| Revision as of 22:20, 15 March 2005 editEl C (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators183,803 edits Actually, it is Skyring's misrepresntation and intellectual dishonesty that I consider the real abuse here.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:07, 10 June 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,374,404 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:Australian Government/Archive 1. (BOT) | ||
| (649 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}} | |||
| == Name == | |||
| Hello all | |||
| ==Verifiable sources== | |||
| 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..." | |||
| So far nobody has provided verifiable sources for Adam's claims. I see a lot of hand-waving, I see a lot of abuse, I see a lot of bluster, but I do not see any checkable sources. The best we have are a couple of constitutional authorities supporting the "Queen as sole head of state" view, a minority position. | |||
| :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: | |||
| The article is incorrect in claiming ''the question of who is Australia's head of state is a matter of convention.'' I have shown that there are three different views, each supported by multiple informed opinions. | |||
| 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) | |||
| The article is incorrect in claiming ''the view that the Queen was the head of state of all parts of the British Empire was so axiomatic that it did not occur to the authors of the Constitution to spell this out.'' This is Adam's opinion, unsupported by any of the numerous biographies ar reports of the debates during the time our Constitution was drafted. | |||
| Australian - New Zealand Agreement (1944) | |||
| Adam's third claim, that most authorities see the Queen as head of state has been modified to read that it is a traditional view. I'll accept this, but it needs to be made clear that this is either an outmoded view or the view of the general people rather than informed opinion. | |||
| I believe it would be appropriate to add in the lead or the section regarding GG and Royal information. | |||
| At this point, I see no problem in removing Adam's statements of opinion on the grounds that despite a lot of discussion, no sources have been provided. Do you have a problem with this? ] 09:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Happy to discuss <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :I moved the above comment here. Do not idiosyncratically reinsert it into the middle of the above section. It was diversionary, unfair and untopical for you to place it there, and sadly, symptomatic of your tactics. Our discourse is over, you have conducted yourself shamefuly, carelessly, and uncollegially ] 11:36, 14 Mar 2005 (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 ]. 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) | |||
| ::Does anyone have any comments on the points above? So far after a week's discussion I see zero support for Adam's "did not occur" claim, though some editors seem to hold out hope for support on the convention claim. Nothing solid, though perhaps research might bring something out. ] 11:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have removed the "did not occur" claim. As I have repeatedly pointed out, this is Adam's personal opinion and has no place here. After much discussion nobody has come forward with even a hint of support for it. If anyone wants to keep it, please provide a verifiable source. ] 12:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::El_C has provided a source, but with respect, I cannot find anything in it to back up Adam's claim about what was passing through the minds of the founding fathers. If you have something, spell it out, otherwise I'll regard it as a red herring. ] 12:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| So what is Skyring's explanation for the fact that the Constitution does not specify who Australia's head of state was to be? I point out that the Constitution does not provide for the offices of Prime Minister or Speaker of the House, either, and for the same reason - because Griffith simply ''assumed'' the framework of the Westminster Parliamentary system, including the Queen as head of state. It was only the fact that Australia was to be a federation that made a written constitution necessary at all (New Zealand didn't have a constitution at all until recently, because they simply copied the pure Westminister model.) My "source" for these propositions is the Constitution itself. Most Constitutions provide for a head of state. Australia's does not, and it is the historian's job to ''explain'' and ''interpret'' that fact in the light of his knowledge about the period in which it was written, which is what I have done in the paragraph under discussion. ] 21:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :The term "head of state" was not in general use at the time of Federation. You won't find another constitution of the same period that uses the term. You won't find the term in the reports of the constitutional conventions and debates that occurred in Australia at that time. You are trying to cram thoughts into the minds of our founding fathers that were simply not there. , you said ''Since the term ''res publica'' is Latin, it is quite ahistorical to try to apply it retrospectively to the states of ancient Greece.'' You said it was "a silly argument". Silly when someone else uses an anachronism, but it's quite the done thing when you do, hmmm? Be fair. | |||
| :And once again, you are not supplying a verifiable source. You are giving your '''opinion'''. Other editors here are at least making an honest attempt to give sources, and I respect them for that. Prominently displayed on every edit page it says "Please cite your sources so others can check your work.". I commend these words to your attention. ] 23:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Despite ]'s dogged shilling for Adam, his source for Adam's "axiomatic" claim was useless. I haven't seen anyone provide a verifiable source for this statement. On the chance that I missed it, could someone please provide a verifiable source for ''the view that the Queen was the head of state of all parts of the British Empire was so axiomatic that it did not occur to the authors of the Constitution to spell this out.''. If it cannot be sourced, it doesn't belong in the article. ] 23:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| You just can't touch a keyboard without resorting to misrepresentation, can you? ] 00:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :It seems to be difficult for you to refrain from abuse, Adam, but I urge calmness and contemplation. Please.] 02:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ----------- | |||
| ::Actually, it is Skyring's misrepresntation and intellectual dishonesty that I consider the real abuse here. I did not cite that source ''for Adam's "axiomatic" claim'', which a most cursory glance reveals. It was designed to show Ross' argument of the Queen being considered the head of state – that's it. Skyring should refrain from aggregating all editors —which is to say, every single editor involved in these discussions— who oppose his poorly-sourced (for the purpose of demonstrating scholarly and otherwise consensus), partisan, 'odd' and non-mainstream constitutional opinions. Sheesh (again). ] 22:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| --------- | |||
| I didn't say the term "head of state" appears in other constitutions, I said "Most Constitutions ''provide for'' a head of state." And they do. The US Constitution provides for a president, for example. The question therefore is, why doesn't the Australian Constitution provide for a head of state? My answer is as given in the article. What's yours? ] 00:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I take your point, but you are arguing backwards. And once again you do not provide a source for your opinion. How many times do I have to point out that when I ask for a verifiable source and make a heavy-handed gesture towards that line below reading '''Please cite your so others can check your work.''' you invariably respond with abuse and evasion and a lot of hand-waving? ] 02:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| (Yes yes I know I am arguing with him again when I said he should be ignored. I can't help myself. ] 00:38, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)) | |||
| :You should calm down, do a bit of research, and if you can't find a source for your statements, do the right thing. It's usually less embarrassing to admit that you are running on empty before it's repeatedly pointed out to you. And if you can find a verifiable source, then do the right thing and put it up. ] 02:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Let the record show that Skyring has no answer to my question other than his usual obfuscation. ] 03:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Heh! More bluster. My opinion doesn't matter, Adam. I'm not the one being repeatedly asked to back up their statements in the article. | |||
| :Let the record show that after repeatedly asking for a source for ''the view that the Queen was the head of state of all parts of the British Empire was so axiomatic that it did not occur to the authors of the Constitution to spell this out.'' I didn't get one. ] claimed to provide one, a claim that was false. I haven't seen any other verifiable source on this point. ] 04:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| A . ] 04:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah. Try taking the link, buddy. ] 08:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| A . ] 04:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Have another go, brother! No, I can't stand it! You've completely ballsed up a great joke. Here's the you wanted. | |||
| :OK. Seriously now, we're going to have to work together on this, Adam. I'm not really out to make your life a misery. As I've said a couple of times now, you're a better writer of this sort of stuff than I am, and you probably work best when you aren't under the pressure of a nit-picking old curmudgeon like me breathing down your neck, but I'm not going to stand for seeing Malcolm Turnbull's dishonest line spread all over Misplaced Pages. Nor am I going to let Sir David Smith's equally partisan views dominate the article. Both have their good and bad points, both have their followers and bitter enemies, but the one characteristic shared by both is that they aren't telling the whole story. | |||
| :As I look around at other nations, particularly other Commonwealth Realms, I am more and more impressed by just how unique Australia is. Unlike almost every other nation on earth, our Constitution is the creation of the people rather than parliaments. We came together in a People's Convention with popularly elected delegates to thrash out an agreement, we all voted on it and we are the only people who can modify it. We own our Constitution in a way that few other nations do. And of the few nations that have Governors-General standing in between the Queen and the Government, Australia is the only one to give him the important executive powers in his own right. In every other nation that has a Governor-General, the Queen could do what Sir John Kerr did in 1975. But not in Australia. Our situation is unique. The Queen is powerless. | |||
| :So the Queen is less of a head of state than she is in the UK or other nations such as New Zealand or Canada, and the Governor-General is more of a head of state than in those same nations. I personally don't think it's accurate to describe either as the sole head of state because there are, as the Parliamentary Research office paper points out, very good reasons for saying that both are head of state. Tilt the scales too far one way or the other and you have an unbalanced and inaccurate article, and neither of us wants that. ] 13:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :But why doesn't every other country article detail how the role of their head of state differs from everyone else's? There's no such thing as a cookie-cut, "normal" head of state role. Different states and different heads within a state have different ideas about the role. But the suggestion that this somehow disqualifies a person as head of state doesn't logically follow. It's an either-or proposition - you're officially credentialled as head of state or you're not. By all means, we can discuss the relative importance of Queen and GG in the constitutional system, but not to the extent that the article seeks to go against conventional wisdom and take a minority POV. ] 21:20, 15 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. |
|
| 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- C-Class Australia articles
- Top-importance Australia articles
- C-Class Australian politics articles
- Top-importance Australian politics articles
- WikiProject Australian politics articles
- WikiProject Australia articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class organization articles
- Low-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles