Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:29, 22 December 2004

***

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. Martyman 05:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Departments (and major Authorities)

The principal Government internet portal is www.fed.gov.au.

Ministers administer the following Departments. Look at each site for details of the Ministers and subsidiary organisations.

• Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF)
• Attorney-General (A-G)
• Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA)
  • Australian Communications Authority
• Defence
  • Royal Australian Navy (RAN)
  • Australian Army (ARA)
  • Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF)
• Education, Science and Training (DEST)
• Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR)
• Environment and Heritage (DEH)
• Family and Community Services (DFACS)
  • Centrelink
• Finance and Administration (DFA)
• Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT)
• Health and Ageing (DHA)
• Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA)
• Industry, Tourism and Resources (DITR)
• Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPM&C)
• Transport and Regional Services (DoTaRS)
• Treasury
  • Australian Prudential Regulation Authority

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 Politics of Australia, plus some lists I threw together. This is not my area of expertise, so be brutal in reorganising and expanding it. - Borofkin 06:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Crest / Logo

I have sent an email requesting permission to use the official Government Crest in the article. Martyman 07:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No response yet. Martyman 02:51, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Commonwealth Public service

Should they pop up in this article?--nixie 05:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The departments are already listed, and definately, yes they are part of the government. Martyman 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. Federal Government of the United States was on I did find. Should this page be Federal?--ZayZayEM 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 --nixie 06:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Perhaps a diambiguation (this appares to be Politics of Australia--nixie 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 California government and politics --nixie 09:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking --ZayZayEM 12:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So are we going to have a vote or something?--nixie 05:27, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No voiced dissent, move going ahead.--ZayZayEM 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. Adam 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 Commonwealth Government of Australia. 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.--ZayZayEM 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. Adam 02:53, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agree with this idea Adam. A short link Australian governments shoudl be palced at the top of Government of Australia which should be extended include a link to Parliaments of the Australian states and territories --ZayZayEM 12:03, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where would the article Parliaments of the Australian states and territories fit in? - Borofkin 22:26, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Parliaments and governments are two different things, but the articles should obviously all link to each other. Adam 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.--ZayZayEM 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. Skyring 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? Skyring

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

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

and, the comments by George Winterton, 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." Skyring

and Sir Anthony Mason, 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 rebuttal 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 this essay that the Queen is Australia's head of state. Even John Howard rejected the claim in his opening address to the constitutional convention:

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 interview 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. Skyring

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--Robert Merkel 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. Skyring 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? Skyring 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. Skyring 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? Skyring 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. --Robert Merkel 02:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Quite clearly there are differing points of view. I suggest that you read your own sources. Skyring 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. Adam 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. Skyring 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. PMA 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. Skyring 02:10, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For someone who says they are a republican your edits to 1999 Australian republic referendum 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. PMA 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. Skyring 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. Adam 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. Skyring 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. Adam 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? Skyring 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 says. Two heads of state. Count them. Skyring 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. Skyring 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. Adam 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? Skyring 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 Skyring 08:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An irrelevant and stupid analogy. Adam 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. Skyring

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. Skyring

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. Adam 08:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

It doesn't, and it doesn't need to, because, as every Const Hist 1 student knows, the Australian Constitution was written at a time when the unwritten conventions of the British Constitution were assumed to apply automatically to the self-governing Dominions, as Kerr knew from having read Evatt's The King and His Dominion Governors. These conventions have been carried over into Australian constitutional theory and practice. That is what the expression "reserve powers" means. Adam 10:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How interesting. The reserve powers equate to constitutional conventions. Do you have a reference for this startling innovation? Lumb seems to think that the reserve powers are those given to the Governor-General which he may exercise without seeking advice, and this seems to be a far more widespread view than your own. For example, s64 gives the Governor-General the power to appoint (and dismiss) Ministers. This is not a convention. It is explicitly stated in the Constitution, it is a power specifically given to the Governor-General in his own right, given to him alone, and it is a power which he exercised without advice from his Ministers, the Executive Council or the Queen on 11 November 1975. Skyring 12:29, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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. Adam 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? Skyring 08:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What you may do is spare us all your cheap sarcasm, which is very tiresome. Adam 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. Skyring 09:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, let's try again.

• The Australian Constitution doesn't name anyone as "head of state."

Thank you. Skyring

This is because in 1901 Australia was not a sovereign state - it was a self-governing Dominion of the British Empire. It became a sovereign state by stages during the 20th century. As it did so, it acquired its own head of state, the Queen of Australia, formally given this title in 1973.

When did she acquire the title of head of state? As you point out, she didn't get it from the Constitution. Skyring

• What is a head of state? It is a person in whom the symbols of the sovereignty of the state are vested, and who stands at the head of the constitutional structure. It can be an executive president, as in the US, an executive monarch, as in Saudi Arabia, a ceremonial president, as in Germany, or a ceremonial monarch, as in Japan.

And this definition came from where, precisely? Skyring

• Who is this person in Australia?
• The Queen is vested with the symbols of Australian sovereignty.

Do tell? What would these symbols be, precisely? Skyring

Laws are enacted in her name (all statutes begin with the formula "Be it enacted by the Queen"). Ministers, MPs, judges, military personnel (and the GG) swear an oath of allegiance to her. She appears on the coins and banknotes.

So do various animals and other people. Does this make them the head of state? Perhaps we can become a republic by interfering with the Currency Act. Skyring

• The Queen is at the head of the constitutional structure. The Constitution says the the Parliament consists of "the Queen, a Senate and a House of Representatives" and that "the Executive Government of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and in exercised by the GG as the Queen's representative."
• The GG, by contrast, is described as "Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth". How can a head of state be a representative of another person?

In 1901 the Governor-General, as I have pointed out above, was the representative of the British Government, and the use of the term "the Queen" was by way of being a conventional formula. The Statute of Westminster changed this and thereafter his functions as British representative were carried out by the British High Commissioner. If you rely on a literal interpretation of the Constitution, you are going to tie yourself in knots looking for the Inter-State Commission, and wonder why the Governor-General's salary is paid directly to him when the Constitution says it should be paid to the Queen. Nobody, least of all the High Court, imagines that the Constitution means exactly what it says in every respect. Skyring 12:29, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Clearly, therefore, Australia head of state is the Queen of Australia, a ceremonial, non-resident monarch, whose constitutional powers, and even nearly all of her ceremonial functions, have been delegated, in accordance with the Australian Constitution and with evolving practice, to the Governor-General, but whose status has not been changed, except for the formal separation in 1973 of her Australian sovereignty from her British and other sovereignties. Adam 10:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1973, eh? What happened in 1973 that didn't happen in 1953, when she acquired the title of Queen of Australia under the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953? And just quietly, but Australian sovereignty is resident in the Australian people by virtue of s128, and British sovereignty is resident in Parliament, as King Charles I would tell you if only he could.

The assignment of powers mentioned in s2 is extremely limited in scope. Some matters of legation and honours. A complete assignment of powers in relation to the States is not possible as s106 protects the States' constitutional structures. Realistically the Governor-General derives his constitutional powers from the Constitution (and therefore the people) rather than the Queen. For instance, the power to call elections or dissolve parliament could not have been delegated to the Queen, because she never had this power in relation to Australia. It was given to the Governor-General in his own right.

May I suggest to you that you invest in a constitutional primer - any good library will have one - and before you make a statement on constitutional matters, check out your text to see if you are on the right path.

Your argument, such as it is, reflects a very limited knowledge of constitutional history and practice. You are plain wrong in many respects, your arguments are circular, your logic is flaky, and as should be plainly apparent to anybody reading this, you have skipped out on answering questions designed to demonstrate to you your lack of knowledge or logic. I don't presume to be any sort of constitutional expert, but I trust that I have demonstrated, to an informed onlooker if not yourself, that you are not in a position to call yourself an authority.

May I suggest that neither of us are going to settle the issue of head of state here and now, and that there is no need for us to even attempt to do so. I am merely proposing, by reference to acknowledged constitutional experts, to change the first section of the article to reflect the multiple views on who is our head of state. I also propose to delete a lot of the preceding material at the next exchange. Skyring 12:29, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)