Talk:Government of Australia/Archive 3

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 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →


Contents

Verifiable sources

So far nobody has provided verifiable sources for Adam's claims. I see a lot of hand-waving, I see a lot of abuse, I see a lot of bluster, but I do not see any checkable sources. The best we have are a couple of constitutional authorities supporting the "Queen as sole head of state" view, a minority position.

The article is incorrect in claiming the question of who is Australia's head of state is a matter of convention. I have shown that there are three different views, each supported by multiple informed opinions.

The article is incorrect in claiming the view that the Queen was the head of state of all parts of the British Empire was so axiomatic that it did not occur to the authors of the Constitution to spell this out. This is Adam's opinion, unsupported by any of the numerous biographies ar reports of the debates during the time our Constitution was drafted.

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.

At this point, I see no problem in removing Adam's statements of opinion on the grounds that despite a lot of discussion, no sources have been provided. Do you have a problem with this? Skyring 09:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I moved the above comment here. Do not idiosyncratically reinsert it into the middle of the above section. It was diversionary, unfair and untopical for you to place it there, and sadly, symptomatic of your tactics. Our discourse is over, you have conducted yourself shamefuly, carelessly, and uncollegially El_C 11:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone have any comments on the points above? So far after a week's discussion I see zero support for Adam's "did not occur" claim, though some editors seem to hold out hope for support on the convention claim. Nothing solid, though perhaps research might bring something out. Skyring 11:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the "did not occur" claim. As I have repeatedly pointed out, this is Adam's personal opinion and has no place here. After much discussion nobody has come forward with even a hint of support for it. If anyone wants to keep it, please provide a verifiable source. Skyring 12:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
El_C has provided a source, but with respect, I cannot find anything in it to back up Adam's claim about what was passing through the minds of the founding fathers. If you have something, spell it out, otherwise I'll regard it as a red herring. Skyring 12:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So what is Skyring's explanation for the fact that the Constitution does not specify who Australia's head of state was to be? I point out that the Constitution does not provide for the offices of Prime Minister or Speaker of the House, either, and for the same reason - because Griffith simply assumed the framework of the Westminster Parliamentary system, including the Queen as head of state. It was only the fact that Australia was to be a federation that made a written constitution necessary at all (New Zealand didn't have a constitution at all until recently, because they simply copied the pure Westminister model.) My "source" for these propositions is the Constitution itself. Most Constitutions provide for a head of state. Australia's does not, and it is the historian's job to explain and interpret that fact in the light of his knowledge about the period in which it was written, which is what I have done in the paragraph under discussion. Adam 21:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The term "head of state" was not in general use at the time of Federation. You won't find another constitution of the same period that uses the term. You won't find the term in the reports of the constitutional conventions and debates that occurred in Australia at that time. You are trying to cram thoughts into the minds of our founding fathers that were simply not there. Elsewhere, you said Since the term res publica is Latin, it is quite ahistorical to try to apply it retrospectively to the states of ancient Greece. You said it was "a silly argument". Silly when someone else uses an anachronism, but it's quite the done thing when you do, hmmm? Be fair.
And once again, you are not supplying a verifiable source. You are giving your opinion. Other editors here are at least making an honest attempt to give sources, and I respect them for that. Prominently displayed on every edit page it says "Please cite your sources so others can check your work.". I commend these words to your attention. Skyring 23:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Despite User:El_C's dogged shilling for Adam, his source for Adam's "axiomatic" claim was useless. I haven't seen anyone provide a verifiable source for this statement. On the chance that I missed it, could someone please provide a verifiable source for the view that the Queen was the head of state of all parts of the British Empire was so axiomatic that it did not occur to the authors of the Constitution to spell this out.. If it cannot be sourced, it doesn't belong in the article. Skyring 23:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You just can't touch a keyboard without resorting to misrepresentation, can you? Adam 00:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be difficult for you to refrain from abuse, Adam, but I urge calmness and contemplation. Please.Skyring 02:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it is Skyring's misrepresntation and intellectual dishonesty that I consider the real abuse here. I did not cite that source for Adam's "axiomatic" claim, which a most cursory glance reveals. It was designed to show Ross' argument of the Queen being considered the head of state – that's it. 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)
If you merely wished to add Ross's opinion to the list of constitutional scholars, then I'll accept that, and humbly apologise for any impression to the contrary. It is hard to follow the thrust of argument when isolated pieces are pulled out of context, as you have done several times now. I was looking for verifiable sources for Adam's claims, sources he was unwilling or unable to supply himself, and I assumed you were participating in this ongoing discussion. As for sources, I fancy that mine are as good as anyone else's and certainly far more plentiful. Your objection seems to be that Sir David Smith's opinions appear in Quadrant, a publication you feel is partisan. I'm certainly not presenting Smith's views as non-partisan, and I merely wish to provide a source for his stated views. Skyring 02:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say the term "head of state" appears in other constitutions, I said "Most Constitutions provide for a head of state." And they do. The US Constitution provides for a president, for example. The question therefore is, why doesn't the Australian Constitution provide for a head of state? My answer is as given in the article. What's yours? Adam 00:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I take your point, but you are arguing backwards. And once again you do not provide a source for your opinion. How many times do I have to point out that when I ask for a verifiable source and make a heavy-handed gesture towards that line below reading Please cite your sources so others can check your work. you invariably respond with abuse and evasion and a lot of hand-waving? Skyring 02:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(Yes yes I know I am arguing with him again when I said he should be ignored. I can't help myself. Adam 00:38, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC))

You should calm down, do a bit of research, and if you can't find a source for your statements, do the right thing. 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)

Let the record show that Skyring has no answer to my question other than his usual obfuscation. Adam 03:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Heh! More bluster. My opinion doesn't matter, Adam. I'm not the one being repeatedly asked to back up their statements in the article.
Let the record show that after repeatedly asking for a source for the view that the Queen was the head of state of all parts of the British Empire was so axiomatic that it did not occur to the authors of the Constitution to spell this out. I didn't get one. User:El_C claimed to provide one, a claim that was false. I haven't seen any other verifiable source on this point. Skyring 04:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A verifiable source. Adam 04:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. Try taking the link, buddy. Skyring 08:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A verifiable source. Adam 04:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Have another go, brother! No, I can't stand it! You've completely ballsed up a great joke. Here's the source you wanted.
OK. Seriously now, we're going to have to work together on this, Adam. I'm not really out to make your life a misery. As I've said a couple of times now, you're a better writer of this sort of stuff than I am, and you probably work best when you aren't under the pressure of a nit-picking old curmudgeon like me breathing down your neck, but I'm not going to stand for seeing Malcolm Turnbull's dishonest line spread all over Wikipedia. Nor am I going to let Sir David Smith's equally partisan views dominate the article. Both have their good and bad points, both have their followers and bitter enemies, but the one characteristic shared by both is that they aren't telling the whole story.
As I look around at other nations, particularly other Commonwealth Realms, I am more and more impressed by just how unique Australia is. Unlike almost every other nation on earth, our Constitution is the creation of the people rather than parliaments. We came together in a People's Convention with popularly elected delegates to thrash out an agreement, we all voted on it and we are the only people who can modify it. We own our Constitution in a way that few other nations do. And of the few nations that have Governors-General standing in between the Queen and the Government, Australia is the only one to give him the important executive powers in his own right. In every other nation that has a Governor-General, the Queen could do what Sir John Kerr did in 1975. But not in Australia. Our situation is unique. The Queen is powerless.
So 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. I personally don't think it's accurate to describe either as the sole head of state because there are, as the Parliamentary Research office paper points out, very good reasons for saying that both are head of state. Tilt the scales too far one way or the other and you have an unbalanced and inaccurate article, and neither of us wants that. Skyring 13:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
But why doesn't every other country article detail how the role of their head of state differs from everyone else's? 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)
What's this "officially credentialled" bit? The Governor-General gets received as the Australian head of state when travelling overseas, the Queen does not, even though "Queen of Australia" is one of her titles. No other country has our constitutional arrangements - a monarch as powerless figurehead, an appointed officer holding the executive powers in his own right. Constitutional monarchies such as Sweden may have a powerless monarch, but they don't have a powerful Governor-General. Commonwealth realms such as Canada have a Governor-General, but they also have a powerful Queen. There's really no other nation on earth with our distinctive arrangements. Skyring 00:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

True but irrelevant. See below. Adam 00:22, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just wondering, but is it definitely true that the governmental arrangements of Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Belize, Jamaica, the Bahamas, Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Barbados, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Grenada are more like those of Canada than they are like those of Australia? john k 00:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've checked those constitutions. Many appear to have been produced with a "cut and paste" method. There are similarities and differences. I refer to the Papua New Guinea Constitution:
(1) Her Majesty the Queen—
(a) having been requested by the people of Papua New Guinea, through their Constituent Assembly, to become the Queen and Head of State of Papua New Guinea; and
(b) having graciously consented so to become, is the Queen and Head of State of Papua New Guinea.
(2) Subject to and in accordance with this Constitution, the privileges, powers, functions, duties and responsibilities of the Head of State may be had, exercised and performed through a Governor-General appointed in accordance with Division 3 (appointment, etc., of Governor-General) and, except where the contrary intention appears, reference in any law to the Head of State shall be read accordingly.

Also, how much more powerful is the Queen of Canada than the Queen of Australia? john k 00:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One big difference that I can see are that the executive power is vested in the Queen. There is no mention of it being exercised by the Governor General. Presumably the Queen may exercise executive power in Canada. Perhaps we need someone versed in Canadian practice to advise us.
Another major difference is that constitutional amendment does not appear to be in the hands of the people. In Australia we wrote the Constitution and no changes may be made without approval. Therefore the Queen may not take away or alter any of the Governor-General's powers, despite what s2 implies. Skyring 02:08, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All very interesting no doubt, but totally irrelevant. Adam 02:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How so? I think that if you yourself use other nations as illustrations, as you have done by referring to Japan, Sweden and the UK, not to mention San Marino and Switzerland, then you can hardly complain if someone does exactly the same. Be fair. Skyring 02:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do not constantly ask me to "be fair" while simultaneously calling me a shill, which I gather is something not very nice. Adam 03:08, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good heavens, Adam! I am certainly not calling you a shill. Who would you be shilling for? I merely note the presence in this discussion of individuals whose sole purpose seems to be to support your opinions rather than participate in discussion themselves. Do you somehow think that this adds weight to your own pronouncements?
As for asking you to be fair, I think that when you display blatant hypocrisy, I am quite within my rights to ask you to be fair and even-handed - to treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. I hope that this is not too much to ask of you, and I urge you to likewise point out any similar failings on my behalf that I may make amends. Skyring 03:39, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Only Skyring could take the fact that everyone participating in this discussion agrees with me and not with him and use this as evidence to accuse me of some sort of underhand tactic. Adam 04:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed. If I call attention to one obvious shill, that doesn't mean that I consider everyone to be so. I specifically reject your misrepesentation. Pete 05:11, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If Skyring doesn't like robust debate, I suggest (as I have done before) that he go and jerk off somewhere else. Adam 04:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Restating one more time

Image:Ac.queenofaustralia.jpg
Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, on Australian postage stamps. The Governor-General does not appear on Australian stamps, coins or banknotes.

We have had this discussion half a dozen times already, but I will state my position on this one more time. I take the following propositions as axiomatic, and thus not requiring "sources":

  • In every independent state, with one or two minor exceptions such San Marino, there is a single identifiable person who is generally regarded as the head of state, whether or not they are designated as such in a written constitution, and whether or not their position is executive or ceremonial.
  • Elizabeth II holds the title Queen of Australia. In every country which has a king or queen regnant, that person is generally regarded as the head of state, regardless of what constitutional functions they do or do not perform.
  • No other person or position in Australia has ever been formally accorded the title or status of head of state. The Queen is thus the "default" candidate for head of state.
  • The Constitution says "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." This makes it perfectly clear that the authors of the Constitution saw the Queen as standing at the head of Australia's constitutional structure.
  • Since Australia was not a fully independent state in 1901, but part of a wider constitutional entity (the British Empire), the constitution does not create a position of head of state. But since Australia has now become a sovereign state, it must in doing so have acquired a head of state. Since the constitution has not been altered to make any other person the head of state, and since the Parliament has accorded the Queen the title Queen of Australia, it follows that the Queen of Australia is now Australia's head of state.
  • The Governor-General does not claim to be a head of state - he has said that the Queen is head of state. The Governor-General, ministers, MPs and officials take oaths of alliegance to the Queen. Legislation is passed in the Queen's name. The Queen appears on Australian coins, banknotes and stamps. All these are evidences that the Queen is generally regarded as the head of state.
  • Arguments that the Governor-General performs all the functions of a head of state and that the Queen is powerless etc etc are not relevant to this discussion, which is about who is Australia's de jure head if state.

Adam 22:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't appear to have understood the message, Adam. All of the above is handwaving with the exception of the view of the current Governor-General, and as noted, previous Governors-General have had opposing views. Skyring 00:25, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How is it hand-waving? This all seems perfectly sensible to me. john k 00:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's unsourced. Adam tends not to provide sources. Perhaps he regards it as somehow "giving in" because I have insisted on sources. Dunno. Historians are usually happy to dump a barrow-load of sources into a discussion, given half a chance. Adam's continued refusal to do so is indicative of a certain state of mind outside normal behaviour. That's my opinion, anyway. Adam can explain his odd behaviour better than I can, I suggest.
But that's by the by. My objection is that he's not providing an impartial view. He is presenting a partisan position and that's the last thing we want in a Wikipedia article. Nixie has mentioned the Research Brief produced by the Parliamentary Research Office entitled "Who Is Australia's Head of State?" which puts forward the arguments for both opinions. A modified form may be found here and I quote from the relevant portion as an example of the sort of objective approach we should be striving for. I wouldn't think we would need to go into so much detail, but you may contrast this approach with Adam's and draw your own conclusions:
The expression 'Head of State' is not found in the Constitution. It is a term generally used as a convenient description of the person who is accorded the highest rank among the officers of government. There is a view that the Australian Head of State is the Governor-General. Arguments supporting this view include:
  • For practical purposes the Head of State of Australia is the Governor-General. Section 2 of the Constitution describes the Governor-General as the Queen's representative in Australia.
  • Section 2 of the Constitution also provides that the Governor-General is appointed by the Queen, retains office during her pleasure and exercises such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.
  • In relation to the prerogative powers [ie. powers over foreign affairs, such as making treaties, appointing diplomats and declaring war], while the Governor-General may act in the name of the Queen, the powers and functions are exercised by him/her as part of his/her duties as Governor-General. While the Governor-General may report to the Queen, the Queen is not involved, and has not interfered, in decisions that the Governor-General makes.
  • Under section 61 of the Constitution, the executive power of the Commonwealth is exercisable by the Governor-General not the Queen.
  • Neither the Constitution nor the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act actually refer to the Queen as the Head of State.
  • The Governor-General is usually regarded when travelling overseas as Australia's Head of State.
There is a contrary view that the Australian Head of State is the Queen. Arguments supporting this view include:
  • The Preamble to the Constitution states that the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
  • Section 1 of the Constitution provides that the legislative power of the Commonwealth is vested in a Federal Parliament comprising the Queen, a Senate and a House of Representatives.
  • Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the Governor-General is appointed by the Queen. The power to appoint the Governor-General has never been questioned.
  • Under section 2 of the Constitution, the Governor-General is appointed by the Queen as "Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth", and is authorised to "exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him."
  • Under section 64 of the Constitution, Ministers of State are the Queen's Ministers of State and not the Governor-General's Ministers of State.
Neither the Constitution nor the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act actually refers to the Governor-General as the Head of State.
I think the difference in the two approaches is fairly obvious. Skyring 01:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I can think of no instance where the monarch of a country is not considered to be its (sole) head of state. One may add, for the record, cases of regencies. No matter how little actual power the titular monarch is left in a regency type situation (whether for youth or for incapacity), the monarch, be he Louis XV or George III or Frederick William IV or Otto of Bavaria, is always considered to be the head of state, even though the regent exercises all his powers and the monarch has no powers or discretion whatsoever. john k 00:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
PS: Monarchs under regencies generally have even less power than the Queen of Australia does, since they usually don't even have the power to designate who the regent will be. john k 00:31, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Adam has already put forward the notion of regencies, but regents exercise the powers of the monarch. They aren't given any powers in their own right. The Governor-General is given executive powers in his own right, such as s64, used by Sir John Kerr to dismiss Gough Whitlam. The Queen cannot exercise this power, nor any other of the Governor-General's constitutional powers. Nor may she instruct him on their use. They are his alone. If we look at constitutional monarchies such as the UK or Sweden, we find no appointed officer with such important powers, and therefore no alternative candidate to the monarch as sole head of state. There is no Governor-General position. If we look at Commonwealth realms such as Canada or New Zealand, we find Governors-General, but they are in the position of regents, having no powers of their own and merely exercising the powers of the monarch. Australia is in a unique constitutional position, where we have a republican form of government, with all power given to elected or appointed officers, and the single jarring note is the presence of a monarch with no significant powers of her own. Her role in Australian affairs consists of appointing the Governor-General every few years, an act in which she has no discretion. If we were to adopt an explicitly republican constitution by replacing the Queen with a President (whether elected or appointed) leaving all else unchanged, we would remain in exactly the same state of affairs - we would have a powerless President and a powerful Governor-General. This is why most republican models that have been proposed (including the one rejected in 1999) do not replace the Queen with a President, they remove her entirely and retitle the Governor-General as President. Skyring 01:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think you are deeply exaggerating the uniqueness of the Australian system. In the first place, there is a difference between the Queen's ability to exercise a power, and whether the power belongs in itself to the Governor-General. Looking at the Australian constitution, it seems to me highly debatable that the power in section 64 is the Governor-General's in his own right, rather than a power of the queen's which he is exercising. john k 02:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"The Governor-General's powers are derived from three sources: those vested in him by the Constitution, those deriving from the common law which are commonly described as prerogative powers (and which may be regulated by Royal Commission and Letters Patent), and those derived from statute. ... In a system such as that operating in the United Kingdom, which has no written constitution, the prerogative powers of a constitutional nature are based on common law and convention. In Australia in the federal sphere, the prerogative powers in relation to government have a constitutional source, although their exercise is regulated by convention. The Governor-General has the formal powers, inter alia, of fixing the times for holding parliamentary sessions and of proroguing and dissolving the House of Representatives (s5), of dissolving both Houses in the event of a deadlock (s57) and of assentng to Bills (s58). The executive power of the Commonwealth is exercisable by him (s61). He appoints Ministers (s64) and is Commander-in-Chief of the military forces of the Commonwealth (s68)." (R D Lumb, The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Annotated Fourth Edition, Butterworths, Sydney 1986, p37)
Following the 1975 dismissal, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Gordon Scholes, wrote to the Queen, expressing concern about the Governor-General's actions. This letter is the response from the Queen's Private Secretary. ...As we understand the situation here, the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands of the Governor-General as the representative of the Queen of Australia. The only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and The Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution. Her Majesty, as Queen of Australia, is watching events in Canberra with close interest and attention, but it would not be proper for her to intervene in person in matters which are so clearly placed within the jurisdiction of the Governor-General by the Constitution Act.
The power to appoint and dismiss Ministers is given to the Governor-General in his own right and exercised without instruction from the Queen. Skyring 03:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That is certainly not what the private secretary is saying, at least. He is saying that the Governor-General has that power as representative of the Queen. Which is exactly what you are trying to say is not the case. john k 15:56, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
He says the prerogative powers are exercised as the Queen's representative, and that is true. However, as the prerogative powers are common law, and common law is over-ridden by legislation and the Constitution supersedes all legislation except as expressly provided, the constitutional powers of the Governor-General are his own. These are the powers expressly defined in the Constitution, such as the power to appoint Ministers. They form part of the prerogative powers of the Queen in the UK, but as they are here defined by legislation, they are no longer prerogative but constitutional (or more broadly, statutory).
A quote from McGarvie's book - the original is available online and is well-sourced - helps make the situation clear, though I urge all with an interest in this topic to read further before and after the quote:
The legal powers exercised by an operative head of state need to be further classified here in order to counteract the confusions about them which often exist in minds informed by English texts which explain powers of a different nature. Discussion of the powers exercised by operative heads of state does not imply that heads of state are or should be powerful people. Quite the contrary. A core objective of a system with a nominal chief executive head of state is to ensure that it operates so as to confine the exercise of the powers (with one exception, the reserve authority) to implementation of the decisions of Ministers of the elected government. The smooth and constant success of the present system in achieving that has led many to overlook that it is the operative head of state who has the legal right to exercise the powers. It is an easy intellectual slide to assume that because a Minister decides and the power is exercised accordingly, it is the Minister who has the legal right and exercises the power.
The powers can be divided into statutory and common law powers. In Australia most of the powers are statutory, created by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament. Thus the powers exercised by the Governor-General which underlie our system of government, such as summoning or dissolving Parliament, issuing writs for general elections, assenting to Bills passed by both Houses, and appointing or dismissing the Prime Minister and Ministers, are all statutory powers created by the Commonwealth Constitution.[1] Pete 10:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Furthermore, you are taking a highly legalistic viewpoint of the Queen's role in the other commonwealth realms. In actual fact, the queen's role in Canada or New Zealand or Papua New Guinea is no greater than it is in Australia. What role does the Queen play in Canada's government which she does not play in Australia's? john k 02:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Now you are talking roles rather than powers. My understanding is that the Queen could exercise significant power in Canadian affairs if she were so advised by the Canadian Prime Minister. In Australia this is not the case - she could not dissolve Parliament, for example, as this power is given to the Governor-General and not the Queen. I'll happily agree that the Queen's actual role is pretty much the same - that is to say, minimal. Skyring 03:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
At any rate, nobody is debating that de facto the Governor-General exercises the powers of a head of state. But that does not mean he is the head of state. A regent just as much exercises the powers of a head of state as does a governor-general. For instance, if Bavaria had been made a republic in 1910 by replacing the King with a president, but keeping all other arrangements the same, this would be exactly the same as your silly hypothetical about having a president and a governor-general. Prince Luitpold, as regent, would have retained his power, and the new president would have been powerless (although not insane, presumably). Of course, in these cases the authority of the regent rests on statute rather than on a constitution (for the most part), but that seems more a difference in degree than a difference in kind. john k 02:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The hypothetical situation is ridiculous, I'll agree, but I provided it to illustrate the essential difference. The Governor-General is given his constitutional powers in his own right. In this respect he is quite unlike a regent, who merely exercises the monarch's powers on his behalf. May I again point out that in Australia we have a powerless monarch and a powerful Governor-General.
As for whether the Governor-General is a head of state, your opinion and mine is unimportant. He is described as a head of state by many constitutional scholars, and so far as I can see, the majority view (though certainly not a consensus) is that we have two heads of state, usually given prefixes such as defacto, symbolic, effective and so on to differentiate their differing roles. I have provided numerous quotes to illustrate this. You may argue that one of the two heads of state is more visible, more powerful, more highly ranked than the other, but this does not make two heads of state into one. Skyring 03:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've rewritten the opening paragraph of the head of state section to highlight a little better the shifts from 1901 to today. I think it makes reasonably clear that as the term "head of state" is used today, that's who it was back then too. --Michael Snow 23:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am pleased with your changes and find them to be an improvement. El_C 23:26, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You don't think you could be a bit more blatant about your shilling? Skyring 00:25, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please stick to discussing the facts and how to incorporate them into the text, thank you. Comments like this are not helpful in any way. --Michael Snow 00:39, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Provided for the purpose of illumination. You know what a shill is? Skyring 01:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is a shilling? Adam 01:20, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now I know what a shill is, so I suppose Skyring can claim to have improved my knowledge to that extent. Otherwise his contribution is no more than his usual stupid, offensive and destructive nonsense. Adam 01:44, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Could someone have a word to Adam about offensive and abusive language? Goodness knows I have tried to get him to moderate his behaviour, but apparently my good advice is ignored. Skyring 03:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
People have had words with Adam about such things on various occasions. I agree that this type of comment should be avoided, but I am not surprised at your lack of success. Leading by example would be more effective than just advice, as then he would have less reason to make such comments about you. --Michael Snow 03:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? Skyring 04:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, Adam, as seen below, believes that his comments are not personal abuse, because as a matter of form they are directed at your arguments or your conduct, rather than you as a person. No doubt you believe the same thing about your own comments that are of a similar nature. Both of you are elevating form over substance, and blinding yourselves to your own responsibility for the poisonous atmosphere in this discussion. If both of you would moderate your tone, the discussion would improve and we would have a better chance of resolving the content issues more efficiently. And lest I contribute further to the atmosphere myself, I shall have nothing more to say on this aspect of the debate. --Michael Snow 05:27, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hang on. What comments of mine are of a similar nature to Adam's? His personal attacks are way beyond anything I've said. Pete 06:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm speaking of general principles, and not interested in getting into an argument over a question of degrees. --Michael Snow 06:31, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
On this point I'm not going to argue. I'm interested to know what comments of mine to which you particularly take exception so that I may moderate my behaviour. Use my talk page if you wish. Pete 06:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Adam's comments are occasionally intemperate, but I will be frank and say that I have found keeping an eye on this exasperating and I would have probably got equally irate by now. --Robert Merkel 04:32, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am very sorry to hear it. But at least you admit to your shortcomings, and that is positive. Skyring 04:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You have simply not been able to convince anyone else here that the "two heads of state" theory you're pushing is a majority one. It happens. It's happened to me on computer security. Your strenuous objections to the text are noted. Barring dramatic new evidence, the clear majority opinion doesn't seem likely to change. Can we move on, please? --Robert Merkel 04:32, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am astonished that you consider my opinion important. It is more than I do. I look on verifiability and truth as being of greater importance when compiling an encyclopaedia. I urge this view upon all participants in this discussion. Skyring 04:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I described Skyring's behaviour on this page as stupid, offensive and destructive. I don't consider this to be personal abuse (I could show you some personal abuse if you like). They are statements of fact, phrased in the most moderate language possible. Adam 05:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I take exception to Skyring's characterization of my comment above. His question don't think you could be a bit more blatant about your shilling? is an inapproriate statement whose meaning he could have rephrased to avoid being offensive. I suspect he elects to conduct himself in this way in order to divert attention from the dismal absence of verifiable sources for his partisan idée fixe.El_C 06:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be complete confusion here regarding what a head of state is. A head of state may dissolve parliament, appoint governments, etc but because someone does that does not make them a head of state, because those roles can be and were fulfilled by people who most definitely were not heads of state - eg, colonial governors, etc. A head of state's principal function is to be legal embodiment of the state in all diplomatic discourse on the international inter-state level. A head of state in their name appoints diplomats, signs Letters of Credence, receives Letters of Recall, signs treaties or has it done in their name. They are the defining powers and functions of a head of state. If they do that, they are a head of state. If they don't, they aren't. In Seanad Éireann during the debate on the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948 then Irish Taoiseach (prime minister) and former Attorney-General John A. Costello stated that as those functions were carried out by King George VI as King of Ireland between 1937 and 1949, not withstanding the fact that the President of Ireland was Ireland's first citizen, the king was actually the head of state. When under the RoI Act as implemented in April 1949 those powers were given to the President of Ireland he at that point became head of state.

In reality the GG of Australia is not and cannot be the Australian head of state, as he fulfils none of these functions. Australia in diplomatic functions is represented by, and embodied by, the Queen of Australia, or the Queen in Australia as she technically was before the 1970s. Credentials are issued in the name of the Q, not the GG. Treaties are signed in the name of the Queen. In a legal sense, she is Australia on the world diplomatic stage. (That is why, when some years ago the Governor-General visited Ireland and had a state dinner provided for him by the President of Ireland, the guests there - I was one - raised our glasses and proposed a toast to '"The Queen of Australia" and why the Governor-General toasted "The President of Ireland". They were equated as the heads of state of Australia and Ireland respectively. The Governor-General was not toasted as the equivalent to the Irish head of state, because unambiguously he wasn't. ndeed treating a governor-general as a head of state is seen as a major diplomatic faux pas, a faux pas George Bush made once. (But then his dork of a brother in Florida once thought the Spanish 'President of the Government' (prime minister) was 'President of the Spanish Republic', which came as a bit of a surprise to King Juan Carlos of Spain!!!

The Governor-General is simply the Australian head of state's local representative to carry out practical constitutional functions as she does not reside in Australia and so would not be available to do that. The debate during the referendum on the republic was about creating a head of state, by merging the internal powers, functions and duties of the Governor-General with the head of state functions of the Queen, with the new office being head of state. In theory Australia could tomorrow decide to give the head of state functions to the Governor-General. Canada did at one stage propose doing the same to the Canadian Governor General, with the Queen only exercising those powers and being head of state when she was in Canada. But the idea was dropped and the Governor General was left as representative of the head of state, not the head of state themselves. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 23:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. You say: "A head of state's principal function is to be legal embodiment of the state in all diplomatic discourse on the international inter-state level." The problem with your argument is that at this level the Queen represents the United Kingdom and the Governor-General represents Australia. All diplomatic functions are carried out in Canberra and while the Queen is kept informed as a courtesy, she has long since ceased to have even a nominal input. I will agree that in matters of legation and honours the Queen has not surrendered her powers, but I think you are drawing a very long bow if you think that this makes her the head of state. On matters of diplomacy foreign governments turn to Canberra and not London. This includes the United Kingdom - the British High Commission to Australia is located in Parkes and not Westminster.
And the difficulty with your "local representative" theory is that the important prerogative powers are given explicitly to the Governor-General and not to the Queen. Sir John Kerr dismissed Gough Whitlam in his own right. He did not do so in the name of the Queen, he did not act under instructions from Buckingham Palace, he did not seek advice from the Queen. The Queen cannot give instructions to the Governor-General.
There's no definitive answer, and frankly, you trying to use Ireland as an example of how Australia works doesn't inspire confidence in your position. Pete 00:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Statute of Westminster and the Queen of Australia

Re the following sentence: "Following Australia's independence from the United Kingdom as a result of the Statute of Westminster, the Queen was given the title Queen of Australia, confirming her status as Australia's head of state." This seems to suggest that the latter followed as an immediate consequence of the former. I understood the Statute of Westminster was adopted in Australia in the 1930s or 1940s, but the title Queen of Australia was not created until the Whitlam era (1973 from memory). Can anybody shed any light? JackofOz 04:55, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree there is a problem with that sentence, despite my recent edit. "Following" doesn't necessary mean "immediately following," but it could be read that way. The Royal Styles and Titles Act of 1973 was a long-term consequence of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act of (from memory) 1942. This could be made clearer, but this is not an article about Australian constitutional history and we should not go into too much detail. Adam 05:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

According to our articles on the subject, the modern form of the title is from 1973, but a mention of Australia in Elizabeth II's style and titles dates back to her accession in 1953. I don't know whether Australia was mentioned independently in any title used for George VI. The Statute of Westminster is 1931, but not adopted in Australia until 1942 (and then backdated to 1939). All of this detail would be too much to explain in this article and is available via the links. I think the sentence as it stands, placing a loose relationship between these facts and omitting precise dates, is reasonable. --Michael Snow 05:08, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I hope I'm not debating something trivial, but I'm still not entirely happy. Australia may have been mentioned in the Queen's title in 1953, but the very specific and independent title "Queen of Australia" was not invented until 20 years later (and was then followed by "Queen of Queensland", "Queen of New Zealand", "Queen of PNG" etc etc. These are all separate and independent titles. Adam, I agree that "following" doesn't necessarily mean "immediately following", but why virtually invite readers to form that conclusion when it is the wrong one? I think a better solution would be something like: "In 1973, the Queen was given the separate title Queen of Australia, which many saw as confirming her status as Australia's head of state. This would not have been possible without the passage of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942." Any comments? Cheers JackofOz 06:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Awkward. I wouldn't mind something less open to misunderstanding than the current version, but I don't think we should pay the price in quality of prose. For what it's worth, the mention of the title is in the context of a discussion of the head of state, and I think since her earlier title included both Australia and Queen, that's an equally good indicator for that particular question. Separating "Queen of Australia" as a title from any other territories she may happen to be Queen of is still important in a symbolic sense, of course. --Michael Snow 06:27, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The sentence now says: "Australia became independent from the United Kingdom following adoption of the Statute of Westminster. 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 1953 Royal Style and Title did not use the expression "Queen of Australia" and it was certainly not the intention then to create a separate Australian monarchy. This is all, however, quite irrelevant to the topic of this article. Adam 06:59, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I reverted a large edit by Skyring which had been labelled "Fix spelling errors, adjust references" [2], because it seemed to be far more significant than that summary suggested. Perhaps the editor could explain the edits more clearly. Thanks, -Willmcw 07:47, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
The history speaks for itself. My changes were pretty minor. I ignored Adam's rv in between. Pete 09:51, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oh? I don't see which version it is that you reverted to. It looks to me like a new version, with more than minor changes. That's OK for you to do, but please give us clear, correct edit summaries. Thanks, -Willmcw 12:54, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Just to clarify. A new editor came on board last night - no not me as a sockpuppet - and Adam immediately reverted without discussion. I looked at the text and made some stylistic changes. I've now made a few more. I think this should be discussed with a view to finding an acceptable text. I won't say I'm happy with either version, but I'd say the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Pete 10:47, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He doesn't need to explain his edits, since he has already burdened us with his crank theories half-a-dozen times. What he needs to do is to accept that he has no support for those theories among the group of editors currently working on this article and desist from his arrogant, petulant, vain campaign to impose his views on everybody else by a process of exhaustion. Adam 09:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Adam. Perhaps you should be prepared to accept the logical consequences of what you are saying, and the example you are setting. That's only fair. Pete 09:51, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:144.138.159.214's changes

A new editor came on board last night - no[,] not me as a sockpuppet - and Adam immediately reverted without discussion. (Please do not modify this excerpt and/or excerpt space)

  • Ordinarily, when an editor makes appreciable changes to a substantial portion of consensus text, it is they who are responsible to explain their changes in Talk, not those who revert them.
  • At the event, I have yet to see any protest, or for that matter a single words from User:144.138.159.214.
  • A substantive defence for the changes has yet to be provided by any editor.

El_C 12:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I did not for a moment think that 144.138.159.214 was a Skyring sockpuppet. I deleted his or her edits because they were not relevant to this article, which is not an article about republicanism or the 1999 referendum. Adam 12:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore Skyring's changes were not "minor" as he falsely claims. They were major changes, yet another attempt to impose his crank POV on this article. If Skyring persist in this arrogant disregard for the majority position, I will ask to have this article protected. Adam 13:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Minor changes in spelling, fixing brackets, and removal of some of the republic/referendum material Adam complains about. As anyone can clearly see - ignoring Adam's knee-jerk rv in between, which incidentally had the effect of re-introducing the error about the Territory Senators. It's always best to take it calmly, get all the facts in, and only act when properly informed. As for majority positions, I can't really see a lot of support for Adam's tactics of personal abuse intended to intimidate me - an obvious failure seeing as I'm still participating - or refusing to cite his sources. Perhaps we should take a vote on it?
  • Is the use of abuse, threats and offensive languege justified in discussion on matters of constitutional theory and practice? YES/NO
  • Is it good practice not to cite sources in discussion on matters of constitutional theory and practice? YES/NO
I point out that none of us are constitutional experts, which is why I use the opinions of those who are to back up my contributions. I urge this practice upon everyone, otherwise we become like a room full of nuns discussing the finor points of sexual intercourse. Entertaining, but of little credibility, and credibility is what we should strive for. Pete 21:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Who reverted whom

Why does Skyring bother telling such a pathetic lie when anyone who looks at the edit history can see how major and how tendentious his edit was? I repeat that if he attempts again to impose this edit on the article I will ask to have it protected from him. Adam 22:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You will please apologise for that baseless allegation that I lied, Adam. As I pointed out twice over above, I ignored your reverts. The history is plain to see:
I see that I was in error when I said that anybody can plainly see that my edits were minor. Adam thinks they were major. Only if he compares them to the version he so loyally clings to. It appears he is trying to misrepresent my honest factual comments as a deliberate lie. Or he is ignorant of the true state of affairs. Either way, I think an apology is required.

Perhaps Skyring is delusional rather than dishonest. If this is the case I apologise, since I suppose he is not responsible for his delusional state. In case anyone is remotely interested in this bizarre nonsense, the correct edit history is as follows:

  • (cur) (last) 11:27, 16 Mar 2005 Skyring (→Head of state - Fix spelling errors, adjust references.) a major edit by Skyring, inserting his crackpot theories
  • (cur) (last) 11:30, 16 Mar 2005 Skyring (→Legislature - Territory Senators elected for three year terms only. Undo incorrect rv) a minor and legitimate edit by Skyring
  • (cur) (last) 07:29, 17 Mar 2005 Willmcw (rv "spelling" changes) Both Skyring's edits reverted
  • (cur) (last) 07:37, 17 Mar 2005 Willmcw (restore senate edit) Skyring's minor edit restored
  • (cur) (last) 10:15, 17 Mar 2005 Skyring (→Head of state - Undo rv.) Skyring restores his major edit
  • (cur) (last) 10:27, 17 Mar 2005 Adam Carr I delete Skyring's major edit
  • (cur) (last) 10:37, 17 Mar 2005 Skyring (→Head of state - Undo rv, make some minor changes) Skyring restores it
  • (cur) (last) 11:15, 17 Mar 2005 Adam Carr I delete it again

Adam 23:23, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You should set up as a comedian, Adam! Anyone who wishes to see the truth may go here to see who put in the major edit and use the "Newer edit" links to follow the changes. A particularly useful feature of Wikipedia. As has been pointed out, this editor hasn't defended his changes, so I'm not going to bother. We'll work through the required changes point by point. Pete 00:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It would be much easier on the other editors if you could make the changes one by one, with a clear edit summary of each, please. If you decide to revert another editor's changes, please say so. All this arguing about who did what is a waste of time, which could have been avoided. Thanks, -Willmcw 00:46, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
We'll take it slow. The above is my rejection of the allegation that I made major changes and called 'em minor. The edit history shows the true state of affairs, and I'm happy with that. I ignored Adam's reverts and concentrated on the material from the new editor, which needed a fair amount of tweaking to Wifify it. Pete 00:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This edit [3] by Skyring claims it is clarifying the referendum proposals (it does no such thing, it's just a POV rephrasing of the result), and "fixing" the red ACM link, when it's sneaking an external one into the article. The way to fix the link is by creating the article; it's a basic wiki principal to include red links so that users can do just that. And a movement that calls itself the Australian Republican Movement can fairly safely be described as a movement campaigning for an Australian republic. Lacrimosus 01:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The referendum wasn't defeated. The proposals were. The preceding sentences in the same paragraph refer to proposals. I shouldn't think that this was contentious to refer to the proposals or referendum proposals. that's a clarification. I reinstated the external link because it referred to something. Yours didn't. But feel free to show me a link to this "basic wiki principal". And no, I don't accept that the ARM is campaigning for a republic. We already have as much of a republic as we can possibly get, given our republican sytem of government. What the ARM is really campaigning for is the removal of the monarchy, and nobody disputes that. Pete 01:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding [4]..."Wikipedia always prefers internal links, even to non-existent articles, over external links" (Wikipedia:External links) — Matt Crypto 01:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! I thought it might have been a "principle", but I wanted to be sure. Pete 02:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Skyring can spin this any way he wants. His opinionated edits will continue to be reverted. Adam 02:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Enough textual redundancy already

I find it absurd that, after what I said here, Skyring persists in his accusation that Adam is committed to explain himself for reverting User:144.138.159.214. As I said (and clearly this has not registred, and so there is the need for a pointless reiteration), it is User:144.138.159.214 who should provide an explanation for having changed large portion of consensus text, not those who revert him/her back into the version overwhelmingly supported by all editors here, save Skyring (and the elusive User:144.138.159.214). As for the minor error that was retained in the process, it is of little consequence. El_C 23:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A suggestion

I recommend commenting out the parts of the article you dont like rather than reverting. Yust put it in <!-- -->. Anythng in this will not be avalible in the article but will be avalible in source. I also recomend you explain eaxh other what you not like and what you suggest. Use the folowing as you see it.

Example:

Page originaly has "Green is good."

<!-- No my favorite color is blue. - Sig
Green is good.
-->

Hope this helps! --Cool Cat My Talk 01:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I also suggest refraining from reverting. Wikipedia is an everybody can contribute medium. We are a community, by definition plural. What a POV is always debatible as often there are multiple perspectives to things. No one can declare ownership to any article. Everything you present here can be eddited. I kindly request that all parties honor the way we do things on wikipedia. You both want to contribute to wikipedia, you will be contributing more if you work together rather than against each other. Best practice is to forget old hostilities and start from scratch. --Cool Cat My Talk 02:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not sure I'm following you. Are you familliar with this content dispute? El_C 05:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course not - Cookcat is a well-known Wikicrank. Adam 06:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

His comments on my talk page just now, regarding a complete unrelated matter were... how shall I put this ... unresearched. Hmm. And note that I have never met him/her until today. Does not inspire confidence at this point. El_C 07:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)