Jump to content

Talk:Australian head of state dispute/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Kicking it off

This is a topic which has long deserved its own article, given the tendency of the topic to impact on other articles. Currently there is robust discussion on:

This article will list the various opinions on who is seen as the Australian head of state, and why. I expect the original text to be expanded significantly, and a long list of sources added over the next few days. --Pete (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The dispute effects alot of articles. For example, at the GG's residence in Canberra, there's no mention that it's the Queen's official residence. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been out there a few times as part of my official duties. You are quite correct! --Pete (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Part of your official duties? GoodDay (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. I spotted no plaque or signboard to the effect. --Pete (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand your response. Again, what's these official duties of yours? GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
This issue is a non-sequitur. Gov House is the official residence of the G-G. Whether or not he/she is the Head of State is irrelevant to where they live, and vice-versa. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Mies might argue that, see Rideau Hall. -- GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see your point. The Queen stays at Government House in Canberra when she's visiting, too. She has to stay somewhere. It has no bearing on her and the G-G's respective roles or statuses. I've never been to Buckingham Palace, but I somehow doubt there's a big sign outside saying "Official residence of the Queen", but it's still her residence. The presence or absence of signage means nothing. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 14:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
That argument is for that article, anyways. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Which article? What argument? What are you talking about? To return to your original statement, one extremely good reason why there's no sign at Government House saying it's the Queen's official residence, is that Government House is NOT the Queen's official residence. It is the Governor-General's official residence. I still fail to see why you ever raised this matter in the context of this article. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Needs to be moved

This article title should be changed to Australian head of state dispute. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It is based on the "Head of state" section in Government of Australia, a title which has been used without murmur (or dispute) for several years. --Pete (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
There's is a dispute in Australia over who's its Head of State. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Alternately, I wonder if a whole article is even needed. Can it not be summarised in a section of an article, such as here? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Yep, it could. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
It's an interesting and noteworthy article. And a good forum for drawing out the sources. It seems balanced. Wikipedia is one of the few public forums where discussion of this topic is possible.Gazzster (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think articles should be created to create discussions. That sort of pollutes this project's claim to be an encyclopedia. Only legitimate articles on legitimate topics should be created. This article is not about the "Australian head of state", it is about a dispute contained within in the area of Australian public opinion, possibly rare, and even the actual existence of that as a notable subject seems to be unable to be reliably sourced. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not fussed on the name - I simply took the existing "Head of state" section from the GofA article and used that as the basis for the article name. There is definitely a dispute or a division of opinion; it is a contentious issue. It is not trivial, being a topic in the media every Australia Day or whenever the issue of the constitution surfaces, and engaging Prime Ministers, High Court justices, law professors and political groups in the public debate. Usually covering the same old ground, as we seem to do on Wikipedia. Setting out the arguments with reliable sources makes this article a useful reference. --Pete (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Support move - I see no evidence whatsoever that there is anything else but a popular opinion dispute which is not official in any way and in no way effects the reality of E2R being the actual head of state. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Support - As this article is covering a dispute. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done after no objection by creator. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I support the existence of the article, but wonder whether the word "dispute" might not be better replaced by "debate". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think debate would look more like the position is just now being created, not that it already exists and that the person in the office already has been identified in official government publications. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Tabloid sources?

How much of the source material here that claims that Bryce personally is considerer the head of state of Australia (if there is any at all) is populist tabloid trash? Anybody know? SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Zero. Yes. Why not check the sources for yourself? --Pete (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not Australian and am not familiar with those newspapers. I asked because I thought some of you might know them.
Why not quote a specific source that names Bryce personally as head of state? Publiaction, author, page number, date. I've been waiting for that, but I see nothing yet. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
What we need is "Quentin Bryce is Australia's head of state" or something that clear and uncontestable. Find that anywhere in a reliable source, and I'll give in. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm a little confused as to why you keep asking for references that call Quentin Bryce, specifically, the head of state. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Only because another editor keeps alluding to that such material exists but cannot show any reliable reference that confirms it. Specific people, not vague maybes, are in certain offices. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
But, why did you ask in the first place? I thought this article was about the debate in Australia over who is head of state, the governor-general (whomever it may be) or the monarch (whomever it may be). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
OK now I get why you asked. The question for me was/is whether or not this is a legitimate notable subject for a WP article - if so there has to be something reliable somewhere that specifically names the person who is Gov Gen as head of state. Otherwise how can there be a dispute over that? SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The answer has been given several times already. It's in her bio and in this article. What we need are references supporting the view that the Queen is the head of state. I've added one - slightly tongue in cheek - that pretty much sums up the constitutional knowledge of most people. Perhaps instead of asking after references that have already been provided, Serge, you could help make the article a better one? User:Miesianiacal has been a diligent editor and I thank him (or possibly her) --Pete (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see such an important fact in the lede of Bryce's article or in the info box there. Odd, ain't it? Nor do I see any specific quote from anywhere that she personally is head of state. None. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I guess it doesn't matter. The article is about the dispute, and it is a wide and public division. We're not attempting to define the Australian head of state on a talk page, and the article need merely provide reliable sources to support the text. Thanks. As to your unfamiliarity with Australian newspapers, The Australian is highly regarded, as is Quadrant. --Pete (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
And neither the The Australian nor anyone else has never specifically written that Bryce personally is, or has ever been asserted to be (in a "dispute"), the head of state of Australia. Thus there cannot be a dispute over something that never has been seriously asserted. The vague quotes given now are not enough to substantiate that there is an actual dispute, so the article's existence can be questioned justifiably. I'm not saying there is not a dispute, I'm just saying that nothing has been given yet to show that there actually is one. My view is still that the office of Governor General only ever has been mentioned reliably as "head of state" when Bryce has represented E2R who formally and exclusively is the person in that office. If I'm wrong, give me that quote and I'll be glad to add it to the lede of Bryce's article myself! SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 Done SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
If you were better informed on the topic, and that is the aim of this article still under construction, you would know that there is a long-standing dispute on the topic, and the question of who is Australia's head of state is nowhere definitively laid down. You have been provided with sources enough for you to satisfy yourself on the facts. However, given that you have disagreed above with a flat statement by the Prime Minister, reaching a conclusion which is, to the best of my knowledge, unique and unsubstantiated, I am unsure what you desire to be satisfied. I am at your service to provide information and enlightenment, however, and I thank you again for the opportunity. --Pete (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

(reset) SergeWoodzing, the existence of the dispute is not disputed by anyone with a skerrick of appreciation of Australian constitutional affairs. You’ve only got to look at the writings and speeches by Sir David Smith on the subject. If there were no dispute, and everyone accepted the head of state was the Queen, or everyone accepted the head of state was the Governor-General, why would Smith have written and spoken so much about it? He’d be preaching to the converted, wouldn’t he?

Here’s what he had to say in a speech in 2001:

  • Republicans confidently assert that our Constitution declares the Queen to be our Head of State. Let me assert with equal confidence that the Constitution does no such thing. The term "Head of State" is nowhere to be found in the document itself, nor was the term ever used by our Founding Fathers during the Constitutional Conventions of the 1890s when they were framing the document. ... But when we look at the text of the Constitution and at the distribution of executive power, we find that the Queen is our Sovereign and the Governor-General is our Head of State, for it is the Governor-General who actually carries out the duties of Head of State in accordance with section 61 of the Constitution, and not the Queen. Each has an important role to play, but nothing that the Monarch does diminishes in any way the independence of the Governor-General in his role as our Head of State. (my bolding)

And here's David Flint proclaiming "The Head of State Debate Resolved". Again, if there were no debate, why would there be a need to resolve anything? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not just Smith and Flint, who may be said to be conducting a political debate with the republicans. It's the fact that Howard, Crean, Rudd and others named the G-G as HoS. And other equally senior MPs named the Queen. Rudd has apparently changed his opinion at least once. Then there's the media - a Google search of news sources throws up hundreds of references. And academia. Differing opinions. I think the debate will become more robust if Gillard carries out her intention to work towards another referendum. --Pete (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I kept my promise (made above) in the lede here. Sorry to fan the debate thus, but the world needs and deserves to know who Australia's head of state is, immediately, specifically, unequivocally, clearly, without dispute and by personal name. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

how unusual is Australia's constitution?

The article seems to imply that most constitutions say who the head of state is. This is not actually true; New Zealand seems rather unusual in this regard. Over at Talk:Elizabeth II I pointed to a number of constitutions, including that of Canada, which do not use the term "head of state". Looking around the internet, in fact, it is rather difficult to find constitutions that do use that term. Even restricting myself to other commonwealth realms, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, Antigua and Barbuda, and so forth, do not say anything about heads of state, only (like Australia) that executive power is vested in the Queen. Of the ones I looked at, only Papua New Guinea joined New Zealand in using the term "head of state" to refer to the queen. The basic claim being made here, at least implicitly - that Australia is somehow unusual or unique in not having a head of state explicitly named in its constitutional documents - is entirely specious. Most countries' constitutional documents don't use the term "head of state." The statement in the Australian constitution that executive power is vested in the Queen is virtually identical to statements about heads of state in many constitutions. Indeed, this is a far stronger statement than what is contained in, for example, the German constitution, which merely describes the presidential office and says the president represents the country in international relations, without granting him any executive authority whatever. john k (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, again: the language in the Australian constitution about executive power is virtually identical to the language in all the other commonwealth realm constitutions that I've looked at, with the exception, again, of Papua New Guinea. The idea that there is some uniquely Australian dispute over this issue that doesn't apply to Jamaica or Canada is also specious. Any article which starts with the claim that Australia's head of state is "not currently defined in Australian...law" (as though it is defined in the law of most other countries) and "not currently defined in international law" (which seems close to being simply false) is unsalvageable. john k (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked at this a while back, and my recollection is that several Realms explicitly named the Queen as Head of State:
  • Tuvalu - Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, by the grace of God Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her Other Realms and Possessions, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, having at the request of the people of Tuvalu graciously consented, is the Sovereign of Tuvalu and, in accordance with this Constitution, the Head of State
  • Cook Islands - Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand shall be the Head of State of the Cook Islands.
  • Solomon Islands - Her Majesty shall be the Head of State of Solomon Islands.
There is also the naming of a head of state in legislation or regulations or case law. I can't really make any statements in respect of other realms. Just looking at Jamaica, I find a diversity of opinion, including the Governor-General and the Queen of England! It may well be that each realm has its own dispute.
With regard to Australian constitutional arrangements, two factors stand out. The first is that the Constitution may not be altered except by the people, so the wording in s2 is misleading - the Queen may not withdraw any powers granted to the Constitution to the Governor-General. She has no say in the matter, except for the theoretical notion that the Government might go to the huge trouble of getting a constitutional amendment passed - a difficult task indeed, with an 82% failure rate - and then advise the Queen to disallow it! Yeah. So s2 has no effect on Constitutional powers. Most of them are given directly to the Governor-General, and all that resides in the Queen is the remnant of the "executive power", which presumably covers minor stuff such as salvage, royal metals and other prerogative powers. (I'm guided by Lumb here) and may be exercised by the Governor-General on behalf of the Queen. Correct me if you will, but I don't think other constitutions with a Governor-General/monarch relationship specifically give major powers to the Governor-General. Usually they are assigned through Letters-Patent.
The basic thrust of the dispute is that there is NO definitive statement about the Australian head of state. It's all opinion, and often uninformed. You've really got to look at who does the job, holds the power, signs diplomatic credentials and so on, and that person in Australia is the Governor-General and not the Queen. Saying that he is solely the Queen's representative is just wrong - he does a lot more than that. --Pete (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no definitive statement about the British head of state, either. Or the French. Or the Mexican. Or the Belgian, or Luxembourgish, or German, etc. etc. etc. Most constitutions do not use the phrase "head of state." You seem to assume that, at least theoretically, someone must be granted real "executive power" to be considered a head of state. I'm not sure where this notion comes from. The Queen of Australia has more executive power than the King of Sweden, whose status as Swedish head of state is not in dispute. As I said above, the real dispute here seems to be not over who is the Australian head of state, but over what a head of state is. I'm not sure that can be resolved very well. john k (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
In most nations it is obvious who the head of state is. In Australia there is a difference of opinion. The Queen ranks first in precedence, but the Governor-General does the job. She represents the Australian nation overseas in a way that the Queen cannot possibly do. It is up to the Australian people to say who they regard as their head of state, and nobody else. --Pete (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
And there's a sort of undeclared non-shooting intermittent civil war about it. There are most definitely 2 opposing camps, with advocates on both sides who are far more learned than probably anyone here. But it only really gets any decent traction when constitutional matters are given a national airing, such as at the Centenary of Federation or the Republican Referendum. Just because truckies and shop assistants and doctors and housewives are not talking about it all the time at morning smokos and dinner parties and on talk-back radio, does not mean the issue is dead. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
"It is up to the Australian people to say who they regard as their head of state, and nobody else", that observation is telling, particularly the "...nobody else" bit. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I am charmed by this statement in the Head of State lead: Charles de Gaulle described the role he envisaged for the French president when he wrote the modern French constitution, stating the head of state should embody "the spirit of the nation" for the nation itself and the world: une certaine idée de la France (a certain idea about France). Today, many countries expect their head of state to embody national values in a similar fashion.. --Pete (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that statement is correct at all, to be honest. It's incredibly mushy and confuses a number of different ideas. Australians get to decide who their head of state is by setting laws that say who the head of state is. They, like most countries, have so far chosen not to do that. That is the extent to which democratic self-determination comes into play. Once we have established that neither the Australian people nor their elected representatives have chosen to clarify the issue, Australians' opinions on the subject of "who is the head of state under the current constitutional framework" are no more valid than anybody else's. Every individual is, of course, free to regard whomever they like as head of state without interference from other people. Nobody can force any other person to believe anything. But Australians don't have any particular right to decide whom Wikipedia regards as the Australian head of state. This is a well-established feature of Wikipedia which everyone recognizes when it comes to things like ethnic disputes in Eastern Europe: people from a country don't own articles about that country. In this particular case, the question revolves around how the term "head of state" is to be defined more than anything else, and Australians have no exclusive right to define standard English terms. The standard definition of a head of state is more or less what the dictionary.com definition says: the person who holds the highest position in a national government. It says nothing about executive power, or diplomatic representation, or actual power, or anything. It's just "the highest position". The idea that a country can have a "sovereign" who is distinct from the "head of state" is alien to the most usual meaning of "head of state" in the English language. john k (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't decide who is head of state. Nor does a dictionary. The people of the nation do so, through whatever means they see fit, whether it is through a constitution, legislation or whatever. In Australia, there is no unanimous view, and the confusion, or dispute, or debate extends through the community. De Gaulle's view resonates with me, and I suggest, most people - we want our head of state to be one of us. --Pete (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Australians don't own this article or any of the other Australian related articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The sentiment expressed by de Gaulle is universal, I suggest. He was not talking about Australia specifically. --Pete (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Not how it works here. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
That's very rich, coming from someone who insists it's the Queen, your decision is final, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Hardly the hallmark of compromise. In any case, the establishment of this very article is all about demonstrating that there are differing opinions on this issue, and nobody can say with certainty who the head of state is. That's exactly in accord with "Wikipedia doesn't decide who is head of state". Some individual editors seem to be wanting to make such a decision, though. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
You're tiring me, again. GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that. Have you had your health checked lately? (well, odd posts demand odd responses) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. GoodDay (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
[1], which states that Elizabeth II is Head of State of all 16 commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Excellent source! Could you stick it in the appropriate place, please? I was beginning to think that my own two rather tongue in cheek sources were all that was keeping the Queen afloat. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Placed in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's just a source supporting the view that the Queen is the Australian Head of State - through implication rather than directly - and the Queen's website has varied its position on this over time. Unfortunately, it's not the magic bullet that would resolve the dispute. If it were, there would be no dispute. However, it is a good source, and I thank you for it. If you can find more to boost up the Queen's side, that would be great. --Pete (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

As this article is about the dispute, you're placing of the source in the section-in-question is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
BTW, shall I assume, you won't accept any sources as the 'magic bullet'? GoodDay (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
If you can find (say) a High Court ruling that the Queen is the Head of State, then that would certainly be definitive. --07:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Such a High Court ruling is un-necessary though. Anyways, just wanted to make sure I wasn't wasting my time digging up reliable sources. GoodDay (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Not at all! May you do good work. I'd like to see as many different views for each side as possible. Not a whole bunch all saying the same thing, but coming at it from different angles, as I have endeavoured to do. There is another argument supporting the Queen, having to deal with Internationally Protected Persons, which I have mislaid. --Pete (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sourced claims or twisting of facts?

Is there any reliable source that names the Governor-General personally as the Head of State? Or are the arguments that she is simply misquotes where the "Head of State" in function does this or that by proxy, meaning (as usual) that E2R is the head of state but that the Gov-Gen performs for her as such? SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I refer you to the website of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, where you will find more reliable sources than you can digest in a weekend. This isn't just a matter of selective interpretation to push a political barrow, as you will often find in (say) American conspiracy theory. This is a case of the Australian community divided in opinion on the matter with good arguments on both sides. --Pete (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Since you seem to know about sources, I choose to repeat my question rather than studying all that myself: Is there any reliable source that names the Governor-General personally as the Head of State? SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. I thought that this was implicit. Yes. --Pete (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to be absolutely clear: You have found a reliable source, or more than one, where Quentin Bryce personally is named as the Head of State of Australia? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
If so, I think that should be added to her bio. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
It's already there in her bio - has been since 2009 - and listed in this very article since creation. The Australian Prime Minister personally named Quentin Bryce as the head of state when he sent her off to Africa in 2009. --Pete (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm still 100% convinced he meant the office went there (Bryce for E2R by proxy), not that Bryce personally is head of state. Twisted quote to fit the bill. And I strongly doubt whether a head of state can be appointed - change of person - by a prime minister anywhere. As far as I know (though I'm no expert), Australia is a democracy? SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation. As does The Australian in a reference likewise already provided. I think you are being inventive on this point. --Pete (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Until you show us a reliable quote that says Bryce personally is head of state, I'm sorry but you are the one who looks inventive to me. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
As an aid to understanding, I have added to the quote in order to show that the Governor-General was personally named as the Australian Head of State by the Australian Prime Minister and that there is no mention of performing this task as a proxy or deputy or representative of the Queen. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
What's the obsession with a G-G being personally named as Head of State, Serge? Surely any occupant of the relevant office (whichever it is) becomes Head of State ex officio. And why couldn't a head of State be appointed? This list certainly allows for them. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Serge's got a darn good point. Nobody shown 'yet', where the Governor General (not the Queen) is Australia's Head of State. So far, I'll we're getting is some Mr. Smith's opinon. GoodDay (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
"Some Mr Smith". You need to get up to speed with the important players in this Australian issue, my Canadian friend, if you want to make informed and reasonable contributions here. The point is, Smith is just about as learned as it's possible to be in these matters, and while I happen to disagree with his opinion, it still carries a lot of weight. That he says the HOS is the G-G proves there's a dispute, if proof were needed; because the majority of commentators say it's the Queen. Ultimately, they're all opinions because there is no such thing as an official document with any constitutional or legal standing that states who the HOS is. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 13:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I too am not completely sold on this article's existance, btw. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Addressed at Proposed Deletion, below. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The view that the governor-general is the Australian head of state - the Queen's powers

I've added the tags to these sentences in the section The view that the governor-general is the Australian head of state:

The Queen's powers under the Australian Constitution are limited.[clarification needed] ... She is unable to exercise any of the powers given to the Governor-General in the Constitution.[dubious – discuss]

The reasons for this are:

  • Saying that her powers "are limited" might be literally true, but it may be misleading. She has quite significant power according to section 59: "The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General's assent ...", and section 61: "The executive power is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General ... and extends to execution and maintenance of the Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth". Note that is exercisABLE by the GG, not exercisED, ie she can, but does not have to, delegate to the GG. Ie according to the constitution, the Queen has executive power, and the power to repeal laws passed by the government! What could she do if her power was not "limited"?
  • Saying that she is "unable to exercise any of the powers given to the Governor-General" appears to be incorrect. Section 58 gives the GG the power to assent (or not) to a proposed law, but also the power reserve the law "for the Queen's pleasure". Section 60 says "A proposed law reserved for the Queen's pleasure shall not have any force unless and until ... it has received the Queen's assent." Ie, if the GG requests her to, the Queen is able to exercise a power given to the GG - that of assenting to a proposed law. Also section 59 (see above) allows her to exercise the power of disallowing a law - overriding the GG if necessary.

I'm not a legal or political expert, but to my layman's view, the sentences in our article are not consistent with the constitution. If the Queen's powers are restricted by convention or subsequent laws, our article should probably say so explicitly. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Section 59 is misleading. No constitutional authority sees it as having any use now, as it could only be exercised on advice from the Australian Prime Minister, who having just passed the legislation is unlikely to want it revoked! In any case, the normal mechanisms of Parliament deal with legislation and its passage. I have found a Senate committee hearing which covers this question - and several more - and it is instructive to see our friend Sir David Smith in dialogue, rather than presenting a prepared piece.
The constitutional powers of the Governor-General are not delegated, as a reading of s2 implies. If you traverse the whole document, you get to s128, whereby the Constitution may not be amended except by a process which does not involve the Queen. She cannot change or remove those specific powers of the Governor-General. --Pete (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that the Queen's powers are further restricted by convention? This is classic goalpost shifting. john k (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The reality is that those conventions do exist. It is not "goalpost shifting" to refer to that fact. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
It may be harder than I imagined to find a good source that there are conventions. Of course there are conventions, and if a monarch (or a Governor-General) were to refuse assent to legislation, there would be the most horrendous constitutional row. It really doesn't bear thinking about, but an immediate general election would likely be the least disruptive result. Civil war would be a possibility if the issue were contentious enough, and for a head of state to refuse assent it would certainly be a major issue. It's not like the US Presidential veto, which is exercised from time to time. It would be an enormous problem.
However, it may well be impossible to find a useful source stating that the head of state cannot do something which the Constitution clearly states she can do. Gough Whitlam has spent 35 years with a mouthful of sour grapes over it. He thought Kerr couldn't sack him and Kerr sacked him! --Pete (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
For the representative of the head of state (i.e the Governor General), it would also be a problem, if she used the veto. GoodDay (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy: R v Governor

I've edited this segment of the above section for accuracy. While David Flint's article states R v Governor uses the term "Head of State", it actually doesn't appear anywhere in the decision itself. Here's a direct quote:

"But, as already pointed out, it is a duty cast upon him as Head of the State. And the same reasons which prevent a Court of law from ordering the Sovereign to perform a constitutional duty are applicable to a case where it is alleged that the Constitutional Head of a State has by his omission failed in the performance of a duty imposed on him as such Head of the State."

Perhaps this is the basis of some of the confusion. The term Head of the State doesn't carry the same meaning as Head of State. Head of the State appears to refer to the Governor's position as head of an individual state of Australia. --LJ Holden 02:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The distinction is noted, and certainly the term head of state was not used in its current sense in 1907. Nevertheless, I think the word "head" is the critical one here. The King is not mentioned by the High Court as being the relevant office, despite the fact that the Privy Council was the acme of Australian law at that point. --Pete (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but my point was that the article appeared to directly quote the decision, when in fact it states "head of the state" or more correctly "constitutional head of the state", which appears to be qualification. --LJ Holden 03:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
David Flint is pushing his barrow in a political debate. The vital point is the High Court judgement, a rare rock in a sea of opinion. --Pete (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Government of Australia official website

What's the matter with making a sub-section for this 'reliable' source? It's the Government of Australia. GoodDay (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I had considered making subsections for the various categories, and perhaps we should if the material becomes copious. But when there are a half dozen one-liners, making one sentence into a new subsection seems like gilding the thing.
The problem with these official websites is that they flip-flop in their views. The Queen's website has changed her description at least once. Likewise the Commonwealth Government Directory - the pre-web printed guide to the government - has done so many times. References have been given. If one's view is that (say) the Australian Government website is a definitive source, does it change the head of state when the website changes? And changes back and forth a few times? --Pete (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not interested in an edit war, but you were being slow in following through on BRD. Just reverting an edit, can be rightly/wrongly seen as 'ownership. For the moment, the Queen's website says she's Australia's HoS. If it should change to not mentioning HoS, then you can make a note. The not-mentioning of it in around 1999, would seem as an attempt to ease republicans/anti-monarchist. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I see you've reverted me. You created the page & apparently own, so there's not much point in arguing with you. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Not at all. I'm more than happy for others to do research and add useful links. But when I add a link showing that the situation has changed over the years, you remove it. Why? This debate has been going on for some time and official views as publicly expressed have changed several times. This article is about the debate, as expressed in the title, not just the current snapshot of opinion. --Pete (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
It appeared as though you were making that 'source' less reliable (thankfully, you've since rectified). Anyways, I also added the Government website to the External links section. GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
It is a good source. But websites and government directories are not the words of the Almighty etched upon stone. More likely they belong to public servants who care more about the presentation than the contents. I find it extremely significant that official views change - it demonstrates that there is no solid source, otherwise it would be unthinkable to gainsay it. My apologies - my sincere apologies - if I upset you. --Pete (talk) 03:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm the one, whose behaviour has been rude & there's too much ABF on my part. I've gotten myself spread out across 5 current discussions & it's having a negative effect on me. I apologies for my bullying attitude - PS: Who'd of thought a republican would be defending the monarchy. Jeepers, I'm really over-exhausted. GoodDay (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The view that the Queen is the Australian head of state - turning into an unnecessarily long list

I think that the section "The view that the Queen is the Australian head of state" is in danger of becoming a list of every web site that anyone stumbles across that mentions the matter. We should probably limit it somehow but I'm not sure how - perhaps an appropriate hidden comment. Criteria for inclusion might be a bone of contention. The govt and QE's sites are obviously reliable sources. Likewise her appearance on the coins is significant. But there's no much point in listing every site like about.com or Incredible-People.com, which may not have any "official" standing. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Official - yeah, right. I've gone right ahead and deleted those 2 sites that have no official standing whatsoever. Even the Reuters one I'm undecided about. I beefed up 2 of the others, though. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't zap Reuters, please. Consider it a secondary source, an outside opinon from the officialdom. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't trust Reuters if my life depended on it. Their reporting is rife with errors. Still, the source meets WP:RS.
Regardless, not only is the section in question too long, I still maintain that this entire article could be condensed down into three of four paragraphs, thusly. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The article is not very large as it is now so I don't think cutting it back is necessary. I do however think that a couple of the sections could be merged. Too many headings in my opinion. John Hendo (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The section about the Queen is less than half as long as "The view that the governor-general is the Australian head of state". It looks unbalanced, and as if we're promoting the governor-general case, which I for one am certainly not. Trouble is that it's so widely assumed the Queen has that role that there seem to be relatively few places where someone in authority has bothered to explicitly say it; whereas, the David Smiths etc have had to go into print to make their case for the governor-general heard over the cacophony of indifference. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I think this article is off to a good start. It starts with the 'official' position without prejudice. Then it moves onto other positions, including a High Court decision which alone at least is worthy of some consideration. The article is naturally heavy toward the HoS position, because the latter requires the more exposition. Gazzster (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't understand your last sentence, Gazzster. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to see something heavier on the Queen side. Both of the "official" sites have flip-flopped over the years on this position, and frankly the more lightweight ones are embarrassing. The design of the coins is set by the Coinage Act, not the constitution. I also agree that the "narrative" of the article is a bit choppy. Like most Wikipedia articles, I suppose. --Pete (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Note that when I created this section, I was not concerned about lack of balance, so much as the section turning into an ever-growing list, potentially in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, with little value in most entries. I feel that any "list entries" should justify their existence in some way - ie indicate why they are relevant. (Some entries are self-evidently significant, eg the Queen's and the govt's websites.) -LJ Holden's suggestion below to restructure by source rather than perspective would probably fix this problem. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
References

As a Canadian i found this article very interesting (a bit confusing by the title- is it a dispute within the law or just a debate between two ideas?). I have no real comments except the page looks "forked". I have been doing some reading on the topic over the past few days and found some books on the matter. Perhaps they can help build this article that is new.Moxy (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of more reading, more research, more education. In fact, that's about the only thing that unites the monarchist and republican sides of the debate - they want people to understand the issues better. --Pete (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Can I suggest that we should format the sections by their source, rather than perspective? There's evidence that could / can be interpreted either way. Here's what I'm thinking:
== Background ==
== Commonwealth sources ==
== Official sources ==
== Judicial sources ==
== Debate ==
Thoughts? This probably conforms better to WP:MOS --LJ Holden 02:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Each section could present both views in context with each other. --Pete (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Exactly - some sources are used by both sides to support their arguments. For the sake of NPOV it makes sense to just present the sources as they exist. --LJ Holden 09:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

This article is a POV fork. Skyring doesn't get to create a whole new article because he (quite properly) can't get his POV included in regular articles. john k (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? My view, as shared by other Australian editors, is that there is a diversity of opinion within the Australian community, most notably seen in the republican/monarchist debate over the past two decades, reaching a peak of public discussion at the 1999 referendum. As noted above, this article is a useful repository of opinions and sources, which are otherwise buried in discussion. --Pete (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
There most certainly is a dispute, debate, difference of opinion, call it whatever you like - as amply demonstrated above.
  • Much of the YES case for the 1999 Republic referendum hinged on the desirability of having a head of state who's an Australian and who lives here, instead of a non-Australian Queen who lives in London (" A resident for President" was one of the slogans).
  • Much of the NO case hinged on the assertion that the Governor-General already is the Head of State, and the occupants of that office have been exclusively Australians since 1965. However, while it would seem very unlikely now, there's nothing in theory preventing some retired British admiral or aristocrat from being appointed Governor-General. How could the G-G possibly be the Head of State of Australia when the office could conceivably be occupied by a non-royal non-Australian? We may be unique but we're not that unique. It's a most unsatisfactory argument.
You bet there's a dispute, John K, and this article is long overdue. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Your argument here seems to be that the Governor-General is not head of state, largely disingenuous politically expedient arguments not withstanding. Which is, er, my opinion. Beyond that, I don't think most of the sources provided do a very good job distinguishing between the idea that the G-G is de facto head of state, which I don't think anyone really disputes, and the idea that she is de jure head of state, which is a much stronger claim. For example, Jeffery stating that he "carries out all the functions of head of state" is very specifically not a claim that he is head of state. Much of the article is also unsourced, and probably OR as original synthesis - the reference to the New Zealand constitution is unsupported by any reliable sources that make a connection between that and who is Australia's head of state. The Olympics argument is incredibly dubious for the "the governor-general is head of state" argument. If Olympic games must be opened by the host head of state, the arrangements for the Melbourne games show pretty clearly that a) in 1956, the Queen was the Head of State of Australia (nobody would suggest that the Duke of Edinburgh was Australian head of state, I trust), and b) that the Queen may designate another person to carry out the duty of opening the Olympic Games. So far as I know, the argument that the Governor-General is head of state is based on the founding documents of confederation, so nothing would have changed between 1956 and 2000. And if the Queen could designate her husband to carry out her task of opening the games in Melbourne, why can't the G-G do the same in Sydney? Similarly, the Queen's private secretary's statement in 1975 says nothing about "heads of state". At any rate, it seems that the real issue on which everyone disagrees is the question of what a "head of state" is. The traditional view, that the queen is head of state, derives from the traditional understanding that a sovereign is, by definition, a head of state. The alternate view appears to be that the head of state is defined by actually exercising executive power. I don't see how that is relevant. As our head of state article notes (sadly without specific citations), there are heads of state like the King of Sweden who have no executive authority whatever. Anyway, sure, there is debate. The way that debate is covered in this article, however, is hopelessly POV. john k (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
If you don't like the article, fix it, in accordance with established Wikiprocedures. We're not trying to resolve who is or is not the Australian head of state. I don't think it can be done, anyway. The article is to document the differing opinions on the matter, and the fact that the Parliamentary Library issued one of its famous Research Notes to talk about who gets to open the Sydney Olympics is evidence that there is a continuing discussion on the topic. Of course the IOC doesn't get to determine who a head of state is, any more than Wikipedia does. If I can find a good reference, I will add that the Queen attended the Games - she just didn't open it. --Pete (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing to resolve, though. Elizabeth II is Australia's Head of State, whether half the country agrees or not. John K's correct about the Olympics example. Governor General Michelle Jean opened the 2010 Vancouver Olymipcs, does that make him Canada's Head of State? GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Could you source your view and add it to the article, please? Most people seem to just state it as a fact that descends from heaven above and we can't use those sources. The intervention of the Almighty would solve a lot of problems here, but I guess the heavenly realm isn't wired for broadband yet. --Pete (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The Almighty? David Smith? Anyways, I'm athiest. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
These sorts of discussions are not helped by someone saying that one side is right, and those on the other side can go to hell. Because that's what you're doing, GoodDay. I've asked you before not to use such "arguments"; apart from being incredibly unhelpful, they just paint you as an arrogant prig - and I'd like to think that's not actually the case. People have been, quite reasonably, asking for evidence that there's a dispute about the head of state. Evidence has been provided. Now, you come along and say one side of the issue is right, everyone else is wrong, and therefore as far as you're concerned there is no dispute. Double Huh? That's a fantastically novel way to win a debate: just assert you're right, and then deny there even is a debate. I wonder why people haven't come up with it before. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm also a republican, so knowing that our countries have a monarch as Head of State, isn't exactly making me jovial. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
We'll just get your user name changed to Misery Guts, then, and you should be right to go. Seriously, I wish I had your faith. However, we're limited to making sourced statements, and the idea is that Wikipedia isn't just a mass of opinions from the average guy on the web, it's a compendium of useful information that we can trace back to source. If you are made miserable by the Queen being head of state of Australia, then there must be something you can point to that both blights your life and satisfies the Reliable Source guidelines. Otherwise, you can end your unhappiness by changing your mind, and I'm always big on increasing the supply of happiness. --Pete (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
You're the bloke, who stated that the Queen represents the Governor General. Where's the proof? GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Skyring's latest statements have caused me to question this article's existance. This article is a PoV fork & should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The article contains ample evidence that there is a great gulf between those who say the queen is the head of state and those who say the governor-general is the head of state. This evidence exists independently of Skyring or anything he has ever said or done, here or anywhere else. There is indisputably a dispute. Is it notable enough for an article? Well, of course it is. The main players in the 1999 Republican Referendum were using these diameterically opposed viewpoints as their main arguments for and against. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I think there may be a bit of confusion about the purpose of this article. It's not to prove who is head of state - I don't think that's possible, and I don't think Wikipedia is a competent source on the matter anyway. Rather it's to document the divided views on the subject. The structure of the article could use a little rearrangement, and I'm not happy with the authority of the views in support of the Queen, but it's shaping up nicely. I expect that Wednesday could give a few useful and current quotes. Some of the views expressed reveal the need for education, which of course is always a perennial desire on the part of students of the constitution. --Pete (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, it's not to proove who's Australia's Head of State, as it's Elizabeth II. Since nobody has started a AfD, the article doesn't seem to be in any danger of a deletion. GoodDay (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
But now that you've advised us all who the real head of state is, we may as well delete it anyway, as there will obviously no longer be a dispute. You deserve an honorary Australia Day Award for your sterling service to the better understanding of Australia's constitutional arrangements. Thank you so very much.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 13:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Cool, as long as the award doesn't come from a monarch. GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
An intriguing remark! GoodDay, is it the case that there are people and classes of people whom you do not tolerate? There are good and bad monarchs, just as there are good and bad presidents, shop assistants - and editors. If a monarch - or a taxi driver - awarded me a medal for services to Wikipedia, I would wear it with pride.
On the subject of the conferring of honours, why do you confer the honour of the title of Australian head of state on a monarch? I always find it interesting that the Australian republicans seek to elevate the Queen's status over that of Australian-born Governors-General, who tend to be the sort of people the republicans would like to be called President. Perhaps they enjoy the interesting life and difficulties such a course places in their chosen path. --Pete (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not about conferring any honour to anyone. A position such as head of state or head of government is objectively either held by one person or it isn't (it can be held by multiple people). Insofar as holding that position is an honour is not relevant. --LJ Holden 22:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Do you offer a translation service as well? --Pete, puzzled.
You made the point that republicans "confer" the honour of the title of Australian head of state on the monarch, when it's often people occupying the office of Governor-General they'd want as Australia's head of state. My response is that's not the issue. --LJ Holden 23:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
People's individual reasons for who they recognise as head of state are not an issue here. However, the point of this article is to document the fact that there is a disagreement in whom Australians see as head of state. There's no definitive source, as may be found in other nations where the title is explicitly linked to a particular office. There's no piece of parchment saying "The Australian Head of State is ......" It's all opinion. Often strongly held, to be sure, but opinion nevertheless. --Pete (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

May I refer this [2] to the discussion? --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course. I note that the same source also directs that diplomatic credentials be addressed to the Governor-General, and makes no mention of the Queen at all. It should be noted that websites, regardless of how official they appear, are not backed by anything other than opinion - requests for the authority behind the statement, even under Freedom of Information laws, come up empty. There is no piece of legislation, no regulation, no court decision which defines the Australian head of state. Hence this article. --Pete (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, not my field but you did say There's no piece of parchment saying "The Australian Head of State is ......", and my reference is an official Autralian Goverment site which gives this almost exact wording. I certainly wouldn't regard this document from the Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade as opinion. I would expect nothing less of a government department to tell things exactly as they are less they lay themselves open to the charge of misleading the readership.
Additionally, the monarchy web-site states this: At her Coronation on 2 June 1953, The Queen swore an oath to govern the peoples of Australia and her other realms "according to their respective laws and customs." [3]. So if she is not head of state then how can she govern? A contradiction in terms surely. Also Acts of the Australian Parliament start BE IT ENACTED by the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives of Australia, as follows:
The official government web-site australia.gov.au states: [4] Under the Constitution, the reigning British monarch is also the Australian monarch, and therefore Australia's Head of State. The Constitution grants the monarch - currently Queen Elizabeth II - certain governing powers that place them above all other levels of the government. Surely there can be no doubt that HMQ is the Australian head of state.--Bill Reid | (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
You're falling into the trap of "one side of the argument is so compelling that there cannot possibly be any dispute, and hence there is no dispute". Well, haven't you read the article, Bill? Isn't it starkly apparent to you that not everyone agrees with your opinion, and there is a dispute? The proponents of the NO case at the 1999 referendum generally considered that the Governor-General and not the Queen is the head of state. And they were in the majority, remember? This is not the place to be arguing for or against either side of the argument, as you seem to be doing. That there are in fact two sides, each with their notable proponents, proves there is a dispute. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm just giving facts as I find them -- I'm not presenting opinion. If I can't find facts that back up the other side of the argument, is that my fault? A referendum of opinion does not a law make. The Australian government says the Queen is head of state. Period. --Bill Reid | (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
But the Australian government keeps changing its mind on the matter! Look through the references. It's a matter of opinion at every level. Kevin Rudd - the previous Prime Minister - said the Governor-General was the head of state, when he sent her off to Africa to drum up votes for a Security Council seat for Australia, to be filled by some appropriate ex-diplomat. We've got a reference, an official reference. Apparently he held a different opinion at another time. What is it? Does Australia's head of state fluctuate according to the opinion of the DFAT webmaster? Or the Prime Minister's audience? Or Wikipedia's consensus? Clearly there is a difference of opinion. --Pete (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Pete, I apppreciate what your saying but all of these things are as you say yourself is a difference of opinion. None of the opinions appear to have any basis in law. Similarly some of the references are books stating the author's opinions. The Commonwealth of Australia Act in fact states: Chapter II. 61 . 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. Chapter II 61 to 70: describe the power of the most formal elements of executive government including the Queen, Governor-General and the Federal Executive Council. Chapter VII: Miscellaneous: Sections 125 to 126 deal with establishing a seat of government and the Queen’s power to authorise the Governor-General to appoint deputies.
At the Australian Parliamentary Education office—The Governor-General is the Queen's representative in Australia. Queen Elizabeth II is Australia's current head of state and is recognised as the formal leader of our country. The Queen appoints the Governor-General to carry out duties on her behalf. In this sense, the Governor-General acts as the formal leader of Australia. [5]
Regarding Kevin Rudd, he has always wanted a republican system of government but he is now Minister of Foreign Affairs and I would have thought that the document published in his government web site would have been amended if it was factually wrong.--Bill Reid | (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. None of the opinions appear to have any basis in law. That's the crux of the matter. There is no Australian law defining the head of state. It's all opinion, including your own. And, as the article documents, opinion is divided. --Pete (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The Constitution says whatever it says, but nowhere does it use the term "head of state", and nowhere anywhere else in Australian law is that term used. This differs from some other Commonwealth realms whose laws DO explicitly spell out who their head of state is. But then, the Australian Constitution is unique in the way the powers of the Governor-General are described, and it is generally agreed that he/she has powers in his/her own right, quite distinct from any powers he/she may hold as representative of the monarch. These powers may NOT, under any circumstances, be exercised by the monarch, but only by the Governor-General. This inter alia is what has led many learned people to come to the view that the Governor-General is the Australian head of state. They argue their case, just as those on the other side of the debate argue the Queen's case. Both sides have to rely on "circumstantial evidence", and in the end, both sides are expressing opinions, not facts. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The UK doesn't have a codified constitution such as Australia has, so I don't think it is legislated anywhere in UK law that states the monarch is head of state of the UK, but to be sure, she most certainly is. I've quoted the Australian constitution where it actually details the monarch's powers and priveledges and the Australian government which acknowledges the monarch as the head of state. So I can see that my little efforts to balance out this local debate are going to get me nowhere so I'll take my leave. --Bill Reid | (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm happy to see you leave, but I am happy you've stopped debating who the head of state is. Because that is what you've been doing, Bill. And, as I've said more than once, this is the place to debate matters concerning the WP article on the external dispute over who the head of state is; not the place to assert in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that there couldn't possibly be such a dispute, or even the place to debate who the head of state is. Big difference. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Another law that no one has mentioned

I looked at this article after I noticed some moronics, and there's a critical law missing.

  • The Australia Act 1988

IIRC it was this Act that transferred the power of signing off on legislation from the British Monarch to the Governor General. The move was apparently part of the Bi-centennial celebrations. Just to add to the pot so to speak. BerleT (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The monarch rarely signed Australian legislation, even in 1901. The only bills reserved for the sovereign were those bearing on the relationship between Australia and the United Kingdom, or affecting the monarch personally. The Australia Act was passed in two versions, basically the same, by both the UK and Australia. The Queen signed the British Act in London, flew to Australia and singed the Australian Act. From memory it was 1986.
An important piece of legislation, it basically affected the ex-colonies of New South Wales, Queensland and so on, rather than the Commonwealth of Australia, but even so it was pretty much the last peg on the colonial line. From then on the link was more ceremonial and symbolic than even notionally practical. This article is mainly intended to show the development and current status of the community views on the matter of the head of state, something the Australia Act did not address. However, the Constitutional history of Australia article is exactly the right place to address the Australia Act.
Thanks for looking in, and of course you are welcome to contribute if you find something that you think is relevant here, This article is still developing. --Pete (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, 1986. It's all there at Australia Act 1986. The Queen signed the UK version of the Act, but the Australian Governor-General Sir Ninian Stephen signed the Australian version – this was in December 1985. What the Queen did personally in Australia was to sign the proclamation that brought the acts into effect on 3 March 1986. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Rename section "Official sources"?

Resolved
 – I've moved some paragraphs into a new section "other sources" Mitch Ames (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I propose that section "Official sources" should be renamed, perhaps to "Authoritative sources" or similar. While they may be reputable, I don't see how a couple of newspapers are "official". Even the CIA isn't "official" in Australia. Alternatively, perhaps the section should be split into two - "Official sources" and "Other authoritative sources". Mitch Ames (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Very good point. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Canadian head of state

The current text referring to a Canadian debate says there "is a similar debate." This is inaccurate on two counts: there is no debate in progress, and opinion is unanimous amongst constitutional experts and the government. The previous Governor-General made some incautious remarks, which she promptly corrected (see [6] and [7]). Though the information may be notable for the Monarchy of Canada article, it has no bearing on the Australian dispute, as all experts agree that there is no ambiguity in Canadian law. I propose removing the reference to a Canadian debate from this article. isaacl (talk) 07:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said in the reversion, the resolution of the debate in Canada is irrelevant. If the debate has been resolved, then the proper thing to do is to change the tense to "there was a similar debate". --LJ Holden 07:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
There was no debate. The Governor-General made an unsubstantiated statement with no arguments put forth, and no one agreed with the view. A debate means two sides making arguments in support of their positions, which did not occur. To call this similar to the Australian situation, moreover, trivializes the Australian dispute. There is no basis in law for anyone other than the Queen of Canada to be Canada's head of state, whereas in Australia, there is a debate based on Australian law. isaacl (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Very well, if you're going to split hairs over the meaning of "debate" then perhaps that word ought to be changed. However, when it comes to similarity this is indeed a trivial debate over constitutional terminology, in the wider context of the Republicanism in Australia debate. I would certainly like to see the evidence that shows that it is of great constitutional import that the Governor-General is titled "Head of State" over the Queen of Australia - actually if you could cite anything that would be of great help to this article.--LJ Holden 20:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow—I don't believe that the Canadian situation is of great constitutional import for the Republicanism in Australia debate, which is why I don't believe it should be cited within this article. There is no public discussion in Canada about who is currently the head of state, which makes it unlike Australia. isaacl (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, but there was a "discussion", which is relevant to the Australian debate, and belongs in this article, as it's about the use of the term "Head of State" being applied to the Governor-General. Just to clarify, your issue with the inclusion of the Canadian "discussion" is that it is in the past tense and not ongoing? --LJ Holden 23:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
No, my concern is that there has been no debate or discussion of who Canada's head of state is, because everyone agrees there is no legal uncertainty on the matter. If you call Australia's dispute similar, then readers may infer there is no ambiguity in Australian law either, and this would be contrary to the rest of the article. isaacl (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Of course there's been debate or discussion about who Canada's head of state is. Why else was there an outcry with the Governor General (incorrect) stated that she was Canada's Head of State? The fact that she was wrong is irrelevant. Papua New Guinea and New Zealand's constitutions refer to the Queen as head of state, by your reasoning we should remove those references as well. --LJ Holden 00:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
If the Canadian Minister of Justice erroneously said that murderers can never be paroled before 25 years, and then later issued a correction, this does not mean there was a discussion or debate on the interpretation of the law. Misstatements happen without introducing new legal theories. isaacl (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
No-one said anything about introducing new legal theories. The sentence in question certainly doesn't introduce one. I'm of the view that the sentence should be re-written to explicitly state what occurred in Canada. When I get a minute I'll do that. --LJ Holden 02:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
If you agree with me that the misstatement by the Governor-General did not lead to a discussion on the interpretation of Canadian constitutional law, then I'm not sure why you think this situation is similar to that of Australia. To call it similar implies that there is no foundation in law for the Australian dispute. I was planning to suggest a rewriting of the passage, so I'm glad to see that you have undertaken it already. isaacl (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The head of state issue in Canada predates Jean's speech in Paris. As far back as at least Jeanne Sauve, Governors General of Canada have been referring to themselves as head of state; Rideau Hall, public servants, parliamentarians, legal scholars, and republicans have called the viceroy the head of state, as well. Read the section at Monarchy of Canada and its supporting sources to understand the history. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 08:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I understand this history. The specific citations in the Monarchy of Canada article point to Governor General citations. There is unanimity that under the current law, the head of state is the Queen. Some public servants and so forth may omit "defacto" out of convenience when describing the Governor-General as the Head of State but this is not an official opinion nor a legal one. isaacl (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
There is no legal opinion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

These debates or disputes maybe more widespread than I'd imagined. See here and here. Perhaps there is scope for broadening this article or for it to serve as a model for several along the same lines. I'm unfamiliar with the situation in Canada and Papua New Guinea, etc. But I think that if the Canadian Governor-General publicly describes herself as the head of state, it reveals the existence of a contrary body of opinion. --Pete (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There is debate on this in Canada, but there is not a debate. Unlike the situation in Australia, this is not an issue which receives a lot of public interest. In a strict statutory sense I would be forced to admit that Elizabeth II is the "Queen of Canada"; there was an Act of Parliament in 1954 to recognize her as such, but it does not imply anything about the recognition of her successors. I don't see any public stomach for a divisive debate on this as long as she is alive; what happens after that when an apparent Charles III ascends the throne is anybody's guess. One possibility is to avoid the debate and leave Charles as the unrecognized monarch. Forcing the debate hear could open up other contentious issues such as the nature of Quebec, something which many are very happy to avoid. Many people here, from an informal personal perspective consider the Governor-General to be the head of state. People in high places who do this may be rebuked by the Monarchist League, while the rest of us react to such rebuke with a bemused grin. Over the years Crown privileges have been gradually eroded, but all very quietly. Framing the issue in terms of what the law says misses the point. Reality is seldom so explicit. Eclecticology (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, any polls on the matter have shown that most people believe the prime minister is the head of state. They can bemusedly grin all they want at anyone who corrects them; they'll still be totally wrong. The Crown remains the locus of all state power in Canada, not the prime minister; nothing has been eroded. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
When you say "the Crown", what exactly do you mean? And does power make anybody a head of state? For example, the Queen does not seem to have much power anywhere, nor is she the source of sovereignty in the UK. --Pete (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the Canadian Constitution doesn't mention the Queen of Canada or the Governor General of Canada, as the Canadian Head of State. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

So how does one identify the position? A gut feeling somewhere deep in the heart? --Pete (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Representation

A few sources addressing the literalist position. I have looked for any good sources supporting the literalist view - that the Governor-General represents the Queen and that's all; there is to it - but can't find anything beyond the trivial. I shall tidy it up a bit and add some views on appointment in due course. --Pete (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

With the editorialising and essay writing removed, the section is a collection of seemingly unrelated quotes. That which is relevant to the subject of the article should be worked into other sections; that which is irrelevant should go or be moved to another page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Before I roll you back, Mies, could you give a few reasons for your changes? For example, you say, The dispute over who is Australia's head of state seeks to decide whether the Australian monarch or the Governor-General of Australia should be considered the country's head of state;. How can you say that a dispute "seeks" to do anything? You have no possible source for your speculation.
I've rewritten the lead para so that the dispute no longer "seeks" to do anything - it just is. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I see the question of representation as important. The current dispute did not emerge from nothing - nobody suddenly woke up like Ewart Smith one Canberra dawn and said, Geez, I reckon the Governor-General is the Australian head of state. It emerged at Federation and has continued ever since. Turnbull's comments on the nature of representation at the time of the RAC build on those of Inglis Clark and Robert Garran, among others. It is important to state the literalist view - along with the coinage and other simplistic arguments - because that is what the uninformed bulk of the population infers from a quick reading of the Constitution. No constitutional scholar gives such a view much attention. Our objective is to inform our readers, and to do that we must begin with the common view. For example, it is common belief that Abraham Lincoln ended slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation but this is incorrect. We acknowledge the myth before correcting it.
On another note, we cannot say that According to the Australian Constitution, the governor-general is the representative of the Queen, because this is simply not true. Those words in that order are not found in the text of the Constitution, and it is original research to say that they are. It must be qualified in some way. --Pete (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
You haven't explained how the quotes within the section relate to one another. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Would you prefer we remove the quotes to the category of sources and summarise their content? I think that the quotes from prominent figures in Australian constitutional history tell the story very well. My point is to present the literalist interpretation and show that informed opinion differs. Remember, we are not seeking to present any definitive position, merely to illustrate a difference of opinion within the Australian community. A dispute. A dispute which you bizarrely see as somehow sentient. --Pete (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Still not an explanation. Let me ask: You mention telling a story with these quotes. What story are you trying to tell? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
These prominent constitutional scholars inform our readers in their own words. Please defend your changes. The aim is to inform the reader, not present our own bizarre interpretations. For example, you say, The dispute over who is Australia's head of state seeks to decide whether the Australian monarch or the Governor-General of Australia should be considered the country's head of state;. How can you say that a dispute "seeks" to do anything? You have no possible source for your speculation. --Pete (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
You've collected the quotes together in one section under the heading "Representative of the Queen?"; I assume you did so on purpose, not by accident. You've said they "tell the story". What story, then, is it they tell when assembled together? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
These prominent constitutional scholars present their opinions on the matter of representation. Their words are clear enough. You may not like them, but they are good sources. I have invited editors to find contrary opinions. You have not done so. And you continue to evade my direct questions. You see yourself as being unable to defend your statements that you have placed in Wikipedia. Please provide reliable sources for your statements or remove them. --Pete (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
It's you who evades my question by deflecting onto irrelevant topics and accusations: I've never challenged the content of the quotes. The opening sentence of the article is a separate matter and can be dealt with at another time. The point is: You chose the quotes; you collected them together in a section and headed it "Representative of the Queen?"; you said they "tell the story". Again: what story is it that's told by these quotes as chosen and arranged together by you? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Pete said (at 18:53, 9 March 2011): "... we cannot say that According to the Australian Constitution, the governor-general is the representative of the Queen, because this is simply not true. Those words in that order are not found in the text of the Constitution."
However section 2 of the constitution says "A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative ...". The word order is different, but the meaning is clearly the same. Ie the italicised text clearly is true. (As long as we don't pass it off as a direct quote from the constitution.) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The meaning is not the same, if you look closely. My point is that a certain amount of interpretation must be performed to go from what the Constitution says in black and white to "the Governor-General is the representative of the Queen. It is a reasonable interpretation, but still an interpretation. I shall reword it to make this clear. --Pete (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The meaning is exactly the same. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Section 2, seems quite clear to me. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
To other people as well: From the Australian Library of Parliament's notes on the debate: "Section 2 of the Constitution describes the Governor-General as the Queen's representative in Australia."[8]
I'm convinced. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a distinction between "is" and "shall be". It does not alter the general thrust of the words, but it makes it clear when somebody is making their own interpretation - changing the exact meaning of the words into something else. To be completely accurate, we should couch our own wording to note this. This may seem a trivial point, but it should not be a difficult matter to find words that are honest and accurate, surely? --Pete (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above and elsewhere on this page emphasises the root of the dispute - the division between the literalist and the informed views. This is a crucial element of the article, not so much that scholarly views are united on the matter of head of state - they aren't - but that they are united on the question of powers. Because the Australian Governor-General derives his principal powers from the Constitution rather than any royal warrant and they are not able to be changed or defined by the monarch, this gives him a role that is quite distinct from other Imperial governors. When a committee that includes Professor George Winterton as well as Malcolm Turnbull concludes that the Governor-General represents the Commonwealth Government rather than the Queen[9] it is clear that this is not a fringe view. It is the literalist view that is in error, but it is a widely held one - hence the consequent division within the community seeking different sources of information when trying to make sense of the highly-politicised republican debate. --Pete (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It's disputed that the 'literalist view' is in error. GoodDay (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Not by those who know the subject. Find me a constitutional scholar who argues that the Constitution means exactly what it states in every respect. Or even on the matter of powers and representation. You will search in vain for any reliable source. This is not to say that literal interpretations are not widely held, but when assessed in the High Court, they are rarely given much weight.
Please understand that neither your views nor mine are of any importance here. This article explains how and why Australians hold divided views on the question of who is the head of state. We are not attempting to make a decision on which is correct, but to explain the situation to our readers, many of whom interpret the Constitution literally and cannot understand why there is any question at all. Clearly there is a dispute and clearly it is our function as Wikipedia editors to inform our readers on the matter. We are not here to promote our own opinions. --Pete (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
But you're claiming that the literal view is in error, as though it's final. GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
That question was settled the moment Paul Keating abolished the Inter-State Commission. On the matter of the roles of Queen and Governor-General, I have heard enough examples of the uninformed view to identify the specific errors. A common one, such as you may possibly believe, is to confuse the powers delegated upon the Governor-General by the Queen in Section 2 with the executive power given in section 61. The powers of the Governor-General stem from different sources, and the topic of executive power is a fruitful and energetic one in the constitutional history of Australia, but to the layman there is no distinction. --Pete (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, this simple-minded laymen, shall allow others to view this interpretation. GoodDay (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Very good of you. It is important that both views be presented. That's NPOV for you. --Pete (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
You've misunderstood. It's your interpretations, that I'll let others review. GoodDay (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh? What are my interpretations, precisely? --Pete (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_head_of_state_dispute/Archive_1&oldid=1136294998"