Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:35, 3 March 2005

Talk:Government of Australia/archive 1

Current debate on whether Australia is a republic

I have edited this article to bring it into line with recent changes to other articles.

Some may be surprised to see Australia described as a republic but that is the case, as unlike the United Kingdom where Parliament is sovereign, in Australia sovereignty resides in the people by virtue of s128 of the Constitution. The Queen neither possesses nor exercises any significant power.

There are several opinions as to whether Australia has one or two heads of state and who occupies that position. As the term is not defined in the Constitution, nor has the High Court been asked that question, I have removed anyt reference to the term, save to point out that the Governor-General exercises the powers of a head of state, which he does, those powers having been given to him by the people in the Constitution. The Queen's role has diminished over the years since Federation and her sole remaining function of any importance is to appoint the Governor-General, which is essentially a rubberstamp power exercised on the sole advice of the Australian Prime Minister.

I have clarified the paragraph on the 1999 referendum. The proposed president was to assume the position and powers of the Governor-General, not the Queen. Skyring 06:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no difficulties with Skyring's edits, except his eccentric opinion that Australia is a republic. This is contrary to the established modern usage of the word republic, which is a state whose head of state is a president, as opposed to a monarchy, constitutional or otherwise. Australia's head of state is the Queen of Australia and it is therefore a constitutional monarchy. Adam 06:09, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The position of head of state is a matter of opinion and should be labeled as opinion if you wish to include it. The republic article says "A republic, in its basic sense, is a state in which sovereignty derives ultimately from the people (however defined), rather than from an hereditary principle." This is hardly a new or surprising notion. Skyring 06:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not responsible for the content of the republic article. The generally accepted meaning of the word in this context is a state whose head of state is a president, and it is generally counterposed to a monarchy, a state whose head of state is a monarch. Australia's head of state is the Queen of Australia, and Australia is therefore a constitutional monarchy. That is why we have the Australian Republican Movement and Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy. Skyring cannot simply redefine the word to suit his theories. If Australia is a republic then so are the UK, Sweden, Japan etc. This in effect renders the word meaningless. Adam 07:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Later: I have now read the republic article, which is not very good and is locked for some reason. But it makes it clear that my definition of republic is the correct one, when it says: "In modern times, the head of state of a republic is usually formed by only one person, the president, but there are some exceptions such as Switzerland, which has a seven-member council as its head of state, called the Bundesrat, and San Marino, where the position of head of state is shared by two people." And again: "It is not necessarily the case that republics are more democratic than monarchies or vice versa." The article clearly accepts that republics and monarchies are counterposed categories. Adam 07:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's definition of republic, quoted above, includes Australia. Your definition looks to be out of step with Misplaced Pages's. Are you proposing that we have two definitions, one for Australia and one for the rest of the world? You say that if Australia is a republic then so too are the UK, Sweden etc. As I have pointed out, Australia's arrangements are quite different to those of the UK. In Australia, the ultimate authority resides in the hands of the people and we are, therefore, a republic. This is not true for the UK, Sweden, Japan, etc. As for the ARM and ACM, using partisan views for an objective definition is a very dodgy proposition. I am happy to go along with Misplaced Pages's definition and I suggest that if you believe your view is superior, you alter the Misplaced Pages article. Skyring 08:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When it is unlocked, I will. Ultimate authority lies in the hands of the people in the UK just as much as it does in Australia. So if Australia is a republic, so is the UK. In fact they are both constitutional monarchies. You are using a 19th century definition of "republic" as a synonym for "democracy," but that is not the way the word is now used. I cited the ARM and ACM is evidence that in general usage the terms "republic" and "monarchy" are antithetical. Adam 08:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please don't cram words in my mouth, Adam. It just gives me the opportunity to spit them out. In the UK, parliamentary sovereignty applies. This is not the case in Australia, where the ultimate authority rests with the people. Both are democracies. I am not using republic as a synonym for democracy. I am looking at the ultimate source of power. We the people drew up and approved our constitution in a process that is, so far as I know, unique. The words are ours, they define the basic structure of government, they give powers to various offices, and they may not be changed without the direct approval of we the people. We are a sovereign people and that makes us a republic, even if we dispensed with representative democracy entirely. So long as s128 remains intact, we are a republic. The presence of an all but powerless monarch in our affairs does not alter this fact, and we have long been called "a crowned republic". The Misplaced Pages definition of republic includes Australia, and so long as that remains the fact, I see no reason not to rely upon it, regardless of the partisan opinions of you or the ARM. In point of fact, ACM does not use your definition. Go here and look up their glossary. Skyring 10:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The last time I checked the UK House of Commons was elected by the people. You can expostulate all you like, but the fact is that Australia is a constitutional monarchy and therefore cannot be a republic, and I will continue to revert any edit which says otherwise. Adam 10:45, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Skyring, this argument is well below your usual standard of erudition, and furthermore you won't get any support for this if you insist on having a revert war. You cannot use an encyclopaedia to promote your eccentric theories. Adam 12:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Adam, with all due respect, may I suggest that you do a little research and come up with something other than your opinion and the partisan views of the ARM. My view that Australia is a republic is neither individual nor eccentric. The phrase "crowned republic" has been used to describe our constitutional status since Federation and is an entirely apt way to describe our situation where the monarch holds no real power and the executive power is derived directly from the people and exercised by a non-hereditary officer. The mere presence of a monarch does not negate the republican aspects of our government, which is why I agreed to your reinstatement of the description of Australia as a constitutional monarchy. I added that we were also a republic because both descriptions were true.

Using Misplaced Pages's own definition, we are a republic. Should that definition change to exclude Australia, then and only then should we remove the description of Australia as a republic.

And may I point out that your language is often imprecise and misleading. In what seems to be a response to my mention of Parliamentary Sovereignty, you say that the UK House of Commons is elected by the people. That is correct so far as it goes, but the House of Commons is not equivalent to Parliament, now is it? Furthermore, even if it was, a Government is not bound by the wishes of the people. In the UK as well as Australia, a government may make laws that the people would reject, if asked. Parliamentary sovereignty does not equate to popular sovereignty, and frankly I am disappointed that you should attempt to pretend that it is.

You say you cited the ACM as evidence that monarchy and republic are antithetical, but I gave you a source showing that this is not the case - the ACM holds to the view that we are a crowned republic.

In your third revert, you make an appeal to popular opinion. In constitutional matters, this is an admission of defeat, because the ignorance of the populace on such things is legendary. The Civics Expert Group and the following ANOP survey found that only 40% of people could correctly name both houses of parliament and that fewer than one in five showed some understanding of the Constitution. But you want to replace the result of sourced research with popular fantasy.

Adam, I don't mind if you insert your opinions or those of partisan bodies such as the ARM. All I ask is that you label them as such, and that you don't use opinion as an excuse to remove fact. Skyring 13:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is by far the worst lot of specious nonsense I have seen from you yet, laced with your usual unpleasant snobbery and sarcasm, which I have come to recognise as your standard tactic when you are losing an argument. This absurd line that Australia is already a republic was invented by the monarchists during the referendum campaign as part of their successful effort to muddy the waters about the issues. You have told us that you are a republican, which in an Australian context means someone who thinks Australia ought to be a republic. Now you tell us Austalia is already a republic. Make up your mind.

Briefly:

• If the Misplaced Pages definition of "republic" does not make clear the current definition of the word (a state which is not a monarchy), it is wrong (as are many other things at Misplaced Pages), and I will change it when the article is unlocked.
• Your claim that somehow Australia is a republic but the UK is not is ridiculous. There is no essential difference between the practice of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy in the two countries. Either they are both republics or they are both monarchies. Since they both have a monarch as head of state, they are both monarchies.
• There is no such thing as a "crowned republic." A country cannot be both a republic and a monarchy. A republic is a country whose head of state is a president. The fact that the ACM uses this term is excellent evidence that it is a specious fabrication invented for political purposes.

Adam 23:22, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You just don't get it, Adam. No matter how many times you keep on repeating your own or popular opinion, you aren't going to change the facts. Adding abuse to your hand-waving merely underscores the shallowness of your position. May I once again suggest that you present some research instead of your own opinion?

It was pointed out during the federation conventions that the inclusion of a popular vote in s128 would have the effect of making us a republic. See Quick and Garran on the subject: 'The Constitution is the master of the legislature, and the community itself is the author of the Constitution ... Sovereignty resides in in whom is ultimately vested the power to amend a Constitution of Government'.

The phrase crowned republic has a long history and has been applied to Australia since Federation. It is certainly not the creation of ACM.

Your assertion that There is no essential difference between the practice of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy in is patently incorrect. Two major differences are that the executive power is directly given to an appointed officer, not a hereditary position; and the people rather than parliament hold sovereignty. There are a host of other differences, not least being the fact that Australia is a federation of States, reflected in the composition of the Senate and the way that powers are divided between Commonwealth and State.

Your essential argument is that the Queen is our head of state and we are therefore a monarchy and we therefore cannot be a republic. Both points are weak. Firstly, there is no firm definition of head of state and it is a matter of opinion as to who occupies that position, or whether we have one or two heads of state. At the moment, there is no consensus of opinion. Secondly, your argument that a republic and a monarchy or mutually exclusive rests entirely on your own definition, one that is not supported by Misplaced Pages as it stands. Perhaps you would prefer the Macquarie definition if you don't like Misplaced Pages's?

According to the Macquarie Dictionary, a republic is 1. a state in which the supreme power resides in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. 2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.

That's us, Adam! Skyring 00:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Skyring, you are wrong. It is not possible to be both a constitutional monarchy and a republic, representative/parlimentary democracy are clearly different concepts to republicanism. If you read the republic article you will notice that it says it has only been after the French Revolution that one sees republic being used interchangeably with democracy, they are not however interchangable concepts which is where you seem to have confused your argument, and where your Maquarie dictionary definition is sorely lacking. As always, the superior Oxford english dictionary clears things up:

2. a. A state in which the supreme power rests in the people and their elected representatives or officers, as opposed to one governed by a king or similar ruler; a commonwealth. Now also applied loosely to any state which claims this designation.--nixie 03:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. May I again state that I am not using republic as a synonym for democracy? If you read my comments above, we could remove representative democracy from the Australian Constitution, and so long as s128 remains intact, sovereignty continues to reside in the people, making us a republic. Please read the discussion before jumping in and making a splash. It will save a good deal of time and confusion.

I think you'll have to explain how you see the OED definition as excluding Australia, as we fill all three criteria:

1. the supreme power rests in the people
2. we are not governed by a monarch
3. we are a commonwealth.

Certainly the Queen has a place in the Constitution, but she does not govern us. The executive government is handled by the Governor-General and the Executive Council, and the notion that we are somehow ruled out of Buckingham Palace is incorrect. The Queen has no powers to interfere in our government, but if you think she has, I would be obliged if you were to list them. Skyring 04:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have revised the article to make plain that the term "head of state" is not a matter of consensus, and to note that the Governor-General's executive powers are his own. I have refrained from reinserting republic because it is probably best that we wait until the republic article has reached a state of stability. Skyring 04:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• The Govenor-Generals powers are assigned by the Queen, Chapter 1 of the constitution. The same chapter details all the ways that the GG can dissolve the government etc. The Royal Powers Act, 1953 says that the Queen can do anything that the GG can do, if she is in Australia. In s128 even if the states agree to change the constitution it still must be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent --nixie 08:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Thanks, nixie! No offence, but you'd do better to read some commentary on the Constitution rather than try to interpret the thing as it stands. Some parts don't mean what they say, and others have changed in meaning and effect in response to outside events, such as the Statute of Westminster. First off, s2 seems to give the impression that the Governor-General is only the Queen's agent and he only has what powers she gives him as she pleases. At Federation he was most definitely the agent of the British Crown, a situation which remained for three decades until the relationship between the UK and the dominions changed and thereafter a British High Commissioner took over that function. The Queen's Instructions to the Governor-General were seen as superfluous at Federation and formally withdrawn on advice in 1984. Neither the British Government nor the Queen can issue instructions to the Governor-General in respect of his constitutional powers.

• • The Queen may make an assignment of some of her prerogative powers - that is, the common law powers pertaining to the monarch - but these don't amount to much, relating to matters of diplomatic appointment and honours. The actual constitutional powers of the Governor-General, the power to appoint ministers, dissolve Parliament and so on, are given to him in his own right and not to the Queen. The Queen cannot touch them because she is unable to change the text of the Constitution. Only we the people may do that.

• • You should read the Royal Powers Act again, because it doesn't assign any of the Governor-General's constitutional powers to the Queen, only his statutory powers, meaning those given to him by legislation. Of course Parliament cannot make a law that supersedes the constitution, unless explicitly provided, such as those that govern the conduct of elections. 1975 demonstrated this all quite plainly. The then Governor-General kept the Queen informed, but he did not discuss his intentions with her and she did not issue any instructions to him. He acted in his own right, and while personally I think he should have given due warning to Whitlam and Fraser of his concerns and options, he did not. Although the then Speaker wrote to the Queen, the reply made it quite plain that the executive power of the Commonwealth was in the hands of the Governor-General and the Queen could not intervene.

• • As noted, only we the people may change the Constitution, and though you are quite right to point out that the Governor-General must assent to a constitutional amendment bill, this is merely a formality. The bottom line is that the Governor-General's constituional powers are given to him directly, nobody but he (or an administrator) may exercise them, and nobody but we the people may withdraw or alter them. Skyring 01:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Missing information

Shouldn't the divisions of goverment into three tiers be mentioned in this article? We don't seem to have anything on the distinctions between Federal, State and Local government. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:57, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the long-standing first line of the article may be of some help to you. Skyring 08:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Republic?

What sort of nonsense is this? We are a constitutional monarchy, not a republic. I have unblocked Adam Carr. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The two terms are not mutually exclusive. On the issue of head of state, opinion is divided amongst constitutional scholars. Suggest you read the discussion before diving in. Skyring 06:08, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since the deatils that you are trying to insert into the article based on arguments of 'constitutional scholars' bacically constitute original research, I'd suggest making a much reviled POV fork and sticking them in another article, called Constitutional debate in Australia or something--nixie 08:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. What, precisely, do you see as "original research", and how? Skyring 08:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What Nixie means is that your theory that Australia is a republic is well outside the mainstream view and is therefore unecyclopaedic. Encyclopaedias must reflect the generally accepted view of any topic and not reflect the personal theories of editors. You can't use Misplaced Pages as a hobby-horse for your pet theories. Adam 10:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When talking about constitutional issues, I very much prefer to be correct than in line with the public view, which is usually dead wrong. The fact is that Australia is a republic according to just about every definition beyond the utterly simplistic. You seem to have a problem with this, but you haven't yet come up with any good reason why except that you have a problem with it and lots of other people who wouldn't know a republic from their elbow have a problem with it and people who are pushing a partisan barrow have a problem with it.

Your view of Misplaced Pages as reflecting the generally accepted view is demonstrably false. If you were to ask around, 99 people out of a hundred would say that Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of England. They would be quite positive about their opinion. They would put money on it. Yet Misplaced Pages does not support this mainstream view, nor does any encyclopaedia worthy of the name, because it is simply not true.

Nixie came up with a authorative definition of republic which she thought excluded Australia, but she was wrong because the Queen is not the head of government in Australia. Maybe you'd like to have a go?

Perhaps the solution is for you to come up with a definition of republic that is accurate, excludes Australia, and is acceptable to the editors of the republic article, of which you propose to be one when it is again made available.

How long do you want? Skyring 10:44, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A republic is a state whose head of state is a president and not a monarch. Australia's head of state is the Queen of Australia, a monarch. Therefore Australia is not a republic. QED. Adam 11:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see. Do you have a non-partisan source for your view that the Queen is the head of state? Apart from yourself, of course? Skyring 16:57, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have already quoted the present Governor-General, who said: "Her Majesty is Australia's head of state but I am her representative and to all intents and purposes I carry out the full role." Is he sufficiently non-partisan for you?

Good quote, and I wish I could have found one of Hayden's that wasn't quite so elliptical, but if your ultimate say-so is the Governor-General, does that mean all we need is another Hayden to say he's the HoS and in your eyes the Queen is no longer the head of state? Hmmmm? What if Jeffrey changes his mind?

I accept the point you are making that Jeffrey is non-partisan, but I don't really think he's the source for your view. Personally, I'd be astonished if Jeffrey thought that he was the head of state. As a serviceman he's been brought up to believe that there's always someone in authority over him, he's spent his working life wearing badges with crowns on and the flag, monarch and imperial tradition is in his blood.

It would help if the Constitution wasn't silent on the matter, or if the High Court had been asked the question, but realistically, all we've got is opinion, and the cream of our constitutional scholars have various opinions, often tainted to some extent by participation in the referendum thing a few years back.

My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that we're in a state of transition, as we have been since the days of the old Queen and the scales have been tipping ever more solidly in favour of the Governor-General. The fact that those who say that the Queen is HoS tend to rely on the black letters of the Constitution and to skip over anything since, such as the Statute of Westminster, confirms me in this belief - one wants to say that the Queen is HoS, one pretends that it's 1901 - and that's a rather dishonest sort of way to look at it. I think that as the years pass, we're going to see a lot fewer monarchical symbols around. A new Currency Act when Charles assumes the position, and he'll probably just be on one coin, not all of them. As the old timers die off, there'll be fewer and fewer who want to keep the Royal in Royal Woop-Woop Bowls Club. Fewer to make a Loyal Toast. It's happening all around us every day. And yet you get the zealots at the ARM desperately trying to pump up the role of the Queen, while at the same time saying we don't need her. I really can't see this as a winning strategy. Skyring 04:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We have already had this debate somewhere else, but let me re-iterate:

• The Preamble to the Constitution says: "the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."
• The Constitution says: "The legislative power of the Commonwealth is vested in a Federal Parliament comprising the Queen, a Senate and a House of Representatives." (s1)
• It also says: "The Governor-General is appointed by the Queen" (s2)
• The GG is appointed by the Queen as "Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth," and is authorised to "exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him." (s2)
• Further, Ministers of State are the Queen's Ministers of State and not the Governor-General's Ministers of State. (s64)

Questions for Skyring: If the Queen is not Australia's head of state, by what authority does she appoint the GG? If the GG is a head of state, why is he appointed by a foreign monarch?

Adam 23:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My problem with all of the above is that it's just the two of us swapping personal opinions. None of that says that the Queen is the Head of State - it's just you selecting the bits that pump up the Queen, and you know very well that I can pick out the bits that pump up the Governor-General. Sure, the Constitution is full of stuff about the Queen. That's the way it was in those days. But it's all just symbolism, the real power is placed squarely in the hands of the Governor-General in his own right and he doesn't have to ask the Queen about anything important. The only real role she plays in our affairs nowadays is that she appoints the Governor-General. Does that make her the head of state? i don't think so. It makes her the person who appoints the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister. The republican model that went down the tubes in 1999 changed the title of the Governor-General to President, and gave the appointment function to Parliament. Parliament appoints the President - does that make Parliament the Head of State? Using your own logic.

Now, I notice that you haven't actually provided a source that says the Queen is the head of state. One that can't be rebutted, I mean. Trot out a constitutional expert who says the Queen is head of state, and I'll trot out another who says the Governor-General is, AND I'll throw in one who says they both are.

So where does that leave us? Misplaced Pages-wise, I mean. Do we include all the diverse opinions - or none of them? Skyring 04:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If someone can get a hold of this 'Who is the Australian Head of State?', Research Note No. 1, Parliamentary Research Service, Department of the Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 28 August 1995., it apparently goes over the debate, and may be useful for an article on the Australian head of state. --nixie 04:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think this is the one you're thinking of. It doesn't give an opinion - that's not the Library's job. It just sets out other people's opinions.

Not that one, I've emailed the library for a pdf of the the research note I mentioned--nixie 06:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In reply to Skyring, I suggest the following wording:

The term "head of state" is not used in the Australian Constitution, so the question of who is Australia's head of state is a matter of convention. At the time the Constitution was written, the view that the Queen was the head of state of all parts of the British Empire was so axiomatic that it did not occur to the authors of the Constitution to spell this out. It is the view of most authorities that Queen Elizabeth II, who holds the title Queen of Australia, is still Australia's head of state, despite the great reduction in the role of the Monarch over the past century. The current Governor-General, Major General Michael Jeffery, said in 2004: "Her Majesty is Australia's head of state but I am her representative and to all intents and purposes I carry out the full role." The Queen's role today is, as Jeffery suggests, almost entirely symbolic. As Prime Minister John Howard said at the 1998 Constitutional Convention: "As a matter of law, Elizabeth II is Queen of Australia. As a matter of undisputed constitutional convention, the Governor-General has become Australia’s effective head of state." Some commentators have gone further and suggested that the Governor-General is Australia's head of state in law as well as in practice, but this is not generally accepted.

Adam 05:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where are you getting this "some" and "most" from? Have you done a survey? Nor have you mentioned the majority view - that there are two heads of state - de jure and de facto, or ceremonial and effective. Skyring 05:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The "some" and "most" are my opinions, which are as good as anyone else's and better than most, being based on my close observation of Australian public affairs over the past 30 years.
• It is not the majority view that there are two heads of state. A country cannot have two heads of state (yes yes I know about Andorra and San Marino, but they are not comparable).
• If you did a survey on the question "who is Australia's head of state?", my guess is that 70% would say the Queen, 20% would say John Howard and 10% would say the Governor-General.
• I am trying to suggest a compromise here, because I am in a good mood this afternoon. If you carry on with your carping bullshit I will retract it and we can go back to trench warfare.

Adam 06:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's very gracious of you, Adam!

Point by point. Your opinions, and I'm glad you labelled them as such, are just that. I'd say that I've got a better handle on the contemporary debate amongst constitutional scholars, having attended their lectures, attended conferences, heard them debating for the past ten years. I've spoken with them, asked them questions, corresponded with them. I've literally hung on their words at the Constitutional Convention and read their published opinions afterwards. I have their books on my bookshelf. The simple fact is that very few of them say that either the Queen or Governor-General is the one ambiguous head of state. Most of them are in the middle somewhere and the trend is towards the Governor-General, in line with our continued movement away from British ties.

I don't know why you downplay Andorra and San Marino (and other nations with a plural HoS) unless it is out of rankist behaviour. If a nation is sovereign, then it may do whatever it bloody well wants about its internal affairs. Our constitutional history is unique in many respects, and the fact is that we do not draw upon the British source quite so much as our British Commonwealth siblings such as New Zealand and Canada. The Queen does not play as great a role in either our Constitution or affairs as she does in other dominions. She sits at the top of the tree, but we don't need her authority, nor do we need her direction. We need her to appoint the Governor-General, and that's it - a function, as I have said, that we Australians should do for ourselves.

You can do all the surveys you want. Popular opinion does not dictate constitutional reality. If this were the case, then we could have an unambiguously Australian head of state by simply believing it to be so. I've mentioned the "Queen of England" thing already, but even though 99% of Australians would say that the Queen is Queen of England, this does not, cannot make her so. Citing popular opinion to back up your position, Adam, is an admission of defeat.

As is your use of abuse. You repeatedly skip away from addressing the points I make, and you very rarely provide anything in the way of research. Do you seriously expect me to be impressed by hand-waving and name-calling? Would you be swayed if I resorted to the same tactics? Skyring 00:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since this debate seems to have exhausted itself, I have installed my proposed text as a new Head of state section.

Incidentally, I refer Skyring to the article by Allison Henry on page 13 of today's Age as an illustration of the actual, as opposed to theoretical, usage of the word "republic" in contemporary Australia. Language changes over time, and the "correct" meaning of words is ultimately determined by usage, not dictionary editors. Adam 23:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I take your point, Adam, but it's really a very circular argument when you get down to it. Defining a republic as a state without a monarch says nothing about republicanism itself. What common characteristics link North Korea with Ireland? Iran with South Africa? You want to put everything in the titles and the symbols, but the fact is that despite popular opinion, the Queen doesn't have any great deal of power here, nor does she direct how we do things. I suppose that I should be grateful that you at least accept this, even if you aren't willing to say in public anything that goes beyond the platform of your party. Skyring 00:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You just can't help yourself with your childish and stupid insults, can you? If you knew anything about me you would know that I say a great many things that go beyond the platform of my party: I supported the Iraq war, for one thing. This is not a political question, it is a simple question of usage. The word "republic" has an established modern usage, which is different from the theoretical and archaic definition you tried to foist on this article. What does Iran have in common with Ireland? Their heads of state are presidents, not kings. They are therefore republics. I don't see why this should be so hard for you to grasp. I guess you are just naturally obtuse. Adam 02:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You just can't help yourself with your childish and stupid insults, can you?

Geez, just listen to yourself, Adam!

No offence intended, but if you could just slow down, read what I say, not what you think I say, and take the time to read over your own material and you'll see my point. You aren't addressing the points I raise - just saying the same old thing over and over again and adding abuse, as if that somehow helps your argument.

I take back what I said about you following a partisan line, if you say that's not the case. Skyring 02:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I changed "a matter of convention" to "a matter of contention" to reflect the reality. There is genuine debate amongst constitutional scholars and the wider community as to the identity of our head of state. If you want to say that there is a convention, please state your source - I can point to long usage of the Governor-General being described as the head of state in books and newspaper articles, for instance.

Perhaps it might help if we looked at the published views of constitutional scholars and took a tally. I suggested this some months ago but nothing came of it. Skyring 02:56, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have quoted both the Governor-General and the Prime Minister on the established and conventional view about the respective positions of the Queen and the GG, and that is what the article should reflect. The opening section notes that there are some views dissenting from that convention, and that is all it needs to do, given that this is not actually the subject of this article. I am opposed to encumbering this section with "views of constitutional scholars" on a matter which is tangential to the article. (Especially if, as I suspect, your scholars are David Flint and Sir David Smith). Adam 03:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Either are better than Adam Carr, and neither inclines to the "two heads of state view" which I said was the majority opinion. Do you actually read what I write, Adam, or am I just wasting my time?

My position is that we should leave "head of state" out of the article, but if it must go in, then let's be honest and label the views as opinion. You seem to be trying to push your opinion as established fact, when it isn't. If you want to quote the current Governor-General, then you won't mind if I mention that others have had contrary opinions? Skyring 03:53, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes I read what you write, and yes you are wasting your time, because I will continue to revert your absurd edits. It is not the majority view that Australia has two heads of state. It is the majority view, the conventional view and the correct view that the Queen of Australia is the head of state. If she isn't, what the hell is she? Why does she get to appoint the GG, who according to you is her co-head-of-state? Can you name a country whose head of state is appointed by the head of state of another country? The article has to say who Australia's head of state is, and the quotes from the GG and the PM are in my view definitive on this question - they operate the current system, after all, and if anyone reflects the working assumptions of the system they do. Adam 04:02, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More abuse, no facts. I prove you wrong time and again, and you just pretend it didn't happen. You can't use the popular view, because the people don't know beans about the Constitution, as demonstrated by the Civics Expert Group and any number of polls. You can't use the Governor-General as a definitive source because other Governors-General have had different views, and using your logic, we'd change our head of state with the Governor-General's opinion, a clear absurdity. The opinion of constitutional scholars and the High Court are about as close as we are going to get, and you won't find any consensus there apart from the fact that both Queen and Governor-General are the head of state to various degrees: the "symbolic or formal head of state and the effective or defacto head of state" view. Professor George Winterton inclines to this view, for example, as does the Prime Minister. Professor Greg Craven and Sir David Smith are opposite examples of the "sole head of state" view. There is no consensus, no convention, no definitive statement, and you take too much upon yourself to provide one. Skyring 04:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Answer my questions. And here's another one while you're at it. Why does the GG take an oath of allegiance to the Queen, and not vice versa? Adam 05:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)