Talk:Australian head of state dispute/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Primary sources

I'm not seeing a real lot of support for primary sources here. It's wikipolicy and quite straightforward. They'll have to go.

Mies in discussion raises a point about other primary sources, and I'm seeing some to-and-fro over the interpretation of the UN protocol list. We should consider what other primary sources need to go.

Otherwise, some Yankee wikicop is likely to come in here, blasting away at anything he considers a primary source without any regard for the intricacies and intimacies of the subject matter. --Pete (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No surprises that the primary sources tend to refute the Governor-General being head of State are what will be chopped, trimmed and removed. Nonetheless, if it's Wikipolicy then we have to follow it. --LJ Holden 22:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I also note that some IP sock puppet has reinserted a self-published book and a blog site as credible sources. I suggest that the IP has a financial and dogmatic interest in promoting both book and website. --Pete (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Not me. The IP address is registered to Telstra Australia. --LJ Holden 22:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Australia's largest internet provider. Anyway, the self-published book and the blog goes - they don't meet the reliable source criteria. Likewise the primary court sources, as per the discussion on WP:NPOVN. --Pete (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What is a primary source in this context? Is David Flint, as one of the disputants, a primary source???--Jack Upland (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

"Original research", recited from Archive 3

Note: The purpose of the article has itself been a source of dispute on the Talk page, as shown by this excerpt from Archive 3[1] [[2]

This article appears to be original research. While the Queen is head of state and her functions are normally carried out by the governor-general, some persons have sometimes referred to the governor-general as head of state. That does not constitute a dispute. Could someone please provide a source that any such dispute exists. We need a source that someone claims the Queen is not head of state. TFD (talk) 09:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not simply read the article? What is your source for believing the Queen is the Australian head of state? And what functions of the Queen are carried out by the Governor-General? Genuinely interested in your answers here. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 10:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

In agreement with TFD. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is presented as a collection of statements by people claiming the Queen or the governor-general is head of state, rather than explain the conflict between them. I can find examples where people haved called the prime minister the head of state. That is more properly called confusion than dispute. However, The Queen's other Realms devotes a paragraph to the dispute on pp. 28-29.[3] It would make the article more interesting if the competing arguments were explained. TFD (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That is the essence of the matter. The existence of a dispute. We are not trying to prove the question one way or another, merely document it. It is not yet within Wikipedia's ability to determine who a nation's head of state is. That is up to Australians, and as you can see, opinion is divided. --Pete (talk) 19:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Australians will make that decision at a referendum. Wikipedia reflects facts & the fact is the Australian monarch is Head of State. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you, but many would dispute your so-called fact. Something is not a fact merely because you assert it to be so, which is what you've just done. It has to have very widespread agreement, of the same order as "The moon is not made of green cheese", or "2 + 2 = 4", and that's lacking when it comes to the Oz head of state. Sir David Smith has gone to the trouble of writing a 400-page book stating his case for why he believes the governor-general is the head of state. That he went into print proves that there was something at issue, something he wanted to convince doubters about. If the matter were simply one of confusion, he need hardly have bothered with his book, but could instead have pointed to the authoritative document that proves his point without further ado. Trouble is, there is no such animal and never has been. This has nothing to do with any future referendum on a republic; it has to do with who is the Head of State right now, today. That's what the dispute is about. There is most certainly a dispute. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Governor-general and PM's oath of office

If an instance of the governor-general acting as the Queen of Australia's representative is needed, here is one, which I do not see mentioned here or in Constitution of Australia or Governor-General of Australia. Australia's statutory Constitution does not mention an oath/affirmation of office to be taken by an incoming prime minister, nor ascribe to a governor-general the power or duty to administer one to the prime minister, or other ministers. But in practice governors-general have from the inauguration of the Commonwealth in 1901 administered such an oath/affirmation to incoming prime ministers and other ministers forming the government. It appears that whenever this occurs, the governor-general is acting as the monarch's representative, and in practice on the advice of the outgoing and/or incoming prime minister. A source for that information is the website of the Parliament of Australia, which has a page headed "Oaths and affirmations made by the executive and members of federal parliament since 1901"[4] that includes a section headed "Prime minister, minister and parliamentary secretary". It states that:

• there is no legal requirement that the ministry, including the prime minister, take an oath or affirmation of office nor that this include a statement of allegiance to the Crown,
• but that, from the inauguration of the Commonwealth in 1901, they have in fact taken an oath or affirmation of office,
• that the prime minister makes the same oath or affirmation as his or her ministry,
• and that the prime minister (not the governor-general) determines its form, which has been changed according to the preference of the prime minister of the day,
• and that these oaths and affirmations are administered by the Governor-General.

Knowledge of, and acquiescence in, this practice on the part of the Queen is practically certain in the absence of any evidence ot the contrary. Is this mentioned by George Winterton or any other accessible source? Qexigator (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

See see text -- GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, both. There is no dispute over whether the Governor-General acts as the Queen's representative. The question is whether that is all he does. The Constitution has multiple examples of officers (including the Governor-General, the President, the Speaker etc.) being given powers and duties without referring to the Queen in any way. Statute law and general practice since Federation has added powers and duties to the Governor-General, and the job has changed greatly since 1901, though the Constitution has not.

On the matter of oaths, s62 may be helpful: There shall be a Federal Executive Council to advise the Governor-General in the government of the Commonwealth, and the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the Governor-General and sworn as Executive Councilors, and shall hold office during his pleasure. Although it is not actually specified that the Governor-General must administer the oath of office, it is tightly linked in the words above. Of course, the Prime Minister is a member of the Federal Executive Council, and in the case of the first Ministry and of that chosen in November 1975, plus a few instances in between, there was no advice given by the predecessor. Either there was none (Barton), or the predecessor had given different advice (such as holding an election to find support in the House (Reid), or the predecessor had drowned (Harold Holt), or the predecessor would not have given such advice in a pink fit (Whitlam).(Pete's)

Thus, from the beginning of federation the governor-general's office has been distinct from the appointment as the monarch's representative, and ever more so from decade to decade, and it has been and will be for successive governments and governors-general, sometimes in the capacity of monarch's representative, to work it out according to the local party-political circumstances, and with regard to the rights of the federated states. That the governor-general has had functions (ascribed by the Constitution) other than representing the Queen is a self-evident fact ab initio, so what is there for npov editor's to dispute about when describing the state of affairs? Except that something may be needed to make this clearer in the "Background" section, and in other linked articles.Qexigator (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Qex, that is original research. We require reliable sources. I'm sure this will get worked out with DR. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

"Original": that sounds like a compliment, but is just the point, "from the beginning" (ab initio). The information, as in op.cit.["[5], is needed. Meantime, let current version suffice.[6] Qexigator (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Now see revision[7] Qexigator (talk) 10:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC) + revision [8]. Qexigator (talk) 11:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Inter alia

The Governor-General does more than represent the Queen. It is crucial to the debate. If the Governor-General's job consisted merely of being the man who exercises the Queen's powers at a distance, then there would be no debate. But that is not the case. Representing the Queen as an agent or a deputy is completely wrong. The Queen issues no instructions to the Governor-General; he takes his own counsel. He exercises his significant constitutional powers in his own right. They are given directly from him and the Queen has no ownership or control at all. The Queen is unable to change the Constitution. The wording may only be changed by Australians, and it needs a popular vote with a supermajority.

These and more are valid reasons why the Governor-General is seen as the Australian head of state by many Australians. It is not just personal preference. Australia is unique amongst the Commonwealth Realms in this. We drew up our own constitution through popular conventions of directly elected delegates. The Constitution was approved by a popular vote. It may not be changed except by popular vote. The Queen is not described as the Head of State, and the Queen's powers are limited, and this is what we Australians decided before Federation, and it is what we want.

If we speak in Wikivoice as if the Governor-General is no more than the distant representative of the Queen, we are wrong. --Pete (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Pete, you know this has already been discussed (ad nauseum). As always, this isn't the place to test your theories. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the article content, would this be better?

In practice, the role of head of state in Australia is divided between two people: the monarch and the governor-general, who represents the monarch (but is not his or her delegate) and is appointed by him or her on the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia.

There's two sources for the "not a delegate" bit and you seem to have accepted its use at Governor-General of Australia. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Mies, the Governor-General's page says he has additional roles beyond representing the Queen. The historians of Federation stress the popular approach to writing the Constitution. The nature of Constitutional power is discussed by many academics, such as George Winterton. Excellent secondary sources support the view I enunciate. You, on the other hand, seem to rely upon your own individual interpretation of primary sources to come up with some confected fantasy. The reality is that the Queen has very little power in Australia, and the Governor-General's job is more than representing the Queen. Accept it. --Pete (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll take that to mean you're okay with my suggestion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No. We need to make it clear that the Governor-General does other things beyond representing the Queen. --Pete (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No, we simply need to say who the head of state role is split between. It's not the place for your original research (admitted by you to be your own observation). And, even if there were a source other than the governor-general's site (which isn't immune to accidental false implications) or we took the governor-general's site as the only authoritative source needed (regardless of its loneliness in making the claim and its own lack of citations), the governor-general being "more than the representative of the Queen" would still just be one opinion. We wouldn't favour it over others. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Mies, do you think it is just my opinion that the Governor-General does other things besides representing the Queen? Really? An alternative would be to remove any mention of representation. I'm okay with that, too. --Pete (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no contest to the fact the governor-general represents the monarch and is appointed by the monarch on the advice of the prime minister. I can't believe you'd deem those simple truths to be POV and unsourced (or, at least, unsourcable). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

In the context of this article, it is POV. The Governor-General does more than represent the Queen. Also, your primary source makes no mention of the PM, let alone giving advice. --Pete (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not POV, it is a fact, as sourced hundreds of times over. "The Governor-General does more than represent the Queen" is an opinion, not, unlike the aforementioned, universally accepted. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't need to discuss whether a Big Mac contains meat patties. We don't need to worry about whether the Governor-General represents the Queen. Rather the question is whether there are other ingredients. You seem to want us to describe the Governor-General as merely representing the Queen, saying that this is my opinion. The sole source for your view is the Constitution, or secondary sources which merely requote the relevant sections. In fact, the many books and papers and essays and speeches produced through the republican debate have highlighted the evolving role of the Governor-General as more than merely the representative of the monarch. George Winterton notes, "Public perceptions have shaped the office, and the public clearly views the Governor-General as representing the Australian people, no longer principally the Queen."[9] (A remarkably well sourced document, and many of the sources noted are available online.) You would do well to familiarise yourself with the current Australian perceptions, which might inform your views beyond what seems to be a remarkably dogmatic and antiquated view (in my opinion). --Pete (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, an opinion. Interesting and perhaps relevant in another article, but not here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This is getting interesting.

1. As a matter of logic, "representing the Queen" is not the totality of the Governor-General's job. Yet you are resistant to mentioning other parts of the position. Why?
2. Why is it that your interpretation of a primary source is placed (by you) above reliable secondary sources? --Pete (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Unless you can prove the governor-general being more than representative of the Queen is more than the opinion of a few people (putting aside the matter of whether that's being said in regard to the constitution or to culture), it's just an opinion of a few people. The top of that paragraph explaining who the role of head of state is divided among isn't the place to get into fringe opinions on whether or not the governor-general has a constitutional role and/or a cultural role beyond representing the Queen.

You can misrepresent what I'm saying as an "interpretation" all you want. The governor-general represents the Queen and that's a fact disputed by no one. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that the Governor-General represents the Queen. Nobody disputes that a hamburger contains a meat pattie. Let's accept that and focus on what other factors are involved. I'm finding it interesting that you don't care to answer the above questions I pose. Can we explore this, maybe find the problem, maybe solve it? --Pete (talk) 06:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

As a starting point, could you provide a source that states that representing the Queen is all that the Governor-General does? If I may use my fast food metaphor again, could you find a source that says that a hamburger contains nothing beyond buns and a meat patty? I have provided two sources, one from the Governor-General's page, and another from one of Australia's foremost constitutional lawyers, stating that the Governor-General's role goes beyond representation, so your edits appear unreasonable and unsourced. --Pete (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into another one of your endless, convoluted arguments dealing with our own opinions and interpretations of other works. Anything about the governor-general doing more than be the Queen's representative is an opinion held by very few (unless you can prove otherwise). As such, it's fringe (as well as rather vague); though, I do think whatever's sourced on that deserves mention somewhere. Just not in the particular sentence we're talking about. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Mies, I can find many similar sources amongst Australia's foremost constitutional experts. However, I know of only one person who is of the opinion that the Governor-General does nothing significant beyond representing the Queen, and that person is you. If you could find a source to that effect that comes close in authority to the two I have supplied, I would be astonished. --Pete (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If you can find many sources showing different people each saying the governor-general has functions other than representing the Queen, please present them. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the Governor-General's website says nothing about additional functions. And Winterton gives his take on others' perceptions and views, not defined functions and where they're set out. It's also entirely possible to be seen to represent the Australian people as part of representing the Queen. But, here we go getting into an argument over how you've misread and/or misrepresented sources, which invariably gets bloated with debate on all sorts of tangential matters. You require multiple reliable sources that say one way or another, but without ambiguity, the governor-general has functions other than representing the Queen. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Mies, do you have a source or not? --Pete (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop wasting time with diversions; this is another old habit of yours. There is a source already for the statement "who represents the monarch". The question, then, that needs answered is: Do you have proof the idea that the governor-general has more functions than representing the Queen is more than a fringe opinion? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The Governor-General represents the Queen. A hamburger contains a meat patty. These things are not in dispute. If you can provide a sauce that says that the Governor-General does nothing significant beyond representing the Queen, then that would be a big help. Can you find such a source? I can't, and I know this subject reasonably well. --Pete (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't ask anyone to prove a negative. Now, again, do you have proof the idea that the governor-general has more functions than representing the Queen is more than a fringe opinion? You're trying to insert the claim, you back it up. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

You gentlemen need to seek a third opinon here, in order to break the logjam. Recommend an un-involved person. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm also beginning to think we need more input, GoodDay! Mies, I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I can supply ample sources showing that a hamburger contains more than a meat patty. I am asking you to provide a source showing that the Governor-General does nothing significant beyond representing the Queen. That is your contention, and it is yours alone. A fringe view. --Pete (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

"I'm not asking you to prove a negative... I am asking you to [prove] the Governor-General does nothing significant beyond representing the Queen." Riiight.

I've asked you multiple times now to demonstrate that what you want to insert is not a fringe theory; you can do so by providing a number of sources that one way or another, but unambiguously, say the governor-general has functions other than representing the Queen, since that's what you want to insert into the article. If you can't after this fourth (?) polite request, I'm going to have to agree with GoodDay (*shudder*) and say you need to take the next step in the dispute resolution process. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I've begun the process below. Thanks, Mies. --Pete (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Does my change satisfy everyone's concerns? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course not. It merely rewords the sentence to present your view and avoid others. I think we need to get to the root of the problem. If we don't do it here, themn we will have to do it somewhere else. In the meantime, your fringe view contaminates many articles. Let us get to the bottom of this. I think you are trying to find ways of avoiding examination because you find exposure painful. I appreciate this, but let us find the truth together. --Pete (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

We need a definition for "Inter alia". What does the term mean. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"Among other things." It is Latin, used in legal and academic language to say that there are more factors in play than just the one being mentioned. A hamburger contains inter alia buns and a meat pattie. --Pete (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps at this stage what is needed is a fresh consideration of the basic fact that in the event of judicial or parliamentary proceedings with this as the question to be decided, the starting point would have to be that, on the face of it, the whole office, status and powers of the governor-general are determined by the letters patent "Relating to the Office of Governor-General" (dated 21 August 2008) given by the Queen of Australia, under her sign manual and the Great Seal of Australia; a document which recites that "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 declares that the appointment of a person to the office of Governor-General shall be during the Queen's pleasure by Commission under her Sign Manual and the Great Seal of Australia, and that before assuming office, a person so appointed shall take the Oath (or Affirmation) of Allegiance and the Oath (or Affirmation) of Office, and that the latter is "to well and truly serve [the monarch] according to law". Now, it must follow that the person appointed "to be HM representative in the Commonwealth" is not entitled to assume office before solemnly undertaking to serve the monarch according to law, and that s/he is to have and exercise "according to law" the "powers, functions and authorities" vested in the Governor-General "by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia". In plain English, can that mean anything other than that the person appointed to represent the monarch of Australia becomes duty bound to exercise those same "powers, functions and authorities" as are ascribed "by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia", not to the monarch, but to the office of governor-general. Is there any precedent or settled practice which requires the documents (letters patent and statute) to be construed or applied in Australia as if according to some other intent? Is there anything which shows that what is so ascribed to the governor-general is deemed to be ascribed to the monarch as well? S/he undertakes to exercise the ascribed powers in the service of the Queen of Australia, just as, in a homely example, a steward is engaged to perform as a steward in the service of the master certain functions which the master would not himself perform, and to represent the master to the other servants and to visitors on the doorstep, or, in a grander example, as an Earl Marshal or Lord Great Chamberlain or Constable of the Tower of London or High Sheriff of a county performs the functions of the office which the monarch would not perform in person, and would in relation to others "represent" the monarch, in whose service he acts and from whom alone (under the law) he has his appointed authority. Qexigator (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The Letters-Patent deal with the appointment of the Governor-General, but cannot over-ride the Constitution. (Not unless one takes the position that the monarch rules by fiat, and constitutional restrictions may be swept away with a languid wave of the Imperial fist.) The Queen may appoint a person to be her representative, but that does not mean that the entirety of the job of Governor-General consists of representation. As quoted above, "by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, certain powers, functions and authorities are vested in a Governor-General…" which directly contradicts Mies' view of the executive power mentioned in s61, which he imagines vests all constitutional powers in the Queen. The executive power is merely the remnant of the royal prerogative vested in the Queen (plus an interesting head of power which "extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth") and obviously does not include those powers vested in the Governor-General. --Pete (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Queen can appoint Australian ministers directly

In January 2013, above, I stated that "the idea of the queen appointing Australian ministers under s.64 is absurd. That's a power that has only ever been held and exercised by the governor-general".

Well, I was wrong. See Rex Patterson:

• On 19 October 1973, he was sworn in as Minister for the Northern Territory by Queen Elizabeth II, the only occasion when an Australian minister has been sworn in by the Monarch of Australia directly (rather than by the Governor-General of Australia).

This proves that she does have the power to do such a thing, and it's not just a theoretical power. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Swearing in is one thing, appointing another. For example, the Governor-General is appointed by the Queen, but sworn in by someone else. --Pete (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Most recently, the Chief Justice of the High Court.[10] I cannot think of a time when a Governor-General was personally sworn in by the Queen. Perhaps the early British Governors-General were sworn in by the monarch before boarding their ship? If so, what position would the incumbent be in for the weeks of the voyage, awaiting his successor? --Pete (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point, but in this case the Queen was present in Australia (her main purpose being to declare open the Sydney Opera House on 21 October 1973). If the Governor-General, Paul Hasluck, had appointed Patterson, why would he hand over the swearing-in to the Queen? Surely the same person would take both actions? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

We'd have to see more details, I think. Gazette entries, for example. Having the Queen swear in a new minister is a big deal, but that doesn't mean she has signed the commission. They are two different actions, and it is quite possible that the Governor-General signed the commission in Canberra while the Queen administered the oath in Darwin. I'm not ruling it out - Gough was keen on the grand gestures and breaking new ground - but my understanding is that she can't actually use the powers directly given to the Governor-General, even if physically present. --Pete (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You are clutching at straws.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Contentious Statements

• "the term Australian head of state, or any variation thereof, does not appear in either Australian or international law."

There is no citation for this. Blackshield and Williams Australian Constitutional Law and Theory (6th edition) states, "The Queen, as represented in Australia by the Governor General, is Australia's head of state" (p 2, [1.2]). The Queen was described as "head of state" of Australia in Moller v Board of Examiners (1999) in the Victorian Supreme Court. What does it mean in a common law system (i.e., without codified law) for a term not to appear in law? The claim is not just that the term itself, but "any variation thereof" does not appear. That is any variation. The Australian Constitution (s 61) states, "The executive power of the Commonwealth [of Australia] is vested in the Queen". Could this not be viewed as a variation of the term "Australian head of state"? It is not a variation of the words, but it is a variation in the expression of the concept.

• "In practice, the role of head of state in Australia is divided between two people: the monarch and the governor-general, who represents the monarch and is appointed by him or her on the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia."

The only citation for this is the Constitution, which only supports (partially) the second part of the sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack! What do you see as the nature of "the executive power"? Is it limited in any way? --Pete (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

On reading the case cited, or rather the appeal notes, I'm not convinced that this sort of passing mention has any real weight. The case did not hinge on whether the Queen was HoS or not, but rather as to whether an exemption could be granted from taking an oath of allegiance, for example in situations where taking such an oath could lead to an applicant losing citizenship of another nation. I am sure that we could find any number of magistrates who have declared that the monarch is the HoS, but this is not a matter for such courts to determine, any more than we can state the matter with any certainty.

Viewing the constitutional fragment "The executive power of the Commonwealth [of Australia] is vested in the Queen" as being a variation of the words "Australian head of state" is a very long bow to draw, IMHO. It is a personal opinion, not supported by a reasonable interpretation. The UN's term "chief of state" might reasonably be termed a variation of "head of state", for example. --Pete (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe UN "chief of state" covers the French equivalent: "Un chef d'État est une personne physique qui représente symboliquement la continuité et la légitimité de l'État."[11] Qexigator (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The fundamental point is that these comments need citations.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

How does one find a citation for something not saying something? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You could provide a secondary source that makes this claim. However, as a leading constitutional law textbook does use the term "head of state", I think it is hard to say the term is not used in Australian law.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

A law textbook and the law are two totally different things.

If the term "head of state" did appear in Australian law, either the monarchists or the republicans would've pointed it out by now. David Flint has repeatedly said the term isn't to be found in Australian law. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Australian law"?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll answer for Mies here. "Australian law" means statute law, including the Constitution. While it might also include the common law as found by various judges, a declaration by a magistrate as to the identity of the head of state (or any other constitutional declaration) might be regarded has lacking the weight of (say) the Full Bench of the High Court, which is where we commonly find enduring declarations of a constitutional nature, such as the Engineers Case and similar. The opinions found in a legal textbook cannot over-ride statute law or common law, though we can certainly use them with an appropriate caveat. --Pete (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

As previously discussed, the statement that the Queen is the head of state has been found in various judgments. And the article currently cites an argument by Flint based on R v Governor. It would be better to say that the term is not found in Australian statute law if that is what is meant. In addition, the current wording could be taken as saying that the term "head of state" is not applicable in Australian law.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome, the end at last

In view of the above, perhaps there can now be an ungrudging welcome for coming to the end of a discussion reaching back to "Representative of the Queen: new section", 06:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[12] Qexigator (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

'Tis the nature of this very article, that there's never really an end to these disputes. TBH, I wouldn't oppose this article's deletion. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for an RfC on representing the Queen

This is not an RfC. Yet.

The question has arisen as to what portion of Governor-General's job consists of representing the Queen.

The Governor-General's page says:

In addition to being The Queen’s representative in Australia, the Governor-General also has specific constitutional and statutory powers. In fact, since the passage of the Australia Act in 1986, the only action performed by The Queen under the Constitution is the appointment of the Governor-General, on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister.

Professor George Winterton says:

Public perceptions have shaped the office, and the public clearly views the Governor-General as representing the Australian people, no longer principally the Queen. (In "Law and Government in Australia" edited by Matthew Groves. p. 55)

There is no doubt that the Governor-General represents the Queen. But is there a counter-view to the two authoritative opinions expressed above? Is there any source that says that the Governor-General does nothing beyond representing the Queen? --Pete (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, what is this if not another rotation of the discussion above? If it's not an RfC (and it's not), why title it as such? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. --Pete (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. But, you know WP:DRN is the first step in WP:DR, right? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

As you wish. I have made a request here --Pete (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I was only saying... --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Before going too far with this, may I comment that the Winterton quote is a feeble basis for setting up an RfC in respect of this article:

• Public perceptions have shaped the office: a statement both too platitudinous and vague to be helpful: "public perceptions" are always part of what a public office is, whether in ancient Athens or Rome or Jerusalem or Baghdad, a medieval monarchy, the USA, or the European Union.
• and: what is that little word doing as a slippery substitute for fact or reason?
• the public clearly views the Governor-General as representing the Australian people, no longer principally the Queen: the opinionated assertion of an academic committed to advancing the republican cause, is it not?

Qexigator (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not too fussed with those particular quotes. There are many more available. What I am interested in is finding out just what basis there is - in reliable secondary sources - for the view that the Governor-General does nothing else but represent the Queen. "Representing the Queen" was a polite way of saying "Representing the Imperial Government", which is what the Governor-General's main role was for 26 years until the Balfour Declaration and the subsequent appointment of a British High Commissioner. Nowadays representing the Queen personally is but a minor part of the position. The major portion is performing the constitutional duties and "representing the nation to itself", as Sir Ninian Stephen put it.[13] --Pete (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

According to the constitution, both when enacted in Victoria's reign and as later amended and operative today, the governor-general always has had a dual capacity: one as representing the monarch in the Commonwealth of Australia, and in that capacity previously instructed by the British government in London; the other as the person appointed to exercise the powers ascribed by the constitution, as said above. The latter continues, the former is no longer performed at the British government's behest, but as you have pointed out elsewhere, by direct communication with the Queen of Australia, wherever in the UK she happens to be residing, or elsewhere. Qexigator (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If there's to be an RfC, I'd say it has up to three questions to answer in order:

1. Is the statement "the governor-general has more functions than representing the Queen" an opinion or a fact?
2. If it's an opinion, is it one that's widely held or a fringe theory?
3. Is the fact/opinion relevant to the 'Background' section of this article? (And, if yes, where and how does it get inserted?)

Maybe that's actually upwards of three different RfCs. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not the issue, Mies. I'm quite confident that we can dig up any number of good sources to that effect. The two quotes above are hardly exhaustive, and given their provenance, sufficiently authoritative to put to rest any questions of fringe theories. The Governor-General's office is the repository of generations of knowledge, research, and experience into exactly what the job involves. We can look at the many essays - all copiously sourced - compiled by the previous Official Secretary Sir David Smith, and his successors have continued the output. George Winterton was the most respected figure in constitutional law for a generation, and his views are held in high esteem.

The issue is that the notion that the entirety of the Governor-General's job consists of representing the Queen rests upon one individual's unique interpretation of a primary source. That individual is you, and that source is the Constitution. That's about as fringe as fringe theories come. But, let us not offer up our own personal views. Let us find reliable sources so that we may ascertain due WP:WEIGHT, and in the meantime, in this article focused on the public, political, legal and cultural views of two offices, let us not be biased in our content, by attempting to push the unsourced view that one is no more than the representative of the other. If your view is widely held, Mies, then you should have no difficulty in finding plenty of good reliable sources stating it. I do not doubt that you hold your view with conviction and immovable resolve. But if you could just find a few others who share that view…? --Pete (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Once again, you have misrepresented both the issue and my position on it. (Not to mention your passive-aggressive backroom ad hominem. Or, were you just teasing again?) I'm not going to prove the governor-general does nothing other than represent the Queen; I've never said he/she does. (And, in debate, asking your opponent to prove a negative is an attempt to cheat, anyway.) You, however, insist the governor-general has functions other than representing the Queen. So, you're going to prove the governor general having functions other than representing the Queen is either a fact or an opinion held by more than a small few. You keep saying there's all these sources out there, but you've only presented two, so far, one of which doesn't even say anything about functions. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to get you upset, and I'm not asking you to prove a negative. There is no dispute that a hamburger contains a meat patty. I'm asking for you to demonstrate that others share your opinion that there are no other ingredients. Do you have a source? --Pete (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

A source for what? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Okey-doke. I think we're done for the moment. Let's wait for the dispute resolution process to unfurl. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 05:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This debate seems to be off the topic.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It's actually central to the topic. If the Governor-General actually does nothing but represent the Queen and has no powers of his own, then he's not really a credible alternate head of state, just a puppet. This, I believe, is the view held by Mies, who is unable to find any credible sources beyond his own opinion. --Pete (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"If the Governor-General actually does nothing but represent the Queen and has no powers of his own, then he's not really a credible alternate head of state, just a puppet." That sounds like your opinion.

Sources for what? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

If..ditto,,,: The implication of Pete's comment is flawed. The appointment of a governor-general, who assumes office after undertaking to serve the Queen of Australia, does not deprive the appointing monarch of the position of Australia's "head of state", but nor does it deny that a governor-general may also, in the Queen's absence, represent her in the various parts of the Commonwealth of Australia, and represent her in connection with official communications with international bodies such as the UN, as would a duly appointed Administrator. If there is credible evidence of any precedent to the contrary, why has it not been mentioned? Qexigator (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The Governor-General does more than represent the Queen. The separate opinion on who is Australia's head of state is divided at every level, as we see. --Pete (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I've never been to DRN before (atleast I don't recall having so), but it's looking like nothing is gonna be solved there, until well after George ascends the British throne. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Blackshield and Williams Australian Constitutional Law and Theory (6th Edition):

The Queen, as represented in Australia by the Governor-General, is Australia's head of state. While the Constitution does not mention offices such as the Prime Minister or bodies like the Cabinet, it does specify that the Queen and her representative possess a range of important powers. (p 2 [1.2])

In Australia, the Queen is represented in each State by its Governor and at the Commonwealth level by the Governor-General. Section 2 of the Constitution states that the Governor-General 'shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him'. (p 356, [10.9]).

It has also been argued that the Governor-General, as the Queen's representative in Australia, is effectively Australia's head of state. (p 1343 [30.15])

This doesn't state that representing the Queen is the GG's only role. However, this is the substantial role. The "Queen's representative" is another way of speaking about the GG. The term "vice regal" is also used and has the same connotation. There is really no other way of reading Section 2 of the Constitution, or the Letters Patent - "by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, certain powers, functions and authorities are invested in a Governor-General appointed by The Queen to be Her Majesty's representative in Australia".--Jack Upland (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't state that representing the Queen is the GG's only role. Precisely. Moving forward, how do you square this with Turnbull's comments about the early Commonwealth? --Pete (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you've dealt with my point. All you've done is taking one sentence out of context. I have quoted the substance of what the Blackshield and Williams text says about the GG. I haven't quoted the whole passage for reasons of time. But I haven't left out a discussion of the other functions of the GG. The text does not say that the GG does more than represent the Queen. It says that being the Queen's representative is what the GG is. This reflects what the Constitution says, and what the Letters Patent says.

I agree with Mies that you should support your view of the GG, rather than ask us to negate it. As far as I can see what you have is a page on the GG's website. The author is anonymous. The words seem largely copied from Hazell's speech in the bibliography. What Hazell says is:

Whereas the Governor-General was once seen as primarily The Queen’s representative in Australia, since the passage of the Australia Act in 1986, the principal action performed by The Queen under the Australian Constitution is the appointment of the Governor-General, on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister.

This doesn't explain how the Australia Act stopped the GG from being the Queen's representative. The anonymous author has muddled this further to get the paragraph you're relying on. In fact, the "constitutional powers" of the GG come from being the Queen's representative, as Hazell himself says (quoting Byers).

I don't see why I should square Blackshield and Williams with Turnbull. I haven't read Turnbull's book. Based on his speech, I think Turnbull as a republican is attempting to enlist Australian nationalism to his cause. In fact, Australian independence and the monarchy are separate issues (though related). I don't agree with the claim that the Queen in the Australian Constitution originally meant the British government. The constitutional role of the monarch in Australia is essentially the same as in Britain, and the Australian Constitution basically reflects that.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Editors here will be aware that the articles about the Australian states, give the premier, not the governor, as head of state: Premiers of the Australian states, Governors of the Australian states, States and territories of Australia. So far, I see nothing to support that. If there is, would it explain the muddle about the governor-general's office which is being discussed here? Qexigator (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the wording in those articles.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

My error: the articles give the governor , not the premier, as head of state. Qexigator (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

PS See also: (1) Paul Hasluck, The Office of the Governor-General: "So the first short answer to the question: ‘What does the Governor-General do?’ is that he represents the Queen, our own head of state, and exercises on behalf of the Queen the powers and functions of the Queen in a constitutional monarchy, a parliamentary democracy and the Australian Federation."

(2) British monarchy's website:[14] "The Governor-General is The Queen's representative in Australia. As such, he or she performs the same constitutional role in Australia as The Queen does in the United Kingdom. The Queen maintains direct contact with the Governor-General, although she delegates executive power to him or her in virtually every respect...Duties which the Governor-General carries out in the name of The Queen include opening and dissolving the Australian Parliament; commissioning the Prime Minister and appointing other Ministers after elections; giving assent to laws when they have been passed by the two Houses of Parliament; and appointing Federal judges and ambassadors and high commissioners to overseas countries." Etc. This page should be read in its entirety.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Given that so far nothing has shown that the monarch's position has ever not been "head of state", there is practically nothing to support the proposition that a governor-general is "head of state". So, for example, wherever a governor-general goes in Australia, if s/he attends an event as the Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force, is s/he representing the Queen of Australia, or acting in a specific capacity which would not be the Queen's, even if she were present at the same time? Unlike, for example, receiving an official visitor anywhere in Australia, when s/he is representing the Queen only if the Queen is not present in person, but, if the Queen were present in person, the governor-general would be in attendance as would the prime minister and local governor or premier, according to an order of precedence determined by the Queen. Is any citable precedent available? But, even if s/he is C-in-C of the Defence Force to the exclusion of the monarch, that obviously would not amount to participating in the position of "head of state". Qexigator (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned that. Section 68 of the Constitution says that the GG is CiC "as the Queen's representative".--Jack Upland (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I might deal with some of the above comments one by one, rather than try to puzzle out indenting them all.

• The Governor-General is the Queen's representative. There is no dispute over that. We have reliable sources for that. As JU notes in Blackshield and Williams. But we might also describe a hamburger as "a bun and meat patty". Likewise, that's well sourced and entirely accurate. Most hamburgers have more ingredients than the bare minimum, and the same situation applies with the Governor-General - as I have shown, two very good sources explicitly state that the Governor-General does more than represent the Queen. In effect, he has more ingredients than the bare minimum. I still have not seen a source that says that representing the Queen is the entirety of the Governor-General's job. This would be counter to what the Governor-General's own website says, and what one of Australia's most respected constitutional lawyers (the late Professor George Winterton) said.
• JU, you say that the ""constitutional powers" of the GG come from being the Queen's representative". Could you explain precisely how you come to this interesting conclusion? For example, the republic referendum rejected in 1999 proposed that the Queen be removed from the Constitution, the new Head of State be selected and appointed by Parliament, and the powers of the Head of State remain those of the Governor-General, with the addition of those belonging to the Queen. So the Head of State would not be the Queen's representative, but the powers would remain the same, with some additions. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the Governor-General's powers come from the Constitution itself. For example, in s5, we find, "The Governor-General may appoint such times for holding the sessions of the Parliament as he thinks fit, and may also from time to time, by Proclamation or otherwise, prorogue the Parliament, and may in like manner dissolve the House of Representatives." That is a power of the Governor-General, given directly to him in the Constitution, and the Queen is not mentioned at all. The Queen cannot alter or withdraw this power in any way, because the wording of the Constitution may only be changed by the people.
• JU, you say that The constitutional role of the monarch in Australia is essentially the same as in Britain, and the Australian Constitution basically reflects that. The Australian Constitution directly gives most of the powers of the ancient royal prerogative directly to the Governor-General – as in the example of s5 above – and the Queen's powers are quite limited. Basically she can appoint the Governor-General and (in theory) disallow Australian legislation, and that's it, apart from some trivia about appointing Administrators and so on. As Queen of the UK, she has far more powers there. The Australian Constitution draws heavily on the constitutions of Canada and the USA, with far more "we the people" than either, and the resemblance to the British constitutional arrangements is limited.
• Qex, I've looked at the articles about the Australian states, and I find no problem. The Premier is the head of government of the state. I can't find any wording that describes a premier as head of state.
• Qex, the function of this article is not to determine who Australia's head of state is. It demonstrates that there are varying opinions, and that it is not a fringe view. If the Prime Minister describes the Governor-General as Australia's head of state, then we don't have to accept that as a definitive answer, but we must accept that it is an opinion that carries some weight. The article describes the different views expressed by different sources. --Pete (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Pete: looking again at the other articles, I stand corrected: they do say the premier is head of government while the governor is the head of state. Thanks for pointing this out. Why I read otherwise, to the point of committing the error, I cannot now understand. I shall strike my comment. As to the rest, my comments have been in the knowledge that the function of this article is not to determine who Australia's head of state is.... If the question is about whether the words (my italics in the quote) should be included here:

"In practice, the role of head of state in Australia is divided between two people: the monarch and his or her representative the governor-general"[15],

the words there are unnecessary, given that the "representative" status is mentioned in the next paragraph. But, for reasons given above (00:13, 23 October 2015 ) and below ( 01:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)) the latter paragraph does not sufficiently clearly explain the governor-general's dual position as "representative" and as office-holder (clearly set out in the letters patent for appointment), and therefore fails to let opinions such as the excerpt from one of Winterton's works be presented in a way that enables the strength of argument in the dispute to be communicated to the reader, or even the actual basis for it. Winterton died in November 2008: did he mention the letters patent dated 21 August 2008, or the previous letters then revoked? Qexigator (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

To merely say that the Governor-General is the Queen's representative is akin to saying that a hamburger is merely a bun and patty. The reason why the Governor-General is seen as the head of state by so many is that he is not merely the reflection of the Queen. He does things that the Queen cannot. Such as represent Australia overseas, which the Balfour Declaration of 1926 acknowledged. If we say in Wikivoice that the Governor-General is the Queen's representative, without mentioning the additional aspects to the job, then it unbalances the article. --Pete (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

On reading the Balfour declaration mentioned above, it is worth noting the opening paragraph of the section devoted to Governors-General:

We proceeded to consider whether it was desirable formally to place on record a definition of the position held by the Governor-General* as His Majesty’s representative in the Dominions. That position, though now generally well recognised, undoubtedly represents a development from an earlier stage when the GovernorGeneral was appointed solely on the advice of His Majesty’s Ministers in London and acted also as their representative.[16]

So it is recognised that the Australian Governor-General (among others) was the representative of the British Government ("His Majesty's Ministers in London") in addition to being the representative of the monarch. --Pete (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Pete: Beyond clarifying the article by stating the governor-general's distinct capacity as office-holder in the exercise of the functions ascribed to the appointed person, for which s/he is beholden to the local prime minister both for advising the Queen to make the appointment and for administering the undertaking to serve the Queen of Australia after appointment but before assuming office, and also for the p.m.'s advice in the exercise of the ascribed functions, other than the so-called "reserve" powers, I am finding it really difficult to see what it is you propose is missing. Qexigator (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It is simply this: although it is beyond doubt that the Governor-General is the Queen's representative, we cannot imply that this is the entirety of the job. That would be misleading. --Pete (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

And we cannot imply that there being "more to the job" (that is, the governor-general has functions extra to that of being the Queen's representative) is anything other than either original research or a fringe theory. That would be misleading. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

... we simply need to say who the head of state role is split between. as said above by Mies. (22:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)). What more can be said to explain that it is not being denied that "the Governor-General does other things besides representing the Queen". But it remains the case that, for the duration of his tenure of office, he is the Queen's representative, when acting for her as C-in-C or receiving official visits, or when performing the functions s/he is duty bound to perform by the Constitution, and even in his non-official private life, just as a sergeant or colonel has that rank, when on or off duty, or on leave of absence for a private holiday. It is actually self-evident that there is "more to the job", but none of that makes the governor-general head of state in place of the Queen, and it seems unlikely that Winterton or any respected and reputable author would seriously claim any basis in law or practice for saying so. Qexigator (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

(1) The sources I have quoted do imply that the substance of the GG's job is to represent the Queen. They do not say that this is among the GG's many roles. Pete is clutching at straws.

(2) With regard to constitutional powers, the Constitution describes the GG as the Queen's representative in Chapter 1 dealing with legislative power and in Chapter 2 dealing with executive power. Does the GG have any powers which are not legislative or executive?

(3) I don't understand why the early issue about the GG as the British government's representative is relevant here. If the GG was the representative of the British government, then clearly he would not be Australia's head of state.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Jack, Wikipedia frowns on using implications or synthesised arguments to state something in Wikivoice which is not actually said by a reliable source. If you have a direct statement saying that the entirety of the Governor-General's job is to represent the monarch, please share it with the rest of us. If you are just making your own personal interpretation of the Constitution, that's not really something we can present with authority. --Pete (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Mies, the Balfour Declaration noted that Governors-General represented the British Government. Clearly that is a role separate to any personal representation of the monarch. Or was the Balfour Declaration a fringe view? --Pete (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I've had my fill of red herring, thanks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I know you of old, Mies. When we get to obfuscation instead of facts, it means you are wrong, you cannot admit it, and you are hoping I'll forget about it. Please try to follow the thread of the argument. It will be less painful for all of us. --Pete (talk) 05:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Pete, you're the one using implications and synthesis. I have presented multiple sources that sum up the GG's role as being "the Queen's representative". I used the word "imply" in response to your statement - "although it is beyond doubt that the Governor-General is the Queen's representative, we cannot imply that this is the entirety of the job." But multiple sources do merely define the GG as the Queen's representative. Most clearly Hasluck. You have not produced a source that clearly explains the "additional aspects" of the job. Nor have you explained them yourself, except to say that they are like the ingredients of a hamburger. Instead, you are using a lack of explicit denial of these "additional aspects" to imply confirmation of your opinion.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Jack. Listen. Nobody doubts that the Governor-General is the Queen's representative. That's what Hasluck says. What he does not say is that that is all the Governor-General does. If Mies cannot find a source that says that's all he does, then it's up to you. Lots of luck. In the meantime, we have the Governor-General, George Winterton and the Balfour Declaration all saying that there are other functions to the job beyond representing the Queen. --Pete (talk) 05:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Please try to follow the thread of the argument. It will be less painful for all of us. But the above discussion shows that Pete's last reply to JU is the beginning and end of Pete's contention, repeated in the face of various points presented to the contrary. It looks to me less like a hamburger, plain or with multiple ingredients, sides and sauces, than an overcooked red herring. Thanks, Pete, for letting this be demonstrated here. Take it or leave it, makes no difference to the content of this or any other article. Qexigator (talk) 07:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Not following. Nobody has presented any source to the contrary. Just the same old references to matters not in dispute. Yes, the Governor-General is the Queen's representative. No problem there. --Pete (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps more to the point, governor (device) links to control theory, which links to feedback, which links to plant (control theory), thence to transfer function and on to black box, to white box (software engineering), to system, and the image avoiding representation mistakes.[[17]] It's a matter of levels, depths and directions of meaning. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Very well put. --Pete (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Who's the Head of State?

Should we use the outcome of the DRN & other various concurrent discussions, as a determination on who's the head of state? If so? Shall we impliment this decision throughout related articles? GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not possible. There is no definitive source for the identity of the Australian head of state. Opinion is divided, as per the article. --Pete (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If enough editors were to push for one usage over the other, then it's possible. I've seen it before. GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think there are possibly enough sources in this article to say there is an informed consensus for the Queen.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

In answer to the question at the top of this section, No. please specify where, if at all, there may be a problem about this in other articles which needs attention on its own merits. 11:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

For Examples - If the outcome is monarch, shall we edit into the articles Australia and Monarchy of Australia that the Australian monarch is head of state? GoodDay (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please quote and link the passage in each of those artcles which you propose would be improved in that way. I see no need. Qexigator (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Though I'm not proposing such additions. Adding HoS to Australia 's 'Government' section would be a possibity. Describing the Monarch as HoS in the Monarchy of Australia, as is done at Monarchy of Canada, is another idea. My point is, such additions shouldn't be reverted & disputed. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Litter is properly removable. Qexigator (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

That's in the eye of the beholder, of course :) Anyways, good luck with the DRN. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Turnbull

The article currently says:

Malcolm Turnbull (prime minister since 2015), a republican, said in 1991 that, at the time of Federation 90 years earlier, the Queen was never intended to be Australia's head of state. In his 1993 book The Reluctant Republic, Turnbull explained that, at Federation, the "Governor-General acted partly as head of state and partly as the local representative of the British Government", the latter being the Queen in her Privy Council of the United Kingdom.

I can't find any support for the first sentence in the citation given. Turnbull refers several times to a foreigner being the head of state. The second sentence quotes Turnbull's book. The quotation is similar to comments that Turnbull made in the speech cited for the first sentence. Turnbull is not saying that the GG was the head of state, but that he or she acted in the role. This paragraph seems to be an attempt to frame Turnbull as saying the Queen is not the head of state. It should be removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks to be a direct quotation of the source:

So as at 1901, the Commonwealth of Australia consisted of a federation of six colonies, the federation itself being a colony. The sovereign power was, for all practical purposes, the British Government. The sovereign's viceroy, the Governor-General, acted partly as head of state and partly as the local representative of the British government. Australian cabinet ministers communicated with London via the Governor-General who in turn dealt with the Colonial Office."

I think we should stick as closely as possible to Turnbull's words, rather than forcing into some interpretation. --Pete (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

On reading more of Turnbull's article, I think it is clear that he was distinguishing between the Governor-General at Federation and up until the Balfour Declaration, and the contemporary situation. If his view is correct, then it follows that our statement is correct. Neither the founding fathers of Federation, nor the Imperial government regarded the Queen as the head of the Australian state in any practical sense, and certainly not in the same way that she was head of the British state. However, we should note that as of 1991, Turnbull regarded the Queen, rather than the Governor-General as head of state. --Pete (talk) 08:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Where in Turnbull's article does it say that the Queen was never intended to be Australia's head of state???--Jack Upland (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I've removed this because (a) Turnbull didn't say "Queen was never intended to be Australia's head of state", and (b) the rest of the paragraph is irrelevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Just catching up here. Turnbull doesn't seem to have said that the Queen was never intended to be Australia's head of state, so unless there is some explicit statement to that effect, we can't say that those are his views. However, he does make some interesting remarks in the same speech, which is well worth reading, despite the atrocious OCR treatment. "The truth is that the monarchy survives here not because most Australians accept we should have a foreign head of state, but because most Australians do not regard the Queen as our Head of State at all," he says, going on to compare the Queen's role to that of an absentee patron of a sporting club, who might kick in to buy a new surfboat from time to time, but is not a surfer themselves. The central thrust of the republican cause, which Turnbull later partially led, is that the Queen is not "one of us", and therefore cannot act in the role which Charles de Gaulle said the head of state should embody "the spirit of the nation" for the nation itself and the world and embody "a certain idea about France" (or, in this case, Oz). The very English monarch is a foreigner in this important respect.

Now that Turnbull is Prime Minister, I think we're set for some further developments in this area and it is worth keeping a record of his statements over time on this particular point. He will undoubtedly add to the debate come Australia Day 2016. --Pete (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Turnbull might make some interesting comments, but in The Reluctant Republic, he is clear that the Queen is the Head of State (and the GG is her representative): pp 79, 85-93, 137, 150, 214, 220-1, 224-5, 247, 255, etc.

Some choice quotes:

When Australia becomes a republic, we will have a President as our Head of State and unlike the Governor-General, the President will be no-one else's deputy or representative. (p 86).

the Governor-General, and the State Governors, are not perceived as being Heads of State in their own right. They are representatives of the Queen. (p 88)

...the Governor-General is a mere deputy... (p 89)

The Governor-General was almost invisible during that year [1988], confirming the constitutional fact that far from being the Head of State, the Governor-General was just a stand-in who represented the Queen when she could not be here. (p 90)

As we have seen, the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia is administered in the name of the Queen via her representative the Governor-General. (p 93)

He [Indonesian President Suharto in a diplomatic incident] quite rightly identified the Queen and not the Governor-General as the Head of State of Australia. (p 221)

I have replaced the Turnbull quote in the article with one that more accurately reflects his opinion.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Kelly's new book

Paul Kelly, in what is essentially his life's work, has published a new history of the untidy events of 1975. I hadn't known that there was a second letter from Buckingham Palace, but Kelly quotes it on p247. Whitlam wrote to Sir Martin Charteris (HM's official secretary) setting out his complaints about "the conduct of the Crown's representative". He was essentially laying the blame on the Queen and warning of future repercussions.

For some reason Charteris' reply seems to have escaped the attention his earlier letter was given, where he noted that "the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands of the Governor-General as the representative of the Queen of Australia."

In response to Whitlam's accusations, Charteris diplomatically wrote, "I am sure you will neither wish nor expect me to enter into argument about the constitutional propriety of Sir John kerr's actions. I hope, however, you will allow me to make one comment on what you say. It is this. The constitutional role of the Governor-General and his reserve powers stem not from his position as The Queen's personal representative, to which he is appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister, but rather from what is written in the Constitution Act as applicable constitutionally."

Charteris (and it hardly needs saying that he spoke with the knowledge and consent of the Queen here) was pointing out that the Constitution directly assigns several important powers to the Governor-General in his own right, including the power to appoint ministers. It is nowhere stated that these powers belong to any other person than the Governor-General, although some might confect a synthetic argument that they belong to someone else. Here the Queen is making it plain that Kerr used the powers given to him by the Constitution, and did not act as the Queen's representative, but rather in his constitutional role.

It is interesting that this explicit refutation of Whitlam's position did not surface until 2012. Doubtless it suited Whitlam's myth-making to link the dismissal of his progressive government to as many conservative forces as possible, including the monarchy itself. Instead the real reason was that Whitlam's inept handling of government had caused the very man that Whitlam had nominated to lose all confidence in Whitlam.

Whitlam aside, Charteris' statement is an important observation on the role of the Governor-General beyond representing the Queen. --Pete (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the key word there is "personal". The GG is not the "Queen's personal representative", but there is no doubt that constitutionally the GG is the Queen's representative (as discussed). Hence there is no contradiction between the two letters.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no contradiction between the two letters. The Governor-General is the Queen's personal representative in the sense that he represents the monarch, rather than the British government. However, as noted by the Queen, his role and reserve powers stem from the Constitution rather than as the Queen's representative. The Constitution gives various powers to various officers, such as Inter-State Commissioners, Justices of the High Court, Speaker and Presdent. Unless otherwise specified, the Governor-General is no different; he draws his powers from the Constitution. For example, if s62 were removed via s128 referendum, the Governor-General would continue to serve, but would be unable to appoint members of the Federal Executive Council. If we the people added via s128 a new section giving the Governor-General some additional power (the ability to declare National Holidays, perhaps), then that power would come from the Constitution. The ultimate source of power in Australia is the people, not the monarch. --Pete (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not what the Queen's website says:[18].--Jack Upland (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It is silent on these points. --Pete (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)