Talk:Australian Government: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 09:54, 22 December 2004 editSkyring (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users22,592 edits Ask for facts. Again.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 19:07, 10 June 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk \| contribs)Bots1,374,776 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:Australian Government/Archive 1. (BOT)
(960 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 ==
	Just though I would drop off a list of Government departments I scavenged from the history of the Australian Politics page. Night be useful in the construction of a Government of Australia page here. ] 05:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

			Hello all
	===Departments (and major Authorities)===
			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..."
	The principal Government internet portal is .
			: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:
	Ministers administer the following Departments. Look at each site for details of the Ministers and subsidiary organisations.
			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)
	*
	*
	*
	** ]
	*
	**] (RAN)
	**] (ARA)
	**] (RAAF)
	*
	*
	*
	*
	** ]
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	** ]

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

			Australian - New Zealand Agreement (1944)
	I don't see the point in discussing this any more, so I've made a start on this page. It's just the paragraph on government from ], plus some lists I threw together. This is not my area of expertise, so be brutal in reorganising and expanding it. - ] 06:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

			Happy to discuss <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	I have sent an email requesting permission to use the official Government Crest in the article. ] 07:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
	:No response yet. ] 02:51, 22 Nov 2004 (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)
	==Commonwealth Public service==
	Should they pop up in this article?--] 05:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
	:The departments are already listed, and definately, yes they are part of the government. ] 09:27, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	== Title of Article ==

	I've been tring to look for other "Government of..." pages. Most appear to redirect to "Politics of..." pages. ] was on I did find. Should this page be '''Federal'''?--] 05:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	:Since Australia has multiple levels of government, I think that describing this page as Federal government of Australia would be best --] 06:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	::Assuming no one wants to add information about state governments to this article. ] 06:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	:::Perhaps a diambiguation (this appares to be ]--] 09:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)) page for government of Australia and then Federal government of Australia and the state governments each with their own page along these lines ] --] 09:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	::::Exactly what I was thinking --] 12:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
	:::::So are we going to have a vote or something?--] 05:27, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
	::::::No voiced dissent, move going ahead.--] 12:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	There is no such thing as the "Federal government of Australia." There is the '''Australian Government''', which could also be called the '''Commonwealth Government''' or the '''Government of Australia''' or more formally the '''Government of the Commonwealth of Australia.''' "Federal government" is a colloquial term and should not be used as the title of this article. It should be changed back. ] 13:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	:There is a discussion further up the page. No one seemed to have a problem with it. I am fine with a move to ]. I do beg to differ that Federal government is not a valid term for it as well. But will accept that Commonwealth is better as official name.--] 01:06, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	I didn't see the earlier discussion at the time. "Federal government" is a common colloquialism but it has no official status. "Commonwealth Government of Australia" is also wrong. It would have to be "Government of the Commonwealth of Australia," but that is unnecessarily long. What is wrong with '''Government of Australia'''? There is a country called Australia, and it has a government. That is both the simplest and most correct title. There can be links to separate articles about the governments of the states if people feel like writing them.

	My suggestion is that this article return to the title '''Government of Australia''', and that the new article you have created with that name be renamed '''Australian governments''' and provide links to this article and the state and territory articles. ] 02:53, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	:Agree with this idea Adam. A short link ] shoudl be palced at the top of ] which should be extended include a link to ] --] 12:03, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	:Where would the article ] fit in? - ] 22:26, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	Parliaments and governments are two different things, but the articles should obviously all link to each other. ] 22:59, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	== Lead section ==

	The lead section needs to summarise a lot of the content in the actual article. That is part of what a lead section does. Dates are important parts of this, as well as the extent of the governmental powers. If you feel you can word it better please do so.--] 01:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	Before I alter this section to reflect a more realistic view of who our head of state is, I'd like to call for discussion. This is certainly an area where NPOV is going to have some effect.

	To begin, nowhere in Australia's constitutional documents is the position of "head of state" defined, let alone mentioned. People pushing the view that the Queen is Australia's head of state typically refer to external websites, such as that maintained by the CIA, a patently unsatisfactory position.

	The constitution does not define a head of state, nor has the High Court provided an opinion.

	At the time of Federation, the new Commonwealth was seen as being an integral part of the British Empire, and as such the Governor-General was indeed the representative of the British Government (described as "the Queen"). Those arrangements changed in the period 1926-1931, formalised in the Statute of Westminster, and henceforth the Governor-General was recognised as standing in the same position to the Commonwealth as did the monarch to the United Kingdom. i.e. as head of state. The British Government henceforth provided a High Commissioner to perform the functions previously exercised by the Governor-General, and the source of advice to the monarch on Australian affairs passed to the Commonwealth government. This provided an immediate source of controversy when Australian Prime Minister James Scullin advised King George V to appoint Sir Isaac Isaacs (an Australian-born ex-politician) as Governor-General. The King personally disagreed with the advice, but as there was no other source of advice, he had no option but to accept it. The wording in the announcement from Buckingham Palace reflected his personal displeasure.

	Further developments in the seventy plus years since then have seen the roles of the UK and the monarch in Australian affairs diminish to the point where they are virtually non-existent. The only significant role remaining to the monarch is the appointment of the Governor-General, and as that power is laid down in the Constitution, it cannot be altered without referendum. This power of appointment (and removal) is all but a rubber stamp and it is a widely held opinion that we Australians can do this for ourselves.

	The Governor-General does not act as an agent or deputy of the monarch, despite the impression given by the use of the word "representative" in the Constitution. Inglis Clark and Harrison Moore recognised this at the time of Federation, and the Hawke government belatedly put this into effect by advising the Queen to withdraw her "Instructions to the Governor-General" and to issue new Letters-Patent.

	As can be seen in the Constitution, the Governor-General's powers are laid down in that document and cannot be modified or withdrawn without the consent of the Australian people. s2 of the Constitution implies that the powers of the Governor-General are at the pleasure of the monarch, but this does not and cannot affect the constitutional powers. Only the Australian people can withdraw these powers.

	The most critical power is that of selecting the government. The Governor-General may appoint ministers of state (including the Prime Minister) and these ministers do not even have to be members of parliament, as was the case for the first Commonwealth government led by Edmund Barton. Of course, it is conventional to invite the leader of the lower house majority party to form a government, but this is not always the case, most notably during the second Parliament when neither of the three main parties in the House of Representatives enjoyed a majority and more recently in 1975, when a minority government was appointed for a short time. Though these decisions were questioned at the time, there was no doubt as to the legality of the actions.

	The bottom line is that the Governor-General derives his considerable powers directly from the Australian people, he does not act under instruction from the monarch, and it is entirely fitting that he be recognised as the Australian head of state rather than the all but powerless monarch.

	I intend to alter the article to remove the assertion that the Queen is the sole Australian head of state and to replace it with statements of the two points of view. before I do this, I would like to see some informed discussion on the subject. ] 23:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	:The view that the GG is head of state is very much a minority one

	::Do you have a source for this comment? ]

	:made mainly by David Flint and David Smith, and only when the possibility of becoming a republic emerged. See the comprehensive rebuttal

	::That's not even a rebuttal, let alone a comprehensive one. ]

	: and, the comments by , professor of constitutional law at the University of Sydney,

	::Professor Winterton's piece is truly a rebuttal in that it addresses the arguments of Sir David Smith, but I find your version of his conclusion is not sustained by the evidence. A summary of his argument merely highlights the fact that there are differing views, and he himself concludes that there are '''two''' heads of state: "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." ]

	:and , former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia.

	::I listened to Sir Anthony put his arguments in a lecture at the ANU Law School some years ago, and frankly I was unimpressed. He seems to think that the Governor-General's constitutional powers stem from s2, when this is clearly not so. Sir David Smith provided a of Mason's opinions.

	:Greg Craven, another prominent legal scholar, currently Professor of Government at Curtin University and formerly Dean of Law at Notre Dame University, states in that the Queen is Australia's head of state. Even John Howard rejected the claim in :

	::''In my view, the only argument of substance in favour of an Australian republic is that the symbolism of Australia sharing its legal head of state with a number of other nations is no longer appropriate.''

	::That word 'legal' again. In fact in an in 1999 John Howard subscribed to the two heads of state view:

	:::"JOHN HOWARD: ''The Queen is the Queen of Australia as a matter of law, but the Governor-General effectively is the head of state."''

	::I find it rather odd that you should try to present the Prime Minister as holding one view when clearly he holds a different opinion. ]

	:The position that the GG is head of state is worthy of brief note, but to present it as an widely-held opinion amongst experts on the topic, or the public, would be a gross mischaracterisation. A fuller discussion of the Smith/Flint position might be appropriate on another page and linked to from this one--] 00:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	::Thank you for taking the time to do some research on this matter, but clearly the evidence you put forward does no more than support the position that opinion is divided between those who view the Queen as undisputed HoS, those who claim that there are two heads of state, and those who see the Governor-General as our HoS. ] 01:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	:::Whether ''you'' are impressed with the arguments made by Winterton, Mason, and so on is not relevant for the purposes of writing a Misplaced Pages article.

	::::I suggest that you are quite mistaken on this point. Much as I'd like Winterton, Craven and so on to collaborate on a Misplaced Pages article, I don't think it's going to happen. Do you? ] 03:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	:::I also think you mischaracterise John Howard's position, but we'll let that one lie for the moment.

	::::How so, precisely? You tried to present him as supporting the Queen as HoS view, but the reality is that he holds to the Two HoS view, as he says in his own words. ] 03:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	::: The ''key'' point I am trying to make is that the overwhelming majority of constitutional scholars and jurists, and politicians in this country - the recognised experts in the area - disagree with you, Smith, and Flint.

	::::As I pointed out, that is not the case. Winterton supports the Two HoS view in the article that you provided as a reference. Where do you get this "overwhelming majority" business from? ] 03:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	::: The NPOV policy explicitly points out that minority views ''do not'' have to be given "equal time", as you seem to think. Unless you can provide evidence that my characterisation of the small minority nature of the "GG is HoS" position, the page should stay largely as it is on this topic. --] 02:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	::::Quite clearly there are differing points of view. I suggest that you read your own sources. ] 03:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	----

	I agree that in practice the GG performs all the functions of a head of state and the Queen performs almost no such functions in relation to Australia. But that does alter the fact that a country cannot have two heads of state (yes I know Andorra and San Marino do, but they are not comparable), and if the GG is Australia's head of state then the Queen cannot be. And if the Queen of Australia is not Australia's head of state, then what is she? So long as there is a Queen or King of Australia they must be described as Australia's head of state, even though that term is not used in the Constitution. It is indisputable that in 1901 Queen Victoria as Britain's head of state was seen by Australians as their head of state also, since the British Empire was seen to be a constitutional unity. This was so axiomatic that it was not thought necessary to state it, which is why no head of state is designated in the Constitution. The Constitution itself was after all an Act of the Imperial Parliament deriving its status from the Queen's Assent. The Statute of Westminster and the Australia Acts have changed the legal status of Australia to that of a fully sovereign state, but they have ''not'' changed the status of the Queen (now styled Queen of Australia). She is Australia's head of state. The GG exercises virtually all her functions, but they are her functions not his. ] 00:40, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	::The meaning of the Constitution alters over time depending on the rulings of the High Court. For instance, without any alteration in the Constitution to that effect, the High Court found in Sue vs Hill that the United Kingdom was a foreign power, when clearly it had not been at the time of Federation. So too has the role of the monarch diminished over time to the point that the Queen is a foreign monarch in a distant land and has no real power in Australia. The reality is that the Governor-General is given his powers by the Constitution, they are given to him and not the Queen, and the Queen cannot do anything about this. Only we the people can modify or remove or add to the Governor-General's constitutional powers. ] 01:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
	:::Skyring we know you are a conservative and a monarchist but please stop trying to push that POV into articles under the guise of "NPOVing" them - there have been multiple complaints about your behaviour. ] 01:36, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	::::Your ill-informed speculation is not helping the discussion. I'm a republican. I have made this point repeatedly in public forums since the referendum, and I joined the ARM in 2000. I support the removal of the Queen from our affairs. I make no apologies for being a conservative republican - I believe that minimal changes to our constitution are far more likely to gain approval from the people than complicated and wide-ranging reforms, such as the addition of a directly elected president to our Westminster system of government. ] 02:10, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
	:::::For someone who says they are a republican your edits to ] certainly slanted the article towards a monarchist POV - pointing out the "flaws" in the model while not pointing out the "no" case's use of fear tactics etc etc. Please do not try to insult me - i have only acted on complaints from other people. ] 02:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	::::::Pardon me if I correct errors. Scare tactics are a given in any constitutional referendum, but the overwhelming reason why the 1999 referendum failed is because the model was deeply flawed. In particular, it rebadged the Governor-General as President but introduced complex methods of appointment and dismissal, at variance with the perceived image of how a President should be appointed and dismissed, namely that we should follow the example of the USA, the republic most familiar to the voters. I was a member of the Press Gallery during the convention and I watched as the ARM took a reasonable model and proceeded to amend it so as to secure the support of non-ARM delegates. The end result was quite accurately described as what you'd expect from a committee, and the public gave it the treatment it deserved, despite majority public support for a republic.

	::::::I am not trying to insult you, but I have been less than impressed at your assistance to a new member of the team. I thought that discussion and negotiation was a key aspect of the Wiki community. You may also wish to suggest a better place for this current discussion than an article's talk page, but I am happy to follow your example. ] 02:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	The issue is not the Queen's powers but her status. Her status is that of Queen of Australia. A Queen, a monarch, is by definition a head of state, and therefore no-one else can be head of state, regardless of their powers. The fact that the Queen has no power does not alter that. The King of Sweden has no power at all, he does not even give Assent to bills, but he is still the head of state. ] 02:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	::I don't think you can accurately describe Australia as a kingdom. Furthermore, the consensus of expert opinion seems to be that there are several opinions. Winterton does a fine job in highlighting this. ] 02:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	I didn't say Australia is a kingdom. I said it is a country whose head of state is the Queen of Australia. I have no objection to the article noting (not in the lead paragraph) that there is a small minority who argue that the GG is "really" the head of state. But the article must state the facts as they are. ] 03:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	::You used Sweden as an example. Sweden is a kingdom. It does not have a Governor-General with strong constitutional powers. As for the issue of who is head of state, it seems to me that there is a small minority of informed opinion holding the view that the one and only head of state is the Queen. The majority expert opinion seems to be that there are TWO heads of state, and the Governor-General is the ''de facto'' or effective head of state, as opposed to the Queen as "formal" or symbolic head of state.

	::The Queen as one and only head of state view is a partisan view nowadays amongst those who know something of our constitutional affairs, most frequently used by those who want to inflate the role of the Queen so as to provide some sense of urgency to remove her. As I've mentioned elsewhere, it is ironic that republicans seem to want to inflate the role of the foreign Queen and downplay that of the Australian Governor-General. As the position of head of state is not defined in any constitutional document, it is up to we Australians to say who we see as our head of state. I'd rather give my respect to an Australian than a foreigner. Wouldn't you? ] 04:05, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	You say: "there is a small minority of informed opinion holding the view that the one and only head of state is the Queen. The majority expert opinion seems to be that there are TWO heads of state, and the Governor-General is the ''de facto'' or effective head of state, as opposed to the Queen as "formal" or symbolic head of state."

	This is rubbish. No country can have two heads of state, and I have never seen any informed person suggest that Australia does.

	:"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." That's what Professor George Winterton . Two heads of state. Count them. ] 06:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	There is a reasonable argument that the GG is a ''de facto'' head of state, and the article should mention that. But it is irrefutable that the Queen is the ''de jure'' head of state.

	:That's two, count 'em, two heads of state. As to whether the Queen is the ''de jure'' head of state, you or I aren't going to find any solid constitutional statement of this, nor anything definitive from the High Court. So how do you suggest I refute your view? Using the same logic, you cannot prove correctness either, save by appealing to opinion.

	:In any case, whether a spouse is ''defacto'' or ''de jure'' doesn't alter the fact that the spouse is a spouse. ] 06:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	You say: "The Queen as one and only head of state view is a partisan view nowadays amongst those who know something of our constitutional affairs, most frequently used by those who want to inflate the role of the Queen so as to provide some sense of urgency to remove her."

	This is also rubbish, and obviously fuelled by your political agenda. ] 04:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	:It is a statement of fact. Please list those informed, non-partisan Australians who say that the Queen is our one and only head of state. You say my views are rubbish and that is your opinion. You declared earlier: "But the article must state the facts as they are." I now ask you to provide facts rather than opinion. Can you do it? ] 06:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	A country can only have one head of state, and that person can only be the ''de jure'' head of state.

	:A person can only have one spouse, and that person can only be the ''de jure'' spouse. Yeah. Right ] 08:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	::An irrelevant and stupid analogy. ] 08:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	:::I see. I use exactly the same logic as you. Yet my logic is "irrelevant and stupid" and yours "is all that needs to be said about this". I look forward to your explanation of this apparent discrepancy. ]

	What we have in Australia is a head of state, the Queen of Australia, whose functions are exercised by someone else, the GG.

	:I see. What function of the Queen was Sir John Kerr exercising when he dismissed Gough Whitlam on 11 Nov 1975?

	:I'll tell you. None. The Queen does not have the power to appoint or dismiss an Australian minister of state. She doesn't have the power to call elections. The Governor-General is given those powers and others in the constitution. Sir John Kerr didn't receive instructions from the Queen, he didn't ask her advice, he didn't even inform her beforehand. He acted on his own authority and nobody but you reckons otherwise. ]

	::He was exercising the reserve powers of the Crown, which he held by virtue of being the Queen's representative in Australia, as is stated in the Constitution. ] 08:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	:::I see. Please show me where, precisely, the Constitution lists or mentions "the reserve powers of the Crown".

	That makes the GG in a sense a ''de facto'' head of state, but does not make him "the head of state." There is only one head of state, and that is the Queen. This article must make that statement. That is all that needs to be said about this. ] 07:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	:All you are doing is repeating your opinion, and may I observe that no matter how many times you repeat it, or how forcefully you may put it, it is merely an opinion, and an incorrect one. May I suggest, with the greatest respect, that you leave it for someone who knows what they are talking about? ] 08:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	What you may do is spare us all your cheap sarcasm, which is very tiresome. ] 08:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	:I ask for facts, I get opinion. When I point this out and ask for facts again, I get abuse. Let's look on this discussion as a learning experience. I'm more than willing to be instructed if you have anything to say. ] 09:54, 22 Dec 2004 (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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Politics Top‑importance

	Australia portal Australian Government is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Top-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Name

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

I disagree with your summary of Twomey's argument. Under "Confusion and Reality" she firstly discusses the confusion about whether the the Royal Styles and Titles Act applied to the states due to the use of the ambiguous term "Australia". She then states "The Whitlam government, however, had a policy of using the term 'Australia' rather than 'Commonwealth' as a means of glossing over the differences between the Commonwealth and the States and attempting to aggregate power to the Commonwealth. Thus it was later argued that the 'Queen of Australia' must be advised by her 'Australian' Ministers..."

She does not state that the government had this policy "so that" the Queen would only consult Commonwealth ministers in relation to the states. She states the government had this policy and "thus it was later argued" that the Queen should only consult Commonwealth ministers. Your wording implies that the government had this policy in order to support arguments in relation to the Queen, where that was only part of a broader desire to increase Commonwealth power. This is seen in the first sentence, where the glossing of the terms "Commonwealth" and "Australia" in relation to the Royal Titles Act is an assertion of that Act's applicability to the states in a way that doesn't involve the issue of whether the Queen is to consult with British ministers regarding the states. Safes007 (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that whoever first wrote this sentence has taken an isolated sentence of Twomey out of context to imply that the Whitlam government's decision to adopt the term Government of Australia was a crude attempt to increase Cth power at the expense of the states. One needs to read the whole book and Justice McHughs introduction. Remember, we are talking about 1973. The question was whether when acting in relation to Australia (the Cth and states) the Queen should act on the advice of her British ministers or Australian ministers (Cth and State). Many state governments were lobbying the Queen to say that she should act on the advice of State Ministers in relation to state matters. The British Foreign Office was of the view that the Queen should act on the advice of her British Ministers and that British interests should override the interests of the Australian states. Buckingham Palace didn't want to be put in the situation where they were given conflicting advice from the Cth government and state governments so were happy to agree with the FO that the Queen should receive advice from the British FO. Whitlam argued that the Queen should be advised by the GG (who was in turn advised by the PM) on matters concerning the Cth and the states but that the GG would act on the advice of the states in matters concerning the states. The issue was only resolved by the Australia Acts of 1986. My preferred solution would be to drop the whole discussion because it is too technical and complicated for a high level article like this. All that needs to be said is that the Whitlam government officially adopted the term Government of Australia in 1973. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you are adding too much of your own analysis. I think the the plain reading is the page is that Twomey is suggesting that the policy of the government was to use the term Government of Australia, at least in part in an attempt to increase federal power over the states. The page cited belongs to chapter 9, which discusses the Royal Styles and Titles Act, not the dispute you are talking about conflicting sources of advice to the Queen. There is nothing in the surrounding chapter that suggests that the policy change was made in relation to the dispute as to which ministers the Queen should seek advice from as the sentence currently suggests. I think we only risk getting too technical and complicated if we attempt to artificially seek to limit what Twomey is suggesting in the source. Safes007 (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I doubt that Anne Twomey is so ingorant to think that the Cth government can increase its power over the states simply by rebranding itself the Australian Government: to do that it would have to gain a new head of power by referendum or convince the HCA to interpret an existing head of power more widely. Indeed Twomey doesn't mention the term "Government of Australia" or "Australian Government". Her examples are of "Queen of Australia" and "Australian ministers" and refer to the government's attempts to persuade Buckingham Palace to rely on the advice of the Australian government as opposed to the British Government in matters pertaining to the Australian states. You will note that I changed the page reference to pp 113-14 in which Twomey gives the examples of the seabed petitions and the Royal Styles and Titles Act and covers the broader point of British/Australin relations. The Whitlam government introduced the term "Government of Australia" in order to promote an Australian national identity in contradistinction to a British one. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

What do you therefore suggest Twomey means in her paragraph on pg 113?. It begins with explaining that the application of the Royal Styles and Titles Act to the states is confusing, as the government used the term "Australia" instead of "Commonwealth of Australia and its territories". Directly following this, she states: "The Whitlam government, however, had a policy of using the term 'Australia' rather than 'Commonwealth' as a means of glossing over the differences between the Commonwealth and the States and attempting to aggregate power to the Commonwealth. Thus it was later argued that the 'Queen of Australia' must be advised by her 'Australian' Ministers..." It seems very unlikely that Twomey is suggesting that the phrase "Australia" was used in the Royal Styles and Titles Act solely in order to convince the British to transfer authority to the Commonwealth as that act had nothing to do with them. It seems far more likely that Twomey is referring to a general policy of the government that was also used in relation to the British.

Also, I think your identification of the High Court interpreting powers more broadly is exactly how the use of the phrase "Australian Government" could increase the power of the federal government. Whitlam was relying on the newly interpreted "nationhood" power for the Royal Styles Act and was instrumental in popularising the expansive view of s 51 powers that was ultimately taken up by the court. An assertion of the federal government with the whole of Australia and not just the "Commonwealth" could lead to a more expansive interpretation of powers. Twomey could also be simply referring to a non-legal assertion of the importance and authority of the government to act in areas not traditionally seen as a federal responsibility.

Additionally, if a source states that the Whitlam government introduced the term "Government of Australia" in order to promote a distinct Australian identity, that should be added to the page to avoid NPOV, but it shouldn't be used to give a restricted view of the Twomey source. That would involving favouring one source over another. Safes007 (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we are getting into constitutional matters rather than sources. I have reworded the sentence to focus on the actual use of the term "Government of Australia". I have added a source, John Curran's The Power of Speech. Entrenching the term Australian Government in legislation was inextricably linked to the whole "new nationalism" policy of the Whitlam government which was aimed at getting rid of "colonial relics" and forging a new Australian identity which wasn't based on race or subservience to Britain. But it's a long story which doesn't really belong here. Let me know if you have problems with the wording. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit. I’m happy with it. Safes007 (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Australian - New Zealand Agreement (1944)

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

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

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

Categories: