Talk:Government of Australia/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
← Archive 4 |
Archive 5
| Archive 6 →


Contents

POV of Pete

Having looked back on Pete's edits, I have concluded that Pete's edits are mischevious and deliberately and pointlessly provocative, to the point where they border on vandalism. He makes claims without any evidence, yet demands that everyone else, who quote the views of leading lawyers, constitutional experts and state documents, justify their edits. In reality, he is advocating that Wikipedia differ from other sources purely on the basis of his POV. He would need to quote serious, credible sources to justify such a departure, yet has failed to do so, instead perversely demanding that everyone else justify edits that follow standard interpretations by the most senior sources possible.

On reviewing this page, I think you are mistaken about my point of view. You say: "I see no justification in allowing POV edits push the demonstrably untrue and frankly ridiculous claim that the Governor-General is the head of state of Australia."
Where, precisely, have I stated this? This is a figment of your imagination. Nobody here, with the possible exception of an editor two months ago who chose to remain anonymous and not to defend his edits, is claiming that the Governor-General is the sole head of state of Australia. My position, and I reiterate it once again for your benefit, is that my personal opinion - whatever that might be - is irrelevant to a Wikipedia article. You, me, everyone should eschew original research and instead compile the article from recognised sources. It is a matter of demonstrable fact that there are three distinct views regarding who is the head of state, each with arguments to be made for and against. It is basic Wikipedia policy to write articles using an NPOV approach, something you either don't understand or don't want to put into practice. Pete 10:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The claim that the Governor-General of Australia is the head of state was pushed largely by the pro-monarchist side of the argument in the referendum, most notably by Sir David Smith. It was a very clever tactic, but nevertheless it was a tactic, based on a campaign-motivated bit of spin and some highly dubious claims that do not stand up to objective scrutiny. Nor did serious and credible figures on the monarchist side actually make the claim.

Do tell? Here are some of the leaders of Australia's monarchists:
  • David Flint: "The republican argument that we did not have an Australian Head of State was undermined completely by the fact that the Governor-General is treated internationally as our Head of State. The Keating government had formally declared him to be precisely that. In other words we already have a resident Australian Head of State."[[1]] "Hence the Governor-General from 1926 exercises the functions of and is therefore the Head of State."[2]
  • Kerry Jones: "So, in a crisis, such as in 1975 when the Governor-General dismissed the Prime Minister, it would no longer be clear who would be the more powerful! It would depend on who moved first. And we might not be able to work that out if each claimed they sacked the other first. We would be sacrificing our non-political Australian Head of State - the Governor-General - as an umpire above politics, for an apparently very powerful political President in formal terms, but one with no security of tenure."[3]
  • Sophie Panopoulos: "Clearly, the Governor-General is our Australian Head of State. "[4]
  • Tony Abbott (as mentioned by Kerry O'Brien):"Take the media eruption of calling the governor-general head of state, pursued in the papers, the ABC and commercial media. Simon Crean now refers to the office as the head of state. So what is going on? It has been a long-range monarchist strategy, championed by Tony Abbott among others, to argue the governor-general is the head of state as a way of killing the republican debate."[5]
  • Malcolm Mackerras: "I have always taught my students that the Queen is the sovereign and the governor-general is the Australian head of State." [6]
And so it goes. Do you want to wipe the egg off your face now, or let it solidify? Pete 10:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Is your case so weak you have to use as sources not primary sources, legal documents, leading constitutional experts but a Melbourne barrister, a former chairman of the Australian Press Council, the Executive Director of Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy and a lecturer. Talk about scraping the barrel for evidence! FearÉIREANN\(talk) 21:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
My case? That's not my case. I'm merely proving your ignorance. You said that serious and credible monarchists didn't claim that the Governor-General was the head of state. I have just given you verifiable quotes by the leaders of the monarchists in Australia where they say precisely what you claim they don't. Pete 22:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Reading Smith's speeches one cannot but notice how he subtlely defined the role of a head of state in a way that suited the claim the governor-general without mentioning the clear evidence that shows the governor-general is not a head of state (eg, the elementary diplomatic role. Only a head of state can sign a Letter of Credence. It can only be addressed to a head of state. Letters of Credence from foreign ambassadors to Australia are all signed by the native head of state and addressed to Queen Elizabeth II, never to the Governor-General. If the Governor-General was a head of state, he would be able to sign letters of credence and have them addressed to him. He isn't and can never be unless made a head of state).

But aren't you doing exactly the same thing by defining the role in a way that suits your argument? Why are you criticising Smith for a tactic that you yourself use? Pete 10:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
I am quoting elementary facts. Because they show the bankrupcy of your arguments you don't like them. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 21:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Just slow down, big fellow! My argument here is that you criticise Smith for using a certain tactic, but you are using precisely the same tactic. You want to define "head of state" to support your view, but when someone else does it, you sink the boot in. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy. Pete 22:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The claim that the Governor-General is head of state is demonstrable nonsense and not taken seriously by credible sources.

In fact the official Commonwealth Government Directory has listed the Governor-General as head of state for many years, alternating between Queen and Governor-General to no discernible pattern. Major metropolitan and national papers routinely describe the Governor-General as head of state. It appears to me that your own opinion borders on zealotry, where you describe the opinions of others in derogatory terms, and praise those who share your view. May I suggest that you restrain yourself to observing the facts, rather than injecting opinion into every statement? Pete 17:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The most that can be said is that he acts like a head of state, or is a de facto head of state. But as anyone with the slightest grasp of constitutional law knows, being a de facto anything doesn't mean you are it, merely that act like it in certain circumstances.

Tell that to the vast number of defacto wives around the world. And just quietly, but I suggest that one could read any number of constitutional textbooks (and thereby gain a slight grasp of constitutional law) without encountering the term "defacto". In fact, I challenge you to come up with an example. Pete 10:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
So you equate the Governor-General to common law wives, do you?
Hardly! I'm saying that a defacto wife doesn't "act like a wife". A defacto wife is a wife. Just not a legally married one. Pete 22:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
BTW it is actually de facto (two words, in Latin) not something you seem to think is called defacto. What next, de governorgeneral? :-) FearÉIREANN\(talk) 21:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Ah yes. You said elsewhere that this was "another fundamental error" on my part. I don't actually give a tinker's cuss whether it's de facto, defacto, de facto or the Manly ferry. I think we all know precisely what I mean. That's not important, except insofar as you are using it to evade the point. Pete 22:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Nor is the claim that the words head of state don't feature in the constitution of any relevance whatsoever. Most countries do not use that terminology in their constitutions. An Irish Oireachtas all-party committee on the constitution considered whether to add those words in to the Irish constitution a decade ago. They judged it unnecessary. The President of Ireland is clearly the Irish head of state - it does not have to be written in the constitution.

What a spurious argument! Clearly there is a division of opinion within Australia, even if the people of Ireland are all of one mind. Pete 10:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Nor is Queen Elizabeth called the head of state in any British law. She just is because she exercises the diplomatic and constitutional functions of the head of state.

So, using your own logic, wouldn't you say that in Australia, the Governor-General just is because he exercises the diplomatic and constitutional functions of the head of state? Pete 10:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Except it is demonstrably clear that he doesn't.
Demonstrate away, my hearty! Pete 22:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
He does not exercise the standard diplomatic functions that are a key part of a head of state's role. If you don't do that, you ain't no head of state! FearÉIREANN\(talk) 21:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
He does, actually. What standard diplomatic or constitutional function doesn't he exercise? Pete 22:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Where the majority of serious scholars, all state documents, all Attorneys-General, etc say categorically that the Queen of Australia head of state, one cannot overrule it just because Pete disagrees, especially when, while demanding that everyone else produce evidence to justify stating what all state documents say, he has been unable to produce credible evidence himself to justify his opinion,

And just what is my opinion, I wonder? I say that there is a diversity of opinion amongst constitutional scholars, a fact easily demonstrated. Pete 10:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

an opinion that is held by a tiny minority of lawyers and writers, and not endorsed by any major figures. (And where it is claimed that some major figure has done so - Smith quoted a few, Pete quoted George Winterton - a quick review of what they actually said shows that their opinions are different to what is being claimed for them.)

As a matter of fact, unlike you, I make no interpretation. I rely on their words. Pete 10:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Either Pete is seriously misinformed about the issue (and he certainly seems not to understand the difference between de jure and de facto), and genuinely trying to push his misinformed interpretations, or he is just being deliberately provocative. Unfortunately the Australian constitutional pages do have a habit of attracting people pushing their own POV. (One even claimed that, as the word 'commonwealth' originally meant 'republic' in the 17th century, the Commonwealth of Australia is a republic. I forget but I think he may have had to be banned to stop his weird POVing of the page.

If Pete seriously believes that GG is a head of state, he needs to produce rock solid evidence to that effect - from major league players like former attorneys-general, prime ministers, governors-general, state documents, legal enactments, etc. Until he does I see no justification in allowing POV edits push the demonstrably untrue and frankly ridiculous claim that the Governor-General is the head of state of Australia. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 23:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

And once again, I ask just where am I supposed to be pushing this claim? Pete 10:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

May I politely suggest that you look back through the compendious archives on this article? I've produced good sources for all three views and addressed all the issues you raise. Perhaps you might care to apologise once you have done so.

As for POV, I'm not pushing any position, nor making claims of my own. I haven't done so here, nor in the article, and frankly, I wonder why you are making claims that are so demonstrably false. I feel that the article should reflect current constitutional reality. Pete 00:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Good sources? I'd hate to see bad sources then. Nothing you quote remotely suggests what you seem to suggest it does. You seem, to put it politely, to have an extraordinarily hazy understanding of what a head of state is, what a governor-general is, and the fact every one of the powers, functions and duties are not by definition head of state jobs. They may be done by heads of state, but the fact that you do them does not automatically make you a head of state as they have in the past been exercised by colonial governors who most definitely were not heads of state. The only absolutely unique head of state role is the role in diplomacy. If you do it, you are unambiguously a head of state. If you don't, you aren't. The Governor-General doesn't do it. Therefore he isn't. And you have not produced one cintilla of evidence to suggest otherwise. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 00:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Some examples of diplomatic reference to heads of state:

Toasts to the Queen of Australia as head of state, not to the Governor-General

Gough Whitlam in 1973 on the Queen of Australia's role with Letters of Credence

However, the Letters of Credence which Australian Heads of Mission present to the Head of State of the country to which they are being accredited, and also the Letters of Recall of their predecessors, will continue to be signed by Her Majesty as the Australian Head of State. Her role in this regard will, however, be made much clearer by the proposed amendment of the Royal Style and Titles, whereby the only country named is Australia.

Similarly, Letters of Credence and Letters of Recall from foreign countries, being communications between Heads of State, will continue to be addressed to Her Majesty though they will, of course, be accepted by the Governor-General on the Queen?s behalf.

The system was changed in 1987, so that it is the Governor-General who exercises the prerogative powers of the Queen in regard to the appointment and acceptance, or recall, of diplomatic representatives and the execution of all instruments relating thereto. However he does not do it on his own behalf, much less as head of state. He does so by means of exercising the prerogative powers of the Queen, in her name and on her behalf. Heads of state don't exercise such a role in some other head of state's name. If the Governor-General was a head of state, he would be able to do it in his own name, on his own authority. The fact that he can't shows yet again that he is not a head of state. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 02:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you could address the points I raise, rather than attempt to push your POV, as if repeating the same arguments that failed earlier will somehow eventually result in a different outcome. That would move the discussion forward.

There are three distinct points of view on the question of who is the head of state, and while you have quoted very good sources for one view, you seem to think that this rules out all others. It does no such thing. You are in the position of a Christian trying to prove that Christianity is the one true religion with a line of arguments beginning "The Bible clearly states...". Or a Roman Catholic quoting the Pope to "prove" that other Christian denominations are misguided. Can you see the point I am making here?

And while you are at it, please go through the previous discussion. You are clearly at a disadvantage by coming in late. Pete 02:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I have read it and not found one iota of evidence to support your claims, just plenty of evidence that you are confused over what a head of state is. And BTW I am not trying to push any POV. I am pointing out the facts. You however have given no credible sources whatsoever to justify why Wikipedia should ignore the consensus views of prime ministers Gough Whitlam, Paul Keating and John Howard, every Australian governor-general who has ever been appointed, all Australian attorneys-general, all Australian government departments, respected academics, textbooks, sourcebooks, diplomatic references, diplomatic usage, etc etc etc. Nor for that matter are Wikipedians queuing to agree with you. In fact going by past talk pages they have been queuing to say categorically 'you are wrong'. What exactly is your evidence that your POV is right? We are all waiting for some evidence to back up your highly questionable claims. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 02:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Clearly you have NOT read the discussion. John Howard supports the "two heads of state" view, former Governor-General Bill Hayden described his office as that of head of state, the Australian Government directory described the Governor-General as head of state, many prominent constitutional scholars support other views beyond the "Queen as sole head of state" view. The list goes on and on, all documented with checkable sources. Go back, read the discussion with an open mind, check the sources. And please, stick to the facts. By (to be polite) eschewing intellectual honesty, you do your argument, such as it is, no good at all. Pete 04:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Just to get back to Skyring's original, and completely absurd question, the reason that the queen being "Queen of Australia" confirms her status as head of state is because of, well, the meanings of the words "Queen" and "head of state." By definition, a reigning monarch is the head of state of the country of which they are a reigning monarch. That is what a monarch is. If a monarch is not the head of state of a country, they are not its monarch, either. To say that the (reigning) queen of a country is its head of state is simply a tautology. Head of state, btw, is defined by Princeton University's "WordNet" (as found on dictionary.com) as the "chief public representative" of a state. It seems clear that this role belongs purely to the queen in Australia. john k 04:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, it's a tautotlogy, but he is asking specific references for it as such — which I don't find particularly intellectually honest, that, as well as his continued evasion over what constitutes scholarly consensus in relation to the scholars he seems to be promoting here. El_C 04:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
I think he is also misrepresenting the positions of people. Just because they say that in some de facto sense the Governor-General is kind of head of state does not mean that, if you asked John Howard and so forth who the head of state of Australia is, they would not say that it is the Queen. At the very least, he has not demonstrated that they would do so. john k 17:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, John! Can I likewise refer you to the previous discussions where I have done exactly that? John Howard is a public figure and his various speeches and interviews are pretty easy to find, so finding a checkable source isn't difficult. If you really want to find the truth.
John Howard in 1995 referred to the Governor-General as a politically-neutral head of state. He wasn't talking about the Queen. In 1999 he said: "The Queen is Queen of Australia. However, under our present constitution, the Governor-General is effectively Australia?s head of state."[7]
It is clear, looking at his many public statements, that John Howard holds the "two heads of state" view, inclining towards the Governor-General rather more than the Queen. I think the difficulty that some people are having is with the words "effective" or "defacto", and they are seizing on that to say that a 2HOS position is effectively a "Queen as sole head of state" view. I trust that by bolding the word I can demonstrate the intellectual dishonesty in that position. You can't use the word "effectively" to mean two opposite things in the one breath. Not without demonstrating your hypocrisy, anyway.
As I said, research on the statements of public figures is not difficult, and it soon becomes apparent that most constitutional scholars see Australia as having two heads of state, usually inclining to Queen or Governor-General as to whom they consider more important, and that they generally use words such as "effective" or "de jure" or "symbolic" to differentiate between them. Professor George Winterton has been mentioned here once or twice as a clear example of the 2HOS position, and it is worth repeating his words for the benefit of those too lazy to look them up in the preceding discussion: "'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."[8]
It is with some amusement that I see that one or two of the editors say they support Professor Winterton, but they then reject his position by stripping away the qualifying words he takes pains to use. I point out the bald use of "head of state" in the article to refer to the Queen, a usage that Winterton would reject, insisting that the words be qualified if the article is to be correct in his eyes.
As I tiresomely continue to point out, there are three views on who is Australia's head of state:
  • Queen as sole head of state - a position supported my most of the population, based on whose head is on the coins.
  • Queen and Governor-General as heads of state - the view of most constitutional scholars, qualifying their usage to reflect the different roles of the two.
  • Governor-General as sole head of state - the position of monarchists, with Sir David Smith as their most visible spokesman, although newspapers and government directories will occasionally say that the Governor-General is the head of state.
My problem with the article is that saying that the Queen is the head of state is clearly a POV position, and is therefore incorrect Wikipedia usage. It is the same problem we might see in an article on religion, and the solution is to be aware of the existence of several points of view rather than to choose one and ignore or denigrate the others. Pete 19:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey, it's not me you have to convince. All I'm doing is pointing out that there are three differing opinions amongst Australian constitutional scholars. That's a matter of solid fact. Pete 04:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Yet again you have simply showed that you don't know what a head of state is. Every single reference you use is qualified - de facto, effective, etc. Not one source you have referred to says she is head of state. Everyone qualifies it to mean that the Governor-General acts like a head of state. But acting like a head of state is different to being a head of state. (When Tony Blair and John Prescott are both abroad, Gordon Brown acts as the effective prime minister. That does not mean he is prime minister. When the Queen is abroad, the Prince of Wales and other Counsellors of State act as the de facto monarch and head of state. But that does not mean that Prince Charles, Prince Andrew, Prince Philip etc are all monarchs or heads of state. The simply are the effective monarch and head of state in the Queen's absence.

You are astonishingly illinformed about the meaning of the terms you bandy about. So far you have not produced so much as one source that says, without qualification, that the Governor-General is the head of state. All you have produced are people who say, correctly, that in the absence of the Queen, the Governor-General in effect acts as the head of state. In the absence of a head of state, someone always acts effectively as their stand-in. But no-where on the planet is that stand-in ever thought to be head of state. It is tedious having to repeatedly point the patiently absurd thesis at the heart of your claim, and to see your constant mispresentation, or misunderstanding, of the statements of people like Howard, Hayden, etc. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 21:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Cripes, it's like trying to tell a Mormon that there are other points of view besides his. Are you honestly not understanding the points I raise? Pete 22:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

You aren't raising any points. You are simply misquoting documents, misquoting politicians, misunderstanding quotes of politicians and completely mis-understanding what a head of state is. And you still haven't actually produced any evidence, merely misinterpretations by you of other people's opinions. It isn't about other points of view. It is about facts. All the top lawyers, legal people, politicians, government agencies, campaigners on both sides of the 'republic' debate and others say one thing. You say another, but everytime you provide 'evidence' it is shown to be based on your misinterpretation of something and when examined actually shows that your source also takes the opposite view to you. You seriously need a crash course in constitutional law, legal terminology and the use of language, because you keep getting the elementary usage of legal language wrong. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 23:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I see. Well, let's try a different tack. You quoted Professor George Winterton earlier. He said: "'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."[9]

Do you agree with his position? Pete 23:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I've been asked to contribute here, but I'm not sure there's much more I can say. That the Queen of Australia is the Head of State of Australia would seem to be self-evident, and I can only conclude that anyone who is arguing that she is not (including any supposed "expert" quoted above) is completely unaware of what a Head of State (or a Queen, for that matter) actually is.

I see. You think that the Prime Minister, John Howard, doesn't know what he is talking about, and that Professor George Winterton, one of Australia's pre-eminent constitutional scholars, is not an expert. Pete 23:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

(Incidentally, it seems to me that the notion that Her Majesty's representative in Australia, purely on the basis of carrying out most of the functions of Her Majesty in Australia, thereby assumes her status in that country would seem to indicate that the Pope, who according to Roman Catholic doctrine is God's representative on Earth and has God's most fundamental powers delegated to him by Jesus through the Apostolic Succession, is (according the Roman Catholic Church) in fact the omnipotent ruler of the universe. Rather nice for Benedict, I'm sure, but probably not quite an accurate representation of the situation.) Proteus (Talk) 22:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The nature of the Governor-General's representation of the Queen is extremely limited these days. It boils down to a few matters of honours and legation. The limited form of this representation was explained in a 1988 Constitutional Commission report, that concluded "the Governor-General is in no sense a delegate of the Queen. The independence of the office is highlighted by changes which have been made in recent years to the Royal instruments relating to it".[10] Pete 23:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

But that still doesn't make him a head of state. The President of Ireland between 1938 and 1949 carried out far more functions, and was not appointed by the King, but he didn't become the head of state until a republic was declared in 1949. All it means is that he carries out some functions usually but not exclusively carried out by heads of state. But until all heads of state functions are given to him, until he is appointed by some other means other than by the Queen of Australia, and until he does not have to take an Oath of Allegiance to the Queen, and until the Queen is removed completely from all constitutional and statute law, he remains a representative of a head of state, not a head of state himself. It is rather elementary constitutional law. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 00:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

George Winterton's actual views

Shrug. Why on earth are you trying to argue with me on this? You're more and more Mormon-like. My opinion doesn't matter in the slightest. Nor does yours. We can't do original research. Do you agree with Professor Winterton's position as stated above? Pete 01:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course. But then it does not mean what you seem to think it does. Your inbility to understand it is puzzling, to put it mildly. So lets look at it.

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.

  • Australia's legal or formal head of state is the Queen. That meaning of that is obvious. The head of state in law is the Queen. And as a head of state is by definition a legal office, that means, as George meant it to mean, as he has said so often, the head of state is the Queen. It couldn't be clearer.
  • The Governor-General is the effective or de facto head of state Again, a perfectly clear phrase. A de facto head of state is someone who in practice acts as head of state. That is self-evident. But as George has pointed out ad nausaum, and as every constitutional writer under the sun knows, acting as a head of state doesn't mean you are the head of state, merely that you are acting in a similar capacity, just as if the US constitution allows the US Vice-President in specific circumstances to act as president. He fulfils all the powers and functions of the presidency, but does not himself become president; he acts as a duly authorised stand-in. His role in the position of US head of state is clearer, as he under a constitutional amendment would carry out all the powers, functions and duties of the President of the United States, but would not be actually be president. In contrast the Governor-General, even in his de-facto head of state capacity, does not possess all the powers, functions and duties (some are still possessed by the Queen) and even then he signs them not in his own capacity but in his representative capacity, having been deemed a representative under the constitution and taken both an oath of allegiance and oath of office explicitly state his representational, not possessional, role. Similarly when the members of the Presidential Commision in Ireland assume responsibilities for the presidency of Ireland, they don't become president; they become an acting collective temporary presidency. Ditto with Counsellors of State in the UK.

George quite normally draws the distinction between the de jure and de facto roles, as would any professional lawyer. However he goes further and qualifies even the de facto claim, lest anyone misunderstand him as claiming there are two heads of states, when he makes it clear that there aren't, by saying that even the de facto role is restricted internally within the Commonwealth, by speaking of the Commonwealth, but not of Australia. In other words, the Governor-General acts as, not is, the head of state, but only within the constitutional and legal framework as defined by constitutional and statute law, as well as Letters Patent, within the structures of the Commonwealth. He does only what legally he can do internally. But in no sense, even de facto is he the embodiment of Australia, merely of the governmental structures internally of the Commonwealth.

George's own language makes clear that the Queen is the legal head of state, and no one else. The Governor-General acts like a head of state in a narrow sphere bound by legal frameworks, but he is not the legal de jure head of state and his de facto role is highly restricted, with the Queen not just the de jure head of state, but also the de facto head of state for Australia as a whole.

The meaning is quite clear, as anyone with a modicum of legal knowledge or understanding of constitutional and legal terminology knows. Put into non-legal language, it reads The Queen is the head of state of Australia. The Governor-General acts in some contexts like a head of state, but it is all within the strict legal and constitutional limits laid down by enactments and internally within the Commonweath, and hinges on his being the representative of the person those constitutional and statute laws define as head of state, which is the Queen of Australia.

I think you need a crash course in elementary law, my friend. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 01:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll take that as a long-winded YES to my question. However you summarise (a summary longer than the original, how revealing!) Winterton's position by saying "The Queen is the head of state". My point is that Winterton does not use those words - he always qualifies his usage. By turning his "two heads of state" position into a "Queen as sole head of state" position do you not think that you are taking too much upon yourself? After all Professor Winterton is an eminent and widely-respected authority on Australian constitutional practice, and you are, what, precisely...?

Just incidentally, it seems you didn't read Professor Winterton's essay, because the reason the Governor-General is the effective head of state of the Commonwealth but not of Australia is because the Governor-General has no role within the government of the various States and Australia is a federation. The Queen gets a guernsey in every State constitution, but the Governor-General doesn't. Pete 02:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Game, set and match to Jtdirl. (Skyring's other favourite authority, Bill Hayden, says (memoirs, 522): "First and foremost, the governor-general represents the Crown in Australia, as provided by the Constitution.") Adam 02:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam! I'm relying on you to be a model of politeness for our latest recruit. Bill Hayden uses that mischevious word "the Crown", rather than "the Queen", I notice, and as an ex-policeman he would know that "the Crown" cannot be equated with "the monarch". Pete 02:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The point (as you know quite well) is that Hayden says clearly that the GG is not a head of state, but merely a representative, thus contradicting you. I will check back after lunch for your detailed refutation of Jtdirl's comprehensive demolition of your position. Adam 02:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Where, precisely, does Bill Hayden say clearly that he is not a head of state? Do you have a checkable quote for this? I have just read the chapter you mentioned and it is not in there. Perhaps it is elsewhere? I skimmed over the tales of Bill's childhood and may have missed seeing it there. I await your guidance.

My position is that there are three views on who is the Australian head of state and jtdirl has not addressed this. I would like him to do so, but he seems to enjoy addressing points not raised by me. Perhaps he finds this easier. It is certainly more entertaining. Pete 02:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I guess you didn't pay attention during logic 101 either. You claimed that Hayden said he was a head of state, so you have to provide the quotation. I don't have to prove a negative. Hayden doesn't say he's not a Martian, either, but that's not evidence that he is one. Adam 03:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

You said: "Hayden says clearly that the GG is not a head of state". Where does he say this clearly? I'm not asking you to prove a negative. You've said he made a specific statement and I'm again asking you to supply a checkable source to match your claim.

You've also said that I claimed that Hayden said he was a head of state. I did no such thing. I have pointed out, quite accurately, that he equates his office with that of the head of state. He does this several times from p515 of his memoirs on. He did not claim specifically that he was the head of state. Pete 05:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

This is incredibly pointless. Can we just commence to ignoring Mr. Skyring and reverting him if he tries to insert his nonsense into articles? john k 04:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, John! As you are the fellow who thinks the Prime Minister and Professor George Winterton don't know what a head of state is, then may I suggest that your self-confessed shilling is not helping us produce a better encyclopaedia? Pete 05:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Just replying to myself here. On checking what John K said and didn't say in this debate, I find that I somehow confused him for Proteus, an obvious and ignorant shill in this discussion. My apologies, John! I'll let my comments stand so my error is made obvious. Pete 22:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
You also owe an apology to Proteus. Wikipedia:no personal attacks. -Willmcw 22:43, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm. I don't think so. Proteus self-confesses his shilling and is clearly ignorant in this discussion. Nobody else here thinks that the Prime Minister and an eminent constitutional expert don't know what a head of state is. However, as he hasn't returned to continue shilling for whoever invited him, and may be well-informed on other areas, then I will admit that I may have been hasty in my assessment. Pete 23:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I simply have a far lower troll-threshold than the others. I'm very impressed with Jtdirl, Adam and others' attempts to persuade you, but it was obvious to me instantly that you were not going to back down from your ridiculus viewpoint, so I saw little point in attempting to argue further (especially when my knowledge of these matters would lead me to be echoing Jtdirl's arguments). I concur with the "ignore and revert" policy that others are advocating. Proteus (Talk) 06:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm. What is my "ridiculus viewpoint"? I've asked several times, but it seems that nobody can say what it is. Whereas I quoted the Prime Minister and an eminent constitutional scholar and you said they were "completely unaware of what a Head of State (or a Queen, for that matter) actually is." Pete 01:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I second John's motion. I think it will need to be put up for a vote, and then the majority decision enforced, if necessary by protecting the article and/or blocking those who flout the decision. This procedure has been frequently followed at other articles. Adam 07:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Ignoring Skyring is not necessarily that reasonable a course of action and is contrary to ideas of cooperative editing. It discourages new users. What I would do however, is to point out to Skyring that what he is trying to change is really inconsequential. The use of words here really make no difference to the meaning. However, if you must, you could vote on the choice of words and have that enforced. Xtra 08:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Reasonable courses of action are reasonable when dealing with reasonable people, and co-operative editing is fine when dealing with co-operative people. Skyring, however, is a troll and a pest whose egotism, dishonesty and malice have been demonstrated over a long period of time. Firmer measures are therefore in order. Adam 10:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Adam, you have continually abused and insulted me, despite repeated warnings to the contrary. You accuse me of egotism, but again I say that my opinion doesn't matter. Neither does yours. We must rely on verifiable sources and not the opinions of editors. You accuse me of dishonesty, but when pressed, you cannot come up with any dishonest statements of mine. I ask you for sources and they are not provided. This is very poor behaviour as an editor.

What this whole talk page currently boils down to is myself asking for sources to back up disputed statements in the article. Unsourced, these statements amount to original research and POV pushing. It seems bizarre to propose voting to support or reject fundamental Wikipedia principles.

Voting is a good method of gauging consensus. If you believe there's a problem with original research and POV, yet there's a consensus who see it otherwise, then you should register your disagreement and then simply drop it. We don't use editors' opinions to decide issues covered by an article, but we can and should use editors' opinions about whether something is original research or POV. The insults that are coming your direction are unacceptable, but you should realise that pushing an editing issue against consensus is also unacceptable, and likely to induce hostility. — Matt Crypto 11:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I am quite happy to accept verifiable sources for statements, but these have not been provided and instead, as anyone may see, abuse, threats, obfuscation and evasion have been piled up instead. Let me go back to the point I raised originally: I can't find any past or current source that says that giving the Queen the title "Queen of Australia" confirmed her as Australia's head of state. Can anybody find a source that confirms this precise statement?

Otherwise, I think we should go with the non-contentious wording "Recognising this, the Australian Parliament in 1973 gave the Queen the title Queen of Australia, thus confirming her status as Australia's monarch." Pete 10:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I will say this one more time, and then I will just watch for your edits and revert them when they contradict the consensus of opinion at this page. The statement "Recognising this, the Australian Parliament in 1973 gave the Queen the title Queen of Australia, thus confirming her status as Australia's monarch" does not require "verifiable sources." It is a simple statement of fact. Adam 10:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

That's what I said, Adam. "Recognising this, the Australian Parliament in 1973 gave the Queen the title Queen of Australia, thus confirming her status as Australia's monarch". It's my proposed wording, as you can easily see above. I have no difficulty with this. Pete 11:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

A "monarch" is, by definition a head of state. In a monarchy, no person other than the monarch can be the head of state. That's what a monarchy is - a state whose head of state is a monarch. Therefore, since the Queen of Australia is Australia's monarch, she must be Australia's head of state. I don't know how I can put this more simply for you. This is reinforced by all the authorities and sources Jrtdl cited above, and which you have simply ignored (which is why I call you dishonest). Adam 10:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I have not ignored jtdirl's quotes, as I pointed out to him above they were good ones. How you think this is dishonest of me is difficult to imagine. Again, I ask you to provide an example of a dishonest statement made by me, or if you cannot find one, then do the decent thing, admit error and apologise.

Jtdirl's quotes just don't provide the verifiable source I asked for. As I have demonstrated by referring to respected constitutional scholars, there are three different points of view and the "Queen as sole head of state" view is just one of them. You may insist off your own bat that the monarch is the unqualified head of state, and you may do it as often and as forcefully as you want, but the fact remains that many constitutional scholars disagree with you. Pete 11:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that I picked up the wrong sentence. The sentence I meant to use is: "Recognising this, the Australian Parliament in 1973 gave the Queen the title Queen of Australia, thus confirming her status as Australia's head of state". The points I made above still apply. A Queen (regnant) is a monarch and thus by definition a head of state. It is untrue that "many constitutional scholars" say otherwise. Adam 11:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with Adam here. Xtra 13:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see that Adam admits an error! However it is a verifiable fact that many constitutional scholars reject the "Queen as sole head of state" view. Professor George Winterton is typical of those who hold the "Two heads of state" view, and he is far from alone. I really think that we need to have authoritative sources rather than our own personal opinions, and to adopt an NPOV approach to cater for the several and distinct views. That's the Wiki way.

Saying that a monarch is automatically the sole head of state is simplistic, counter to expert opinion as shown, and really only fits those cases where the monarch is personally resident. Places like the UK, Norway, Holland and so on don't have any equivalent to the Governor-General figure we have.

The guts of it is that we have a distant and powerless Queen, whose special role in Australian affairs is pretty much zero - about the same as for any other British Commonwealth country, including those like India where she doesn't get a guernsey in the Constitution - and a resident Australian Governor-General with significant powers in his own right and whose job as the Queen's representative has shrunk over the years to almost nothing. If the UK had a powerless monarch and a powerful Governor-General, they would be having exactly the same discussion there. Pete 18:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism of Pete

Pete's lack of understanding of elementary constitutional theory is almost as astonishing as his ungoing inability of understand Winterton's views and determination to misrepresent them at every opportunity. One Wikipedian elsewhere referred to his pushing of your wacky version of constitutional law here as "what would have to the greatest display of idiocy (or just plain thick-headedness) I’ve ever come across at Wikipedia." He have consistently failed to offer one iota of evidence to back up your claims. Whatever so-called evidence he produces is either (i) out of context, (ii) means the exact opposite of what he claims. At this stage his determination to push an agenda without hard evidence, and to deliberately misrepresent the writings of people like George Winterton, amounts to borderline vandalism and should be treated as such. Those who disagree with him include

  • three former prime ministers (Hawke, Keating and Howard),
  • successive Governors-General,
  • all Attorneys-General,
  • all government departments,
  • all primary documentation,
  • academics like Professors Vernon Bogdanor and George Winterton,
  • the Queen herself, and
  • every state in the word in their Letters of Credence and letters of recall.

In addition every contributor here has told him he is wrong. All attempts by Pete to misrepresent the evidence should be treated as vandalism in future unless he actually can show some credible evidence. At this stage all he does is ignore everyone else and the long list of evidence, and keep repeat ad nausaum demonstrable factual inaccuracies, gross misrepresentations and laughably inaccurate claims about what a head of state actually is. Yet still he inserts his POV stuff into the article. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 21:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the section title back to highlight my point. I'm not pushing a POV. You've accused me of making claims and promoting a POV, but I'm not. I'm pointing out that in current Australian constitutional scholarship there are three distinct points of view.

You give a list of people and groups you say disagree with me, but I ask just what view or statement of mine do you think they are disagreeing with?

Come on. I lay the gauntlet down. You say I "keep repeat ad nausaum demonstrable factual inaccuracies, gross misrepresentations and laughably inaccurate claims" (sic). I deny this utterly. Please provide, with edit links and my words verbatim, an example of each of the above:

No edit links provided. Oh well, don't blame me if this gets messier than it already is. Pete 06:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

demonstrable factual inaccuracy

  • Adam's third claim, that most authorities see the Queen as head of state has been modified to read that it is a traditional view. I'll accept this, but it needs to be made clear that this is either an outmoded view or the view of the general people rather than informed opinion.
    • So the Governor-General, former Governor-General, the Prime Minister, former Prime Ministers, the Attorney-General, former Attorney-General, the Queen, the Republic Advisory Committee, various parliamentary reports, the Department of Foreign Affairs and all states on the planet who accredit ambassadors to the Queen, not the Governor-General, don't count as informed opinion, whereas your source, a retired civil servant, does. Get real.

The traditional view is that the Queen is the head of state. That's the view of the people, based on uninformed tradition or folklore. Typically you will see people referring to the fact that the Queen's head is on the currency, or the unthinking claim that a monarch is automatically head of state. Perhaps you should do some more research and find the modified statement from the article to which I was referring.

Nevertheless, I can see the point you are attempting to make. Perhaps you should have found a less ambiguous statement to base your case on.

Some of the sources you hint at above don't subscribe to the "Queen as sole head of state" view. Notably the Prime Minister. I've mentioned him before and provided a quote. You don't think it's a little audacious to rely on sources that don't support you?

John Howard in 1995 referred to the Governor-General as a politically-neutral head of state. He wasn't talking about the Queen. In 1999 he said: "The Queen is Queen of Australia. However, under our present constitution, the Governor-General is effectively Australia?s head of state."[11]

It is clear, looking at his many public statements, that John Howard holds the "two heads of state" view, inclining towards the Governor-General rather more than the Queen. Other constitutional scholars likewise hold this view. However, I think you will agree with me that my position is that views are divided. You may refer to or hint at as many supporters of one view as you think you can get away with, but this does not rule out the existence of other points of view. Pete 06:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

  • the Queen is less of a head of state than she is in the UK or other nations such as New Zealand or Canada, and the Governor-General is more of a head of state than in those same nations.
    • Preposterous claim, with no major credible source provided.

You say it's a demonstrable factual inaccuracy, but you don't demonstrate this. Please do so.

In order to assist you, here are links to

From the Australian Constitution: s61 The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.

From the Canadian Constitution: s9 The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

From the New Zealand Constitution: s3 (1) Every power conferred on the Governor-General by or under any Act is a royal power which is exercisable by the Governor-General on behalf of the Sovereign, and may accordingly be exercised either by the Sovereign in person or by the Governor-General.

The reason why I say that the Queen is less a head of state here than she is elsewhere is because in the UK, Canada and New Zealand, she may exercise all prerogative and constitutional powers, whereas in Australia she may exercise only those constitutional powers specifically given to her, and those prerogative powers not specifically assigned to the Governor-General. In the UK, Canada and New Zealand, she is a powerful head of state. Here in Australia she is an all but powerless figurehead, with most of her important powers given to and exercised by the Governor-General alone. Pete 06:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

  • also take expetion to the description of the Governor-General as merely the Queen's representative.
    • D'oh. That is what the constitution says. Section 9.2. A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may 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. Yes that sounds so much like a head of state, doesn't it! lol

Where is the factual inaccuracy? The Governor-General is more than merely the representative of the Queen. For one thing, he exercises his powers in his own right, not that of a delegate. He does not take instructions from the Queen. His powers are his own, and far from merely possessing those which the Queen may be pleased to assign to him, she may not remove, add to, nor modify his constitutional powers in any way. s128 gives that power to we the people, not the Queen.

I do not dispute that he is the representative of the Queen in some things, but in many other aspects of his job he acts in his own right. He is not merely the Queen's representative. Pete 06:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

repetition

  • Are you going to provide verifiable sources, Adam?
  • Are you going to provide verifiable sources, Adam?
  • I'm asking for a checkable source for the statement. Pete 07:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • And must I ask for a source once again?
    • I note that Adam has participated in today's discussion and I take this opportunity to ask if he intends to provide any verifiable sources for his wording in the Head of State section.

Come on, mate. You've made a claim. Please verify it. If you can. Pete 23:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not too sure that highlighting Adam's unwillingness to provide sources when asked is a particularly useful tacic on your part. Pete 06:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

    • While you demanded sources to justify using standard view, your own sources were noticeably absent, and when used were either not supportive of your view or were nothing more credible than magazine articles and media reports.

So you say. But the fact is that I provide checkable sources to back up my claims,. as no doubt you would have discovered when trawling through the archives. Pete 06:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Here are some REAL sources.

Australia is a constitutional monarchy. Although Australia is an independent nation, the formal Head of State is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, who is also the Queen of Australia. 'Department of Immigrant and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Canberra.

Some examples of diplomatic reference to heads of state:

Toasts to the Queen of Australia as head of state, not to the Governor-General

Gough Whitlam in 1973 on the Queen of Australia's role with Letters of Credence

However, the Letters of Credence which Australian Heads of Mission present to the Head of State of the country to which they are being accredited, and also the Letters of Recall of their predecessors, will continue to be signed by Her Majesty as the Australian Head of State. Her role in this regard will, however, be made much clearer by the proposed amendment of the Royal Style and Titles, whereby the only country named is Australia.

All of the above are good sources, and I will agree with you that they are in fact REAL sources. But the sources I provide are equally good, equally REAL and equally checkable. Are you trying to imply otherwise? Pete 06:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

gross misrepresentation

  • I have quoted the views of several constitutional authorities, and the opinion that either the Queen or the Governor-General is the one and only head of state is a minority position, with most informed commentators inclining to the "two heads of state" view, using various words such as "defacto", "ceremonial", "effective" and so on to prefix the phrase "head of state". - You didn't and it isn't. Amazing how, though in a tiny unrepresentative minority on the fringes, your sources are announced by you as 'most informed commentators'.

I do beg your pardon. I did in fact provide verifiable quotes from several constitutional authorities and the facts are as I state. Go check them and count them up. I have added to the list in subsequent discussion.

  • The most prominent constitutional scholar to support the two heads of state view is Professor George Winterton. Skyring 03:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Winterton's position is that the Queen is the legal head of state. He acknowledges the de facto position of the Governor-General, who is her representative. This is not significantly different from the way it is currently expressed in the article. --Michael Snow 17:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • In 2004 Smith said of his earlier stance,
In those early days I accepted the conventional wisdom that the powers and functions of head of state resided with the Queen but were exercised by the governor-general...
    • In this, like other articles, we should put the "conventional wisdom" first and foremost. Let's move on. -Willmcw 00:45, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Winterton says that there are two heads of state, and he explicitly names and describes them. Attempting to misrepresent this as support for the "Queen as sole head of state" view strikes me as a poor sort of argument. Skyring 18:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • You are using "Queen as sole head of state" as an oversimplification of the generally held view, from which Winterton does not significantly deviate. --Michael Snow 18:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just answer the question, brother. Professor Winterton says there are two heads of state. How many do you count in the quote you provided?

I like the way you provide statements from previous discussion without presenting my rebuttal of them. That's very fair, that is.

Nevertheless, the facts are as I state. Professor George Winterton supports the "two heads of state" view. In the article you mention above, he lists two heads of state and qualifies each usage with a term such as "formal" or "effective". He concludes by saying "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." This use of qualification is in fact the hallmark of the "two heads of state" view. You are trying to twist Winterton's view that there are two heads of state, each one differentiated from the other, into a view that he does not hold, namely that the Queen is the one and only head of state. And yet you use this example to accuse me of gross misrepresentation, an act of breathtaking hypocrisy! If you want to use Winterton as a supporter of the "Queen as sole head of state" view, then kindly find us a statement where he says that the Queen is the head of state and does so without qualifying it in some manner.

By way of illustration, let us use a more conventional use of the term "defacto". Let us say that a man has a wife to whom he is legally married, but long seperated. She lives overseas and visits on rare occasions. But sharing his house and his bed and his heart is his defacto wife, his full time companion and his partner in life. Does the man have one wife or two? One could take a narrow view and say that he has only one wife, the legal wife, and the other is merely a defacto wife. Alternatively one could say that the wife on the far side of the world is not his true wife in any realistic sense of the word and his real wife is the one in the conventional role of life partner. But the most commonly held view would be that he has two wives, a dejure wife and a defacto wife, and their roles are clearly distinct. I say that likewise you are taking an extremely narrow view of Winterton's position and of all the others who say that we have two heads of state, by trying to say that there is only one and the other is unimportant. Pete 06:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

repetition

See above for just some of the many examples.

laughably inaccurate claim

  • 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.
    • Actually, as anyone who knows anything about constitutions and political science knows, the only way anyone can derive powers 'directly' from the people is by being elected by them.

In that case, nobody derives powers directly from the people. Using your logic.

Let us look at the President of the USA. He is elected by an electoral college, which in turn is elected by the people in their various electoral divisions. He is not elected directly by the people. His powers derive from the office, and he does not assume them on election, but instead on being sworn into the office. The people do not vote on his powers, merely on the identity of the occupant of the office.

At best one can refer to them exercising them 'indirectly', not 'directly', but in reality he is appointed by the Queen, can be dismissed by the Queen and exercises powers functions and duties in a constitution which explicitly, among other things, names the Queen as a component part of the legislature. http://www.constitution.org/cons/australi.txt]

Nevertheless, the powers of the office derive from the people. We elected delegates to draft the Constitution, we voted to accept it, and we have voted to accept all subsequent changes. Nobody can change the Constitution but we the people.

'Just because the constitution is now the people's does not mean that every office in it is directly from the people. And BTW no one is suggesting that he acts 'under instruction from the monarch'. That is your standard approach on this page; make a claim you say people made when they didn't, and then 'demolish' a claim that you were the author of.

Where did I say that anybody claimed this? And may I suggest that you should look closer to home for an exemplar of this particular tactic? Pete 07:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Finally, contrary to your (and Sir David Smith's) claims, the Governor-General is not automatically treated as a head of state internationally.

I didn't claim this. Nor did Sir David. That "automatically" comes directly from you, and you alone. You don't feel that you are being a touch hypocritical by not merely hinting, but directly stating that I said it when I did not? Do you have a purpose in this tactic beyond making me think that you can't be trusted? Pete 07:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

When Bill Hayden was at the UN, for example, he was recognised as a representative of the Queen. It took political pressure from Canberra to get the UN to treat him 'like' a head of state, but not 'as' a head of state. Many states have agreed to treat the Governor-General 'like' a head of state but some pointedly have refused. And none have treated him as 'being' a head of state.

May I ask that you cite your sources for these claims? Pete 07:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I have provided many examples of constitutional scholars, all properly sourced, who disagree with the "Queen as sole head of state" view. Professor Winterton, cited above, states that Australia has two heads of state. He is one of several authorities holding this view. That is a matter of verifiable fact.
    • As George has made repeatedly clear, that is NOT his view. As with the above, you pretend not to know the distinction between 'forma' or 'de jure', and 'de facto', twist statements and suggest they mean the exact opposite of what they mean, and then refer to them as own of your 'source'.

Professor Winterton has described and named two heads of state. I am well aware of the distinction between "defacto" and "dejure" and you continue to insult me by first saying that I do not know the difference, and more recently that I am pretending not to know the difference. I need do no more than point out my hypothetical example of the defacto and dejure wives, made on 11 Mar 2005, some time before you came on this particular scene. The key point is that Winterton qualifies his usage of the term "head of state". By naming and describing two different heads of state, he is a member of the "two heads of state" position. He may consider the Queen to have a superior role, but he does not say that she is the sole head of state, nor doe he say that she is the head of state without qualification. Pete 07:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

  • John Howard supports the "two heads of state" view, former Governor-General Bill Hayden described his office as that of head of state, the Australian Government directory described the Governor-General as head of state, many prominent constitutional scholars support other views beyond the "Queen as sole head of state" view.
    • None of the above hold that view. They all draw the distinction between the official or real head of state, and the de facto (ie, person who in some circumstances ACTS as the head of state). NONE of them suggests there are two head of states, a myth who have pushed here for months.

They do more than suggest it, they all name and describe two heads of state. Nor do they use the words "official" or "real" to qualify their usage. That's another example of somthing that came from you and you alone, Mister Hypocrisy. Pete 07:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

For example, Howard said at the opening of the Constitutional Convention

As a matter of indisputable constitutional convention, the Governor-General has become Australia’s effective head of state.

Contrary to what you keep insisting, that does not mean that the Governor-General is the Australian head of state.

And just where do I insist this, let alone repeatedly? I don't. Let's stick with John Howard's verifiable opinion - namely that he considers the Governor-General as Australia's effective head of state. Pete 07:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

'It says that he is the 'effective' head of state, ie, he 'acts' in a head of state-type role.

Just quietly, but that's only your opinion. John Howard doesn't say the Governor-General acts in a head of state-type role. He said the Governor-General is the effective head of state, and furthermore he made this statement in a specific context, namely that we did not need a constitutional change because we already had an Australian head of state. I'll excuse you for your ignorance of Australian affairs, but many of us here have clear recollections of the arguments used in the recent republic referendum. Pete 07:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

And Howard further qualified it by saying it was a mere constitutional convention. Constitutional conventions, as every law student is taught in their first lecture of first year, aren't worth the paper they are written on, not least because they aren't written on any. They are an informal tradition that can be abolished or broken at the blink of an eye. It was a constitutional convention that Senates didn't block supply and that governors-general did not dismiss prime ministers.'

Do tell? Do you have a pre-1975 source that explicitly states this? The fact of the matter is that the ALP in opposition under Gough Whitlam repeatedly voted against Supply. If there was a convention, then Whitlam was either unaware of it or deliberately flouting it. And although a Governor-General had never previously sacked a Prime Minister, as they always resigned before they could be dismissed, most notably in the second Parliament, there was the example of Sir Phillip Game and Jack Lang, an example of which Whitlam was well aware. Pete 07:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Gough Whitlam learnt how reliable those conventions were. It was a convention that governor-generals received knighthoods until Bill Hayden's day.

Not so. Many Governors-General were knights or more long before becoming Governor-General. Most recently Sir William Deane, who was knighted for his service as a senior judge. Sir Ninian Stephen was knighted 12 years before he became Governor-General[12] and his predecessor Sir Zelman Cowen was likewise a knight before appointment. A coincidence, rather than a convention, due mainly to the fact that the sort of Australians deemed suitable to hold the office were also deemed suitable to be knighted in those days of Imperial honours. Pete 07:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

'It was a convention that popes were crowned. It was a convention that royals didn't marry divorcees etc. If Howard said 'As a matter of law the Governor-General is Australia's head of state' that would mean something, because who is a head of state is a matter of law, as every constitutional expert knows. What Howard actually meant was that 'by tradition the Governor-General is treated kind of like a head of state, well, sort of'.

You don't think that by jamming words into John Howard's mouth you are injecting your own peculiar POV? Pete 07:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Past views of contributors on Pete's claims

So how many people have agreed or disagreed with Pete in debates on this page and its archives?

Agree

  • none

Disagree

  1. This has got to be one of the more distasteful campaigns of personal abuse, insult, bullying and pure malice currently running on Wikipedia. Whatever happened to co-operation and a fair go? Pete 17:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. it is Skyring's misrepresntation and intellectual dishonesty that I consider the real abuse here. . . Skyring should refrain from aggregating all editors —which is to say, every single editor involved in these discussions— who oppose his poorly-sourced (for the purpose of demonstrating scholarly and otherwise consensus), partisan, 'odd' and non-mainstream constitutional opinions. Sheesh (again). El_C 22:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. There's no such thing as a cookie-cut, "normal" head of state role. Different states and different heads within a state have different ideas about the role. But the suggestion that this somehow disqualifies a person as head of state doesn't logically follow. It's an either-or proposition - you're officially credentialled as head of state or you're not. By all means, we can discuss the relative importance of Queen and GG in the constitutional system, but not to the extent that the article seeks to go against conventional wisdom and take a minority POV. Lacrimosus 21:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Quite right, the information is entirely correct in its natural reading, and Skyring's argument is a deliberate misreading. . . --Michael Snow 00:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Skyring, I agree with Adam & Michael that you seem to be playing word games here. This kind of thing is counterproductive -- I certainly agree with you that precision in wording is important, but it is here being carried to a fault. No good can come of the kind of stickling you're doing -- on the contrary, all it seems designed to do is antagonize/infuriate those who are trying to work with you on this article. Please stop. For a while I was perfectly willing to accept that you were having a genuine disagreement here, but your continuing to antagonize editors who are being perfectly good and clear contributors is simply expending all the good faith I am willing to assume on your behalf. Jwrosenzweig 00:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. We have had this stupid argument with the troll Skyring, alias Pete, ad nauseam already. No-one else shares his view. . . [User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 00:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC) I have asked Skyring all those questions (on his sources) several times. He never answers, just comes up with more obfuscation and blather. Adam 03:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  8. 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)
  9. 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)
  10. I would just like to convey to you my sincere gratitude for your efforts countering Skyring’s obfuscation at the Government of Australia article. Although I would hate to be unkind, I just feel so utterly deflated after reading through what would have to the greatest display of idiocy (or just plain thick-headedness) I’ve ever come across at Wikipedia. Cyberjunkie 16:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  11. Yet again you have simply showed that you don't know what a head of state is. Every single reference you use is qualified - de facto, effective, etc. Not one source you have referred to says she is head of state. Everyone qualifies it to mean that the Governor-General acts like a head of state. But acting like a head of state is different to being a head of state. . . You are simply misquoting documents, misquoting politicians, misunderstanding quotes of politicians and completely mis-understanding what a head of state is. And you still haven't actually produced any evidence, merely misinterpretations by you of other people's opinions. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 23:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  12. I am a conservative and a monarchist (and studied constitutional law), but I can see no reason for Skyring to want to have the article worded the way he does. A Queen of a monarchy, albeit with a representative there is the head of state. Xtra 03:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
  13. Removing a quote from me that somebody added to the vote to express my agreement with this position. Please let me decide for myself if I want to vote a particular way. Indeed I will vote this way, but in the future don't vote for me. At any rate, I think my position has been made clear - Skyring is ridiculous, and should be ignored on this subject. BTW, is he voting to disagree with himself? john k 18:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
    Or is this simply supposed to list what different people have said in the past? This seems like a potentially improper way of going about things. john k 18:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
    'Potentially'? Cripes, mate, but this sort of thing is not just schoolyard bullying, it's manufactured thuggery! Thanks for having the decency to remove your comment from this list. I realise it stands elsewhere, and your views on me remain unchanged, but I honour you for your action. And no, I'm not "voting", but protesting. This isn't any sort of Wiki vote. Whatever it is, it's not part of the Wiki way. Pete 22:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
  14. Look, polls are bad. And the extent to which this is a poll is bad. But it needs to be made clear that there is a clear consensus against the edits as proposed. I'm putting this here because I simply don't know how else to appropriately convey it. Slac speak up! 11:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
    Like I've been edit warring for the last week, eh? I don't do edit wars and I don't do vendettas, but I do like pointing out other peoples' mistakes. Pete 18:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
It is not a vote. It is simply a collection of comments made by people who have contributed to this debate, to highlight the fact that no-one has supported Pete, and in fact many have been bitterly critical of him. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 22:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Pete should listen to his own advice. It seems to fit his contribution to this page.

  • Just because you say something lots of times and wave your arms around a lot and use ad-hom doesn't make something true or right.
  • It's usually less embarrassing to admit that you are running on empty before it's repeatedly pointed out to you. And if you can find a verifiable source, then do the right thing and put it up. Skyring 02:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Voting

User:Adam Carr's proposal:

I agree that the above list of statements on this issue does not constitute a vote, and I don't think Jtdrl claimed that it was a vote. Therefore we need to have a proper vote, decide on a position, and then enforce it. I therefore propose a vote (to be announced at the Australian Wikipedians Notice Board and conducted here). The vote should be between two policy positions, one written by Skyring and anyone who agrees with him, and the other written by those who disagree with him.

My proposed policy position is this:

  • That in Government of Australia, and in all other articles dealing with Australia's system of government, it should be stated that:
1. Australia is a constitutional monarchy and a federal parliamentary democracy
2. Australia's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia
3. Under the Constitution, almost all of the Queen's functions are delegated to and exercised by the Governor-General, as the Queen's representative.
  • That any edit which states that (a) Australia is a republic, (b) the Governor-General is Australia's head of state, or (c) Australia has more than one head of state, will be reverted, and that such reversions should not be subject to the three-reversions rule.
  • Edits which say that named and relevant persons (eg politicians, constitutional lawyers, judges) disagree with the above position, and which quote those persons at reasonable length, are acceptable, provided proper citation is provided and the three factual statements are not removed.

Skyring should now provide a summary of his position of comparable length:

And then we can conduct a vote.

Adam 01:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It is time for a vote to end Pete's ridiculous, uninformed constitutionally illiterate rambles . Having a vote would put the issue to bed once and for all, and maybe give Pete a chance to learn the basics of constitutional law. For crying out loud, a first year law student writing The traditional view is that the Queen is the head of state. That's the view of the people, based on uninformed tradition or folklore in an exam would earn an automatic NG.

Then there's his (yawn - here we go again) the sources I provide are equally good, equally REAL and equally checkable. Are you trying to imply otherwise? What sources? A mis-understood quote from Howard? A misinterpreted reference from Hayden, etc?

Not to mention his classic (and repeated more times than Star Wars) Professor George Winterton supports the "two heads of state" view. In the article you mention above, he lists two heads of state and qualifies each usage with a term such as "formal" or "effective". D'uh. As any lawyer, constitutional expert, writer, politician etc knows, effective or de facto means acting in reality as. That is not the same thing as is. The Queen is the head of state. The Governor-General acts in reality as head of state. But acting in reality as means simply, as the words say, acting. You aren't the head of state. You act like a head of state. In the 1950s, for example, as his health deteriorated, it was claimed that the housekeeper of Pope Pius XII, Sr Pasqualina Lehnert in effect took over the running of the papacy. She was openly called "our de facto pope" (and La Popessa) but nobody on the planet suggests that as a de facto pope she was pope, or that until 1958 the Catholic Church had two popes. It is patiently absurd. That is the context in which Howard, Hayden, Winterton et al were speaking. De facto does not mean is, just acts as.

And by the way it isn't "defacto" it is two words: de facto. Yet another fundamental error in Pete's contributions.

So yes, the time has come to have a vote and kill off Pete's ridiculous dillusions about Australian constitutional law, once and for all. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 23:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a good idea. If we've clearly established consensus on this, then one can, quite reasonably, simply revert Skyring without discussion. To me, at least, this would be seem to be much more profitable than pages of endless, fruitless, ill-tempered debating. — Matt Crypto 01:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

de jure Head of State

I don't understand. Jtdirl says that "de jure head of state" and "head of state" mean exactly the same thing, but when it comes to the acid test in the article, he doesn't believe what he says.

I've also highlighted a number of errors in fact and logic at the beginning of this page which he hasn't addressed. It seems that like the Pope, he is incapable of error. Pete 23:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Again more Pete twisting of facts. A head of state is by definition de jure. So adding in the word is as pointless as putting the word woman before queen, or writing The president who is President of France, etc. There is only one type of head of state. Wikipedia policy is against putting in unnecessary words that simply state what is implicit, and everyone knows to be implicit, in the term.
I hate to tiresomely mention one of Australia's leading constitutional scholars, who doesn't agree with you. Perhaps you are using "everyone" in the sense of "people who wouldn't know a constitution from a corncob" rather than "people who are experts in the field"? Pete 01:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
So obviously your definition of "people who wouldn't know a constitution from a corncob" includes
  • three former prime ministers (Hawke, Keating and Howard),
  • successive Governors-General,
  • all Attorneys-General,
  • all government departments,
  • all primary documentation,
  • academics like Professors Vernon Bogdanor and George Winterton,
  • the Queen herself, and
  • every state in the world in their Letters of Credence and letters of recall.FearÉIREANN\(talk)
As to these 'number or errors', the only errors as in Pete's own interpretation of events and knowledge of constitutional law and terminology.
I see. So when you say "nor did serious and credible figures on the monarchist side actually make the claim." (that the Governor-General was the sole head of state), and I produce cites from David Flint, Kerry Jones, Tony Abbott, Sophie Panopoulos, and Malcolm Mackerras, all of them serious and credible leaders of Australian monarchists, it's my error and not yours. Perhaps I should apologise!
I've demonstrated many errors in fact and logic on your part. But you don't have the decency to admit it. Instead you pile yet more abuse and insults onto the pile. Pete 01:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Curiously, given that Pete thinks his arguments are so persuasive, not a solitary soul has come forward to agree with him, and people have been queuing through all the archives to disagree with him. If Pete is so convinced of his own knowledge he might like to give us his outline of his views, so we can get on with the voting. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 00:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Voting

I don't want to see more mutual recrimination and circular argument, since clearly no consensus is going to be reached. I have made a concrete proposal to resolve this matter and I want concrete, non-polemical responses to it. I want particularly to hear from Skyring whether he is willing to submit a policy resolution to go with the one I have written so that people can vote on the two positions.

User:Adam Carr's proposal:

I agree that the above list of statements on this issue does not constitute a vote, and I don't think Jtdrl claimed that it was a vote. Therefore we need to have a proper vote, decide on a position, and then enforce it. I therefore propose a vote (to be announced at the Australian Wikipedians Notice Board and conducted here). The vote should be between two policy positions, one written by Skyring and anyone who agrees with him, and the other written by those who disagree with him.

My proposed policy position is this:

  • That in Government of Australia, and in all other articles dealing with Australia's system of government, it should be stated that:
1. Australia is a constitutional monarchy and a federal parliamentary democracy
2. Australia's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia
3. Under the Constitution, almost all of the Queen's functions are delegated to and exercised by the Governor-General, as the Queen's representative.
  • That any edit which states that (a) Australia is a republic, (b) the Governor-General is Australia's head of state, or (c) Australia has more than one head of state, will be reverted, and that such reversions should not be subject to the three-reversions rule.
  • Edits which say that named and relevant persons (eg politicians, constitutional lawyers, judges) disagree with the above position, and which quote those persons at reasonable length, are acceptable, provided proper citation is provided and the three factual statements are not removed.

Skyring should now provide a summary of his position of comparable length:

And then we can conduct a vote.

Adam 01:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

If however Pete (aka Skyring) decides not to submit his proposal, I suggest we go ahead with a vote anyhow. The evidence to make a decision is already on this and archived pages. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 18:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, how's about you finally answer my question about my position by writing a proposal for me? You seem to know my views far better than I do! Pete 20:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you drop this, and just submit your position so we can get on with it? Adam 22:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you display some common courtesy? I don't see any notification from you on my talk page, for example. Pete 23:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

If you don't submit a proposal within 24 hours (it is now 10.10am AEST) I will move that we proceed with a yes/no vote on my proposal. Adam 00:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Just answer my question please. Pete 00:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't intend responding to rhetorical questions or debating process issues with you. Whether you participate or not is up to you. If you don't submit a proposal by 10.10am tomorrow I will move that we proceed with a yes/no vote on my proposal. Adam 00:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Not a rhetorical question, Adam. I'm genuinely interested. I like picking out loose ends and inconsistencies, and I wonder about you. It doesn't take Freud to spot a pattern, just looking at your user page and your discussion tactics. You're rude, aggressive, egocentric, gang up with others of a similar bent. You make threats, but are evasive when challenged, mean when thwarted. I'm wondering whether you're such a bully in real life. This wouldn't be any of my business normally, but you made it yours to pick me as a target.

I must say that I wonder about your attitude in such an essentially co-operative venture as Wikipedia. Pete 03:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

It is co-operative. Everyone is co-operating except you. In fact, you're making rather a point of not co-operating. Proteus (Talk) 12:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not interested in any more of your crap. I am interested in seeing your proposal. Adam 03:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Make up your mind. Pete 04:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you make a point rather than more quips. You're running out of time to make your proposal before we all get sick of waiting for you and vote without it. Proteus (Talk) 12:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The Queen in the Constitution

I refer to Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (known as the covering clauses):

2. The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.[13]

No mention of the "Queen of Australia". Let's stick to accurate, checkable facts, please! Pete 05:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

It must follow from the separation of the crowns that was formalised in 1973 that the Queen of the United Kingdom no longer has any jurisdiction over Australia. References to "the Queen" in the Constitution must now be taken as refering to the Queen of Australia. Furthermore since the Australia Acts severed all remaining legislative links between Australia and the UK the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, as an Act of the UK Parliament, is no longer valid Australian law. Only the Constitution itself is. Adam 05:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

You don't feel the faintest tinge of hypocrisy, Adam? I reject your personal opinion. Find a reference and I'll allow the edit. Again, I say that we must stick to verifiable sources if we are to build a useful Wikipedia. Pete 05:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Which part of the above statement do you disagree with, and why? Adam 05:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The Constitution clearly states that "the Queen" means the British Queen. This is reinforced by the note to the Schedule which states: (NOTE - The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time.)[14]

You are relying on your own unsourced opinion on modern practice, in direct contradiction to the literal text of the Constitution, which doesn't mention a "Queen of Australia". I mentioned hypocrisy above, because when I provide an expert verifiable opinion on modern constitutional practice, you and others refer to the text of the Constitution, as if nothing has changed since 1901. You can't have it both ways, brother!

Please cite your source. I refer you to the Verifiability policy. Pete 06:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Numerous sources have been cited, none of which have been sufficient to gain your acceptance. Now Adam has proposed an alternate solution to determining the consensus on this issue. You are being offered a chance to present the wording that you would prefer and to convince the community of its merit. Adam has already presented a proposal. The time has come to move forward on this issue. -Willmcw 06:23, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
No source for this particular argument of Adam's has been given. If you (or anyone else) think(s) it has, then please be so very good as to point it out. The Queen in the Constitution is the British Queen, and I have provided two sources which state this fact definitively, clearly, explicitly and unequivocally. Pete 06:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Arguing for argument's sake is fun in a pub or coffeehouse. However we're here to write an encyclopedia. In light of the past activity on this page, it is hard to believe that you will agree even if Adam presents you with ten sources. Please work towards consensus. The other editors are doing so. Thanks. -Willmcw 06:54, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
Skyring, have you read Sue v Hill. You will find the High Court's view quite authoritative and clear. The Queen in right of Australia is the Queen of Australia, not The Queen of the United Kingdom. Xtra 06:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
For reference: Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30

Thankyou, Xtra, just what I was going to say :). Anyway, Skyring should direct his attention to submitting a position for the proposed vote rather than engaging in further rounds of controversy. Adam 08:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I've not only read it, I was present for the whole of the hearing, writing a series of articles about it. Terry Sharples, though a vindictive odd-ball, made some excellent points and had the whole of the Full Bench hanging on his words as he led them through the mechanism of a Senate vote count. An extraordinary performance for a layman (Sharples is an accountant.)

Now, while I remember the case quite clearly, I cannot remember the High Court finding that the Queen of Australia is the Queen of the Constitution. Or anything similar. Nor can I recall them being asked that question in Sue vs Hill. However, possibly my memory is in error. If you would be so very good as to direct me to the relevant finding? Perhaps you could quote it here, so there is no misunderstanding? Especially as it is authoritative and clear. Pete 08:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

We should not indulge Skyring in yet another stupid argument on yet another of his stupid pet theories. He only does it get attention. So long as the article says what it currently says, his nonsense should be ignored. Adam 08:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Once again, I ask for a verifiable source and you respond with abuse but nothing remotely checkable. And may I suggest, that if you think I argue constitutional theory and practice to get attention, then why don't you just pull your head in, and leave the talking to someone who is at least making an effort? Please? Pete 11:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't have time to reread the whole judgement, but I can refer you to this, which the judges were making a point with.
Justices Gleeson, Gummow and Hayne at 57:
"The second matter is that in 1982 it was settled in the United Kingdom by the decision of the English Court of Appeal in R v Foreign Secretary; Ex parte Indian Association[65] as a "truism" that, whilst "there is only one person who is the Sovereign within the British Commonwealth ... in matters of law and government the Queen of the United Kingdom, for example, is entirely independent and distinct from the Queen of Canada"[66]. In addition to those remarks by May LJ, Kerr LJ observed"
Xtra 09:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Xtra! I can see where you are trying to get to with this, but I think any reasonable person would have to say that, far from being "quite authoritative and clear", this requires quite a lot of interpretation and doesn't mention Australia. Whereas I have provided two quotes that are straight out of the Constitution and say clearly and distinctly that the Queen of the Australian Constitution is the Queen of the United Kingdom. I am not saying that you are wrong, but I really feel, considering the rather shabby way I have been treated here recently, that I must stand up and ask for something a lot more explicit. Pete 11:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Leaving all the crap aside Skyring. Take note. It has been made clear that you will be reverted, so just drop it. Xtra 11:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Skyring, I find that you have done little here but indulge in sophistry. El_C 11:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I have asked for a verifiable quote for the latest edit. The only one provided doesn't back up the edit, whereas I have provided two excellent quotes for my version. The Constitution clearly states that the Queen in the Constitution is the Queen of the UK. That's not crap, that's not sophistry, that's the solid stated fact of the fundamental law of the land. Pete 12:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

That is utter horseshit, as anyone with an ounce of knowledge of Australian constitutional history knows. Adam 12:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Adam, with all due respect, if you think you know it for a fact, then why can't you come up with the goods? I suggest that if you had this ounce of knowledge, then you would find a good source and calmly present it to confound me. Pete 12:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

You're still playing with semantics and engaging in sophistry. No more shilling-ing, please, there is a limit. El_C 12:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Pete, there comes a point when it's obvious that you're not going to get consensus for the changes you're seeking. You've made your argument in depth, but the consensus of other editors is in the other direction. When that is the case, there is no point in carrying on the discussion. To do so is not only a waste of time for everyone concerned, but it's quite likely to degenerate into nastiness as well. I strongly suggest you drop this issue. If you don't, I'm afraid to say it would be quite appropriate for everyone to just ignore you, and revert without explanation. — Matt Crypto 12:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I trust I will have the support of Xtra, El C and Matt in putting this matter to a vote tomorrow so that all this tiresome bullshit can be brought to an end by effectively banning Skyring from inserting his crackpot theories into Wikipedia articles. Adam 12:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. It would be a useful way to end this debate (or, if not, to ease dispute resolution if required.) Although if we can avoid referring to people's arguments as animal faeces during this process -- of either bovine or equine varieties -- it would be appreciated ;-). — Matt Crypto 12:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Matt! I guess that there are Wikipedia policies and the real Wikipedia policies, eh? Not to worry. I've demonstrated the level of intellectual debate here. In the light of what you've said, I don't think I need to submit any position, except to say that normal Wikipedia rules should apply, whatever they might be. That's simpler for everyone.
What it boils down to is that there's only one of me, so realistically I can't make anything stick if opposed by a gang, whether they be thugs or fair-minded folk. That's plain common sense. Pete 12:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I'm afraid so. If, on the topic of how to edit some article, you are strongly outnumbered — even after protracted discussion and debate — then you are likely to get overruled. That's the sharp and pointy end of the normally fluffy idea of "consensus". Still, I trust that (having registered your disagreement) you'll be dropping the issue? — Matt Crypto 13:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Vote on policy positions

I note that Skyring has said (above) that he doesn't intend submitting a proposal for the position this article should adopt on the matters in dispute between him and other uses. I think we can all draw the appropriate conclusions from this. At the expiry of the 24-hour period I gave Skyring yesterday to submit a proposal (10.10am AEST), I will announce a vote at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and at Wikipedia:Village pump. Since Skyring has wimped the chance to have his views voted on, the vote will be a straight yes/no on my policy position, which appears at the head of this page. Amendments or alternative suggestions are of course welcome. I have an open mind on how long the voting period should be and how many votes should be seen as an acceptable participation. I will be posting this notice to the Talk pages of various Users who have participated in this debate. Adam 23:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Adam, with respect to your proposed policy, I have no problem with points 1) and 3). I am perhaps a little concerned about point 2). If an article calls for the discussion of the matter at length, I think it only proper to point out those small minority of monarchists who disagree. Where it is only briefly mentioned, the position that the Queen is head of state is acceptable shorthand. Or would that treatment be consistent with your proposed policy?--Robert Merkel 00:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

As the third bullet point of my motion says, it should be acceptable to say that some people, preferably named and cited people, disagree with the position that the Queen is head of state. But I think facts should stated as facts. An analogous situation would be with evolution. The Evolution article describes the Darwinian theory of evolution as a scientific fact, while noting that dissenting views exist. Adam 00:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Queen of Australia v British Monarch

As Skyring points out, section 2 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) says: "The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom." However, this merely highlights that the Commonwealth Constitution was enacted by the British Parliament, and was intended to make the Federation of Australia binding on the British monarchs. In the Commonwealth Constitution, there is only reference made to "the Queen".

In the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953 (Cth), the Commonwealth Parliament declared that the monarch in relation to Australia is to be referred to as "Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories": cf. s 2. As far as I have been taught, "the Queen" in Australia is a distinct legal entity from "the Queen" in the United Kingdom. The succession rules to the Crown are the same as they are in the United Kingdom, being set out by the Act of Settlement 1701 (UK) s 1, and received at the time of European settlement. However, due to the Australia Acts 1986 (UK & Cth) s1, any changes by the UK Parliament to the law of succession to the throne will not take effect in Australia. Thus, it is legally possible to have different monarchs in Australia and the United Kingdom. In this respect, the current Australian monarch might currently be the same as the United Kingdom monarch, but they should (and are) treated as distinct entities.

I refer you to: P Hanks, P Keyzer & J Clarke Australian Constitutional Law: materials and commentary 7th edn (Sydney: Butterworths, 2004) pp. 464-465.

Thus, please stop changing "Queen of Australia" to "British Monarch". - Mark 02:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Mark, you could produce documents signed by every lawyer in Australia and every judge on the planet and it wouldn't stop Skyring. He has a set of ludicrously misinformed theories that he is intent on forcing into the article no matter what, even where everyone on this page tells him he is 100% wrong. You are of course 100% right in your facts. Thank you for adding your voice and detailed knowledge in. Now watch while he comes up with some garbled nonsense, misquotes, misrepresentation of quotes, etc to insist how in reality Hanks, Keyzer and Clarke actually meant the exact opposite of you think they meant, how your view is actually in a minority, how all informed opinion agrees with him, and you are really only pushing your view, not NPOV!!! That is the sort of ludicrous arguments he peddles every time. Arguing with Skyring is like trying to cut water!!! At this stage everyone on this page has run out of patience with his antics. This nonsense over the Queen is just his latest nutty half-baked idea! He'll no doubt dream another one tomorrow. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 04:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/o/v/Talk%7EGovernment_of_Australia_Archive_5_772d.html"