Misplaced Pages

Talk:Australian Government: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:42, 10 March 2005 editMichael Snow (talk | contribs)Administrators19,335 editsm →Lead section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:07, 10 June 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,374,795 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:Australian Government/Archive 1. (BOT) 
(759 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
]
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Australia |importance=Top |politics=yes |politics-importance=Top }}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Organizations |importance=Low}}
}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Australian Government/Archive|format= %%i|age=2160|minkeepthreads=1|archivebox=no}}


==The real issue== == Name ==


Hello all
Skyring has repeatedly accused me of deliberately misquoting the Constitution. Here is section 2 of the Constitution, cut-and-pasted from the .
I have tried to rewrite this section from a more neutral POV. I have replaced the following sentence: "This and terms such as "Commonwealth Government" were used by the government itself until the ] implemented a policy of using the term "Government of Australia" as a means of blurring the distinctions between state and Commonwealth governments in an attempt to increase federal power" with the more neutral and factual sentence: "The term "Australian Government" was preferred by Robert Menzies in the 1960s and was officially introduced by the Whitlam government in 1973." The problem with the original sentence was that it was a political interpretation of the reason for the change in name sourced to one writer Anne Twomey. Moreover, the cited page of this source is referring specifically to the use of the term "Queen of Australia" in the Royal Styles and Titles Act. Other sources note that the Menzies government in the 1960s used the term Australian Government frequently and that the term was adopted to avoid confusion with the British Commonwealth. Happy to discuss. ] (]) 07:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


:I disagree with your summary of Twomey's argument. Under "Confusion and Reality" she firstly discusses the confusion about whether the the Royal Styles and Titles Act applied to the states due to the use of the ambiguous term "Australia". She then states "The Whitlam government, however, had a policy of using the term 'Australia' rather than 'Commonwealth' as a means of glossing over the differences between the Commonwealth and the States and attempting to aggregate power to the Commonwealth. Thus it was later argued that the 'Queen of Australia' must be advised by her 'Australian' Ministers..."
:2. 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.
:She does not state that the government had this policy "so that" the Queen would only consult Commonwealth ministers in relation to the states. She states the government had this policy and "thus it was later argued" that the Queen should only consult Commonwealth ministers. Your wording implies that the government had this policy in order to support arguments in relation to the Queen, where that was only part of a broader desire to increase Commonwealth power. This is seen in the first sentence, where the glossing of the terms "Commonwealth" and "Australia" in relation to the Royal Titles Act is an assertion of that Act's applicability to the states in a way that doesn't involve the issue of whether the Queen is to consult with British ministers regarding the states. ] (]) 06:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
::The problem is that whoever first wrote this sentence has taken an isolated sentence of Twomey out of context to imply that the Whitlam government's decision to adopt the term Government of Australia was a crude attempt to increase Cth power at the expense of the states. One needs to read the whole book and Justice McHughs introduction. Remember, we are talking about 1973. The question was whether when acting in relation to Australia (the Cth and states) the Queen should act on the advice of her British ministers or Australian ministers (Cth and State). Many state governments were lobbying the Queen to say that she should act on the advice of State Ministers in relation to state matters. The British Foreign Office was of the view that the Queen should act on the advice of her British Ministers and that British interests should override the interests of the Australian states. Buckingham Palace didn't want to be put in the situation where they were given conflicting advice from the Cth government and state governments so were happy to agree with the FO that the Queen should receive advice from the British FO. Whitlam argued that the Queen should be advised by the GG (who was in turn advised by the PM) on matters concerning the Cth and the states but that the GG would act on the advice of the states in matters concerning the states. The issue was only resolved by the Australia Acts of 1986. My preferred solution would be to drop the whole discussion because it is too technical and complicated for a high level article like this. All that needs to be said is that the Whitlam government officially adopted the term Government of Australia in 1973. ] (]) 10:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
:::I think you are adding too much of your own analysis. I think the the plain reading is the page is that Twomey is suggesting that the policy of the government was to use the term Government of Australia, at least in part in an attempt to increase federal power over the states. The page cited belongs to chapter 9, which discusses the Royal Styles and Titles Act, not the dispute you are talking about conflicting sources of advice to the Queen. There is nothing in the surrounding chapter that suggests that the policy change was made in relation to the dispute as to which ministers the Queen should seek advice from as the sentence currently suggests. I think we only risk getting too technical and complicated if we attempt to artificially seek to limit what Twomey is suggesting in the source. ] (]) 12:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
::::I doubt that Anne Twomey is so ingorant to think that the Cth government can increase its power over the states simply by rebranding itself the Australian Government: to do that it would have to gain a new head of power by referendum or convince the HCA to interpret an existing head of power more widely. Indeed Twomey doesn't mention the term "Government of Australia" or "Australian Government". Her examples are of "Queen of Australia" and "Australian ministers" and refer to the government's attempts to persuade Buckingham Palace to rely on the advice of the Australian government as opposed to the British Government in matters pertaining to the Australian states. You will note that I changed the page reference to pp 113-14 in which Twomey gives the examples of the seabed petitions and the Royal Styles and Titles Act and covers the broader point of British/Australin relations. The Whitlam government introduced the term "Government of Australia" in order to promote an Australian national identity in contradistinction to a British one. ] (]) 08:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::What do you therefore suggest Twomey means in her paragraph on pg 113?. It begins with explaining that the application of the Royal Styles and Titles Act to the states is confusing, as the government used the term "Australia" instead of "Commonwealth of Australia and its territories". Directly following this, she states: "The Whitlam government, however, had a policy of using the term 'Australia' rather than 'Commonwealth' as a means of glossing over the differences between the Commonwealth and the States and attempting to aggregate power to the Commonwealth. Thus it was later argued that the 'Queen of Australia' must be advised by her 'Australian' Ministers..." It seems very unlikely that Twomey is suggesting that the phrase "Australia" was used in the Royal Styles and Titles Act solely in order to convince the British to transfer authority to the Commonwealth as that act had nothing to do with them. It seems far more likely that Twomey is referring to a general policy of the government that was also used in relation to the British.
:::::Also, I think your identification of the High Court interpreting powers more broadly is exactly how the use of the phrase "Australian Government" could increase the power of the federal government. Whitlam was relying on the newly interpreted "nationhood" power for the Royal Styles Act and was instrumental in popularising the expansive view of s 51 powers that was ultimately taken up by the court. An assertion of the federal government with the whole of Australia and not just the "Commonwealth" could lead to a more expansive interpretation of powers. Twomey could also be simply referring to a non-legal assertion of the importance and authority of the government to act in areas not traditionally seen as a federal responsibility.
:::::Additionally, if a source states that the Whitlam government introduced the term "Government of Australia" in order to promote a distinct Australian identity, that should be added to the page to avoid NPOV, but it shouldn't be used to give a restricted view of the Twomey source. That would involving favouring one source over another. ] (]) 09:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::I think we are getting into constitutional matters rather than sources. I have reworded the sentence to focus on the actual use of the term "Government of Australia". I have added a source, John Curran's The Power of Speech. Entrenching the term Australian Government in legislation was inextricably linked to the whole "new nationalism" policy of the Whitlam government which was aimed at getting rid of "colonial relics" and forging a new Australian identity which wasn't based on race or subservience to Britain. But it's a long story which doesn't really belong here. Let me know if you have problems with the wording. ] (]) 10:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for your edit. I’m happy with it. ] (]) 02:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


Hello all, apologies for the abrupt changes I am new to Misplaced Pages. I added the formal "HM Government in the Commonwealth of Australia" due to the Commonwealth Government being the Government of a Commonwealth realm, so I believe it is appropriate for it to be addressed in its formal style . Although it is used sparsely, I see no good reason why it shouldn't be addressed as such (see Government of Canada, Government of New Zealand). It is addressed as such in documents such as:
Now: does Skyring dispute that this is indeed the text of the Constitution? Does he deny that the Constitution says that (a) the Queen appoints the Governor-General and (b) the Governor-General is the Queen's representative? Given these two things, '''in what capacity''' does the Queen appoint the GG? And '''in what capacity''' is the Queen represented by the GG? If Skyring wants to deny that it is the capacity of '''head of state''', he has to tell us what other capacity could it possibly be. ] 01:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Agreement between His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia and the German government regarding the release of property, rights and interests of German nationals (1944)


Trade Agreement between Australia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1932)
:You stated that the Constitution says something it clearly does not. You said "''the fact is that the '''Constitution says''' the GG is the Queen's representative''". This is not a fact. It is incorrect.


Australian - New Zealand Agreement (1944)
::'''"SHALL BE HER MAJESTY'S REPRESENTATIVE"''' WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOU? CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND PLAIN ENGLISH? ] 02:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I believe it would be appropriate to add in the lead or the section regarding GG and Royal information.
:::Calm down, Adam. Please. You misquoted the constitution, as I pointed out above. I've quoted the exact words you used. In the same breath you accused me of circular arguments, and I asked you to provide examples, none of which have been provided. However, none of this seems to be getting us anywhere. Others have provided useful directions on how to proceed, and frankly I think you should either keep out of the discussion for a while or try to aim for a more professional manner. ] 03:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Happy to discuss <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I believe I am entitled to complain if you misquote the Constitution to suit your own purposes. Maybe you think the difference is minor, but if so, then why not use the actual words of the document? You can hardly be mistaken after several corrections, including an extended discussion on this very point in another article so I ask what is your purpose in deliberately misquoting the Constitution?


:You are talking about antiquated usages from the 1930s and 1940s which even then were rarely used. The official name of the Australian Government is the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia. This is the name in the Australin constitution. However, Misplaced Pages favours common usage which is the Australian Government or Federal Government or Commonwealth Government. The policy is ]. Another editor has added your suggested alternative name to the Name section of the article where it logically belongs. However, I still think we need reliable secondary sources to establish that this was ever the official name of the government. ] ] (]) 04:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
:I suggest that you should really answer a few of the questions I put to you before demanding I answer yours. Be fair. ] 01:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I said: "the Constitution says the GG is the Queen's representative." The Constitution says: "A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth." How is that a misquotation??? I really have no idea what you are talking about. ] 03:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:It's a misquotation because the words you used are not in the Constitution. Keep going. ] 03:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

::I see. Such stupidity from someone of some evident intelligence is sad to see. ] 04:05, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

::It's not a misquotation, it's a paraphrase, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Otherwise we would just copy the text of the Constitution and not write articles. --] 04:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:::It's a misquotation. Adam says it is a fact that the Constitution says words it does not. He should either use the literal text if he wishes to quote it, especially if he is insistent that it is factual to the extent of boldfacing his words, or use a form of speech which makes it clear that he is paraphrasing. This is standard academic practice and I must say that I am quite upset by the unprofessional behaviour displayed by Adam recently. ] 05:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

::::Fine. "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth." That's in chapter II: The Executive Government. See . What Adam said. - ] 06:12, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:::::But it's not what Adam said. You will also note that the executive power is exercisable by the Governor-General and is clearly not one of the delegated powers under s2. He is also in ss5, 64 and others given powers directly, rather than by the Queen or through some "flow-on" mechanism, such as we see in New Zealand and Canada. Again I urge you to read a constitutional text - this is pretty basic stuff. ] 07:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm upset (really pissed off actually) by your deliberate obfuscation and timewasting, your dishonesty, your malicious misrepresentation of other people arguments, your rampant vanity and egotism and your general obnoxious fuckwittedness, so get used to it. ] 05:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

== Moving on to unprotection ==

I think we should be able to get past this often circular discussion and reach a consensus. Several people have indicated they think we have a consensus already, and I agree that we're pretty close to it. I suggest that it's possible we could get general agreement on the following points:

#The Queen is head of state in the usual sense of that title, but the title is not actually used in the Constitution. The Governor-General acts as her representative, exercises the powers associated with the position, and is often accorded the type of recognition given a head of state, especially in the diplomatic context. The article covers this reasonably well; some of the finer details belong in the ] article, where they are adequately explained already.
#The article used to start with the sentence: "Australia is a ], a ] and a parliamentary ]." These are all basic characteristics that should be introduced at the beginning of the article. Why it was considered necessary to remove this sentence, I'm not sure, since I haven't seen anything to indicate that any of these assertions are seriously disputed.
#:None of them were. However, it was ''also'' added that Australia is a republic! - ] 05:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
#The notion that Australia is also, or effectively, a republic, might be mentioned at the end of the "Structure of the government" section, where the material on the republican movement currently is. An easy way to do this would be to quote Howard's "a crowned republic" line. To go beyond this would be lending excessive credence to the argument.

Using this as a general outline, I would like the article to be unprotected, and I think we can hammer out exactly how we want to express these points by collaborative editing in the usual fashion. It should be simple enough to revert edits that contradict the consensus view. --] 04:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that course of action. The sentence "Australia is a ], a ] and a parliamentary ]" was only disrupted by Skyring's egotistical insistence on inserting his own pet theories in the opening paragraph. It should be restored. ] 04:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Adam that this is an excellent solution. Go for it. - ] 05:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adam, please. We would all get on a lot better if you weren't quite so prickly. You removed the sentence IIRC, and I have no objection to its reinstatement in its original form. We had actually come to an agreement over this, if you look back. John Howard's 1997 quote on "a crowned republic" should be included. I think it was Bagehot who originally coined the phrase, but I must admit that I find it hard to swallow its application to the 18th Century United Kingdom. However, it is an apt description of Australia with our combination of republican form of government and the symbolic but powerless monarch.

My difficulty lies in the description of the Queen as head of state. Adam says it is convention, but the only convention he quotes in the article is that expressed by Howard to the opposite effect, and I quote: ''"As a matter of undisputed constitutional convention, the Governor-General has become Australia&#8217;s effective head of state."''

I have quoted the views of several constitutional authorities, and the opinion that either the Queen or the Governor-General is the one and only head of state is a minority position, with most informed commentators inclining to the "two heads of state" view, using various words such as ''"defacto"'', "ceremonial", "effective" and so on to prefix the phrase "head of state". Clearly there is no consensus of opinion, and the conflict rages in genteel fashion in magazines such as ''Quadrant''.

I also take expetion to the description of the Governor-General as merely the Queen's representative. The degree to which he represents the Queen and her government has been declining since Federation. Unlike other dominions such as New Zealand and Canada, the Governor-General does not draw any but the most trivial powers from the Queen - he is given his powers directly in the Constitution by we the people, and this is the single most republican aspect of our affairs. Quick and Garran pointed this out at Federation in their massive work of constitutional commentary.

:He was given them in his capacity as the ''Queen's representative'', that much is perfectly clear. At any rate, this evades the central point - that the Governor-General is not a democratically selected head of state and thus Australia is not a republic. ] 07:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

::Just how do you define "democratically selected"? Many republics have appointed heads of state. In fact in the republic model rejected in 1999, the President would have been selected by the Prime Minister, which is exactly what happens now with the selection of the Governor-General. There was to be a nominations committee, but that was to meet in secret and its recommendations were not binding on the Prime Minister - he could have nominated whoever he wanted and if the disgruntled members of the committee complained that this wasn't their nomination, they would have been guilty of an offence. As it stands in Australia, the leader of the majority party or coalition selects the Governor-General. ] 08:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::Skyring is correct. We are still not a republic, as our head of state is still the Queen (shared with GG). - ] 20:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with the ] article which covers much the same ground. ] 06:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We have heard your views on these topics ''ad nauseam''. We have decided that we don't agree with you. We are now proceeding to edit the article in accordance with the majority view. That is the way things work here. If you don't like it, feel free to leave. Is that clear enough for you? ] 06:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The proposed solution is desirable and should be implemented ASAP. ] 07:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:As an outsider who has read the Australian Constitution, and this article, I agree with the proposed outline above. Constitutionally, the Crown appears to have most of the same authority in Australia as it does in the U.K. The proposed solutions seem appropriate and accurate. -] 08:45, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
:(and )

::It really is a grand juxtaposition, to take these constitutional (shall we say) features/parallels/peculiarities, and on the basis of that call Australia a ''republic'', outright and as such, in the of the article, no less (!) I'm currently (still) writing about Southern Rhodesia and after UDI, while the colony was in rebellion, formally they continued to attest loyalty to the Crown (the Queen, specifically). Then, later, upon the declaration of a republic, while the fundamental relations of power didn't change in any meaningful way (just like they won't if and/or when Australia becomes one), the constitution was formally written to reflect that (explicitly). Until Australia formally recognizes itself a republic, that lead clearly amounts to original reserach. Constitutional parallels can (and will) be drawn, but they need to be correctly qualified. The lead for this article only needs to account for formal statements and for widespread (mass) attitudinal sentiments, with all due respect to some constitutional scholars. Hrm, I didn't intend on writing at such length. ] 01:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:::I'm glad you did, though; your comment is very helpful. ] 02:10, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

::::Sweet. As Master Yoda has often been known to utter (probably): republican traits, a ''republic'' make not. ] 04:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) ]

== After unprotection ==

Okay, I have restored the opening sentence and made some additional changes that I hope will be acceptable. First of all, I moved the "Head of state" section down below the "Structure of the government" section. Given the relative power and prominence of the head of state in the Australian system, it strikes me that this is not the subject that should lead off the article, though I'm willing to listen if people think it is.

The republican movement is now its own subsection within the "Head of state" section, because it's more about this aspect than the general governmental structure. The theories about already being a republic and two heads of state are basically all in the context of this debate, so I think that's the appropriate place for them to be mentioned, and they are properly attributed to sources.

Also, as a minor stylistic issue, I wrote "Governors-General" because in my experience this is the correct way to say this rather unusual plural in formal writing. If for some reason my usage here or elsewhere is not correct by the lights of Australian English style, please change it. --] 18:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Governors-General" is correct. It grates in the mouth, but it is like "mothers-in-law" and similar hyphenateds-plural. ] 23:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

== Lead section ==

Can we work towards getting a lead section? - ] 02:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with the one we have? ] 03:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It didn't exist with the last couple of edit, so the menu ''was'' the lead (and before, it was just the lead sentence from that paragraph). I can't confess being familliar with the edit history of this article, I changed it because, appearence-wise, it strikes me as an improvement over it being unleaded. ] 03:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We had a perfectly good intro section before the Skyring Wars. One of the problems with edit wars caused by cranks like Skyring is that they distort the balance of articles by forcing people to add more and more material about the disputed matter. The issue of who is Australia's formal head of state is actually a fairly minor one, and the repeated edits around this topic have distorted the whole article. ] 04:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense. My changes were limited to and driven by immediately-percieved aesthetical considerations. Feel free to modify whatever I overlooked in that respect ] 05:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you look back to of nearly a month ago, you may see that in fact I proposed deleting any references to head of state because it was not a term that could be definitively sourced. Any additions are the property of others - my contribution was a single letter, which has since disappeared, I note. Let us be fair. ] 08:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Accordingly, I will remove the Head of State section because it is contentious. Adam has not provided any verification for his statements that there is a convention that the Queen is head of state, that the authors of the Constitution thought this axiomatic, and that "most authorities" say that the Queen is the head of State. As ] has argued repeatedly, the criteria for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability.

The "Republican Movement" section is full of errors. For example, Sir David Smith did not oppose the referendum, nor did he argue during or after the Constitutional Convention, to which he was a delegate, that we had two heads of state. Could whoever wrote this stuff please correct it, or I'll do it for them. ] 19:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:Remove the Head of State section? That sounds like a ''coup d'etat.'' ;) Why don't we just rename it to "Governor-General"? -] 20:37, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

::Joking aside, the fact is that it is a contentious issue, and none of the three alternative views has a consensus amongst people who know what they are talking about. I think it is better to remove it entirely. An alternative could be to do something like what the Parliamentary Reseach Office has done in their , and summarise the arguments for each position without making a definitive statement. ] 21:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:::Or, it can be renamed to "Chief of State", the term used in the CIA Factbook. . Is that not a source? -] 21:56, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

::::Yes, but a dodgy one, going by recent history. ] 22:00, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:::::Oh? I've never heard of any complaints about the accuracy of the "Factbook". Please share. -] 22:03, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

::::::Have they changed the entry yet? ] 22:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:::::::Red herring. That has nothing to do with the Factbook, which is a well-respected almanac of nations. -] 22:40, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

::::::::Did you actually read the article? If you did, then you've heard a complaint about the accuracy of the CIA Factbook. ] 22:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::And which is the WMD entry? There's no such three-letter acronym in the article. The only criticism of the Factbook I see is that the authors complain that, as of 1996, the Factbook listed Gabon as a member of OPEC even though it actually left in 1994. I acknowledge that it ''is'' a criticism. And that the criticism is irrelevant to this matter. -] 23:05, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Skrying should not be allowed to create further pointless edit wars at this article in pursuit of his pet theories. If he does he should be reported to whoever is running this circus and barred from editing this article. The only reason this stupid "two heads of state" nonsense is in the article at all is because Skyring insisted on putting it there. If he doesn't like it, then by all means delete that paragraph, which is peripheral to the topic of the article. The rest of the "head of state" section should be retained. ] 23:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Skyring has completely failed to identify any errors in the "Republican movement" section. Sir David Smith has very explicitly articulated the two heads of state theory. In , which was apparently published in the Australian National Review, he opens with the words, "Under our Constitution we have two Heads of State - a symbolic Head of State in the Sovereign, and a constitutional Head of State in the Governor-General." As a dead giveaway to the fact that this is definitely not the standard position, his next sentence opens with "This is not some bizarre theory..."

The site to which I have linked is that of the Australian Monarchist League, and Smith lent his support to that organization by allowing multiple articles to be published there. Under the circumstances, I think it is entirely fair to describe Smith as an opponent of the referendum. --] 23:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:07, 10 June 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Australian Government article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAustralia: Politics Top‑importance
WikiProject iconAustralian Government is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Top-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
WikiProject iconPolitics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconOrganizations Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Name

Hello all I have tried to rewrite this section from a more neutral POV. I have replaced the following sentence: "This and terms such as "Commonwealth Government" were used by the government itself until the Whitlam government implemented a policy of using the term "Government of Australia" as a means of blurring the distinctions between state and Commonwealth governments in an attempt to increase federal power" with the more neutral and factual sentence: "The term "Australian Government" was preferred by Robert Menzies in the 1960s and was officially introduced by the Whitlam government in 1973." The problem with the original sentence was that it was a political interpretation of the reason for the change in name sourced to one writer Anne Twomey. Moreover, the cited page of this source is referring specifically to the use of the term "Queen of Australia" in the Royal Styles and Titles Act. Other sources note that the Menzies government in the 1960s used the term Australian Government frequently and that the term was adopted to avoid confusion with the British Commonwealth. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your summary of Twomey's argument. Under "Confusion and Reality" she firstly discusses the confusion about whether the the Royal Styles and Titles Act applied to the states due to the use of the ambiguous term "Australia". She then states "The Whitlam government, however, had a policy of using the term 'Australia' rather than 'Commonwealth' as a means of glossing over the differences between the Commonwealth and the States and attempting to aggregate power to the Commonwealth. Thus it was later argued that the 'Queen of Australia' must be advised by her 'Australian' Ministers..."
She does not state that the government had this policy "so that" the Queen would only consult Commonwealth ministers in relation to the states. She states the government had this policy and "thus it was later argued" that the Queen should only consult Commonwealth ministers. Your wording implies that the government had this policy in order to support arguments in relation to the Queen, where that was only part of a broader desire to increase Commonwealth power. This is seen in the first sentence, where the glossing of the terms "Commonwealth" and "Australia" in relation to the Royal Titles Act is an assertion of that Act's applicability to the states in a way that doesn't involve the issue of whether the Queen is to consult with British ministers regarding the states. Safes007 (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that whoever first wrote this sentence has taken an isolated sentence of Twomey out of context to imply that the Whitlam government's decision to adopt the term Government of Australia was a crude attempt to increase Cth power at the expense of the states. One needs to read the whole book and Justice McHughs introduction. Remember, we are talking about 1973. The question was whether when acting in relation to Australia (the Cth and states) the Queen should act on the advice of her British ministers or Australian ministers (Cth and State). Many state governments were lobbying the Queen to say that she should act on the advice of State Ministers in relation to state matters. The British Foreign Office was of the view that the Queen should act on the advice of her British Ministers and that British interests should override the interests of the Australian states. Buckingham Palace didn't want to be put in the situation where they were given conflicting advice from the Cth government and state governments so were happy to agree with the FO that the Queen should receive advice from the British FO. Whitlam argued that the Queen should be advised by the GG (who was in turn advised by the PM) on matters concerning the Cth and the states but that the GG would act on the advice of the states in matters concerning the states. The issue was only resolved by the Australia Acts of 1986. My preferred solution would be to drop the whole discussion because it is too technical and complicated for a high level article like this. All that needs to be said is that the Whitlam government officially adopted the term Government of Australia in 1973. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
I think you are adding too much of your own analysis. I think the the plain reading is the page is that Twomey is suggesting that the policy of the government was to use the term Government of Australia, at least in part in an attempt to increase federal power over the states. The page cited belongs to chapter 9, which discusses the Royal Styles and Titles Act, not the dispute you are talking about conflicting sources of advice to the Queen. There is nothing in the surrounding chapter that suggests that the policy change was made in relation to the dispute as to which ministers the Queen should seek advice from as the sentence currently suggests. I think we only risk getting too technical and complicated if we attempt to artificially seek to limit what Twomey is suggesting in the source. Safes007 (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
I doubt that Anne Twomey is so ingorant to think that the Cth government can increase its power over the states simply by rebranding itself the Australian Government: to do that it would have to gain a new head of power by referendum or convince the HCA to interpret an existing head of power more widely. Indeed Twomey doesn't mention the term "Government of Australia" or "Australian Government". Her examples are of "Queen of Australia" and "Australian ministers" and refer to the government's attempts to persuade Buckingham Palace to rely on the advice of the Australian government as opposed to the British Government in matters pertaining to the Australian states. You will note that I changed the page reference to pp 113-14 in which Twomey gives the examples of the seabed petitions and the Royal Styles and Titles Act and covers the broader point of British/Australin relations. The Whitlam government introduced the term "Government of Australia" in order to promote an Australian national identity in contradistinction to a British one. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
What do you therefore suggest Twomey means in her paragraph on pg 113?. It begins with explaining that the application of the Royal Styles and Titles Act to the states is confusing, as the government used the term "Australia" instead of "Commonwealth of Australia and its territories". Directly following this, she states: "The Whitlam government, however, had a policy of using the term 'Australia' rather than 'Commonwealth' as a means of glossing over the differences between the Commonwealth and the States and attempting to aggregate power to the Commonwealth. Thus it was later argued that the 'Queen of Australia' must be advised by her 'Australian' Ministers..." It seems very unlikely that Twomey is suggesting that the phrase "Australia" was used in the Royal Styles and Titles Act solely in order to convince the British to transfer authority to the Commonwealth as that act had nothing to do with them. It seems far more likely that Twomey is referring to a general policy of the government that was also used in relation to the British.
Also, I think your identification of the High Court interpreting powers more broadly is exactly how the use of the phrase "Australian Government" could increase the power of the federal government. Whitlam was relying on the newly interpreted "nationhood" power for the Royal Styles Act and was instrumental in popularising the expansive view of s 51 powers that was ultimately taken up by the court. An assertion of the federal government with the whole of Australia and not just the "Commonwealth" could lead to a more expansive interpretation of powers. Twomey could also be simply referring to a non-legal assertion of the importance and authority of the government to act in areas not traditionally seen as a federal responsibility.
Additionally, if a source states that the Whitlam government introduced the term "Government of Australia" in order to promote a distinct Australian identity, that should be added to the page to avoid NPOV, but it shouldn't be used to give a restricted view of the Twomey source. That would involving favouring one source over another. Safes007 (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I think we are getting into constitutional matters rather than sources. I have reworded the sentence to focus on the actual use of the term "Government of Australia". I have added a source, John Curran's The Power of Speech. Entrenching the term Australian Government in legislation was inextricably linked to the whole "new nationalism" policy of the Whitlam government which was aimed at getting rid of "colonial relics" and forging a new Australian identity which wasn't based on race or subservience to Britain. But it's a long story which doesn't really belong here. Let me know if you have problems with the wording. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit. I’m happy with it. Safes007 (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello all, apologies for the abrupt changes I am new to Misplaced Pages. I added the formal "HM Government in the Commonwealth of Australia" due to the Commonwealth Government being the Government of a Commonwealth realm, so I believe it is appropriate for it to be addressed in its formal style . Although it is used sparsely, I see no good reason why it shouldn't be addressed as such (see Government of Canada, Government of New Zealand). It is addressed as such in documents such as: Agreement between His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia and the German government regarding the release of property, rights and interests of German nationals (1944)

Trade Agreement between Australia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1932)

Australian - New Zealand Agreement (1944)

I believe it would be appropriate to add in the lead or the section regarding GG and Royal information.

Happy to discuss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalaustraliannerd (talk • contribs) 04:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

You are talking about antiquated usages from the 1930s and 1940s which even then were rarely used. The official name of the Australian Government is the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia. This is the name in the Australin constitution. However, Misplaced Pages favours common usage which is the Australian Government or Federal Government or Commonwealth Government. The policy is WP:COMMON NAME. Another editor has added your suggested alternative name to the Name section of the article where it logically belongs. However, I still think we need reliable secondary sources to establish that this was ever the official name of the government. WP:VERIFY Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Categories: