Template talk:Australian premiers

Norfolk Island

Norfolk is not treated the same as states and territories, and including it in this table implies otherwise. Slac speak up! 07:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a territory, and to not include it is inaccurate to have a list of leaders of the "states and territories of Australia" without it. JRG 00:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because "states and territories" lists normally don't include external territories. Change the template name to states and internal territories rather than add an interloper to the list. Slac speak up! 01:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Norfolk Island should be included because it's a territory, why shouldn't Ashmore and Cartier Islands, Christmas Island, the Cocos (or Keeling) Islands, the Coral Sea Islands, Heard Island, Jervis Bay, the McDonald Islands and the Australian Antarctic Territory also be included?

I agree that Norfolk Island shouldn't be included and there are many reasons why it shouldn't be. Norfolk Island is, for the most part, a self governing province despite its reliance on Australia. Despite being territories the ACT and NT are both special cases because they are widely treated as states, even in some legislation. In S(6) of the Australian Constitution the NT is actually deemed to be a state:

Definitions.
6. "The Commonwealth" shall mean the Commonwealth of Australia as established under this Act.

"The States" shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called "a State."

The ACT is also mentioned in the Constitution, although not by name:

Seat of Government.
125. The seat of Government of the Commonwealth shall be determined by the Parliament, and shall be within territory which shall have been granted to or acquired by the Commonwealth, and shall be vested in and belong to the Commonwealth, and shall be in the State of New South Wales, and be distant not less than one hundred miles from Sydney.

Such territory shall contain an area of not less than one hundred square miles, and such portion thereof as shall consist of Crown lands shall be granted to the Commonwealth without any payment therefor.

The ACT's position in a list of Australian states is justified because it is the Seat of Government.

The ACT and NT also have representation in the Australian Parliament. Norfolk Island doesn't.

Despite having a parliament Norfolk Island is simply an external territory and these are never included in a list of Australian states and major territories which is really what this template is. It isn't even listed on the map at http://www.gov.au.

The ramifications of including Norfolk Island in this template go well beyond this template. There are numerous other Wikipedia articles and templates that list the states and territories and none of them include Norfolk Island. There's no reason that this one should be different. --AussieLegend 04:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are all invalid arguments, for the following reasons:

Asking for all other internal territories to be included is absurd. Half of them have no permanent population, and the other two which are inhabited (Christmas Island and Cocos Keeling Islands) are not self-governing territories like the ACT and the NT.
Claiming that in some laws the ACT and NT are treated as states is also absurd. Norfolk Island is also treated as a state in some laws, and many laws of Australia apply to it equally as every other state and territory.
The reference to the Constitution is not a valid argument. The Constitution was written when NI was a separate British Crown colony and a long time before it was even part of Australia. There's good reason why it isn't in the Constitution. On your reasoning, we should leave Western Australia out because it's not included in the preamble, or include New Zealand because it's also mentioned as a possible state in the Constitution.
Reference to a Government website isn't valid either. That's controlled by whoever is in power and they can put what they want there. We shouldn't be bound by what the Government says.
There is no need for reference beyond this template. It asks for Chief Ministers and Premiers of Australian states and territories. The Chief Minister of Norfolk Island is a Chief Minister of an Australian territory because they have an elected parliament like the other eight states and territories with parliaments. It is right that he/she be included in this list.

Im still yet to see a valid reason. Does anyone have a valid reason why NI should not be included? JRG 04:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Claiming that in some laws the ACT and NT are treated as states is also absurd. Norfolk Island is also treated as a state in some laws,"

Do you have a citation for that claim? In any case, as already pointed out,the ACT and NT are special cases.

"The reference to the Constitution is not a valid argument. The Constitution was written when NI was a separate British Crown colony and a long time before it was even part of Australia."

The Australian Constitution is the superior authority for all laws relating to the Commonwealth of Australia. When it was written is irrelevant.

"On your reasoning, we should leave Western Australia out because it's not included in the preamble, or include New Zealand because it's also mentioned as a possible state in the Constitution."

No. New Zealand is not an Australian state and the section of the Constitution that I quoted above specifically refers to WA as a state.

"Reference to a Government website isn't valid either. That's controlled by whoever is in power and they can put what they want there."

The government still has to act within the bounds of the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth.

"We shouldn't be bound by what the Government says."

I'm sorry but that's one of the most ridiculous things I've seen. The government is elected by the people and represents the people. Your argument essentially says "we shouldn't be bound by what we say".

"It is right that he/she be included in this list."

No it shouldn't. There is an obvious consensus amongst editors that it shouldn't as evidenced by comments here and edit summaries in the article. It's inappropriate to change the template and ignore all other editors.

"Im still yet to see a valid reason. "

There are plenty of valid reasons. That you refuse to see them is unfortunate. As of yet, I'm unable to see a valid reason from you as to why NI should be included. --AussieLegend 05:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above:

Point 1 - Yes - go to this search in AUSTLII (a legislation search site) and look for references to Norfolk Island in Australian acts. There are 1774 references to Acts applying to Norfolk Island and being treated as part of Australian law - the non-specific NI Acts start on page four...
Point 2 - You're not answering the point. You argue we shouldn't include Norfolk Island because it's not in the Constitution. I gave you the reason why it was not in there. Yes, the Constitution is the supreme legal document, but Norfolk Island is not in there for a reason.
Point 3 - Again you fail to understand me. I'm trying to show that arguing "because something is not in the Constitution it shouldn't be there" is a stupid argument. By converse, I have said that you could include New Zealand and not include WA because the former IS in the Constitution and because the latter is not in the preamble. You have shown how ridiculous that argument is, which defeats your own argument.
Point 4 - My point is that a single Government website should not be dictating whether or not we should have something in here.
Point 5 - What is a valid reason? Please give me one...
Point 6 - I have already said so. Norfolk Island is a Territory of Australia with an elected Chief Minister. In a table of "Premiers and Chief Ministers of Australia" it is only accurate to include the territory in such a table.

I want to see what EVERYONE thinks, not just one editor that won't agree with anything. Norfolk Island should stay until such time as we have a consensus one way or other. Two editors to one is NOT a consensus. JRG 06:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1 - There may be a lot of acts regarding NI but how many of them treat it as a state? Perhaps you can try narrowing it down to something specific otherwise your point is not made.

Point 2 - I'm not arguing that at all. I'm arguing that there are special reasons for including ACT and NT. There are no reasons for including NI.

Point 3 - Nobody has argued that "because something is not in the Constitution it shouldn't be there". The argument was as explained for Point 2.

Point 4 - A single government website is enough, especially when it supports a widely held opinion.

Point 5 - Have a look above. You haven't successfully rebutted any of the points.

Point 6 - The template is titled "Current Premiers and Chief Ministers of the States and territories of Australia" and while technically NI does have a Chief Minister, it is never included alongside the states in a list because of it's size. With a population of only around 2,000 it's not as large as many Australian suburbs. To include it alongside the states and major territories is ridiculous. The template was always intended to address the states and major territories.

"I want to see what EVERYONE thinks, not just one editor that won't agree with anything."

Please, be civil.

"Norfolk Island should stay until such time as we have a consensus one way or other. Two editors to one is NOT a consensus."

It's up to the person adding information to justify the inclusion and so far you haven't don that. Also, it's not two editors to one. So far there have been 4, three have reverted your edits to the template[1][2][3] and another has opposed inclusion here, as have I.

This discussion is essentially the same as we've been having at Talk:List of cities in Australia --AussieLegend 07:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no constitutional reason for treating Norfolk Island (and other external territories) differently from the ACT and the NT. Contrary to arguments above, the Constitution does not "treat" the Northern Territory as a state - s 6 merely indicates that the Northern Territory of South Australia is in the Commonwealth - which it undoubtedly is - and nothing more.

Being mentioned in the Constitution does not give one territory a status higher than another territory: New Zealand is also "mentioned" in the Constitution; that does not make it "less" foreign than any other foreign country. That Sydney is mentioned in the Constitution does not make it a "special" city.

Such a textual argument runs against general principles of Constitutional interpretation, and also is against Wikipedia prohibitions against WP:OR, for an original interpretation of a (100-year-old) piece of legislation is, indeed, original research.

I believe there may well be reasons to exclude Norfolk Island while including, say, the Northern Territory. However, the Constitution is not such a reason; constitutionally, they are all self-governing territories of the Commonwealth and thus, constitutionally, equal. Both were severed from existing states (that were colonies before Federation) and were accepted by legislation by the Commonwealth in accordance with s 122 of the Constitution.

As far as the law is concerned, my suggestion for those advocating exclusion is to take a look at the following pieces of legislation:

From a cursory glance, it seems that Norfolk Island has a greater degree of self government, having the power to legislate on things such as customs and immigration, which the Northern Territory and ACT do not have.

I might also suggest that a more fruitful avenue to pursue might be the distinction between inland vs external territories.

There is also a distinction between Norfolk Island, which is self-governing, and some of the other external territories which are not. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the template title has been changed to "internal territories". Rather ingenious shifting of the goal posts, but I don't think there's any reason to argue against it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, that was JRG's idea[4]. --AussieLegend 13:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too, too silly. Norfolk Island will NEVER be part of mainstream Australia. Look, here's another example: Council of Australian Governments. WWGB 12:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]