Talk:Government of Australia/Archive 4

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 3 |
Archive 4
| Archive 5 →


Queen of Australia

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. Saying that this is so is merely opinion. Pete 22:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, I won't revert until I hear further arguments as I'm not too familliar with the literature. El_C 22:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
You say you have a source for the statement. Please advise. Pete 23:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

We have had this stupid argument with the troll Skyring, alias Pete, ad nauseam already. No-one else shares his view. In summary, the position is this:

  • There is no reference to "Head of State" in the Constitution
  • Nevertheless, every sovereign state has to have a head of state
  • The only plausible candidates for Head of State are the Queen and the Governor-General
  • The Governor-General himself says that the Queen is head of state, and he takes an oath of alleigance to the Queen
  • The Queen is accorded all the formal status of head of state: she appears on stamps, coins etc, oaths are taken to her, legislation is enacted in her name etc, she confers honours etc etc etc
  • Therefore the Queen is, de facto if not strictly speaking de jure, Australia's head of state, and this is the view of most Australians.
  • Skyring's usual riposte to all this is to say that the GG carries out all the functions of a head of state, therefore he is one. My answer is that this is true, but irrelevant, and in any case this view is specifically rejected by the GG himself.

I am thoroughly sick of Skyring trying to impose his personal opinion on this subject on Wikipedia and I will revert his edits as long as is necessary to deter him. Adam 00:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

This all sounds familliar, somehow. ;) El_C 00:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

We have been over all this many times. I am not here to play your silly games. Adam 01:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

At least we've moved past the convention-contention bit! :p El_C 02:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Asking for a source is not a silly game. 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. Saying that this is so is merely opinion. Does anybody have a source for the statement? Pete 02:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Can we have a source, rather than abuse and opinion, please! Let's try to be professional. Pete 01:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Which one do you want? How about this one.

The debate is about whether we should for the Commonwealth and each State have Australians as head of state instead of the Queen who is now their formal head of state, and patriate or transfer to them the remaining head of state powers which are now the Queen's rather than the Governor-General's or Governors'. If we did that we would be a republic, as the monarch would have no part in any of our systems of government. It would require amendments to the Commonwealth and State constitutions.

Maintaining Our Democracy in Monarchy or Republic
Paper presented to the Australian Institute of International Affairs
Dyason House, 124 Jolimont Toad, East Melbourne on 31 July 1997.
The Hon. Richard E. McGarvie AC

The world will say that we have not developed, it will say that Australia is afraid of the new world in which it lives, uncomfortable with independence and determined to hang on to the apron strings of a mother country that cut us adrift long ago. Many will say that this impression would be mistaken. Whether we have the Queen as our head of state or not [after this referendum], we are a tolerant and independent country. Malcolm Turnbull. The Australian 1 January 1999.
The Constitution makes it clear that the formal Head of State of the Commonwealth is the Queen, not the governor-general - Professor George Winterton LL.B. (First Class Hons), LL.M. (WA); JSD (Columbia); Barrister (NSW), Barrister and Solicitor (Vic and WA) is the Professor of Law in the University of New South Wales, leading Australian republican campaigner associated with the Republic Advisory Committee and a member of the Constitutional Convention.

ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth,

Greeting:

WHEREAS, by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, certain powers, functions and authorities are vested in a Governor-General appointed by the Queen to be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth:

AND WHEREAS, by Letters Patent dated 29 October 1900, as amended, provision was made in relation to the office of Governor-General:

AND WHEREAS, by section 4 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth, the provisions of the Constitution relating to the Governor-General extend and apply to the Governor-General for the time being, or such person as the Queen may appoint to administer the Government of the Commonwealth:

AND WHEREAS We are desirous of making new provisions relating to the office of Governor-General and for persons appointed to administer the Government of the Commonwealth:

Letters Patent issued by the Queen of Australia, on the advice of her Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, MP, in 1984, to the Governor-General of Australia.

Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973:-

An Act relating to the Royal Style and Titles WHEREAS, in accordance with the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953, Her Majesty, by Proclamation dated 28th May, 1953, adopted, as the Royal Style and Titles to be used in relation to the Commonwealth of Australia and its Territories, the Style and Titles set forth in the Schedule to that Act:

AND WHEREAS the Government of Australia considers it desirable to propose to Her Majesty a change in the form of the Royal Style and Titles to be used in relation to Australia and its Territories:

AND WHEREAS the proposed new Style and Titles, being the Style and Titles set forth in the Schedule to this Act, retains the common element referred to in the preamble to the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953:

BE IT THEREFORE enacted by the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives of Australia, as follows:

Short Title This Act may be cited as the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973.

Assent to adoption of new Royal Style and Titles in relation to Australia 1. The assent of the Parliament is hereby given to the adoption by Her Majesty, for use in relation to Australia and its Territories, in lieu of the Style and Titles set forth in the Schedule to the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953, of the Style and Titles set forth in the Schedule to this Act, and to the issue for that purpose by Her Majesty of Her Royal Proclamation under such seal as Her Majesty by Warrant appoints. 2. The Proclamation referred to in sub-section (1) shall be published in the Gazette and shall have effect on the date upon which it is so published.

SCHEDULE Royal Style and Titles Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.

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.

The Australian Governor-General "does not have the status of a head of state" - Vernon Bogdanor, academic and constitutional expert.

Queen's role in question over military awards PM - Tuesday, 12 April , 2005 18:33:00 (transcript) Reporter: Jayne-Maree Sedgman MARK COLVIN: As the Federal Government contemplates the most appropriate posthumous award for the nine victims of the Sea King helicopter crash on Nias, the role that the Queen plays in the process has come into question. Under the present structure, the Queen still signs off on all medals awarded to Australian servicemen and women. Those in favour of Australia becoming a republic say this flies in the face of monarchists' claims that the Queen plays no active role in day-to-day government here.

Others argue it's entirely appropriate as long as the Queen remains our head of state, as Jayne-Maree Sedgman reports. JAYNE-MAREE SEDGMAN: Much has been said about the awarding of medals to those who died in the Sea King helicopter crash. The Government says it will soon reveal what awards it may bestow. Last year Canberra also announced a new award. The Australian Defence Medal is to be created. At this stage it's expected to be given to those who've served for six years or more over the past 60 years, but the final criteria are still being determined. Whatever the outcome, the Queen still has to sign off on the medals, although the Government says she's already given in-principle approval.

2.6.1 Form of address of Head of State

Letters of Credence and Letters of Recall should be addressed to the Queen of Australia. In accordance with the Royal Style and Titles Act of 1973, the correct style and title for this purpose is:

"Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth."

Protocol Guidelines: Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for diplomats.

As well as being a federation, Australia is a constitutional monarchy. Under this system of government, as the term suggests, the head of State of a country is a monarch whose functions are regulated by a constitution. Australia's Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II. The concept of the Crown pervades the Constitution. For example, the Queen is part of Parliament (section 1), and is empowered to appoint the Governor-General as her representative (section 2). The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as her representative (section 61).

Despite the terms of the Constitution, the Queen does not play a day-to-day role in the Commonwealth Government. Those few functions which the Queen does perform (for example, appointing the Governor-General) are done in accordance with advice from the Prime Minister.

Australia's Attorney-General's Department

Also read the Republic Advisory Committee reports, Vol I and II.

I am surprised that Pete seems to have such a shaky knowledge of the Australian constitution. The evidence is there, from republicans, from monarchists, from legal documents, from diplomatic documents, from the Attorney-General, from past governors-general, from judges, from lawyers, from academics, from the diplomatic corp, etc. How anyone can seriously suggest that the Queen of Australia is not Australian head of state is beyond me. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 02:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I am aware that many people consider the Queen to be the sole Australian head of state. I can produce as many opinions to the contrary. Howver, none of your material answers the specific point I raised. 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. Saying that this is so is merely opinion. Pete 02:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Gasps in admiration Adam 02:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually it is rather a lot of opinion from rather a lot of people whose job is to know. People like the Attorney General's Department, who know a bit or two about the law. Oh and the two government departments who have top lawyers as their legal advisors. But in fact no-one is suggesting that the title Queen of Australia made her head of state. It simply confirmed what had been commonwealth practice from Canada to New Zealand, Australia to the Irish Free State and South Africa from the passage of the Statute of Westminster - the move from the singular crown of the old empire to the multiple crowns of the post 1930s commonwealth. It really is absurd to suggest that the GG is a head of state. If he is, why does no state on the planet treat him like that? Why is he subject to some other head of state's Letters Patent? Why is he appointed by another head of state? (Heads of state don't as a rule appoint each other!) Why can he be dismissed by another head of state? (Heads of state don't normally dismiss each other either!) Why is another head of state, and not him, part of the legislature? It really is utterly ridiculous in the extreme to believe that the Governor-General is a head of state. All he does is exercise some head of state tasks. But nothing that can only be done by a head of state. The things that can only be done by heads of state (in foreign affairs) he cannot go. He is, as his name says, a governor-general, nothing more. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 02:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
I have asked Skyring all those questions several times. He never answers, just comes up with more obfuscation and blather. Adam 03:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

(copied from a talk page.)

You have completely misunderstood what George [Winterton] said in the link. He did not say that there are two heads of state. Look at the words -

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

I count two: 1. "legal or formal head of state" 2. "effective or de facto head of state"

How many do you count? Pete 03:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

  • sigh* I presume you are joking and that you aren't so illinformed on constitutional law that you don't know the difference between formal and de-facto? A de-facto head of state is an utterly meaningless term.
Not to Professor Winterton, obviously! Pete 03:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Try to look beyond counting the number of times George wrote head of state and learn to understand what he is saying. You seem to be unable to grasp the meaning of the sentence and the context of the words used (which would, I suppose, explain your mistaken understanding of Australian constitutional law.) FearÉIREANN\(talk) 03:19, 18 May 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?

Surely you are not trying to claim that he meant one when he named two? Pete 03:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Australia's legal or formal head of state is the Queen. That is what everyone keeps telling you. All the Governor-General is the de facto head of state, in other words he kinda acts like a sort of head of state, not a real one. But he isn't the legal or formal one. That is the Queen alone. And even then the Governor-General's sort of head of stateship isn't comparable to the head of state of Australia at all. It is a sort of quasi-informal working thing inside the Commonwealth, but worthless and counts for nothing outside of it. Being a sort of head of state-type figure inside your own country is meaningless. Douglas Hyde was in a similar situation as President of Ireland between 1938 and 1945. But in reality he was not an actual head of state. And an encyclopaedia cannot carry sort of looks a bit like . . . definitions. They have to be precise, formal, legal definitions. And George makes it plain who fits that category - The Queen and no-one else. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 03:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why you are trying to debate the question here. The opinions of editors don't matter. I'm asking if anyone has a source for the statement in the article saying that giving her the title Queen of Australia "confirmed her status as Australia's head of state". A contemporary quote would be fine. Pete 03:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I've followed this debate with some interest. Perhaps a compromise would be something like: "Giving her the title Queen of Australia was consistent with her status as Australia's head of state" Cheers JackofOz 06:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

That's still a matter of opinion, rather than a statement of fact. I'm asking for a checkable source for the statement. Pete 07:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Skyring's repeated refrain is that the opinions of editors don't matter. Well he is just plain wrong about that. The Wikipedia editing process is based on arriving at a consensus of editors' opinions. And the fact is that his opinion that the GG is Australia's head of state has found no support among other editors interested in this subject. Until he can persuade us he is right (which will be hard, since he is wrong), he cannot impose this view on articles. Adam 06:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I find it bizarre that Adam sees opinion as somehow over-riding fact, as if it were something that could be voted upon. All I'm doing is asking for checkable sources for questionable statements. Is Adam seriously saying that he will not or cannot provide sources but it doesn't matter because he thinks he can get backup from others sharing his opinion? Where is this attitude to be found in WP policy, may I ask? Pete 07:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

That's the way Wikipedia works. If you don't like it, you are free to piss off (an outcome which would be widely welcomed). Adam 07:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm here for the long run, Adam. I like being a part of this great project. And I am sure that the feeling is shared. You'd do beter to leave out the insulting, abusive attacks and ultimately counterproductive personal attacks and concentrate on working together. As can easily be seen, I'm not trying to impose my views on anybody. I'm concentrating on removing questionable statements which cannot be sourced. You have demonstrated elsewhere that where you have sources, you are happy to speedily provide them. Why not here? Is there a problem? Pete 07:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you are going to stick around you had better learn to get rolled gracefully, as I and many others have done. Simple questions of fact (like the population of Greece in 1913) can be solved by simple reference to sources. Complex questions like who is Australia's head of state cannot, because they are matters of opinion and interpretation. What goes in Wikipedia is decided by a consensus of opinion of those editors involved, or if no consensus can be reached, by majority opinion. In this case it has been obvious for months that everyone except you agrees that the Queen is Australia's head of state. You can go on thinking we are all fools if you like, but that doesn't alter the fact. So it is time for you to swallow your ego and stop wasting everyone's time. Adam 09:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I disagree on that. Matters of opinion and interpretation can indeed be solved by referring to sources, just like raw facts: you just find a source which gives that opinion or interpretation. On Wikipedia we do certainly decide how to write articles by consensus, but we don't decide the issues themselves by consensus. Nonetheless, if consensus is that Skyring has no case, then he should drop it. It would be appreciated, however, if he was discouraged in a polite and non-hostile manner. — Matt Crypto 11:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Australian constitutional practice may be complex, but we are not here to perform original research. 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. I refer you to Wikipedia:Verifiability and ask that instead of threats and abuse you work with me on this. I have asked repeatedly for a verifiable source to back up the statement in the article that giving the Queen the title Queen of Australia confirmed her as Australia's head of state, and none has been provided. Instead you threaten to mindlessly revert my edits and you back up your threats with abuse. Is this professional behaviour? Pete 10:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Skyring, as Adam and myself have repeated more than once to you (though this was months ago, and I'm just begining to recollect it), we are interested in having this article represent scholarly consensus, not simply those ones whom you agree with or lean towards such as Prof. Winterton, et al. The opinions of editors involved matters a great deal, because it is through them that not only what is verifiable is established, but also an editorial conesnsus as to what the consensus in the scholarship, in govt. & politics, etc., is. El_C 11:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
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. In fact it makes me think that you don't have any better arguments. Otherwise you'd use them. I don't want the article to lean towards any one point of view. I'm asking for verification of statements that are clearly POV. Remove them or make them reflect the several different opinions. Either way is fine. Pete 11:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
If I repeat myself, it's because you seem to leave me little choice; and I do not wave my arms a lot, nor do I (nor have I ever) use(d) ad-hom against you. You wish for Adam to observe Wikipedia:Civility, well, how about applying it yourself, to an editor who has never insulted or directed ad-hom towards you, yet you go on to accuse of doing so. El_C 12:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
You named yourself and Adam together, pardon me if I respond to you both as one. I take it that you personally haven't used ad-hom, but you agree that Adam has? Do you condone this sort of thing? I also notice that you evade my point. Evasion is another thing I pick up on. Pete 12:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
This discussion is threaded, and your comment directly follows my own; try to be more clear and less evasive as to whom your refering to, perhaps by name, or you bear the responsibility of the confusion which may ensue. I'll let others argue that for now. El_C 12:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Let me know when you get the point about evasion...
And must I ask for a source once again? This whole page is me asking for a source on a questionable statement and not getting one. Hand-waving, abuse, irrelevancy, dishonesty and evasion. But no source. Pete 12:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
I will, or maybe I have (how's that for evasiveness). But it dosen't matter, I did not revert back. Though I'm far from certain that your definition of what constitute original research as well as your demand for such a specific source, are applicable for this case. El_C 12:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Nevertheless, nobody has supplied a source, there is no source for the statement in the archived material and it looks like it was deliberately designed to be provocative. The article shouldn't be an argument designed to persuade the reader to one POV. It should either stick to verifiable and uncontentious facts, or better, be written in such a manner as to give all points of view a reasonable airing. I've outlined my position on this months ago - I'm not going to tolerate anything that states or implies that the Queen is the one and only head of state without qualification.
Perhaps a good way forward on this is to give each of the three points of view their own section so we don't get tied up in qualifying words and phrases. Pete 13:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • If Professor Winterton wants to come and edit this article, his opinion will count for something. At present what counts is the opinion of those editing this article.
  • My behaviour is appropriate for dealing with trolls like you. Adam 11:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think your behaviour is appropriate here. — Matt Crypto 11:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Fine. You deal with him then. You'll learn. Adam 11:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm only asking that, if and when you deal with him, you be polite. What do you gain by being rude? Being rude to people doesn't help, for at least two practical reasons: 1) It raises the hostility of the discussion, making rational argument more difficult, and 2) it makes it more difficult for other editors to work out if you're in the right. You claim Skyring is a troll, but it's hard to see that when you're the one using abusive language. — Matt Crypto 11:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)