head of state, or else they would be called Australians for a Crowned Republic in Which the Governor-General is Head of State and the Queen of Australia Holds a Position Which We Cannot Define. Adam 02:55, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide a verifiable source for your statement that ACM regard the Queen as head of state, Adam? The fact is that, as I have pointed out, ACM and the ARM hold opposing views on this issue. ACM pumps up the Governor-General, the ARM pumps up the Queen. Bizarre but true.
I don't know if you are being deliberately untruthful or just silly, but either way, you aren't doing much for your credibility. Skyring 04:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, actually, no he's not being silly. Please cast your eyes to IS THERE AN AUSTRALIAN HEAD OF STATE?. Some choice quotes:
"Constitutional Monarchy: Australia already has just such a Head of State, the Governor-General plus the bonus of the Queen. The republican argument is misleading by its use of the word 'a' (singular) and 'Head of State' (which is a diplomatic term and does not appear at all in our written Constitution of 1901). In fact some states have more than one Head of State e.g. Andorra until recently, the former USSR, etc. It is also inappropriate in the context of our historical evolution as a free democratic independent nation."
"Constitutional Monarchy: Our entire system of government is based on the context of our inherited (but absentee) constitutional monarchy. In 1901 it was well understood (and remains true) that countries like Canada, NZ, PNG and Australia have a divided Head of State system, which gives us extra checks and balances in our Constitution.
"The advantages of our symbolic Head of State becoming so by inheritance places the monarch entirely beyond political interference or inclination - it ensures that our symbolic Head of State is always 'a politican - free zone' and this is reflected in the conduct of the local Head of State (Governors and Governors-General) who also remain above politics."
So the ACM say that there is a divided head of state, which sounds pretty accurate to me. The GG is the representative of the head of state, and thus bears most of the responsibilities of the head of state due to being said representative. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The "two heads of state" view is pretty much the majority opinion amongst constitutional scholars. Neither the Queen nor the Governor-General is the head of state, according to this view. It is inaccurate to say that the Governor-General performs his job as representative of the Queen, for the reason that his constitutional powers are given to him directly by we the people and the Queen may neither exercise them nor give instructions on their use. This is in contrast to the position in other Commonwealth realms such as Canada or New Zealand where the prerogative powers of the Queen may be exercised by the Governor-General only by virtue of him (or her) being the Queen's representative. In Australia, most of these powers are explicitly given to the Governor-General and the only remaining prerogative powers are trivia such as legation and honours.
It would probably help if you were to read a text on Australian constitutional theory, so you can get the opinions of legal experts rather than try to puzzle it out from the Constitution's often misleading text and the partisan views of ACM and the ARM.
Personally, I thought Adam was being silly rather than untruthful, but you disagree. Skyring 05:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Adam is not a liar. Anyway, I think the point here is that the Queen is still a head of state in conjunction with the Governer General, therefore we are still a constitutional monarchy and not a republic. I still hold that the viewpoint that we are a republic is a minority, and not even a terribly vocal one at that. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I didn't say he was a liar. However, he was certainly being untruthful. And your logic is very runny. We are both a constitutional republic and a monarchy - as I have noted, we have long been described as a "crowned republic". The two concepts are not exclusive, though I will admit that the intersection is small and limited to states where the monarch has a ceremonial role only. In the UK, the Queen possesses reserve powers - in Australia, she does not. Skyring 12:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Skyring can repeat his circular arguments all night, but the fact is that the Constitution says the GG is the Queen's representative, and the GG says he is the Queen's representative. The only capacity in which the Queen can be represented is the capacity of head of state. We all agree that the GG carries out all the Queen's functions in Australia, but that is not the issue. The issue is who is Australia's formal head of state. Frankly I don't care what Skyring's assorted scholars say, although I note that he still hasn't quoted anyone who says that the GG is the head of state. Adam 07:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of precise fact, the Constitution does not say that the Governor-General is the Queen's representative. If you want to quote the Constitution, please do so accurately, rather than tilting the words towards your own point of view. And if you think I haven't quoted anyone who says the Governor-General is the head of state, think again. I've quoted Bill Hayden several times. Please stick to the facts, Adam.

Now, you mentioned my "circular arguments". Please list these arguments, and why you think they are circular, and I shall do my best to clear up any misunderstanding we might have, because to be perfectly honest, I am unaware that I have used any circular arguments. My understanding of a circular argument is one where Proposition A relies on Proposition B, and Proposition B relies on Proposition A. Or a longer chain of arguments (say A relies on B relies on C relies on A) to the same effect. It would be best to clear this up now, lest anybody erroneously think that I have used a circular argument when I have not, or worse yet, that I have in fact used such an argument but am unaware of it. Skyring 12:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can one just note that a person need not have any constitutional authority to do anything, and may still be a constitutional monarch, and the country in question still a constitutional monarchy, and not a republic? The constitutions of Japan and Sweden, for instance, leave no political powers whatsoever to their respective monarchs. And yet, these countries are not considered to be republics, and the Emperor and King are both considered to be heads of state of their respective countries. Furthermore, it is absurd to claim that a country is a republic when the republican movement in the country adamantly denies that they are a republic - at the very least, this makes a claim that the country is a republic POV. john k 18:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Japan and Sweden are what you might call indigenous monarchies, rather than the situation that obtains in Australia, where the Queen of Australia resides on the far side of the world and is generally regarded as the British head of state rather than that of Australia. The Japanese monarch at least has far more of a role in public affairs than does the Queen of Australia, and both Japanese and Swedish monarchs are named within their constitutional enactments as the head of state. In Australia, the title of head of state is a matter of contention.

Let us just say that the credibility of the Australian Republican Movement might best be described as squishy, so demonstrated in the 1999 referendum, when their claims were flatly rejected by the people. The then leader, Malcolm Turnbull, knew from internal polling that he didn't have a snake's chance at the tapdance finals of winning, but the public face he projected until the results came in was all confidence. He admitted this in his book Fighting For the Republic. He also claimed on the night that Prime Minister John Howard was "the man who broke the nation's heart", yet Howard has gone on to win two more elections since then, each time increasing his majority, a result more indicative of winning hearts than breaking them. Membership in the ARM is minimal, perhaps not quite so low as when I joined, but hardly what you might call healthy. It is a fringe organisation nowadays, desperate for any media coverage, and meetings, even here in the national capital, the only polity that voted YES in the referendum, are small gatherings of intimate friends.

I say that Australia is a republic because the best definitions of the word include Australia, and because Australia has been described as "a crowned republic" since Federation. It is hardly an original view. Skyring 20:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stating flatly in the article that Australia is a republic won't fly, because it's obviously disputed. Saying that Australia is sometimes described as "a crowned republic" would be fine with me - this could be worked into the already existing discussion of the republican movement in the "Structure of the government" section. --Michael Snow 21:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, if we do say that I really must insist on who has stated the Australia is "a crowned republic", because I've never heard of it and would like to verify this information! - Ta bu shi da yu 21:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
All I know specifically is that a quick search for the phrase turned up quotes attributed to John Howard, among others, and it seemed reasonable to conclude that the phrase has some currency. I don't know who exactly came up with the phrase - that may be difficult to trace - or who would be the most representative source to use. Howard is very likely not the former, and might not be the latter either, but he's evidence that the phrase is encyclopedic enough to mention. --Michael Snow 22:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Skyring 22:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Constitution says: "A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth." What could be plainer than that? Adam 21:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But you said the fact is that the Constitution says the GG is the Queen's representative. I asked you not to tilt the words towards your own point of view, but it seems you do not understand this. Maybe you feel you can make it up as you go along in the hope that your misrepresentation will not be perceived by your audience? Clearly the Constitution does not use the exact words you boldly claim it does. Looking at s101, where the Constitution plainly states that there shall be an Inter-State Commission, and quite plainly there is no such body in existence, you cannot equate shall be with is. Please, if you are going to quote the Constitution, do so accurately, rather than slanting it towards your own polnt of view. Skyring 22:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Are you disputing that "A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth" is an accurate quotation from the Constitution? In what sense does that quotation not support my contention that "the fact is that the Constitution says the GG is the Queen's representative"? Adam 23:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You stated that the Constitution says something it clearly does not. You said "the fact is that the Constitution says the GG is the Queen's representative". This is not a fact. It is incorrect. I believe I am entitled to complain if you misquote the Constitution to suit your own purposes. Maybe you think the difference is minor, but if so, then why not use the actual words of the document? You can hardly be mistaken after several corrections, including an extended discussion on this very point in another article so I ask what is your purpose in deliberately misquoting the Constitution? Skyring 00:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The questions for Skyring are: In what capacity does the GG represent the Queen? In what capacity does she appoint the GG? Skyring's position is not just absurd, it is also thoroughly dishonest. Adam 21:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adam, I reject your allegations of dishonesty, and ask you to provide an example of a knowingly dishonest statement by me. If you cannot, then I must ask you to apologise.

I asked you to name another country which has two heads of state, one of them appointed by the other, who is also the head of state of another country, which I understood to be your position with regards to Australia. Your answer was "Tibet." Unless you a complete fool (a possibility which I have not hitherto considered, but which is beginning to seem more possible), you know quite well that Tibet is not and has never been an independent state in the modern sense. This answer was thus a dishonest evasion of my question.
There you go again, Adam. Stick to the facts, please. You actually said Can you name a country whose head of state is appointed by the head of state of another country?. This is a different question from what you now claim you said, as anyone, including yourself, can easily check. As far as I am aware, Tibet is a country, and doubtless we can quibble about the definition of what is and is not a nation, but my answer was honestly given, and is, I believe, correct.

I also note the return in your contributions of overt abuse. I really do not think that I should have to put up with this, and I ask you to moderate your temper. Skyring 00:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have a considerable backlog in terms of unanswered questions from you. You make statements and yet when asked to provide evidence, you hurry away. A few paragraphs earlier you accused me of circular arguments, and yet despite my request, you have provided no examples. And no apology from you. We can go back further and further and we find numerous assertions and allegations made by you, unsupported by any evidence. I really don't think you are in a position to demand answers when you refuse to give them yourself. Be fair, please. Skyring 22:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nothing could be plainer. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The invitation is extended to you as well. Skyring 22:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Skyring, no matter what your personal views are on the matter, you should be aware that editing the article to suggest that Australia is a republic is a clear violation of community consensus. You are the only editor to think that these edits are appropriate. Discussing the respective credibility of John Howard or Malcom Turnbull doesn't do anything to advance your point of view as anything other than a single-person POV. Lacrimosus 22:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We've been through this before. The general community is ignorant of constitutional theory and practice. This is hardly surprising, but again I point out the findings of the Civics Expert Group and the subsequent ANOP poll. The references are somewhere in the preceding discussion, and should be easily found with a keyword search. When looking at constitutional scholars, we see that I have considerable support. Noting that public perception differs from informed opinion should, of course, be part of the article. Skyring 23:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Be that as it may, even if we're all wrong, there is an overwhelming consensus, both here and on the mailing list, that Wikipedia should not call Australia a republic. As I explained before, the criterion for entry into Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If Australia is to be called a republic, you must produce an authoritative or official reference to that effect, preferably from the Australian government itself. SlimVirgin 23:15, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
But I've done this. Just what sort of role do you imagine John Howard plays in the nation's affairs? He has repeatedly called Australia a crowned republic and he's the head of government. Be reasonable. Skyring 00:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You have failed to do this, so that's basically the end of the matter. It appears that even the Australian republican movement disagrees with you, a source that might have been expected to echo your position. SlimVirgin 23:15, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Using your logic, you might expect Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy to be busily pumping up the role of the Queen. But they aren't. If you really must use partisan organisations as sources, you surely don't mind if I quote their political opponents for an opinion of equal credibility? Be fair. Skyring 00:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're being a sophist. Howard said this in 1991 when he was the Opposition spokesman on Industrial Relations, which hardly makes him an official source on the form of Australia's govt. In any event, he doesn't back you up when you read the comment in context. Quote below. You must provide a current, official source, and if you can't, the debate is over. SlimVirgin 01:00, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

John Howard, writing in The Sunday Telegraph, said: "The republicans are trying to have it both ways. They want to achieve a fundamental change to Australia's Constitution yet have made the political judgement that the chances of winning that change are much greater if the public are lulled into believing that there is really no change at all. As a democrat I totally accept and respect the right of fellow Australians to advocate a republic. However their advocacy should be upon the basis that Australia will be better off by putting aside the present system. There are many who think it quite incongruous that Australia's head of state should live in the United Kingdom. If so we have lived with that incongruity for a long time and there is little evidence that our independence, self-esteem and dignity as a nation has suffered as a consequence ... In many ways we have at present the best of both worlds. Some describe it as a crowned republic."

John Uhr, a source Skyring points to above, refers to crowned republic as a "corny title", indicating that this usage by Howard and others is a catchphrase rather than an attempt to classify the government in political theory terms. Accordingly, it does not justify bald assertions in the article that Australia is a republic. I have no problem with an appopriate mention of the phrase itself, as I indicated earlier. --Michael Snow 01:05, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

John Howard has repeatedly used the phrase, and he is repeatedly linked to it by both supporters and opponents. In 1997 he said The essence of a republican form of government is that ultimate sovereignty resides in the people, and that all public office holders derive their authority from the people, either through election by the people, or by appointment by officers themselves elected by the people - precisely the form of government we enjoy in Australia. What this means is that we have always been a crowned republic. [5] Skyring 01:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He is using the expression as a rhetorical device, which is clear from the contexts, and which is why I posted the 1991 quote in full. He is advancing a position. Others have called it a nonsensical expression concocted by John Howard. Anyway, I'm not going to debate this with you any more as we're going round in circles. The consensus is clear. That's how Wikipedia works, for better or worse. SlimVirgin 01:36, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/o/v/Talk%7EGovernment_of_Australia_archive_1_db5b.html"