| Revision as of 06:42, 27 May 2005 editSkyring (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,592 editsm →Republic referendum← 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) | ||
| (296 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}} | |||
| * ] | |||
| }} | |||
| * ] <--- Vote and arbitration request in here! | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Australian Government/Archive|format= %%i|age=2160|minkeepthreads=1|archivebox=no}} | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| == Name == | |||
| There has been an ungoing dispute here between one wikipedian, ] and everyone else on this page over whether Australia has one or two heads of state. Everyone else says one and has produced evidence. Skyring insists two and demands more evidence for what he maintains is a POV for which no evidence has been produced and insists on his right to put his version of events (for which he has produced scant evidence, most of it misquoted, out of context, or demonstrably wrong) in the article. Read the evidence below, much of which has already been pointed out to him, and see what '''''you''''' think. | |||
| Hello all | |||
| :That's just plain wrong. I don't '''insist''' that there are two heads of state. Please be so very good as to point out where I have said this, either here or in the article. | |||
| 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..." | |||
| :What I '''have''' done is to point out that there are three different views on the matter, and have quoted sources such as the Prime Minister demonstrating this. If you want to debate the issue, send your material to them. ] 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :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: | |||
| ---- | |||
| 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) | |||
| =='De-jure head of state' and 'de-facto head of state'== | |||
| Australian - New Zealand Agreement (1944) | |||
| Various writers correctly distinguish between the legal definition of a head of state, which is quite clear, as a head of state is a legal office, and the ability of others to function as ''de facto head of state'',ie, they are not the head of state themselves but they may carry out some or all of the powers, functions and duties of the head of state, if that head of state is unavailable - eg, abroad, ill, or unable or unwilling to carry out the functions of the role. Some states in addition may grant to the person fulfilling the role of head of state, but without the legal status of being head of state, additional head of state functions, but these are exercised either directly in the name of the head of state or are vested in the acting head of state in their representative role as acting for the head of state, not in their own ''personal'' capacity. | |||
| I believe it would be appropriate to add in the lead or the section regarding GG and Royal information. | |||
| ===Examples of 'de facto heads of state' worldwide=== | |||
| Happy to discuss <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| * ] - the collective vice-presidency of Ireland, which acts as president, but whose members don't become president, if the President is unavailable or unwilling to carry out any or all or their powers, functions and duties; | |||
| * The ], who can on occasion be called on to assume the powers, functions and duties of the presidency, but again is not regarded as being a head of state in those moments; | |||
| * Counsellors of State in the UK - senior royals who act ''in loco reginae'' where the Queen is unavailable due to illness or travel. (As the Queen is currently in Canada, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of York and the Princess Royal, as far as I know, are current acting as CoS. However no-one on the planet right now regards Charles, Andrew and Anne as being heads of state, merely acting ''as'' a head of state. | |||
| * A ] - they may act as a head of state if the monarch is underage or is in longterm medical care and so unable to act as head of state. Again no regent is ever regarded as being the head of state, merely the ''de facto'' head of state during the regency. An example was the regency of ] (later George IV) during the 'madness' of his father, King ]. | |||
| * The ] from ] to ]. Though the office was constitutionally created in 1937, and filled in 1938, legal advice to the Government (revealed by then Taoiseach John A. Costello in 1948) was that the President was ''not'' head of state legally until the coming into force of the ''], 1948'' in April 1949. The advice was that while the President possessed many of the powers, functions and duties of a head of state, they did not make him a head of state because non-heads of state (eg, colonial governors, regional governors, etc) could also exercise the same powers, such as appointing governments, signing laws, etc. Legally the key power that only heads of state possess, and which if one has it unambiguously shows one to be head of state, is the diplomatic role. | |||
| :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) | |||
| Until 1949 that continued to be vested in the ], meaning that it was King ] who appointed signed and sent Letters of Credence, signed treaties and carried out the diplomatic role as in effect 'Mr. Ireland' on the world diplomatic and protocol stage. The Republic of Ireland Act took these powers from the King and gave them unambiguously to the President, making him, from ] 1949 the Irish head of state. Costello explained to parliament that making the President the head of state was a major consideration in changing the law. They were also annoyed when the Governor General of Canada proposed a toast during an official visit by Costello to Canada to "the King" not the President. That brought home to them the fact that the President was not head of state. | |||
| :Interesting, but irrelevant. The Australian Governor-General exercises his major powers in his own right. He is not assigned the powers of the monarch in the same way that a viceroy or regent is given a blanket assignment of prerogative powers. He is given his constitutional powers directly by we the people and nobody else but we the people can take them from him, certainly not the Queen. See s128 for more on this. ] 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===The 'two heads of state' argument=== | |||
| The main author of the idea that the Queen of Australia and the Governor-General of Australia are ''both'' heads of state was Sir David Smith, a former secretary to the Governor-General. It was seized on my some monarchists during the 1999 referendum who argued that, if the governor-general was already an Australian head of state, why bother with a republic to create a new Australian head of state. | |||
| :In point of fact, the monarchists, with Sir David Smith as one of several prominent spokesmen, don't hold the "two heads of state" view. They see the Governor-General as sole head of state and the Queen is described as "the Sovereign" rather than head of state. Smith initially held the "two heads of state" view as his public statements from 1995-1999 show, but switched during the republic referendum campaign. It is now a hallmark of the monarchist position, a not insignificant minority within the general population. ] 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| However few if any senior legal or constitutional experts gave it any credence, with many openly rubblishing it as absurd and illinformed. | |||
| :Considering that the view was expressed during the republic referendum when many constitutional commentators were openly advocating a vote of YES or NO to the question of whether Australian should remove the Queen, it is hardly surprising that some commentators took a contrary position on a political question. It should, however, be noted that the population voted against the proposal. Sir David's side won that vote, albeit with the support of the direct-elect republicans. You are in the position of relying on the pre-election statements of the losing side, and it is misleading to claim that statements such as these should be treated with especial reverence. ] 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| It was however picked up by some campaigners and by some elements of the media though most of their comments suggested that they didn't understand what a head of state legally is. Some seized on the carefully worded comments of Howard and Winterton (quoted above) as evidence that they agreed with him, except that they were ''very'' careful to say that at most the Governor-General acts ''like'' a head of state, which does not, and is not the same as, ''is'' a head of state. But their subtle but crucial distinction was completely lost in the media coverage. Other than Smith, it is very hard to find anyone at any senior level who states categorically that the Governor-General ''is'' the Australian head of state. | |||
| :The leaders of the monarchists within Australia, a not insignificant minority, make this very claim. Perhaps it is difficult for you personally to find them, but I have quoted them previously, and I take the opportunity to quote them again. Please not that I am not endorsing their views, merely quoting them: | |||
| :*David Flint: "''The republican argument that we did not have an Australian Head of State was undermined completely by the fact that the Governor-General is treated internationally as our Head of State. The Keating government had formally declared him to be precisely that. In other words we already have a resident Australian Head of State.''"] "''Hence the Governor-General from 1926 exercises the functions of and is therefore the Head of State.''" | |||
| :*Kerry Jones: "''So, in a crisis, such as in 1975 when the Governor-General dismissed the Prime Minister, it would no longer be clear who would be the more powerful! It would depend on who moved first. And we might not be able to work that out if each claimed they sacked the other first. We would be sacrificing our non-political Australian Head of State - the Governor-General - as an umpire above politics, for an apparently very powerful political President in formal terms, but one with no security of tenure.''" | |||
| :*Sophie Panopoulos: "''Clearly, the Governor-General is our Australian Head of State. ''" | |||
| :*Tony Abbott (as mentioned by Kerry O'Brien):"''Take the media eruption of calling the governor-general head of state, pursued in the papers, the ABC and commercial media. Simon Crean now refers to the office as the head of state. So what is going on? It has been a long-range monarchist strategy, championed by Tony Abbott among others, to argue the governor-general is the head of state as a way of killing the republican debate.''" | |||
| :*Malcolm Mackerras: "''I have always taught my students that the Queen is the sovereign and the governor-general is the Australian head of State.''" | |||
| :I note that one of the above is a senior Government Minister, another is a member of Parliament, a third a senior academic and so on. Sir David Smith, whom you dismiss as "a retired public servant" is actually a member of the Faculty of Law at the Australian National University. Perhaps your ignorance of Australian affairs may be a point in your defence, but that is neither here nor there within this discussion except to demonstrate your ignorance. You see Sir David as being a senior figure, but I think I would rate him as the most junior of those I have quoted above. ] 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| It is worth noting that the Governors-General who had worked with Smith all universally rejected him claim with Sir Zelwan Cohen saying it was "wrong". | |||
| :That's not true. Bill Hayden made no such rejection, nor did Sir John Kerr or Paul Hasluck, all of them Governors-General for whom Smith served as Private Secretary. Feel free to produce quotes to back up your "all universally rejected" statement, however. ] 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| In Professor Winterton's words | |||
| Indeed, the principal defense of the present system has been to deny the Queen's role and to assert that the governor-general is the real Australian head of state. But the constitutional description of the governor-general is "Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth." If the Queen is not Australia's head of state, why on earth is the person who is Queen of the United Kingdom appointing the Australian head of state? | |||
| ===Professor George Winterton's views=== | |||
| ''An objective assessment can lead to only one conclusion: Australia's legal or formal head of state is the Queen. The Governor-General is the effective or de facto head of state of the Commonwealth, but not of Australia.'' | |||
| Winterton here makes an interesting threefold distinction. He makes it clear that | |||
| * legally the Queen is head of state, which is the whole point of the argument here | |||
| :In point of fact, he does not say that the Queen is the head of state. He says the Queen is the "legal or formal head of state". This distinction may seem slight, but it is that qualification which separates those who hold the "Queen as sole head of state" view from those who hold other views. Let me put it another way so that you may see the point I am making. | |||
| :* Winterton makes it clear that effectively the Governor-General is the head of state, which is the whole point of the argument here. | |||
| :This is using '''your''' form of language, but I suggest that you would reject this interpretation. Please don't twist what people actually say. Let us rely on their actual words. ] 01:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * the Governor-General fulfils the role of acting ''de facto'' as head of state without being the legal head of state, and thirdly that even that ''de facto'' status is purely ''within'' the Commonwealth of Australia, not of ''Australia'' itself as a legal diplomatic state entity. | |||
| :It's been pointed out to you that Australia is a federation. Winterton himself notes that the Governor-General has no constitutional role within the States, and of course the States don't do foreign affairs - that's an exclusive function of the Commonwealth under s51(xxix). As a "legal diplomatic state entity" the Commonwealth '''is''' Australia. | |||
| :As to your interpretation of Winterton's views, he's clearly of the "two heads of state" school, because he identifies and names two heads of state, and doesn't use the term "head of state" without qualifying it in some way. ] 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===1988 Constitutional Commission report=== | |||
| ''The Governor-General is in no sense a delegate of the Queen. The independence of the office is highlighted by changes which have been made in recent years to the Royal instruments relating to it". | |||
| The Commission correctly highlighted one notable change in the evolution of the governor-generalship. In 1900 a governor-general or governor was seen as possessing three roles; delegate of the monarch, representative of the monarch, and representative of the British government. The third of these roles was legally abolished by the ] enacted in 1931, which implemented the decision of the 1926 Commonwealth Conference. As new powers, functions and duties were given to governors-general, not just in Australia but throughout ]s since 1931, the Governor-General's delegatory role, as merely a stand-in for the monarch, disappeared, with many roles given to the Governor-General himself or herself. However under Commonwealth of Nations theory, governors-general have continued with the ''respresentative'' role mentioned in Commonwealth Realm constitutions. So while such powers belong to the Governor-General, they do so by virtue of their representational role for the head of state, given that they are appointed by the head of state in all cases, can be dismissed at will by the head of state in all cases, take an oath of allegiance to the head of state and so must in their actions in exercising these functions not break that oath they have taken to the head of state, and have their ability to exercise these functions conferred on them by the act of appointment of the head of state. | |||
| :In point of actual fact, that is quite wrong. You will find, if you go hunting for examples to back up your claims above, that the term "head of state" is not used. That's something you made up and put in as if it were somehow factual. For example, the oath or affirmation used in the Australian Constitution does not say "head of state". It says "Queen Victoria", with a stating "''The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time.''" You will not find the term "head of state" mentioned in the Australian Constitution at all. ] 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Legal textbooks & legal experts== | |||
| :''By Australian law, the Queen is currently accorded the title 'Queen of Australia and her other realms and territories'. The holder of that title is head of state of the Commonwealth and of each of the Australian States, although represented in each of the polities by a different vice-regal officer".''' ''Constitutional Law in Australia'' Second Edition (1996), Peter Hanks. p. 158. | |||
| See also - | |||
| * Suri Ratnapala's ''Australian Consitutional Law:Foundations and Theory'' (2002), | |||
| :Which bit, specifically? ] 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * Professor Brian Galligan | |||
| :Again, I ask for a quote, but may I point out that Galligan doesn't hold the "Queen as sole head of state" position. See Brian Galligan, A Federal Republic: Australia's Constitutional System of Government, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995, pp 21-2 and 245-7. ] 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * Professor George Winterton. | |||
| :Winterton is firmly of the "two heads of state" view. | |||
| *Internationally renouned academic on constitutional law Vernon Bognanor, who is quoted worldwide on such matters, states that the Australian Governor-General "does not have the status of a head of state" in ''The Monarchy and the Constitution'' (Clarendon Press, 1995). | |||
| :That's all very nice, but contrary to the reality. In point of fact the Governor-General, when travelling abroad, has the status of a head of state, as by Sir Zelman Cowen. ] 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * Professor George Williams, a constitutional expert at the University of NSW - the Australian constitution states simply that the British monarch is the Australian head of state. | |||
| :Perhaps you would be so very good as to point out precisely where in the Australian constitution this statement is made? As no such statement exists in the Constitution, I await your inevitable evasion. ] 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| :I love Professor Greg Craven dearly, but may I point out that he has changed his position on this several times and was prominent amongst those campaigning for a YES vote in the referendum? ] 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Academic and legal papers== | |||
| :And what, precisely, is the cite? A reading of the entire document shows that the late McGarvie was of the "two heads of state view". ] 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Views of judges== | |||
| ===Hon. Michael Kirby, Justice of the High Court of Australia=== | |||
| ''There are rational arguments for the system of government which constitutional monarchy establishes - barring ex-politicians (or for that matter ex-judges) from the position of Head of State. In some ways the very absence of the Head of State from Australia creates a system which appeals to some Australians. At the least the system, as such, has overwhelmingly performed as duty - not personal ambition or self-interest - required. We may change it. But we should make ourselves aware of its paradoxical strengths before we do.'' The Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG, Justice of the High Court of Australia. President of the International Commission of Jurists | |||
| ===Sir Anthony Mason, former Chief Justice=== | |||
| ''Interview: ABC TV, 1997'' | |||
| LJ: Many monarchists say that we do already have an Australian Head of State, Sir William Deane. He is our Head of State. He is Australian. | |||
| AM: Well, those people haven't read Section 2 of the Constitution where the Governor-General is clearly described as Her Majesty's representative in Australia. It is nonsense to say that Sir William Deane is the Australian Head of State - much as I would like him to be our Australian Head of State - he just isn't our Head of State. | |||
| What about the view that we have two Heads of State — one the Queen and one Australian, Sir William Deane? | |||
| That's equal nonsense, arrant nonsense. | |||
| :Sir David Smith tears Sir Anthony's opinions to shreds in a rebutting those views, demonstrating that many of Mason's statements are falsehood. ] 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Primary sources== | |||
| ===Australian federal and governmental documents=== | |||
| ====Letters Patent==== | |||
| * | |||
| :Nobody is disputing that the Queen is Queen of Australia. Perhaps you could remove motherhood arguments and save everyone time? ] 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| *( | |||
| ====The constitution of Australia==== | |||
| :Not a document in dispute. I should point out that it does not say that the Queen is head of state, contrary to the claim you quoted above. ] 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ====Diplomatic usage by the Commonwealth - advice to diplomats==== | |||
| ''2.6.1 Form of address of Head of State'' (section heading used) | |||
| Letters of Credence and Letters of Recall should be addressed to the Queen of Australia. In accordance with the Royal Style and Titles Act of 1973, the correct style and title for this purpose is: | |||
| "Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth." | |||
| Protocol Guidelines: Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for diplomats. | |||
| :While there has been no formal reassignment of powers of legation, the actual situation for many years has been that all Australian diplomatic functions are carried out by Australians. The Queen merely asks to be kept informed and plays no other role. Your quote can be seen as supporting both the "Queen as sole head of state" view or the "two heads of state" view in which the Queen is often described as the formal or ceremonial head of state. ] 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| ====Gough Whitlam in 1973 on the Queen of Australia's role with Letters of Credence==== | |||
| ''However, the Letters of Credence which Australian Heads of Mission present to the Head of State of the country to which they are being accredited, and also the Letters of Recall of their predecessors, will continue to be signed by Her Majesty as the Australian Head of State. Her role in this regard will, however, be made much clearer by the proposed amendment of the Royal Style and Titles, whereby the only country named is Australia.'' | |||
| ''Similarly, Letters of Credence and Letters of Recall from foreign countries, being communications between Heads of State, will continue to be addressed to Her Majesty though they will, of course, be accepted by the Governor-General on the Queen's behalf.'' | |||
| ==Comments by Australian politicians== | |||
| ===John Howard, the Prime Minister=== | |||
| "''The Queen is Queen of Australia. However, under our present constitution, the Governor-General is effectively Australia's head of state.''" | |||
| ''Clearly Sir William Deane under the Constitution of Australia effectively discharges the role of Head of State.'' John Howard, ABC TV interview, November 1999. | |||
| :Both clear statements of the "two heads of state view". ] 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===Malcolm Frazer, former prime minister=== | |||
| We’re told also that the Governor General is effectively our Head of State. Well he isn’t and I hope the Prime Minister will forgive me if I say that he also has told us that he is not. Because if he were he would be opening the Olympic Games. John Howard is a traditionalist, he would not want to break the tradition of the Games over many long years, he would want our Head of State to open the Games. The fact that Bill Deane is not opening the Games indicates quite clearly that in the Prime Minister’s mind he is not our Head of State, which of course is accurate. | |||
| :In actual fact, the then Governor-General, Sir William Deane, opened the Sydney Olympic Games. Perhaps you and Malcolm Fraser can wipe egg off each other's faces? | |||
| ===Peter Costello, Treasurer of Australia and respected lawyer=== | |||
| ''Comment No. 1'' | |||
| ''Press conference: October 1999'' | |||
| JOURNALIST:<br> | |||
| Can I just ask you to comment on the statement that the Governor-General is effectively the Head, of State?<br> | |||
| TREASURER:<br> | |||
| Well I think the key word there is effectively isn't it? Once you see a word like effectively interposed, what it tells you is he is not the Head of State and that is true. Now I've been out at Government House and I was out there recently with the Korean President and our Governor-General gave a toast to the Korean President, the Korean President gave a toast to the Queen of Australia and somebody who was sitting next to me said, oh the Governor-General's the Head of State and I said, oh good heavens, the Korean President should be informed, he made the wrong toast. And what's more the Governor-General has advised him to make the wrong toast and the poor Governor-General was sitting there all the time being the Head of State but not knowing it. Now the truth of the matter is that the Head of State is the Queen and we shouldn't shy away from that and a "No" vote means keeping it that way. | |||
| ''Comment No. 2'' | |||
| Public opinion has changed. I do not think the public would regard it right for the Queen to open the 2000 Olympics. But the Queen is our Head of State. | |||
| ===Gough Whitlam, former prime minister=== | |||
| "He holds a great office; he represents the Head of State of our nation.'' Whitlam on Sir Paul Hasluck, then Governor-General. | |||
| ==View of Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia== | |||
| ''Source: Royal website'' | |||
| ''A Commonwealth realm is a country where The Queen is the Head of State. The Queen is Queen not only of Britain and its dependent territories, but also of the following realms: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St Christopher and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.'' | |||
| ==Comparison with the Governor General of Canada== | |||
| ''Since Canada is a consitutional monarchy, the Sovereign (King or Queen) is our Head of State. But since the Sovereign is also the Head of State of 15 other countries*, it is impossible for him or her to be a part of everyday government functions. The Governor General, then, is the Sovereign's representative in Canada but is the ultimate authority in government for the nation. Ever since the Letters Patent of 1947, the Governor General has assumed all of the powers of the Sovereign. Even the presence of the Sovereign in the country does not superceed the authority of the Governor General and therefore the Governor General is 1st on the Canadian Order of Precedence.'' | |||
| ==Diplomatic usage== | |||
| International protocol is quite strict on the categorisation of who is a head of state. ''Only'' heads of state can fulfil certain functions: | |||
| * Treaties are signed either by them or by the government on their behalf. | |||
| * Letters of Credence and Letters of Recall, which legally give someone diplomatic status (including diplomatic immunity) can only be signed by a head of state, issued on the name of a head of state, and received by or in the name of a head of state. | |||
| To symbolise their status, a head of state is honoured by having a toast proposed in their honour at state dinners and banquets. Non-head of state do not receive this honour. | |||
| ===Australian protocol rules on toasts=== | |||
| ''While we are flexible on the order of proceedings our preferred approach is for the Head of Mission to invite the Chief of Protocol to propose a toast. The Chief of Protocol then proposes a toast to the Head of State, followed by the national anthem of the country. The Head of Mission then proposes a toast to "the Queen and people of Australia", followed by the Australian anthem.'' | |||
| ====Some examples of diplomatic reference to heads of state==== | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| ====Toasts to the Queen of Australia as head of state, not to the Governor-General==== | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| :We have your views on toast. Nevertheless, it is up to we the Australian people to say who is our head of state, and the demonstrable fact is that there is a difference of opinion within Australia. Would you change your opinion if we changed our protocol? Would you change your mind if we passed a Head of State Act declaring the Governor-General to be the head of state? ] 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==International views== | |||
| * | |||
| * chief of state: Queen of Australia ELIZABETH II (since 6 February 1952), represented by Governor General Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Michael JEFFERY (since 11 August 2003) head of government: Prime Minister John Winston HOWARD (since 11 March 1996); Deputy Prime Minister John ANDERSON (since 20 July 1999) | |||
| * "Queen Elizabeth II is head of state" | |||
| * 117. In the Commonwealth of Australia, the head of State is, and always has been, the person who, for the time being, is also the King or Queen of the United Kingdom though since 1953 that person has been separately styled and titled Queen of Australia. The Constitution does not refer to the Queen as the head of State. It is nevertheless proper to regard her as head of State because of the role in government the Constitution assigns her. Section 61 of the Constitution vests the executive power in the Queen and declares that it is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative. | |||
| :Again, this is all very interesting, but it doesn't detract from the demonstrable fact that there are three distinct opinions on who is seen as the Australian head of state. You may present as many opinions as you want for one of the three views, but you cannnot alter the fact that there '''are''' other views. In the end, it is we Australians who get to say who our head of state is, and Australian opinion is divided. | |||
| :I also note that you refer to many sources without quoting from them, and that some of these sources are used by people who are directly opposed to your opinion. Perhaps you do not see this as a problem. ] 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Republic referendum== | |||
| The underlying principle of the entire republican debate is the recognition that the Governor-General is not the legal head of state, but merely acts ''as'' the head of state. | |||
| :While I disagree with that statement, don't you see the fact that the republican referendum was decisively rejected by the Australian people as a bit of a slap in the face for your "underlying principle"? Perhaps you think the Australian people voted the wrong way, and it therefore doesn't count. ] 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The principle change proposed was intended to upgrade the Governor-General (probably under a new office name) from merely fulfilling many of the technical functions of a head to state to become the full de jure head of state, with the powers, functions and duties of head of state vested in the Queen of Australia vested instead directly in the new renamed governor-general, so he would cease to be, as Winterton above implied, the Representative of the Queen of Australia and would become the Representative of Australia. | |||
| :In point of fact, the question didn't ask whether the Governor-General was to be "upgraded". Here is the wording: "''To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.''" It would probably help your credibility if you didn't constantly try to reinterpret things away from what was actually stated. ] 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The Governor-General at present is merely the representative of some other head of state, and the representative of Australia ''internally to itself''. A change would see all of the remaining powers, functions and duties denied to him as merely someone acting ''as'' head of state, given to him as of right, not as someone else's representative. That fact would be shown in a changed method of selection, whereby the new office holder would be selected by Australia alone, by whatever methodology, and would not require appointment by an external head of state elsewhere. External appointments by a superior legal office-holder are incompatible with head of state status, as one cannot be head of a state if one is formally appointed to office, and exists in office at the 'pleasure of', another legally superior office holder. In republics, there ''are no'' superior office holders, as all other offices, eg prime minister, cabinet, etc are below one in constitutional status, with one quite literally being the ''head'' of the state. | |||
| :This is all merely your opinion. In point of fact, regardless of what you dictate to us, it is we Australians who say who our head of state is, and opinion within Australia is divided. | |||
| :The Governor-General is not selected by the Queen. He is selected by the Australian Prime Minister, who tells the Queen who to appoint. The monarch has no discretion in the matter, and I refer you to the appointment of Sir Isaac Isaacs by King George V against the wishes of the King. Using your logic, wouldn't the fact that the Prime Minister tells the Queen what to do make him and not her the head of state? ] 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ''The section directly below was added in before by ] and is worth reading again.'' | |||
| == Queen of Australia v British Monarch == | |||
| As Skyring points out, section 2 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) says: "The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors ''in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom''." However, this merely highlights that the Commonwealth Constitution was enacted by the British Parliament, and was intended to make the Federation of Australia binding on the British monarchs. In the Commonwealth Constitution, there is only reference made to "the Queen". | |||
| In the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953 (Cth), the Commonwealth Parliament declared that the monarch in relation to Australia is to be referred to as "Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories": cf. s 2. As far as I have been taught, "the Queen" in Australia is a distinct legal entity from "the Queen" in the United Kingdom. The succession rules to the Crown are the same as they are in the United Kingdom, being set out by the Act of Settlement 1701 (UK) s 1, and received at the time of European settlement. However, due to the Australia Acts 1986 (UK & Cth) s1, any changes by the UK Parliament to the law of succession to the throne will not take effect in Australia. Thus, it is legally possible to have different monarchs in Australia and the United Kingdom. In this respect, the current Australian monarch might currently be the same as the United Kingdom monarch, but they should (and are) treated as distinct entities. | |||
| I refer you to: P Hanks, P Keyzer & J Clarke ''Australian Constitutional Law: materials and commentary'' 7th edn (Sydney: Butterworths, 2004) pp. 464-465. | |||
| One user on this page, Skyring, has consistently maintained that | |||
| * stating that the Queen is Australian head of state is merely expressing a POV. | |||
| :I reject this. I say that stating that the Queen is the sole Australian head of state is a POV, as there are three different views on the question. ] 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * it is a view expressed only by those who don't know what they are talking about and are illinformed. | |||
| :I reject this also. Many of those who make the claim are experts in the specific area of constitutional history, theory and law. What I do say is to point out that the majority of the Australian population see the Queen as sole head of state, and they are generally poorly informed on constitutional practice. ] 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * Those who disagree him have no credible sources to back up their opinions. | |||
| :I have never stated this. ] 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * Many people agree with him that the Governor-General is Australian head of state. | |||
| :I am not saying that the Governor-General is the head of state. I point out that this is the view - out of three different views - of many commentators. ] 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * No credible evidence has been produced by those 'claiming' the Queen is the head of state and the Governor-General isn't. | |||
| :I likewise reject this. Much of the evidence provided by those making this claim is well-sourced and credible. It is a widely-held view, after all. It is, however, just one of three different views. ] 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| As all the above show, in reality | |||
| * the argument that the Queen alone is head of state is not an isolated one, but one shared by the ''vast'' majority of people across the political, legal and constitutional spectrum; | |||
| * given the range of people expressing such views, from the Queen of Australia herself, to successive Governors-General, prime ministers, legal people including former Chief Justices, etc they can not be dismissed as people who don't know what they are talking about; | |||
| * Primary documents support their views; | |||
| * the view that the Governor-General is a head of state is, in the words of one former Chief Justice, "arrant nonsense". | |||
| * Even those that talk about a ''de facto'' head of state do not mean that there are two heads of state. They mean that there is a head of state who is, and someone who ''acts as'' head of state on a day to day basis but isn't actually the head of state. | |||
| * Much of the evidence above has been repeated to him ''ad nausaum'' over 5 archives on this page. More has now been added. In contrast he has failed to offer one credible source to back up his claims. Instead he quoted Smith (whose views were repudiated by the governors-general he served), a couple of magazine articles, comments by a minor league barrister, mispresentations of what Howard, Winterton and others have written, and quotes that actually don't say what he claims they say. | |||
| :You're the one who claimed that me spelling "''defacto''" instead of "''de facto''" was "yet another fundamental error" in my contributions. You've spelt ''ad nauseam'' incorrectly twice over. Perhaps you wish to underscore hyperbole with hypocrosy? | |||
| :The Wikipedian flaws in your position are that you fail to recognise the validity of any view other than your own, you consistently abuse and denigrate those who disagree with you, you inject your own interpration and opinion into just about every cite, and you fail to acknowledge error. You aren't any sort of neutral editor, you are a fundamentalist zealot. ] 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| ==Dealing with Skyring's behaviour on wikipedia== | |||
| It is a pity to have to waste so much time disproving Skyring's patently inaccurate claims. | |||
| :One gets the impression from the comments you make to other editors on their talk pages that you don't see your contributions to this discussion as "a pity" or "a waste of time", but rather as entertainment, a piece of theatre to be enjoyed. | |||
| :Nor have you disproven my claims. I claim that there are three positions on the question of Australia's head of state, and I merely quote from the statements of those who hold those different opinions. Perhaps you think that when I point out an error on your part I am making a "patently inaccurate claim" because you are incapable of error? ] 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Most wikipedians, when they realise that they have been wrong, and have been demonstrated to be wrong by every person on the page, stop forcing their views as gospel. | |||
| :May I make the comment, after wiping my screen clear of coffee, that you should look into the mirror and try to say that with a straight face. I don't say that everything you claim is wrong, but a lot of it is! ] 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| In view of Skyring's patently obvious failure to offer ''any'' credible evidence to back up his personal theories, I think we should just move on, and simply revert any more rubbish edits on the point of the supposed headship of state of the Governor-General. If he continues to insist without any evidence that he is right and try to overrule everyone else and force his opinions on the article, we should treat him as a vandal, and request that he be banned from wikipedia. <font color="#006666">'''Fear'''<font color="#FF6600">'''''ÉIREANN''''']\<font color=blue><sup>]</sup><font color=black> 14:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you '''seriously''' trying to claim that I am stating either here or in the article that the Governor-General is the sole Australian head of state? It seems to me that you are, and I reject your claim entirely. I suggest that you are operating under a delusion. ] 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Arbitration discussion and vote== | |||
| As the earlier page, plus the new stuff, went well over 32K I have moved the arbitation and vote stuff to an archive page. It is linked below. <font color="#006666">'''Fear'''<font color="#FF6600">'''''ÉIREANN''''']\<font color=blue><sup>]</sup><font color=black> 14:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :While I thank you for that, may I point out that the 32K limit is somewhat outmoded nowadays, and Adam has been doing a bloody good job of archiving this page so far. Two of your archive links point to the same empty page, for example, and while I am sure that you can fix that in time, at least when Adam links to something you may be sure of getting there. ] 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yet another bit of Pete fiction. The 32K limit is there because many browsers still have difficulty editing articles over that size. | |||
| :::Many '''outmoded''' browsers. ] 00:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::But then, when you have spent 6 archives making ludicrous claims it would be a bit much to expect you to understand the rules of wikipedia when you don't ''even'' understand your own constitution. <font color="#006666">'''Fear'''<font color="#FF6600">'''''ÉIREANN''''']\<font color=blue><sup>]</sup><font color=black> 23:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * ] | |||
| I could have put more effort into this, but everyone here has heard most of the arguments already, and I suspect that most of the contributors to this page (as opposed to those merely lurking) have made up their minds already. ] 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :They have made them up on the evidence, and concluded, universally, that you don't know what you are talking about. But then you have showed that consistently over 6 archives. But we are all still waiting for your supposed evidence. But if it is anything like your half baked, illinformed, constitutionally nonsensical contributions in the past, it probably won't be worth getting anyway. <font color="#006666">'''Fear'''<font color="#FF6600">'''''ÉIREANN''''']\<font color=blue><sup>]</sup><font color=black> 23:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unfortunately, it dosen't look like the threshold for Arbitrators voting to accept the case will be met. ] 23:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| Thanks ro Jtdirl for his efforts, but I for one no longer have the time, energy or patience to read or write any more of this stuff. I will wait and see what the ArbCom does. If they ban Skyring from editing this and similar articles, well and good. If they don't, I will remove them from my watchlist. I'm not prepared to get myself banned through endless revert wars. If Misplaced Pages is incapable of defending itself against crackpots like Skyring it doesn't deserve to succeed. ] 23:55, 26 May 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