Talk:Monarchy of Australia/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Corporation

I have removed the statement that the Crown is a corporation. This refers to a report of a Canadian court case. We need something more substantial than that.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we need more than your say-so to dismiss that particular source. Please discuss. Better yet, can we call on Mies to comment? --Pete (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Does this suffice to carry the point, at least for the purpose of the article? "...In England we now (1901) say that the Crown is a corporation: it was certainly not so when the king's peace died with him, and 'every man that could forthwith robbed another'...If the corporation sole had never trespassed beyond the ecclesiastical province in which it was native, it would nowadays be very unimportant. Clearly it would have no future before it, and the honour of writing its epitaph would hardly be worth the trouble. Unfortunately, however, the thought occurred to Coke --or perhaps in the first instance to some other lawyer of Coke's day -- that the King of England ought to be brought into one class with the parson: both were to be artificial persons and both were to be corporations sole."-The Crown as Corporation, Maitland, Law Quarterly Review[8] Qexigator (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. Maitland goes on to say:

The way out of this mess, for mess it is, lies in a perception of the fact, for fact it is, that our sovereign lord is not a "corporation sole", but is the head of a complex and highly organized "corporation aggregate of many" -- of very many. I see no great harm in calling this corporation a Crown. But a better word has lately returned to the statute book. That word is Commonwealth.

Maitland does not say that the Crown is a corporation. Blackshield and Williams Australian Constitutional Law and Theory (6th ed.) quotes Anne Twomey as saying, following on from the quotation given above: "Accordingly, in the United Kingdom one finds an ongoing dispute as to whether the Crown has legal personality, is a corporation sole or a corporation aggregate, means the 'Government' or the 'Queen', and whether it includes Ministers and public servants or not" (p 354). As discussed above, the identity of the Crown is disputed.--Jack Upland (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Maitland says a lot more as one can see reading to the end. I daresay the various ways in which words such as "crown" are habitually or innovatively used in certain contexts is fairly well known, and, like the Maitland article, the quote from Twomey is a good way of pointing out that it makes little sense for editors here to pretend to resolve issues which are often left deliberately open in political contexts. Academic and legal discussion tends to proceed by arguing points making fine distinctions, often comparing one uncertain precedent with another, with little consequence unless legal rights are affected (given or taken away, confirmed or annulled) as a result of judicial ruling. That strays too far from the topic of this article. Perhaps it could be taken up for discussion on an appropriate specialist page. Qexigator (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Which is why I removed the contentious statement, taken from a Canadian court case, from this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I agree that the statement contributes practically no useful information to the article, and an expert eye may see the source as not fully supporting it anyway. If retained it could be tweaked to read: "The Crown is regarded sometimes described as a corporation." Qexigator (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs here. If anywhere, it belongs in the article on the Crown. The issue is amply covered here by the "Personfication of the state" section. Based on Blackshield and Williams, it doesn't appear that the Crown is usually viewed as a corporation in Australia. The quote from Twomey suggests that this is a UK debate.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a matter of personal perception. In law courts, "The Crown" is certainly not seen as the Queen. "Crown Lands" are not lands belonging to the monarch, but lands held by the public. "Ministers of the Crown" are not the Queen's personal advisors, but the Government itself. It is an uninformed common or garden view to equate "The Crown" with the wearer. There may be some leeway under WP:COMMONNAME, but finding good sources would be the difficulty. --Pete (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I've provided sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

"Sources equating "The Cown" with "The Queen"? --Pete (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The Acts Interpreation Act, S.16: "In any Act references to the Sovereign reigning at the time of the passing of such Act, or to the Crown, shall be construed as references to the Sovereign for the time being." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Blackshield and Williams: "When executive power is said to be exercised in the name of 'the Crown', the ceremonial jewelled headpiece is used as a depersonalised symbol of the monarch, who in turn is treated as a personalised symbol of what in other constitutional systems is usually referred to as 'the State'" (p 352). Twomey's statement quoted above indicates that there is debate about what 'the Crown' means, with a corporation and the Queen being some of the alternatives she lists. But I wasn't saying the article should say that the Crown is the Queen. I was objecting to the bald statement that the Crown is a corporation. This is just one interpretation, and apparently not one favoured in Australia.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

':Thanks. I don't think that "The Crown" equating to a corporation is a view widely held here. Twomey's roundabout way of saying "The Crown" is "The State" resonates with me. Not the government so much as an Englished term for the concept of Australian sovereignty. --Pete (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

That quote ("depersonalised...personalised") is actually Williams, Brennan, and Lynch. It's complicated because their text quotes Twomey at length, but here they are speaking for themselves. I think the problem in Australia with the Crown being a corporation is that in practice you want to specify the state or federal government, whereas in Britain that's not really an issue. In any case, I suggest putting the Maitland quote on the Crown page where it is in context.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

"'The Crown' is 'the state'" and "the Crown is a corporation sole (with the monarch being the centre of a construct in which the power of the whole is shared by multiple institutions of government—the executive, legislative, and judicial—acting under the sovereign's authority)" are not mutually exclusive statements. The latter really just expands on the former. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Nick Seddon, "The Crown", Federal Law Review, Vol 28 No 2, 2000 [9]: "The identification of the ten legal entities in Australia [the Commonwealth, the six states, the two territories, and Norfolk Island] is clear and without complication. It has not been necessary, as it has in the United Kingdom, to theorise about whether the Crown in Australia is a body corporate and whether that body is a corporation sole or aggregate."--Jack Upland (talk) 04:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That's one person's opinion that doesn't prove or disprove my statement. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

To sum up: (1) Both Seddon and Twomey say it's a UK debate. (2) Maitland discusses the debate and says it's a "mess", while tending to support corporation aggregate rather than sole. (3) Cox describes the UK debate and indicates that corporation aggregate is dominant. (4) The corporation sole article says, "Some lawyers consider The Crown in right of each Commonwealth realm to be a corporation sole". Conclusion: The status of the Crown as a corporation is debatable and the issue is not prominent in Australian law. Your opinion might be right, but it is not universally held.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Not corporation

A part of the text, stemming from Revision of 21:49, 26 July 2007 by G2bambino (expand, reorganize to parallel Monarchy in Canada & British monarchy) [10] is discussed above. In view of the discussion, given that

• we may suppose an author of a reliable source commenting on the legal fiction of the monarch or the Crown as a corporation, sole or aggregate, in connection specifically with the law of all or any of the countries which were formerly Dominions of the British Empire, and more particularly in connection today with the Commonwealth of Australia, or any of its states, would know of
  • Maitland's article and
  • the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, s. 16[11],
• and that we may further suppose that such an author would be aware of any judicial ruling connecting s.16 with the monarch or the Crown of Australia as a "corporation",

have we not reached the point (unless there is any such judicial ruling available for citation) to let the sentence in the article The Crown is regarded as a corporation, in which several parts share the authority of the whole, with the Queen as the person at the centre of the constitutional construct be removed (see reasoning given in comments above) or be revised to read thus:

Both the monarch and the Crown are sometimes described as a "corporation sole" (not to be confused with incorporated entities known as corporations, such as News Corporation or Australian Postal Corporation).

Qexigator (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why it's so legalistic. The issue of the Crown can be dealt with at its page. And Maitland emphatically rejects the suggestion the Crown is a corporation sole.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The proposed revision is not "legalistic", it clarifies that in relation to the monarch or Crown, mention of "corporation" here or anywhere else (such as Canada), is quite different from what most readers may think of. If you wish to revise any other article with similar clarificarion, please go ahead. Qexigator (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

+The need for clarification is demonstrated by Maitland's highly specialist but informative discussion of the topic, relating the concept to the parson's freehold, but with the comment "Abortive as I think the attempt to bring the parson into line with corporations aggregate -- abortive, for the freehold of the glebe persists in falling into abeyance whenever a parson dies --the attempt to play the same trick with the king seems to me still more abortive and infinitely more mischievous." He also comments "The suggestion that 'the Crown' is very often a suppressed or partially recognized corporation aggregate is forced upon us so soon as we begin to attend with care to the language which is used by judges when they are freely reasoning about modern matters and are not feeling the pressure of old theories. ...However, the main point is that the American State is, to say the least, very like a corporation." etc. Qexigator (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

+We may also notice that Maitland, writing in 1901, opined: "I would not, if I could, stop the process which is making 'the Crown' one of the names of a certain organized community; but in the meantime that term is being used in three or four different, though closely related, senses. 'We all know that the Crown is an abstraction', said Lord Penzance. I do not feel quite sure of knowing even this." Qexigator (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

+Disambig: The "Murdoch" of Murdoch University which hosts the linked source is Walter Murdoch, not the Murdoch of Newscorp. The author cited is Noel Cox[12]. Qexigator (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

+I see nothing in the CA ruling in Black v Chrétien[13] about the position of the Crown as a corporation, but have added a link to Cox's other article which he cites in his article about the Canadian case. Qexigator (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I meant that the process of editing this page is legalistic.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Just as an aside, G2bambino changed his user name some years back and still pops in from time to time. He (or possibly she, who knows?) is monitoring this discussion. Editing Wikipedia can often seem quasi-legalistic, but that's the way that has evolved and been demonstrated to work. Otherwise we get editors at each other's throats over trivia. Qexigator, I find your approach most helpful. --Pete (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

That may help to explain some of the edits here. In passing, and noting that often "less is more" in respect of npov, we may note that G2bambino[14] chose to make known that s/he was, among other things, a proud Canadian from Ontario, an advocate of democracy who supported the Crown, a Canuck, had seen 31 countries and travelled over 312,000 km (or, about 8 times around the Earth), had been to more McDonalds than World Heritage Sites, lived 1 year in Australia (2001), was in UK a number of times (1981-2005), thought The Simpson's simply excellent, linked to Nudity page, was a former member of Scouts[15], used to go by the name Gbambino, and had at least 4 barnstars[16] Qexigator (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Notifications

If anyone here has sent me a message please note that a change in the Wikipedia system seems to have disabled my access, click as I might. Do others have this problem? Qexigator (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I've no problems, but the change is annoying. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Divisible crown

The article states as a fact that the monarchy of the various realms are "independent and legally distinct". That is a debated and contentious argument, and certainly should not be recorded as a fact. There are practical and legal reasons for arguing against the idea of a separate monarchy, not the least of which is that British laws pertaining to the Crown have effect on the "Queen of Australia".Royalcourtier (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually they don't. Laws pertaining to the succession have to be agreed to by all the Commonwealth nations. As to the definition of the royal powers and the manner in which they may be exercised, they are he concern of the separate national constitutions. But the divisibility of the Crown is referenced often and solidly enough in this and other articles.Gazzster (talk) 05:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this has ever been tested. Certainly before the abdication of Edward VIII and recently before the birth of Prince George, the Commonwealth realms did agree. Secondly, s 2 of the Preamble of the Constitution says that: "The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom." None of the acts passed by Australian parliaments can override the Constitution. What would happen if Australia did not agree to an abdication, or if Britain became a republic???--Jack Upland (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

We'd be in a very tricky situation, far worse than the one Canada is currently exploring. But it's not really something we need lose sleep over - before we got to that situation, any number of clever dicks would nut out a solution. Worst case, I guess, is that Australia would end up with a monarch who wasn't the British monarch, and while that might be kind of awkward, it wouldn't have much effect on Australia. How could it? --Pete (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

What??? Nobody would know who the monarch was.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry? If - to take your example - the UK became a republic without a monarch, and Tony Abbott decided we would remain a monarchical state, then we'd retain the monarch. This would be a bizarre and awkward situation, especially if they didn't want to be King or Queen of Australia, but the practical effect would be negligible, at least until the Governor-General's term expired. But these sort of things usually don't happen overnight, and we'd most likely work something out ahead of time. --Pete (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, for a start, it's not up to Abbott to decide.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

However it may seem to a citizen of the world, Pete has a better grip on the practcal, specuation free, reality. Obviously, Abbott or his successor, not to mention legal experts and whatever influence popular opinion may have in Australia at the time if it ever comes, and the willingness of any person to become king/queen of Australia in the circumstances. Qexigator (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You didn't finish the sentence. The point is, however, that the divisibility of the Crown is uncertain. My source is Blackshield and Williams Constitutional Law and Theory (6th Edition). It quotes Anne Twomey as saying "The root of the difficulty in analysing the divisibility of the Crown in the different meanings of the term 'the Crown'. The use of the term 'Crown' has been described as 'slippery', bording on the incoherent, deeply ambiguous and deeply troubling, and giving rise to a mass of fiction and subterfuge" (p 354). And Chief Justice Latham: "The principle that the Crown is one and indivisible is very important and significant from a political point of view. But, when stated as a legal principle, it tends to dissolve into verbally impressive mysticism" (p 355).--Jack Upland (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

To return to my earlier point, Malcolm Turnbull in The Reluctant Republic said: "If Britain became a republic, the British President would become the Australian Head of State - and until we had amended our Constitution there would be nothing Australians could do about it." (p 214).--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I've restarted this, Jack, to follow and then agree, that Turnbull is correct. Irrespective of the interminable speculations (since at least the 1930s—on which please kindly nobody continue here about divisibility of the Crown until having read Anne Twomey's book The Chameleon Crown, 2006), covering clause 2 in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp) states:

Act to extend to the Queen's successors.

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

For that reason, when Charles Windsor visits Australia in a moment he will do so as next in line to be King of Australia—and so on. Wikiain (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question that Charles would become King of Australia should his mother suffer an untimely demise, through thrillsports or being devoured by canines, perhaps. I suspect that he might not hold this title for long, given the inevitable resumption of the republican debate, but that's neither here nor there.

Whether a future British President would assume the role of "The Queen" in Australian government is another matter entirely. Turnbull might be correct if it were to happen overnight, a prospect which seems unlikely, but in any case it would be up to the High Court to make its own interpretation, and I think that they would consider the intent of the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution, and the developments which would naturally occur in other Realms.

However, this is speculation. In practical terms, if the British were to move to a republican model of government, then it would happen through consultation, it would presumably be the result of some popular decision, whether through the election of a profoundly pro-republican government or some referendum similar to last year's vote on Scottish independence, and there would be some further lengthy period before the new order was proclaimed. It wouldn't be a surprise in the morning and there would be ample opportunity for the other Realms to consider their options. I doubt that Australian (or New Zealand or Bermudan etc.) people would relish a British President's feet occupying the Queen's constitutional shoes. What those crazy Canucks would do is another question. They might like it.

As to the divisibility of the Crown, that's the current state of affairs. "The Crown" is, as Twomey notes, an uncertain term, but it certainly extends to the machinery of sovereignty in the various Realms, each distinct from the other, and all extending uninterrupted over any past or future changes of monarch. --Pete (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it wouldn't happen overnight. The future of the UK monarchy was presumably being canvassed by the Commons’ select committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, within its general project of a written constitution for the UK. Though its successor after the 2015 election, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, doesn't have that on its listed agenda—it is urgently dealing with the problem of EVEL. Either a UK constitution or a separate measure dealing with the monarchy would surely go to a referendum. The rest, as you say, is speculation. The Australian High Court's perspective on constitutional interpretation is currently murky, though in 2013 it went out of its way to find that "marriage" in the constitution can include same-sex. However, I'm sure that the prospect of a British president as the Australian head of state would be totally unacceptable. As to Canada, who can tell—until President Beckham attempts to speak French? Wikiain (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

On 11 November 2015 Turnbull said that Charles would become the Australian head of state, and as prime minister met Charles and Camilla; and a poll for the Australian Republican Movement (Turnbull a founder member and major financial backer) found that even Coalition voters would prefer a republic to Charles as the Australian head of state. A frabjous day for Mal. Wikiain (talk) 04:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Monarchy of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040916215907/http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca:80/department/history/dcer/details-en.asp?intRefid=3498 to http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/department/history/dcer/details-en.asp?intRefId=3498
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090602104910/http://www.gg.gov.au/governorgeneral/content.php?id=20 to http://www.gg.gov.au/governorgeneral/content.php?id=20
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070221143821/http://www.ag.gov.au:80/portal/govgazonline.nsf/0/2f2ce4c9762f3521ca257011001c9fd4/$FILE/S%2086.pdf to http://www.ag.gov.au/portal/govgazonline.nsf/0/2f2ce4c9762f3521ca257011001c9fd4/$FILE/S%2086.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080305061843/http://australianpolitics.com:80/constitution/text/116.shtml to http://australianpolitics.com/constitution/text/116.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Monarchy of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080821213022/http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2003-04/04RP03.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2003-04/04rp03.htm#weare
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071211015826/http://australianpolitics.com:80/constitution/text/5.shtml to http://australianpolitics.com/constitution/text/5.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071211015916/http://australianpolitics.com:80/constitution/text/59.shtml to http://australianpolitics.com/constitution/text/59.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Lord Paramount

The information about Lord Paramountcy and Crown Land is interesting and relevant to the article, but, its connection specifically to the head of state matter is unclear. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we can't say there's a link in Wikivoice. Someone needs to say it in a reliable source. I also think that in Commonwealth Realms, or other polities such as States or Provinces, "Crown land" does not personally belong to the monarch, either as person or office. --Pete (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be adequately sourced. The question is of its relevance to the section. Maybe @Qexigator: can explain? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Crown land stuff, so I reckon ya'll can work that out. Let's just be careful that we don't push against edits that we think may directly or indirectly point towards the monarch being head of state. From what I'm reading at a related Rfc, such a push could be construed as PoV pushing. As for Wiki-voices? those voices are being backed up by reliable sources, so let's wait for a certain Rfc to run its course. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• It seems a rather odd piece of information tacked on to an otherwise coherent paragraph. What is 'Lord Paramount', a phrase I can't see in either of the references? If the phrase refers to ownership of Australia by the Crown the Mabo decision would seem to specifically refute that by annulling the doctrine of terra nullius.Gazzster (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the concept of "the Crown" as in the owner of Crown land, and the head of state are two different things. Unless, of course, one imagines the head of state to be the one upon whom an actual crown rests. --Pete (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Mies. and others: In response to above, please seeTalk:Australian head of state dispute#Queen of Australia, sovereign and "Lord Paramount". Commenters will be aware that, typically of common law countries, this is part of the constitution that is unwritten, and ascertained from the law as pronounced and declared by the courts. As can be seen when looking at the sources, while it is an unfamiliar title, the judges found it useful in the line of reasoning in the Mabo case, derived from way back in the days when the common law of land tenure, including primogeniture, was being evolved, with lords of manors, copyhold, socage and so forth, and, of course, intimately connected with the descent of title to the crown according to English common law, and which became the origin of the law of the English/British colonies, including that of the rebel colonies which formed the USA. It is the underlying common law element of the monarch's title to the crown, which as a result of political events, has from time to time been modified by parliamentary enactments, recited in the article. The position in Australia is similar to that of England, the originating source of the Australian colonies'/states' common law, the land is held of the monarch, who is one and the same as the sovereign and head of state of the federation. This was evidently left out of account by those asserting that the governor-general could be regarded as head of state. It is, however, indisputably an attribute of the Queen of Australia, as of her predecessors in title. The same rationale may not apply to Canada in all respects insofar as in some parts, the system of land tenure originated under the monarchy of France. Qexigator (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source making the statement? Otherwise it is WP:SYNTH. I get what you are saying, but you need a source making a direct link between Crown land, Queen, and head of state. We can't dump in three facts and sort of smoosh them together to create a statement that nobody but a Wikipedia editor has actually made. --Pete (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

+ Australian law does not define who is Australia's head of state. The governor-general and the state governors are defined as the monarch's "representatives". The position of the monarch as "Lord Paramount" in respect of the system of land tenure in Australia, including public land held in "right of the Crown", has been judicially affirmed. Qexigator (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Even if what you are saying is true, I do not see the phrase 'Lord Paramountcy' or even an enunciation of the concept in any of the references you cite. Also the connection with the head of state question is obscure as you have written it.Gazzster (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The expression "Paramount Lord" or "Lord Paramount" is used in Mabo by Brennan J at paras 48-52 and he goes to discuss "paramount" title of the Crown; just as title in fee simple depended on that paramount title, so now would native title. As Brennan and others emphasise, the concept of paramount title is feudal. So is its connection with sovereignty: Toohey J at paras 14-15. However, the relevant meaning of "the Crown" today (possibly even since the 17th century in England, but certainly in Australia since 1900) is an abstraction, a label for the "body politic": Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Hayne JJ in Sue v Hill at paras 84-85. It is only symbolically connected with the actual person who wears the national rocks. Accordingly, the concept "Paramount Lord" is only remotely connected with the concept "head of state". At least I don't see any connection sufficient to contribute to the question of whether the G-G of Australia is the head of state. Wikiain (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Wikiain. I propose Qexigator's edit be undone as irrelevant and obscure.Gazzster (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

National rocks? --Pete (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Edna rocks, Princess of Wales Theatre, Toronto, "one of the true wonders of the modern world"[17]: how they laughed! Cheers.

Gazzster: Thank you for your remarks, as corrected by Wikiain; and Wikiain, are you aware that practically all concepts used about an invisible entity such as a country's constitution tend to be symbolical abstractions, including body politic, crown lands, public lands, head of state, sovereign, president, White House, Whitehall, Commonwealth. There's enough for a Wikipedia list, to add to all the others. Please see Talk:Australian_head_of_state_dispute#Edna's_elephant -- Qexigator (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Yup, I don't think I've ever seen an abstraction. Nor a white elephant or a red herring, though I suppose it's possible. "Rocks" - of the type that are a girl's best friend and, specifically, guarded by beefeaters. Wikiain (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

+ Not sure why any Australian should have difficulty about letting it be known that the root of title to land in their country is the present successor in title to the throne of the British monarch in whose reign the land was first colonised. No one here need have difficulty websearching for themselves. Here are samples of information:

• A Crown Grant is a title to land, formerly Crown land, granted by the Queen (by her Western Australian representative, the Governor) to a person, company, statutory body or incorporated association. The grant may be made for a cash consideration or on the completion of certain developments that will benefit the State or for a mixture of both.....Most titles for freehold land in Western Australia were derived from a subdivision of land contained in an earlier Crown Grant and all titles derived from a grant are held subject to the same conditions as those listed in the grant.[18]
• The most important legislation covering Crown lands in NSW are: Crown Lands Consolidation Act 1913, Closer Settlement Acts, Mining Act 1973, Prickly Pear Act.[19]
• Crown Lands Consolidation Act, 1913: An Act to consolidate the Crown Lands Acts and certain other Acts or parts thereof dealing with the alienation occupation and management of Crown Lands. [8th October, 1913.] Be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly of New South Wales in Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows :— "Crown Lands" means lands vested in His Majesty and not permanently dedicated to any public purpose or granted or lawfully contracted to be granted in fee-simple under the Crown Lands Acts.[20]

Qexigator (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

That is understandable. But I don't understand what connection it has to the question of the Sovereign as head of state. Gazzster (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's not the place to give a tutorial, but since you ask let me simply say "raison d'être of the state's sovereignty" -- tacitly most of the time but as much a given fact of the way in which the colonies began, became federated and continue as a body politic united under the monarch in the person of the Queen, as the territory of the place and its inhabitants are given facts. As all can readily understand, it is not unimportant that if the monarchy were changed to a republican form of government, this too would need to be replaced with some other legally valid arrangement, but that has not happened, nor has the position of the monarch changed as what has come to be called, when speaking of any modern state, "head of state". Qexigator (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

+ In other words, to speak of "Australian head of state dispute" would be pure invention. Qexigator (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but the concept of The Crown as the principle of dominion is not intrinsically linked to the concept of a head of state. Neither is the latter intrinsically bound with the concept of sovereignty. For example, the President of the United States is head of state. But he is not sovereign. 'The People', a term roughly equivalent to 'The Crown' are.Gazzster (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

When speaking factually of the monarch (or crown) of a Commonwealth realm, the concepts, rightly understood, are not identical, of course, but, let us say, inseparable, and that is one of the main distinguishing features of the monarchy of those realms and other states, such as USA, or France, or Germany. It could be otherwise, but it is not at the present time, and the proposition that, in this context, the crown is roughly equivalent of "The People" is fanciful and of no practical significance. POTUS may speak of We, the people of USA, and the Roman Republic frequently used "SPQR", but they are not the source of the Australian monarchy or people. Qexigator (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

+ Is your proposition what is being taught in Australian law schools nowadays?Qexigator (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

"Sovereign" is a chameleon term, with several senses. In one sense, any monarch is a "sovereign" by definition. In another sense, the "sovereign" is whoever is the ultimate source of legal authority. That might or might not be a monarch. In the USA the sovereign in the second sense is the people - usually spoken of as "popular sovereignty". Also in the UK, indirectly, as the "sovereignty of parliament". So in the UK there is a monarch who is "sovereign" in the first sense but not in the second. Likewise in Australia, in a different way, since the people alone can amend the federal and state constitutions. Thus "sovereign" in the second sense does not help to explain "sovereign" in the first sense and only the first sense appears to be relevant here. Wikiain (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, some of that information may further help Gazzster or others , if still perplexed, as may consideration of the Succession to the Crown Act 2015 and the prior legislation passed in the states. The Act was "not intended to affect the relationship between the States and the Territories as existing immediately before its enactment", and in the Act Crown meant the Crown in all of its capacities. Your opinion about "relevance" noted, but, of course, does not alter the status of the Queen as Lord Paramount in respect of land in Australia, as judicially determined in the Mabo case. Is any Australian law school[21] teaching the contrary? Qexigator (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

This "Lord Paramount" material is WP:OR. It is one editor's opinion of two primary sources. I have asked repeatedly for a secondary source: someone who says what Qexigator wants us to declare in wikivoice. None has been forthcoming. I intend to delete it. Final chance for a source, Qex. --Pete (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Head of state section

If you (anyone) consider the edit[22] copied below acceptable, or wish to propose a tweak or content correction, please comment.

Head of state

Australia is a constitutional monarchy, such that its head of state is the monarch and its head of government is the prime minister, with powers limited by both law and convention for government to be carried on democratically. The constitution provides that the Queen is part of the Parliament and is empowered to appoint the governor-general as her representative, while the executive power of the Commonwealth which is vested in the Queen is exercisable by the governor-general as her representative. In practice, the Queen does not play a day-to-day role in the government, and the few functions which the Queen does perform (such as appointing the governor-general) are done on advice from the prime minister. The constitution does not directly mention the term "head of state". The constitution defines the governor-general and the state governors as the monarch's representatives. The position of the monarch as "Lord Paramount" in respect of the system of land tenure in Australia, including public land held in "right of the Crown", has been judicially affirmed.

While current official sources invariably use the description "head of state" for the Queen, in the lead up to the republic referendum in 1999, Sir David Smith proposed an alternative explanation, that Australia already had a head of state in the person of the Governor-General, who since 1965 has invariably been an Australian citizen. This view has some support within the group Australians for Constitutional Monarchy.

The former Governor-General, Major General Michael Jeffery, said in 2004: "Her Majesty is Australia's head of state but I am her representative and to all intents and purposes I carry out the full role." In 2005, when asked to confirm if he was a representative of the head of state, he said "The Queen is the monarch and I represent her, and I carry out all the functions of head of state."

Qexigator (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I fail to understand why your additions were reverted. They should be restored. GoodDay (talk) 08:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

They should be discussed here on this article's talk page under BRD. --Pete (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Head of state aside, what on earth is the point of mentioning the executive power? Perhaps Qex could explain his precise understanding of what this encompasses? --Pete (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who has read the article intelligently will see that "executive" recurs in it, and if anyone has a problem with that s/he need not ask.... Qexigator (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeees, but your understanding of the executive power seems to be somewhat grander and more comprehensive than any constitutional authority supports. The High Court, Anne Twomey etc. all have a stab at defining the executive power.[23] If you could just make a brief statement of your perception, it would help me and others confirm whether you know what it actually is or not. --Pete (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Given that:

• Twomey's article is headed:"A majority of the High Court in Pape v Commissioner of Taxation accepted that the Commonwealth has executive powers beyond those derived from statute, the prerogative and its capacities as a person. This fourth category of executive power, left nameless by the Court but generally described as the ‘nationhood’ power, remains ill-defined and ill-confined. This article explores the limits on the different categories of executive power, why it was perceived necessary to imply a nationhood power, whether this justification is adequate and how such a power might be limited."
• Twomey's conclusion states "The major problem with the Pape case is that the majority relied on an implied executive nationhood power without giving adequate justification for that reliance and without clearly explaining how that power is to be implied from the text and structure of the Constitution, and what limits necessarily apply to it."

perhaps P/S would let us know what part or parts s/he considers affects the content of the current version of the article? Qexigator (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The executive power is rarely used by the Governor-General. It is not an important power. As Twomey describes it, it is a few scraps derived from legislation, the remnants of the royal prerogative (such as treaties and pardons), ability to enter into contracts, and the fourth, nebulous "nationhood" power, used to spend money to celebrate anniversaries and to extradite state criminals. You would have Wikipedia give the impression that it is more important than (say) s64 (under which Gough Whitlam was dismissed). Again I ask, why? --Pete (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe some could find that information or opinion or OR/SYN notable and relevant, if in the right place in the right article. It seems to be way off the mark from the current version of the article discused here, and we are left to surmise, if we wish, why P/S mentions it. Qexigator (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

+ For the information of any less-informed participants here, who may be baffled about P/S's comment: Bryan Pape was a senior lecturer in the law school at a university in New South Wales. He died, aged 69, peacefully at home in 2014. He had been a "fervent and longtime believer in federalism and state's rights". He argued that "the Commonwealth has no constitutional power to spend consolidated revenue on gifts under section 81 and 83 of the Australian Constitution". The Court held (2009) that sections 81 and 83 alone do not authorise expenditure and require that the spending of government funds be authorised by the Parliament of Australia. There was report of comment that the decision raised practical question about the implications for Commonwealth spending programs, whether or not supported by legislation. For further detail, see linked articles. It can readily be understood that there was no hint that the issues in the case were relevant to the position of the Queen, not the governor-general, as head of state. Qexigator (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

There are two relevant RfCs going on that should be closed before there is a major change like this. StAnselm (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, the 2 Rfcs-in-question are leaning heavily in the direction of Qex's contributions. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics is certainly leaning towards having us say that the Queen is the HoS; the one at Talk:Australian head of state dispute‎ is probably still at no consensus, which would suggest that we still should link to that article from this one. (Certainly, Australian head of state dispute‎ should not be deleted without an actual deletion discussion.) StAnselm (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Neither Rfc is an inhibition on this expansion of part of the article. Qexigator (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who considers that the above Head of state section is acceptable, or wishes to propose a tweak or content correction, is invited to comment. Qexigator (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that until we have consensus right here, inserting a slab of contentious text is disruptive. --Pete (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Or maybe, persistently reverting & filibustering against similar edits based on WP:IDLI, is disruptive. I think that sooner rather then latter, the community will start looking into this particular matter. I can only hope, this won't be the case. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Just quietly, GoodDay, but this is standard procedure. Discussions on talk pages of one article are not necessarily seen by the regular or otherwise interested editors at a different article. Gaining local consensus before inserting slabs of controversial material is good practice. Edit-warring over it is not. --Pete (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I've been around the old 'pedia for years. My past experiences tells me, this entire Australian head of state topic? is a growing concern for the community. I sense it's heading towards either AN or Arbcom. Note: Not every editor has my patience. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

If you mean a community of a handful of editors, sure. The Wikipedia community in general couldn't give two squirts of lukewarm pelican poo about constitutional trivia. ArbCom is busily working on deflector shields, I'm told. --Pete (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

You may joke as much as you want, about it. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Noted that P/S has not responded to the open invitation to tweak or correct. Thus, it is clear to others who have been patiently participating in the discussions that, if there has been disruption to the editing process, it is not due to...Qexigator (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

My position is still that consensus needs to be gained for this. Saying that because I haven't "tweaked" a change I am completely opposed to implies that I am in agreement with it is rather a bold statement! --Pete (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Contributor Pete/Skyring could find in any good textbook of Australian constitutional law (such as Blackshield & Williams or Winterton/Gerangelos) that the "executive power" (s 61) is one of the three "powers" of government in the scheme of a "separation of powers" together with the legislative power (s 1) and the judicial power (s 71). What is meant by "power" in each case is not defined, but these provisions (whatever their grammatical form) are prescriptive: they prescribe that certain persons shall be so empowered.

S 61 in that way establishes executive government in Australia. It has to be taken together with the rest of Constitution Ch II, headed "The Executive Government", and also with the British constitutional conventions that were assumed as background, principally those that had established the positions of Prime Minister and Cabinet - which are not mentioned in the Constitution although they formally existed from the moment of Federation. Once all of that is taken into account, at least day-to-day little remains for the Governor-General.

Ch II also has to be understood against the background of Imperial and on that level subsequent conventions, particularly that the monarch will be advised upon affairs of any Empire/Commonwealth member state solely by the government thereof.

Pete/Skyring, please study Australian constitutional law. Wikiain (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Disgusted

Had to comment that I'm utterly disgusted to find an article on Australia being lumped with Canadian ideas of the roles and functions of the AUSTRALIAN Government and Constitutional interpretation. I am fully aware that Wikipedia is an international collaborative project and many can access sources on this and other Australian topics. But when I come to a talk page and see continuous arguments from Canadian editors attempting to develop a consensus of how the AUSTRALIAN system works with Canadian references and comparisons that don't apply, I worry that Wikipedia is failing as a knowledge base. As bad as it is to say, maybe Australian editors know more about this topic than others and we should defer to their knowledge. The Australian system is unique, I think many have failed to note this. Just my 2cents but I have been thoroughly disappointed by many "facts" I've read on Australian articles lately. 139.218.177.138 (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Kindly point out specific errors. Wikiain (talk)

Yes, one important point some have failed to appreciate is that the Australian Constitution is very different from that any of the other Commonwealth countries.Gazzster (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Anybody can edit articles or make constructive comments on the Talk page. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Title and numbering

Given the jargon and tone of the debate I believe this is the right place to ask the following for it appears there are many voice voices with qualification to answer.

The debate in Britain over Queen Elizabeth's regnal style drew this quote from PM Winston Churchill

"HC Deb 15 April 1953 vol 514 cc199-201

I think it would be reasonable and logical to continue to adopt in future whichever numeral in the English or Scottish line were higher. Thus if, for instance, a King Robert or a King James came to the throne he might well be designated by the numeral appropriate to the Scottish succession".

Now I'm not sure if this was ever written into succession law or any law, but has this debate ever been had in Australia or has the regnal number of the monarch been accepted?

Thanks Comes.amanuensis (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Comes.amanuensis (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

According to the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 (Cth), the Queen is designated as "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth".--Jack Upland (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The issue has been before Scottish and English courts: see MacCormick v Lord Advocate (Scotland, 1953). The current law in Australia is as stated by Jack Upland. The Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 (Cth) replaced the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953 (Cth), which had the title as: "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Australia and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith." HM is also the Second in the UK, Canada and elsewhere—in English, French and Latin: Royal Style and Titles Act. (Now I'll get back to watching The Crown.) Wikiain (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Succession

Should we or should we not, have a link to Succession to the British throne article, at the top of the Succession section? AFAIK, we don't have this linkage in any of the other Commonwealth realm articles' in that manner. BTW - My concern here is consistency across the Commonwealth realms. Add the linkage to all or remove linkage from them all. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but why isn't it in the other articles? Your edit summary was "per removal at Monarchy of Canada", but the edit summary there was "link already provided", which doesn't seem to apply here. In fact, it looks erroneous - I can't see where the link is provided in the Monarchy of Canada article. StAnselm (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Someone had added the linkage to that article weeks ago (in fact it was the same person that added the linkage to this article), but it was reverted today at Monarchy of Canada by someone else. I don't mind either way, as long as all the commonwealth realm articles are consistent. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Since I've mentioned @Tavix:, may as well invite him here. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Also inviting @Miesianiacal:, too. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I've created a redirect, will that suffice? GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy with linking to the redirect. StAnselm (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Monarchy of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Monarchy of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ag.gov.au/portal/govgazonline.nsf/0/2f2ce4c9762f3521ca257011001c9fd4/%24FILE/S%2086.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015142053/http://www.gg.gov.au/content.php/category/id/1/title/role to http://www.gg.gov.au/content.php/category/id/1/title/role
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131217022255/http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Queenandthelaw/SovereignasFountofJustice.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Queenandthelaw/SovereignasFountofJustice.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080214131835/http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page4384.asp to http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page4384.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215182149/http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2009/TheQueensmessagefollowingthefiresinAustralia.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2009/TheQueensmessagefollowingthefiresinAustralia.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090224091519/http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2009/ThePrincessRoyaltovisitareasaffectedbytheVictorian.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2009/ThePrincessRoyaltovisitareasaffectedbytheVictorian.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080211225050/http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5174.asp to http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5174.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Head of state, again

An Rfc was held at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics about a year ago (see Archie 17) with the result that Elizabeth II is Australia's head of state. Yet Skyring appears to be increasingly ignoring that result. This article does have a link to Australian head of state dispute & so there's no need for him to keep deleting head of state from this article (which goes against the aforementioned Rfc). GoodDay (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Re the mention of Archie 17 [sic] above and archive 17 in the edit summary of this and other edits, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/Archive_17#Who_is_Australia's_Head_of_state?. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

GoodDay, as ever, overstates the case. The longstanding convention is that because the term "head of state" is problematical in the real world - see Australian head of state dispute - we use the term monarch or sovereign, which is universally agreed. See the infobox in the article Australia and similar articles. Wikipedia is not in a position to declare who a nation's head of state is. Yet. --Pete (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

And you Skrying, don't get to decide unilaterally what can & can't be done on this topic. So, if I opened an Rfc here & the overwhelming result was to have head of state in the article for Elizabeth II, would you still delete it? GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Wikipedians don't unilaterally decide who is and who isn't the head of state. There is a real world dispute, and the convention is to use the word sovereign or monarch, because nobody disputes that HM is the monarch. Not even if they are a republican and may wish for a glorious revolution to see the Queen replaced by the General Secretary of the Painters and Dockers Union, or a merchant banker, or whatever. I also direct you to the United Nation's list of heads of state.[24] Please, for the education of the readers, read out the full title given there for the person the United Nations thinks holds the position of Australian head of state. Clearly the matter is not as clearcut as you seem to imagine. --Pete (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

So you would continue to delete, regardless of any discussion result? GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

1. See above. 2. Just answer the question about the UN, buddy. --Pete (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

If you delete again? I'll open up an Rfc on 'this' article. It's been 2+ years since the aforementioned Rfc, perhaps you've got some new arguments & deserve another platform to present your case. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Best to use real sources ..UN is in no way informative on the matter. Last thing we want is to push a POV that is not held by the academic community at large....... that said we should mention that there is a debate within the country itself no matter how small it is. But overall we should stick to what the Australian Constitution says and international law says. ..Cheryl Saunders (2003). It's Your Constitution: Governing Australia Today. Federation Press. ISBN 978-1-86287-468-8..--Moxy (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, What about other monarchs?

How come this article solely deals with the British monarchy ruling over Australia? Where are the sections about aboriginal leaders, chieftains, or other positions in monarchical structures? Australian history did not start in 1901. ♆ CUSH ♆ 10:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be inappropriate to include Aboriginal leaders here. I've never heard any reference to an Aboriginal monarchy. Do you have a source on that?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

See this: "Traditionally, Aboriginal societies did not have kings or chiefs in the sense used by English-speaking people".--Jack Upland (talk) 05:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that this article is intended to cover the British monarchy in an Australian context, rather than the more general subject of monarchy in Australia. There were certainly indigenous kings recognised, possibly in a jocular manner, but their realms were local, rather than over the entire continent. --Pete (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

This article deals with the monarchy of Australia. Any other monarchs that have existed in Australia have not been the monarchy of Australia. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

How so? I doubt that over 45000 years indigenous Australians never developed a monarchical political structure at some point in history. And as for the current situation: in what way are the Windsors "of Australia" ? ♆ CUSH ♆

Please produce a source about indigenous monarchies.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

There may have been indigenous monarchical power structures, but as no records remain, we cannot do more than speculate. --Pete (talk) 08:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Formation in 1901

What is the basis for saying the "Monarchy of Australia" was formed in 1901? The term "Queen of Australia" at the top of the infobox was not in use till 1973. (And I can't find any reference to the Queen using the Coat of Arms of Australia, which is also featured.) The Preamble of the Constitution begins: "Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established..." There is no reference to the formation of a separate Australian monarchy. In any case, the Australian colonies had been formed under the British crown, from 1788 onwards. There was no transition here on the part of the monarchy as far as I can see.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I have fixed this.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

But there is a further problem: The History section starts with 1770 and states, "After Queen Victoria's granting of Royal Assent to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act on 9 July 1900, which brought about Federation in 1901, whereupon the six colonies became the states of Australia, the relationship between the state governments and the Crown remained as it was pre-1901". However, the list of monarchs starts in 1901. Similarly, the History of monarchy in Australia (which seems largely concerned with royal visits) starts in 1770, but the list of monarchs begins in 1901. This is contradictory.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The second paragraph in the lead covers your concerns. This page specifically covers the monarchy from the formation of the Commonwealth in 1901. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 12:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The second paragraph does not cover my concerns. Do you have a source that says a separate Australian monarchy was formed in 1901? Do we need a separate article for the monarchy before 1901? That's absurd.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

There was no distinctly Australian monarch in 1901. So far as the monarch was concerned, a few British colonies had changed their administrative arrangements, and there was now a Governor-General to represent the British Government. The Statute of Westminster and the principle of the divisible crown was the first time there was any change in arrangements, and the monarch now had various legal personalities in regard to Australia, Canada, South Africa and so on. One might say that Ireland's arrangements predated this, and notionally affected Australia and the other Dominions.

The first time that the monarch was legally the distinct Queen of Australia came with the Royal Style and Titles Act of 1953. This was a Commonwealth Act, BTW. If we are purporting to have a Monarchy of Australia, then obviously it would extend back to the time when this land gained that name, back in the 19th Century. Nobody at Federation imagined that Australia had suddenly leapt into being on 1 January 1901. The new entity was not Australia, but the Commonwealth of Australia. --Pete (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you, except for the "Queen of Australia". This came in 1973. The phrasing in 1953 was different and gave primacy to the United Kingdom. However, this was only a title. It didn't establish anything new. No one had denied that the Queen or King was Queen or King of Australia. And the fact that Queen Victoria was styled "Empress of India" did not give India independence!--Jack Upland (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of the UK's primacy (and in Menzies' government, the UK was always going to come first), Australia was mentioned for the first time as part of HM's style and title.[25]

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Australia and Her other Realmsand Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

Although this does not use the exact phrasing "Queen of Australia", I'd be interested to hear any argument that this act did not give her that legal title. However this act and associated British legislation makes it clear that the circumstances changed with the Statute of Westminster. If there is an Australian monarchy, then it commenced in 1931, not 1788, 1901, nor 1973. --Pete (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, if it's the Statute of Westminster, that's 1942.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

That's the Statute of Westminster of 1931, rather than that of 1275 or others of antiquity. The Australian adoption act of 1942 was backdated to 1939, so there's another date we may kick around. --Pete (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

True, but the Statute of Westminster of 1931 says, "And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom". This indicates there is one Crown, and there is no separation between UK and the Dominions.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, my position on this article is long established. I think it's nonsensical to pretend that there is some sort of separate monarchy in Australia or Canada or elsewhere. It's the British monarchy, and that's that. --Pete (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Such a row over the 'formation date' occurred at Monarchy of Canada, that the result was to go with no date in the infobox. IMHO, they are all separate but equal monarchies throughout the Commonwealth realms. However, Elizabeth II is viewed as first & foremost monarch of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The monarchy thing was never about monarchy. It was about politics. After participating in the First World War and being independent nations at the peace conference, the dominion governments were not at all keen to have politicians in the UK tell them what to do. When the monarch acts, it is because they are advised, and having the British Colonial Secretary hand out Governor-Generalships regardless of the wishes of the dominion governments was not satisfactory. Governors-General were the representatives - not of the King, that was a polite fiction - but of His Majesty's Government.

With the Irish as the biggest movers for change, the others joined in pressing for HM Government to cease having any voice in their affairs, and the end result was that the UK stopped legislating on Dominion matters, and ceased to advise the monarch on Dominion affairs, such as appointing Governors-General.

This wasn't that hard to achieve, because the British weren't that keen on running the bits of Empire already run by decently-brought-up white chaps, and the Dominion PMs were keen to come back with a win.

Sorting out the mechanics was the difficult bit, and there were five years between the Balfour Declaration of 1926 and the Statute of Westminster. On the ground, HM Government now sent out High Commissioners to represent its interests, and the Governors-General were now selected by the Dominion Governments.

And if the UK was no longer anything but first among equals, then they couldn't unilaterally make decisions on the now shared monarchy, such as when Edward VIII abdicated.

It wasn't Australia and Canada and the others saying, "We want the British King to be King of Australia and one of us" so much as "We want to do things our own way, but what the devil do we do about the King?" As it happened, there were enough diplomats and civil servants in Whitehall to nut out the details. --Pete (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

As long as Wikipedia reflects that Elizabeth II is seen as first & foremost the British monarch? there's no problems. Now, about the foundation date? GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it has to be 1788 or nothing. There are so many dates possible: 1901, 1942, 1973, 1986... The issue is complex. According to George Winterton, "Although, of course, the same person as the Queen of the United Kingdom (as required by covering clause 2 of the Constitution), the Queen of Australia is legally distinct from her. In other words, we have an Australian 'Crown', but since our monarch is constitutionally required to be the British monarch, it is probably inappropriate to speak of an 'Australian monarchy' or an 'Australian throne'. As it has been aptly expressed, although we have a Queen of Australia, we do not have an Australian Queen."[26] Based on my research, I can't find consensus that there is an "Australian monarchy" or on what date it started. We should also be mindful that foreigners, children, and politicians could read this page. Having a date like 1901 etc is confusing and potentially misleading. Just look at the discussion recently about Aborigines and the comment that Australian history didn't begin in 1901. We should not create the impression that the monarchy arrived in Australia in 1901. Nor should we create the impression that something dramatic happened to the monarchy in 1901 or 1942 etc. The process was evolutionary, as the sources attest, and this can be discussed in the "History" section.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

If it's to be 1788, we need to get the date right. 99 out of 100 people would probably choose 26 January 1788, but imo that would be incorrect. That was the date that Phillip raised the UK flag at Sydney Cove, but constitutionally speaking that was just another day, with no particular implications (despite the significance it has acquired in the interim). The real start of British legal rule in Australia was 7 February 1788, the date on which the Colony of New South Wales was formally proclaimed and formally came into legal existence. Whatever the British did here before that date, they did so as visitors, not colonisers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, so no date.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

That was the colony of New South Wales. Australia wasn't officially used as a name for the continent until 1817. Do we have a source for the first time the words "Monarchy of Australia" was used? In fact it seems to me that a lot of this article is synthesised. We have a bunch of facts about Australian constitutional arrangements and the British monarchy, and we are connecting the dots, saying things that no reliable source has actually said. --Pete (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think you're right about the last point, and this is true about a lot of Australian political articles. I would interpret "Monarchy of Australia" as the "British Monarchy in Australia". It would really be artificial to say the "Monarchy of Australia" started at a particular date (for a more or less obscure reason) and ignore Australian history before that point.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The lede begins by talking about the system of government: a constitutional monarchy. I don't think there's any dispute about the governmental model being used. We're more or less a Westminster democracy with a monarch at the ceremonial apex. Not quite so much as (say) the Netherlands, or Denmark, or even the United Kingdom. We can talk about the Kingdom of Sweden, for example, but if we say "the Kingdom of Australia", it grates, and the reason is that we're using someone else's monarch. There might be a Queen of Australia, but there certainly isn't an Australian Queen. She's not even an Australian citizen. She's a Pom. --Pete (talk) 09:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, she's a Pom, as in an English person. But she's not a British citizen either; she's above citizenship - of any country. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Just food for thought. Imagine if you will, this article along with Monarchy of Canada, Monarchy of New Zealand & the rest of the non-UK commonwealth 'monarchy' articles, all being changed to redirects to Monarchy of the United Kingdom. Such moves likely wouldn't succeed, though. GoodDay (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless, using reliable sources rather than Wikipedian's opinions is a fairly substantial plank in our barky. --Pete (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Would you support moving 15 such articles to re-directs? GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I support me going through with a chainsaw and removing improperly sourced statements. There are also BLP concerns, so if we have a problem with sources not being given for two years, they cannot stay. Feel free to find good sources for some of this stuff before I fire up the deWalt. --Pete (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

...and you've repeatedly deleted head of state from the article, while ignoring WP:BRD. It seems to me, you're exhibiting ownership tendencies on this article, these last few hours. We'll have to let the others judge your bold actions. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Can we get back to the issue of the date?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

There were two "Governors-General" before 1901 — Fitzroy and Denison — which clearly shows Australia was seen as a political entity before Federation. Recent works on the history of the monarchy in Australia take it back to George III.[27][28] I have seen no source which says that the monarchy of Australia was formed in 1901. It's clear that there are a range of suggestions for the date. If no one objections I will remove the date because there is no consensus.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

"Government Politics in Australia"

The current version of this book (mentioned above by Moxy), is the 10th edition of a book first published in 1979. I do not see it cited in this article or the "dispute" article. Would it be acceptable to make reference to the book in the Monarchy article's Head of state section? Its academic editors and authors evidently intend their book to be available for educational use for degree students. Its Introduction on page ix states that this edition "has a strong emphasis on the Australian political system and its key institutions, which are considered from a number of perspectives to provide contextual information about not only the practical workings of government but also the influences and challenges that shape it." Chapter 2, headed "The Australian system of government", has a section on "The Head of State" on pages 21-22, reviewing the situation from 1975 to the present, the NPOV upshot of which is that while the position of the monarch as head of state has not been altered, some have argued in favour of changing the constitution into a form (uncertain) of republican government that would, they propose, be better suited to the Comnmonwealth of Australia than the current monarchy. Qexigator (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course, it's an acceptable source.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Then let me propose inserting, at the beginning of the second paragraph of the Head of state section, the following sentence with Moxy's citation:

"A review of the political situation in Australia from the 1970s to the present shows that, while the position of the monarch as head of state has not been altered, some Australians have argued in favour of changing the constitution into a form (uncertain) of republican government that would, they propose, be better suited to the Comnmonwealth of Australia than the current monarchy."

Qexigator (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

now done. Qexigator (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Great to see someone read and understand the source.--Moxy (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Amen. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Two heads of state?

Does Australia have two heads of state? I'm responding to an edit in the body of the article just made by Skyriing, 'bout an hour ago. GoodDay (talk) 07:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Does Skyring have two i's? Qexigator (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

No, Australia doesn't, and any claim like this should have citations.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

That's the current official view from Parliament House - as per the cite. If you don't like it, take it up with the Senate. --Pete (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not interested in 'yet' another edit war with you, so I'll let others review your sources & edits on this one. GoodDay (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Good. A current official source demonstrating the division of views on this point is entirely appropriate. It replaces an archived page from the same site. I'm happy to find some way of citing multiple sources to show the various views. Removing sources because you just don't like them is not how we edit Wikipedia. --Pete (talk) 08:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

It's explicitly not the official view from Parliament House. Per the first page of the document[29] (Views expressed in this work are those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Department of the Senate.) it's the view of David Hamer. While that's likely a notable viewpoint, it's far from official. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

How is it not official? "may not" isn't terribly forceful on that point. --Pete (talk) 08:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

It's "not official" because it's not "official". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Nice logic there. More detail required. From the source: Can responsible Government survive in Australia? deals with the powers and procedures of twenty legislatures in Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. David Hamer writes from a practitioner’s perspective, having served as a member of both the Australian Senate and House of Representatives. Topics covered include: the role and powers of upper and lower houses and heads of state; accountability and responsible government; parliamentary committees; the legislative process and the scrutiny of delegated legislation; conflicts between the houses; voting and electoral systems. Views expressed in this work are those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Department of the Senate.First published 1994 by the Centre for Research in Public Sector Management, University of Canberra If it has survived twenty years and is put up by the Senate, it's official. If you want any particular point to be unofficial, you're going to have to find something stronger than "may not". --Pete (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

It's clearly Hamer's point of view. Clearly the Parliament thinks it's useful, but it's just an opinion. I think the idea of two heads of states is one I haven't heard before, including in the voluminous debates we had previously on this issue. Should we really include one person's opinion if no one else has said that?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

It's actually a fairly common point of view, frequently expressed. I'll hunt up a few cites.[30][31] --Pete (talk) 08:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Smith and Stan Klan (patron of ACM Toowoomba Branch) both in the context of the 1999 Republic Referendum; both rebutting the "Australia should have an 'Australian Head of State'" argument for a republic. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd remove the whole thing again, but I'm in no mood for a protracted edit war with Skyring/Pete. GoodDay (talk) 08:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Ryk72 is clearly correct on this. Any document with such a disclaimer is not an official statement of an organization, by definition. Asserting it is or "might" be is pure original research and just defiantly counterfactual. That document is a primary source that expresses the view of a single parliamentarian. It's useful as a source that this particular view exists (among notable people we care about in the context) and what that view is, nothing more. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 21:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Another very commonly expressed "two head of state" view is that the Queen is the de jure head of state, and the Governor-General is the de facto head of state.[32][33][34] --Pete (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Examining these sources:

International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance - This model of parliamentary monarchy is found in parts of Western Europe ... and in Cambodia, Japan, Malaysia and Thailand. It can also be found in 16 Commonwealth realms—former British colonies in which the British monarch continues to be head of state but where she is represented by an appointed viceroy, called the governor-general, who acts in place of the monarch and serves as the de facto head of state.

Commonwealth Network (website produced by Nexus, the official publisher of the CoN) - a governor-general is Queen Elizabeth II’s representative in each of the 15 of the 16* Commonwealth countries in which she is head of state: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Belize, Barbados, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, The Bahamas and Tuvalu.

Barry Jones, former Labor parliamentarian (and quiz champion), speaking in the context of the 1999 Republic Referendum.

While the first two sources do indeed refer to the Governor General as a "de facto head of state", they also refer to the Queen as "head of state" without qualification. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

And yet another view is that Governors-General are symbolic heads of state.[35][36][37] --Pete (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm content to let others review your presented sources & your interpretations of them. GoodDay (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

So still no academic sources on a topic that has been written about for decades? Literally thousands out there...stop with the junk websites only loosely related (buying a home article as a sources?). So what to do about people pushing a fringe POV? and advocating this? Take it to RfC again so the community can again set things straight. Best to restore articles until real sources are provided and other chime in. UNDUE for sure to put this on the same level status quo publications.. ......I reverted the change we can't have some minor point of view being pushed like this all over. Time for Community intervention!! --Moxy (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

GoodDay, you seem to have boundless energy. Perhaps you could do a little research of your own? I think the sources I've presented need no interpretation at all. Just do a search on "head of state" in these various documents and you'll see Governors-General described as various sorts of head of state within the Commonwealth realms. Canada is particularly well-represented in the keyword searches, but I have very little knowledge of the constitutional practice in Canada.

It is a natural, if simplistic view that if the Queen is head of state in the United Kingdom - as she undoubtedly is - then she is likewise also head of state in the rather more nominal monarchies of Australia, Canada and so on. I think it is clear that she doesn't have the same role in the realms as she does in the UK, and the role of the Governor-General has evolved over time. For example, it is commonplace to quote the Constitution, and describe the current role of the Governor-General as being exactly the same as at Federation, namely "the representative of the Queen". But few take into account the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster, which saw a complete overhaul of the role of Governor-General, with British High Commissioners taking over the major part of his duties.

This being an encyclopaedia intended to convey information, I rather resent attempts to "dumb down" complicated situations. For example, in discussions about the Queen, we often hear people talk with great confidence about "the Queen of England", a title which has not existed since the 17th century. With all due respect for your tireless "wikignome" efforts, GoodDay, I rather wish you would leave the discussion to those who at least look up documents and try to fit their information into Wikipedia. We might not all have the same views on a subject, but Wikipedia is flexible enough to find ways of providing information to our readers in a neutral fashion, encouraging readers to look up reliable sources for themselves rather than depend on dogmatic assertions. If all an editor can bring to the party is their own firm convictions, then they aren't really helping. --Pete (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm willing to let others review your sources & your interpretation of them. GoodDay (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Re "the Queen is the de jure head of state, and the Governor-General is the de facto head of state". That may be the case, but since head of state is usually a position that is mostly symbolic and that is, in most countries, separate from the position that actually governs the country (for example Angela Merkel is not the head of state of Germany), it doesn't mean much. What we need to ask ourselves is this: If both the Queen and the governor-general are in the same room, who would rank higher?

We already know the answer to this. As the Governor-General of Australia article explains, "The Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia is the representative of the Australian monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II.". And as the website of the governor-general explains, "The Governor-General is appointed by The Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. After receiving the commission, the Governor-General takes an Oath of Allegiance and an Oath of Office to The Queen (...) The Governor-General’s appointment is at The Queen’s pleasure" (...) A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.".[38]

Arguing that the governor-general holds higher rank (head of state, the supreme rank of a country) than the Queen is like arguing that the British Ambassador in Germany also ranks higher than the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and indeed the Queen because they don't reside in Germany, like him. Essentially the governor-general is a civil servant in the service of the Queen. His role in the hierarchy, which places him roughly on the same level as British ambassadors around the world, is illustrated by the fact that he merely holds the title Sir, the lowest aristocratic rank conferred by the Queen. The only way the Queen could cease being the head of state of Australia would be if Australia became a republic.

A non-Australian would view the governor-general as relatively unimportant. He is not the de facto leader and/or the head of government of his country (the prime minister is). He is not the head of state [often a mostly symbolic role] (the Queen is). --Tataral (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

My point isn't that one or the other is head of state, but that opinion is divided on the matter. If we were to ask the Australian public who is the head of state, the Queen would win in a canter. But the interesting thing is that there would be many who would vote otherwise, or for some other view, such as that both were head of state in different senses.

It almost seems as if you are making an argument to me about who you consider to be the head of state and why. I can't see why you should do this. What's the point? Would you be swayed if I tried to argue a contrary view with you? I doubt it.

I'm demonstrating, using reliable sources, that there are other views. This all became front page news during the 1990s, when the then Prime Minister pushed hard for a republic and we had some epic public debates on the matter. The Constitutional Convention in Old Parliament House drew a fascinated audience and there were books written about it. I was a journalist covering the affair and it was fabulous to see such a mix of prominent Australians - half selected in a national vote, others such as State premiers etc - debating with passion. The republic referendum following also attracted immense interest, not least because voting was compulsory.

Every year since, notably around Australia Day or the Queen's Birthday, the passions flare again. I would expect, upon the demise of Her Majesty, that Australians faced with the reality of King Charles III sitting upon the throne of Australia will again take up the debate with renewed urgency and intensity.

There are divided views on the matter, simple as that. Hence this RfC about whether to use the unarguably correct term monarch to describe the monarch, or whether a more controversial title is suitable. --Pete (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

You're making the dispute out to be something bigger then it actually is & in the process are trying to censure the use of head of state in this (see above Rfc) article lead & will likely attempt to do the same in related articles. Actually, you did already make such attempts on other articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

It does not matter who is head of state or whether there are two or none. What matters is that we provide weight to the various opinions in proportion to their acceptance in reliable sources, which means - since it is disputed in reliable sources - that we cannot state that one view is the correct one, although logically only one can be correct. TFD (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT says not to give the 'HoS dispute' more importance, then the 'HoS dispute' actually is. The only place where this so called 'HoS dispute' has been anywhere's near intense, is (oddly enough) on Wikipedia itself. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

It is disputed. According to Sir David Smith, (and there have been lots of references to him in this thread), republicans believe the Queen is head of state, while monarchists believe it is the governor-general. Smith himself has argued that both are. While there are more important issues for people to worry about, it does not mean there is consensus on this issue. If you continue up the page above WP:WEIGHT, it says: "Avoid stating opinions as facts." "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." TFD (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

We have a link to the article Australian head of state dispute, within this articles. That suffices. As for David Smith? his opinon isn't gospel. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Smith's statement that republicans believe the Queen is head of state, while monarchists believe it is the governor-general, is a statement of fact, not opinion. Again, neutrality says, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but don't assert opinions themselves." I hope that other editors draw a distinction between facts and opinions. TFD (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not this article's job to promote the dispute-in-question. We have a link to the article that covers the topic. Again, Smith's is only an opinion. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

If Smith's assertion were that republicans believe the Queen is head of state, while monarchists believe it is the governor-general he would be even more wrong than he actually is; thankfully, that is not his assertion. He asserts, variously, that the Governor General is (or should be regarded as) the "head of state" (with a definition of "head of state" as the person who wields the powers of the head of state); and/or that there are two "heads of state" (symbolic and constitutional; undefined). It is trivial to find both monarchists who attest that the Queen is the head of state, and republicans who have said that it is the Governor General; the latter group including, according to Smith, then Prime Minister Paul Keating. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Smith wrote, "Republicans argue that the Queen is our Head of State and that the republic would give us an Australian as Head of State. Constitutional monarchists argue that the Queen is the Sovereign and that the Governor-General is the Head of State."[39] You should have read the link I provided before rebutting it. Furthermore, you seem to be unclear about the distinction between someone describing other people's opinions and stating their own. There seems to be a confusion in this discussion about the difference between facts and opinions. TFD (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Speaking in the specific context of the 1999 Republic Referendum, and with specific reference to the positions officially espoused by the "Australian Republican Movement" and "Australians for Constitutional Monarchy", Smith may be correct. To extend this to a more general case of (all?) non-specific republicans and (all?) non-specific monarchists is invalid. If it is indeed his opinion in such non-specific case, then he is welcome to it. But it is not fact. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

What is your point? You said "thankfully, that is not his assertion." You were wrong. Now you are saying that since not every single republican or monarchist held that opinion, Smith was wrong. But no reasonable person would interpret his words to mean that. When I say that Liberals vote for the Liberal Party, that is true although Bruce in Adelaide, a Liberal Party member, may have voted for Pauline Hanson. TFD (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The point is that, with respect to, WP:NPOV@"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts" that the designation of the Queen as head of state is not, despite differing popular opinions, seriously contested. It was discussed, as an aspect of the Republic debate, by partisans in that debate (including, in particular, by Smith), but outside that context it is, largely, not.
Now you are saying that since not every single republican or monarchist held that opinion, Smith was wrong. I am not. I am saying that opinions as to who is the Australian "head of state" are not necessarily aligned with the broad categorisations of monarchist and republican. In the phrasing republicans believe the Queen is head of state, while monarchists believe it is the governor-general , the unqualified, lower case, terms: "monarchists" and "republicans", implied, by my reading, broad categorisations of republicans & monarchists. If that is the case, then I do not believe that that is a valid assertion, and I don't believe that David Smith, as a partisan monarchist actively engaged in the Republic debate, is a reliable, independent source on the matter. If the intent was that some republicans (particularly ARM & CAHS members) and some monarchists (particularly ACM members) hold or held or espoused these beliefs, then I am happy to concur.
Without secondary sourcing, I also don't see that a variety of opinions rises to a "serious contest". Our article on Monarchy of Canada suggests that a plurality of surveyed Canadians believe the Prime Minister to be the head of state; that's not an opinion held by anyone informed, and it's far less an indication of a dispute than it is of general ignorance.
As GoodDay puts it: The only place where this so called 'HoS dispute' has been anywhere's near intense, is (oddly enough) on Wikipedia itself.
I don't find the Liberal Party analogy particularly apropos:- active membership of a political party is not analogous to broad support for a particular system of government; there may have been a Monarchists Club, but not all monarchists were members. You should have read the link I provided before rebutting it. I'll note that the source was not provided prior to my having commented. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Re GoodDay's view on the intensity of the debate, I believe that as a Canadian, he would be unaware of any media coverage of a very Australian discussion. In fact I suspect that he hasn't read any of the sources, and possibly never have left the site itself, given his impressive numbers of edits. Nevertheless, this is a real thing. Many of the participants in the constitutional discussions of the Nineties went on to write books and contribute their views in various public forums. Declaring, from a state of ignorance, that this is all a storm in a teacup is something like me expressing my views on the Stanley Cup, which has no more meaning to me than those two words. --Pete (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

If reliable, independent, secondary media coverage of such a very Australian discussion exists, then why is it not referenced at Australian head of state dispute?! - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

That article was terrible and much of the material was WP:OR. Many contributors didn't have the heart to outright delete it, due to the enormous amount of time spent building it up. If you're expecting no reasonable answer to your question, Ryk72 you're right. Travelmite (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Ryk72, you are confusing reliability with bias. It is not Wikipedia policy to assume that because someone has an opinion that they are lying about the facts. Reasonable people do have differences of opinion even when they accept the same facts. TFD (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You are confusing reliability with bias. No, I am not! And neither do I assume that because someone has an opinion that they are lying about the facts. An assertion is made above that the Australian head of state is disputed, with the additional (underlying or supportive) assertion that According to Sir David Smith, republicans believe the Queen is head of state, while monarchists believe it is the governor-general. I assert that Smith, while a reliable source for his own thoughts (and he clearly has written extensively in dispute of the Australian Government's official position that HM QE II is the head of state), is not a reliable source for a broader "dispute". If there is a broader dispute, such that would require us to not state the official position as fact, we should have reliable secondary coverage of it. We do not.
As an open question to all editors, I repeat: Why is there no reliable, independent, secondary media coverage of a dispute referenced at Australian head of state dispute?!
On a side note, I find that at times it takes a little additional effort to avoid use of the second person personal pronoun, but it is an effort often rewarded. I encourage all editors in the attempt. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence of the dispute. The media refers to it frequently. Well, at least when the topic comes up. Here's one British article reporting on the confusion when the Queen accidentally described herself as head of state.

• "John Warhurst, senior deputy chair of the Australian Republican Movement, said that the country was in the "invidious position" when it could not work out who exactly was in charge."[40]
• "Q. Who is Australia’s current head of state? A. Possible answers to this question range from “no-one” to “the governor-general” to “the Queen”: it all depends on what you mean by “head of state”."[41]
• "As this week’s Essential Report shows, just one third of Australians can currently identify the Queen of Great Britain as the Australian head of state."[42] --Pete (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You raised almost all of this in the last RfCs. Overwhelmingly editors agreed to not use Wikipedia to obfuscate Australia's constitutional arrangements. The last is clear about the right answer that the Queen is head of state, and that obfuscation of facts is a propaganda technique. Wikipedia is the only forum where a debate is alleged. Wikipedia policy opposes even these talk pages being used as lobbying tool. Travelmite (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reviewing those three sources:
Bede Harris, Senior Lecturer in Law, Charles Sturt U, writing in The Conversation continues ... What is incontrovertible is that the Queen is undoubtedly the source of executive power, even though the governor-general exercises it. So, if there were no Queen, there would be no governor-general. The governor-general’s powers are therefore entirely derivative. So, you can say the Queen is head of state, as long as by “head of state” you mean “the person who is the ultimate source of executive power”. While Harris does state that "head of state" is definition dependent (a statement with which reasonable minds would certainly concur), he does not state that the accepted and official designation of the Queen as the Australian head of state is disputed. This piece does not provide reliable, independent, secondary media coverage of a dispute.
Peter Lewis, executive director of Essential & Guardian columnist, writing in The Guardian, is unequivocal that the correct viewpoint is that the Queen is the Australian head of state. He also describes Prince Harry as sixth in line to be Australia’s head of state; unless he has taken a sneak peek at Scott Morrison's list of preferred candidates, he does not mean in the position of Governor General! Lewis clearly attributes the survey results not to strongly held divergent viewpoints in dispute, but to general ignorance and a failure of Australian schools to provide adequate instruction in civics. This piece does not provide reliable, independent, secondary media coverage of a dispute.
Bonnie Malkin in Sydney, writing in The Telegraph describes the bewilderment of various unnamed officials & bureaucrats. While she does mention that the emerging role of the Governor-General has often been cited by pro-monarchists as evidence Australia does not need to become a republic, she does not suggest that that view has found widespread acceptance nor that the question has risen to the level of a dispute. The official position of the Queen and of her Australian Government is clear: she is the "head of state". The Governor General does not make a claim to that descriptor (unqualified). John Warhurst, senior deputy chair of the Australian Republican Movement, may feel that the country cannot work out who exactly was in charge, but the Queen, the Governor General and the Government seem to be perfectly aligned on this point, and to have skillfully avoided any invidious positions. This piece provides evidence of confusion or ignorance, but not reliable, independent, secondary media coverage of a dispute.
To be clear, I am suggesting that to assert that there is a dispute, we need reliable, independent sources which directly state that there is a debate, discussion, discourse, disputation, argument, controversy, contention, disagreement, altercation, falling-out, quarrelling, variance, dissension, conflict, friction, strife, discord, antagonism, velitation, and/or contestation. A multiplicity of viewpoints (such as that evidenced by The Guardian's survey and the equivalent poll in Canada; or by the multiple extemporizations backed up by primary references at AHoSD) is not a dispute if those holding those views are not actually actively disputing.
I'll note that none of these sources appear to be referenced at Australian head of state dispute. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

By way of contrast, if I search for sources on "Australia" "republic" "debate", I get a variety of sources which reliably & independently cover the Australian Republic debate - what system of government Australia should have; who should be the head of state. (e.g.[43][44][45][46]). If I search for sources on "Australia" "head of state" "dispute" or "Australia" "head of state" "debate", I get en.Wiki AHoSD, Smith(@ACM)[47], Smith(@APH)[48], discussion of the Republic debate (not including a dispute over who is the current head of state)[49][50] and Australian Government sources which unequivocally state that the Queen is the head of state.[51][52].
As a point of reference, if I search for creationism "dispute", I get a variety of sources which reliably and independently cover the Creation-evolution controversy.[53][54][55][56][57].
Other than Smith, are there any notable persons who (verifiably) support the view that the Governor General is the (unqualified) head of state? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Fact or opinion? - Treaties

We may surmise that not all readers will be mindful of the distinction between a head of state and a head of government, and it may be useful to state explicitly in the lead of Commonwealth realm monarchy articles that the Queen as monarch is not head of government but is head of state, and <+>implicitly is not head of government<+> (this calrification, 08:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)). Any treaty binding on any of the realms, including the Commonwealth of Australia, will undoubtedly also be binding on the monarch as the head of state. In the case of the Australia article, there is a "Head of state" section with a top link to Australian head of state dispute, but the fact remains that treaties are binding on the monarch of Australia as head of state, and therefore on all serving under the monarch in governing that realm, including the Governor-General. Qexigator (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, could you please elaborate. Treaties may be worded so that either the Queen or the realm is the party. Generally older treaties used the name of the monarch. But a treaty signed by the UK does not bind the SSGI, a treaty signed by Canada does not bind Newfoundland, etc. TFD (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Please explain why you postulate that anyone would suppose that a treaty to which the UK is a party would be binding on SSGI and what that could have to do with the point under discussion? Qexigator (talk) 07:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I was replying to your comment that a treaty binding on a realm will be binding on the monarch as head of state, and provided two examples where the courts have determined that is not the case.What is the relevance of that comment? TFD (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Please clarify your reference to " the courts". Qexigator (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Courts are judicial bodies that hear disputes between parties and whose decisions can be enforced. The relevant courts that decided on the application of treaties to territories and provinces were respectively the Law Lords in the UK (now called the Supreme Court) and the Supreme Court of Canada. TFD (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Is that all you can say to clarify what the courts decided in a way that is relevant to the point under discussion? Qexigator (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Assuming you are referring to your statement, "Any treaty binding on any of the realms, including the Commonwealth of Australia, will undoubtedly also be binding on the monarch as the head of state." That statement is false. TFD (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Noted, that you have failed to clarify what the courts decided in a way that is relevant to the point under discussion. In context, my statement is neither actually nor seemingly false. It could be regarded as practically tautologous: the fact remains that treaties ratified on behalf of Australia are binding on the monarch of Australia as head of that state, and therefore on all serving under the monarch in the government that realm, including the Governor-General. Qexigator (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

They might believe that since the SSGI is administered by the British government that the British government would be bound by the treaties it had signed. I was replying to your comment that a treaty binding on a realm will be binding on the monarch as head of state, and provided two examples where the courts have determined that is not the case. What is the relevance of your comment about treaties? TFD (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Any treaty binding the monarch of a sovereign state, including a Commonwealth realm, and including the Commonwealth of Australia, is binding on those serving under the monarch of that state, including a governor-general, and including the governor-general of Australia, and irrespective of an actual or purported distinction between ceremonial and executive functions, if and to the extent that the distinction is recognized for official purposes, and irrespective of a polemical or partisan description or postulation or opinion about "two heads of state". Qexigator (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

See NAFTA: IMPLEMENTATION AND THE PARTICIPATION OF THE PROVINCES": "a treaty (or a specific section thereof) whose subject falls within the legislative competence of the provinces cannot be implemented unless the provincial legislatures intervene with respect to the matters within their jurisdiction." TFD (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

So be it, but how does that affect the point under discussion? Qexigator (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It rebuts your claim, "Any treaty binding on any of the realms, including the Commonwealth of Australia, will undoubtedly also be binding on the monarch as the head of state." Do you think your claim affects the point under discussion? If not, strike it out. TFD (talk)

Noted, that you continue to fail to clarify what the courts decided in a way that is relevant to the point under discussion, and that you have not rebutted my statement that "treaties ratified on behalf of Australia are binding on the monarch of Australia as head of that state, and therefore on all serving under the monarch in the government of that realm, including the Governor-General" which self-evidently is yet another way of affirming the relative status of the two and the position of the monarch as head of state, amply supported by other comments on this page, which is the point under discussion. Qexigator (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

You said "in any of the realms, including the Commonwealth of Australia." Sorry, but when you begin with a false premise, it undermines your argument. What is your point? Are you saying that if states were not bound by treaties then the governor general would be the head of state instead of the Queen? TFD (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

See reply above. Please note that quoting snippets out of context to claim "false premise" makes no useful contribution to the discussion. Qexigator (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter that much if you can find one or two people in Australia who have claimed that a civil servant is the Australian head of state. Head of state and head of government are broad, generic descriptive terms that primarily belong to English language users around the world, and that are used to broadly categorise office holders based on well known concepts in political science. There is probably no country on earth that has an office formally called "head of state".

What matters is what these terms mean in the English language, and more particularly in relevant fields such as political science. English language users, especially in political science, use the term "head of state" to mean – always and without exceptions – monarchs in countries that have monarchs. This is unsurprising since the entire idea of the office of monarch is being head of state. There is no debate in the English-speaking community and among political scientists on whether monarchs are not heads of state; that's a WP:FRINGE view from a global perspective. Saying that the governor-general is the head of state is the same as saying that he is, legally, ceremonially and so on, the supreme office-holder of his country, that noone ranks above him. This is laughable considering how he describes his own humble office, which makes clear that the office is in practice even junior to that of the Prime Minister:

"The Governor-General is appointed by The Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. After receiving the commission, the Governor-General takes an Oath of Allegiance and an Oath of Office to The Queen (...) The Governor-General’s appointment is at The Queen’s pleasure" (...) A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him"

From this description on his own website, it's clear that he is a civil servant appointed by the Queen, not the other way round. His position in the hierarchy is roughly comparable to any British ambassador in a foreign country. Now, for the governor-general to be head of state, it would have to be the other way round:

"The Queen is appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister. After receiving the commission, the Queen takes an Oath of Allegiance and an Oath of Office to The Governor-General (...) The Queen's appointment is at The Governor-General's pleasure" (...) A Queen appointed by the Governor-General shall be His Excellency's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Governor-General's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Governor-General as His Excellency may be pleased to assign to her"

--Tataral (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"His position in the hierarchy is roughly comparable to any British ambassador in a foreign country." Well, that may have been true-ish in 1901, but in 1931, most of his job of representing His Majesty's Government was given over to the new British High Commissioners appointed as a result of the Statute of Westminster. Anyone aware of the events of 1975 will also know that the Governor-General's role goes beyond that of a civil servant or even a representative of the monarch. Using powers given expressly to him and unavailable to the Queen, Sir John Kerr, as Governor-General, was able to dismiss Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and appoint a replacement. This caused some minor consternation at the time.

Whitlam, via the speaker wrote to the Queen, who responded via her private secretary that the Governor-General, not she, had the power to appoint and dismiss ministers. The key sentence is "The only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and The Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution."

The constitutional provisions relating to dismissing parliament (s5), calling elections (s32), and appointing ministers (s64) (including the Prime Minister) all give the powers for these actions directly to the Governor-General. Calling elections is by "the Governor-General in Council", which is a polite way of saying he must be advised to do so. The Queen does not hold these powers, and may not give instructions to the Governor-General.

It is worth noting that a key player in these events, and one featured prominently on the front pages of the following day's newspapers, was one David Smith, who went on to write a book about the head of state.[58]

So the notion that the Governor-General is merely the agent of the Queen does not hold water when compared to real world events. The Governor-General used his own constitutional powers in his own right, and used them without any instruction from HM. (Or the PM, for that matter, apart from issuing the election writs under s57 and s 32). --Pete (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

In consulting Paul Kelly's definitive book on the 1975 crisis ("November 1975"[59]), I was struck by his reference to Australia being a "Governor-Generalate" (as opposed to a monarchy, a republic, or some other system of government. This, it turns out, is in common use.[60][61][62] --Pete (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The Samoan office of "O le Ao o le Malo" and the Singapore "Yang di-Pertuan Negara" were often translated into English as "head of state." Ironically, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara was a vice-regent. That's apparently the earliest use of the term and probably where the English term derives.

But the issue is not who is Australia's head of state, but whether there is any dispute about it.

TFD (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Frugal old debate with no movement and zero recognition from the academic community.Alan Fenna; Jane Robbins; John Summers (5 September 2013). Government Politics in Australia. Pearson Higher Education AU. pp. 21–23. ISBN 978-1-4860-0138-5..--Moxy (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The issue was all covered in the last RfCs. Nothing new here, but we are getting an impression about the great work past editors have done, and the patience they exhibited. I've been asked to help others understand what's going on in these repeated RfC and why past RfC are not being respected. Have a read about the political technique called Teach the Controversy. Travelmite (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Very well put, IMHO! Wikiain (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Moxy, your link says, "The precise status of the two, the Queen and the Governor-General, is so unclear that experts debate which is the 'true' head of state in Australia." Is that what you think the article should say? TFD (talk) 06:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The only person who pushes this barrow is Smith. During the several republican debates during the lead up to the republican referendum, if the NO case was being presented by ACM (different to the Monarchist League), they would sometimes raise Smith's view as one talking point among several more effective ones. The more intelligent ACM people knew it was nonsense and pointless, so they kept to more useful issues. I am complying with BLP in what I am not saying, but even in the end the official NO case repeated what the constitutional lawyers had generally said, and not what Smith said. So even his own team didn't buy it. Travelmite (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The source isn't Smith, it's the 10th edition of Government Politics in Australia by Alan Fenna, Jane Robbins, and John Summers. And they do not say there are two heads of state, they say that there is a dispute about whether the Queen or governor-general is head of state. Why in your opinion should we assume the authors are wrong? I have taken it to RSN. TFD (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

That source agrees with me, point by point. It clearly says Smith in the relevant paragraph. That's David Smith. It looks like I need to carefully check if there's other incorrect accusations against editors. Travelmite (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen a few examples above where you told other editors they are not reading the sources properly, and stating their opinions as facts. This is not acceptable. Please show respect to the other editors as per wikipedia guidelines and remove anything that smells of personal remark, such as criticising a person's competence. I am sure they will provide any necessary clarifications. Travelmite (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

David Smith wrote in 2017, as he does every so often that "The governor-general is our head of state" [63] and he is the source of the dispute. Monarchist League of Australia say the Queen is Head of State using the following reasonable description: "Following appointment by the Queen, our sovereign head of state, the Governor-General, always an Australian, assumes that role as our effective head of state" [64] , so no Smith doesn't represent monarchists. The only zone of dispute is whatever Smith influences. Of course, it is a dispute so long as Smith continues disputing it. The Earth is round is somehow disputed. The reality is it's an eye rolling annoyance nobody cares about. That is not my opinion. The best expression was from Prof George Winterton who called it "a arid and irrelevant" issue. Travelmite (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Bibliography

I just noticed it. Guess who is first on the list of two items? Let's have some levity. Please have a guess first ....... Then click Monarchy_of_Australia#Bibliography Travelmite (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)