Misplaced Pages

--nixie 01:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Constitutional Conventions

The Parliamentary Library has produced an excellent Research Note on the Governor-General's reserve powers. It is not convention that the Governor-General only acts on Ministerial advice, for example. It is the nature of the reserve powers that they are exercised without advice. The case of Prime Minister George Reid in the second Parliament is before us - nobody, least of all Reid, disputed the power of the Governor-General to refuse Reid's advice to call an election or to appoint a new Prime Minister (Deakin), both actions taken against or without advice.

Bryan Palmer's Australian Politics site provides another view of the reserve powers and lists examples of their use - eight times in all since Federation. Constitutional conventions cover more than just the limited circumstance of the Governor-General acting on advice. For example, it is a convention that Australia has a Prime Minister, even though that office is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. Australia has been without a Prime Minister for a short time on a number of occasions following the death of an incumbent, and this could be construed as a breach of the conventions. Pete 21:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Please keep in mind that this article is just a summary, please don't add too much here that should be discussed in the government article. --nixie 23:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

No problem. My edit is more concise and more accurate than what was there previously. Did you want a cite for reserve powers/conventions placed in the article? Pete 00:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea, if you look at the article in edit mode you should be able to work out how the footnote system works. --nixie 00:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Heh! I'll do my best with my limited faculties. Pete 00:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Independence/Statute of Westminster

Should the date of the Statute of Westminster in the Independence section in the infobox be the date it was adopted by the Commonwealth Parliament, rather than the date the British Parliament made it available to us, seeing as it didn't apply to Australia till it was accepted? (according to the Misplaced Pages article on it). If so, should it be the date it was adopted, or the date it was backdated too? Felix the Cassowary 12:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It should clearly be 1942.Tony 05:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

"nominally" in religion paragraph

I keep on changing this but I am not attached to any alternative wording. Basically, I truly believe that saying 75% or so Australians are "nominally" Christian seems like an unreasonably loaded way of describing demographics and seems to imply something about these Australians which is not supported by any facts elsewhere in this article.

There is a serious point to be made here; lots of Australians may describe themselve as Christian but a much smaller portion of those are active, or even occasional, attenders of church. To give some indication about 1.5 million Australians per week attend a Christian church, according a survey. I'll add a sentence to this effect. --Robert Merkel 08:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Additions to history section by Anon

This article has been edited as a summary for clarity, please make additions about the discovery of Australia to the History of Australia before 1901, as they are not necessary in this article. --nixie 04:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's no history involved in possible Portugese voyages, lost caravels and so on. It may well have happened, but as no records remain, it cannot be history. Archaeology, perhaps, if anybody ever finds the ship. Worth a mention somewhere, because it's eminently plausible (and there's that tantalising mystery of the "Mahogany Ship"), but not in this article. Pete 05:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Pete. Tannin 08:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

References

I recently made some changes to the article, re-adding a reference and information on the republic referendum. In re-adding the reference, I think I may have messed up the existing ones when amending the numbering. Could somebody check if this is so and let me know whether I need to revert my changes.--File:Australia flag large.png Cyberjunkie 12:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yep, they're all messed up, one problem with this ref system is that numbering needs to be manually changed and some of the refs are used more than once. I'll revert and add the referendum ref to the history section and adjust the notes (I'm getting good at it)--nixie 12:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks nixie. I really should have reviewed Footnote 4 before fiddling around and buggering it up. --File:Australia flag large.png Cyberjunkie 14:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aboriginal population

The article shows an increase of about 300% in 24 years. Obviously this can't have come from immigration, and I haven't done the maths, but I think that the birthrate needed to sustain this sort of increase is pretty much beyond any human population. The large and anomalous increase is mostly because Aboriginal Australians now feel far more comfortable about declaring their Aboriginality on census forms - a very positive sign IMHO, which says a lot about changing community perceptions. Reductions in infant mortality and increases in longevity also account for a portion of the increase. I think that the article should mention this because otherwise someone's going to say "hey, they must breed like rabbits!" and that's not the case. I've added a hypenated word to help explain this, but it's really a subject that deserves more detail, which may be inappropriate in this "overview" article. Pete 07:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aboriginal hunter/gatherers...

WRT Skyring's last edit, there's archaeological evidence to suggest that in some places near rivers Aboriginal people farmed fish. --Robert Merkel 07:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From my understanding they also had pretty extensive trade routes--nixie 07:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but trade routes and fish traps don't make for agriculture. The only indigenous Australians to be farmers were the TSI folk, who had plots of land marked out by stones and passed down through family lines, which was the incontrovertible evidence of ownership needed for Mabo. Perhas we can say "Most indigenous Australians were hunter-gatherers..." Actually, I'd really like some specific mention of the way that TSI folk cultivated their land and grew crops, because it's important to understanding Mabo, and why it was such an injustice to say that these people didn't own the land they'd farmed for centuries. Pete 07:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we are talking about more than a simple fish trap here. We are talking extensive construction - i.e., fish farming. Certainly that was the case in South-west Victoria, and I believe that there was similar activity up along the Murray. Tannin 08:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interesting article, and thanks for the link. However it's still fish traps rather than fish farming. Eels are oceanic creatures for most of their existence. You can't farm eels, you can only catch them as they migrate up or down the rivers. Digging out channels between ponds would make it easier to catch them as they moved along the channels.

The existence of circular foundations for huts is actually more interesting. You don't build substantial housing unless you plan to stay there for more than a few nights. I think that saying there was enough of an industry in catching and smoking eels to sustain a village of hundreds of houses, making for a permanent community of up to a thousand individuals, is a bit of a stretch, however. Presumably they also caught other wildlife from the wetlands and perhaps traded with more distant tribes. A thousand people eat a lot of tucker.

But even if you have an aquaculture industry, exporting smoked eels across Australia, which sounds reasonably plausible, just what percentage of the Aboriginal population would have been engaged in such pursuits? And if it was a viable lifestyle, why didn't it persist until historic times?

Anyway, I think the wording of "Most indigenous Australians were hunter-gatherers..." works better than the "primarily hunter-gatherers" phrase because the former includes TSI people as well as the eel-smokers and doesn't give the impression that all Aboriginal Australians were sometimes farmers, which is definitely not the case.

Comments? Or am I making a meal out of a word or two, as I tend to do? Pete 08:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've added a sentence distinguishing the TSI from the mainland native people, since they are completely distinct. --nixie 09:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I've had a bit of a tweak, but maybe it can be improved still more. It's perhaps a bit of a quibble to note that the TSI folk also lived on the mainland - they were gradually expanding southwards at the time of European settlement. However, that's probably best left to a specific article - this one is getting a bit longish and I'm thinking it doesn't need more material so much as arranging what we have better, eliminating redundancies if any can be identified. Pete 09:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eels are not usually oceanic, Pete. The eel species in question is the Short-finned Eel. Like most others, it spends by far the greater part of its lifecycle in a home range area, typically a lake or a stretch of river. It makes just two migrations: in the first it travels from its oceanic hatching ground far off in the tropical South Pacific and winds up in a river close to the one where its parents lived. (How? Nobody knows.) At this time it's about the size of a bootlace only shorter, and not practical as a food fish (although some people in Europe eat elvers - it's a shocking waste of natural resources, but there you go).

The second migration occurs only after 15-odd years of growth in a lake or river: the mature eel travels downstream to spawn. Eels of a size worth eating, in other words, migrate once and once only: a one-way trip to the sea, then north to the Solomon Islands where they spawn and die. Catching salmon on the way upsteam to spawn would make sense, but salmon work the opposite way around to eels; salmon are oceanic fish that just happen to breed in rivers, where eels are freshwater fish that just happen to breed at sea.

Back to the topic now: my view is subject to persuasion, but it seems obvious to me that we are never going to come up with a formulation simple enough to use in this context, and yet accurate enough to stand criticsm. It might be better to resolve this point on a page where there is room to deal with it properly. Australian Aborigine or History of Australia before 1901 both seem suitable. Tannin 09:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Racism

• While were at it, someone has objected to the article being featured on the basis that it doesn't discuss racism in Australia. I was thinking of adding something after this sentence In the 2001 census the five largest groups of Australians born overseas were from the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Italy, Vietnam and China from the demographic section. But I can't think of what to add, since the whole Hanson episode there has definately been a push for mulitcultural Australia but I'm lost for a way to describe it.--nixie 09:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My feeling is that there is very little racism remaining in normal life, compared to a decade ago. It's just not that much of a problem that I can see. Lebanese gangs in Sydney, but I suspect a lot of that is talkback beat up. Pete 10:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why "Commonwealth" instead of "Dominion?"

Based upon comparing the governments of the Dominion of Canada and the Commonwealth of Australia, I don't really understand the differences. The idea of a Commonwealth seems to compare directly with that of a Republic, so if the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the Queen of Australia, how can one style Australia a Commonwealth? Would it not be a Dominion as is the case for Canada? And would not the States of Australia likewise be provinces? I honestly don't understand the differences between each of these and if someone could explain them to me, it would be greatly appreciated. Mdkarazim 2 July 2005 03:19 (UTC)

no. australia is not a dominion of the united kingdom. the queen of australia is a different person than the queen of the united kingdom in law. However, it realy doesnt make much difference what you call a place. But you should have complained 106 years ago when they made Australia. Xtra 2 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)

A different way of answering the question... The King of Great Britain and Ireland was the King of Australia at the time of its creation (the constitution refers to a Queen, Queen Victoria, but she died in between the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) receiving the royal assent and coming into force). In the leadup to federation, there had been some debates about being a republic, but those who had a say were generally in favor of remaining a British colony. I don't really know why 'Commonwealth' was chosen over any other term. Although it was originally a calque of Republic, it hasn't always been used with the same meaning as Republic has nowadays. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was an elective monarchy. Australia is a federation; the Commonwealth of Nations is an organisation of states (I spose Australia's definition as a federation opened the doors for it to be used for an organisation of what were originally all monarchies). Edit: in America 'Commonwealth' is used to mean, for whatever reason, something along the lines of colony/territory, but I understand that's a twentieth-century development and not part of the justification for Australia's name. I don't know the justification for Australia's title, though. (Australia was of course still a dominion during its early history; now the correct term is a commonwealth Realm.)

• The States of Australia are so named because our federation was modelled on the United States; other similarities include the names of our federal parliament (the House of Representatives and the Senate) and that residual powers are granted to the States (whereas in Canada they go to the Federal government).

• Canada, on the other hand, was formed in opposition to the US. There are also various (theoretical/legal) differences between the Australian States and the Canadian Provinces, such as their head of state (the Canadian Provinces' practical heads of state are the Lieutenant Governors, representatives of the Governor General, representative of the Queen, appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister; the Australian States' pracitcal heads of state are the Governors, representatives of the Queen, appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Premiers).

• Finally, while the US States which were earlier British colonies as well as the Canadian Provinces were both styled 'province' before their federations (e.g. the Province of New York), the Australian States were called 'colony' (the Colony of Victoria). Evidently they needed to be renamed, and why choose the Canadian 'Province' when the American 'State' was the model?

• It should also be noted that 'province' has had some currency in the Australasian colonies/Australian states + New Zealand. New Zealand had subdivisions called provinces, and Victoria's legislative council (upper house) electorates have been called provinces until the next redistribution.

I hope that gives you some insight into why they're called 'states' and not 'provinces'.

Felix the Cassowary 2 July 2005 10:23 (UTC)

Several territories?

There are only two territiories who elect representatives into Senate.

What are the other territories? Can we just say six states and two territiries?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Bakharev (talk • contribs) 07:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC) diff

Racial discrimination???

I think statement that modern Australia has Racial Discirimination is an extreme POV. Perceived racial discriminations are much better.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Bakharev (talk • contribs) 15:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC) diff

Fine, but I took the comment about refugees out, wihtout some serious comparative context the comment is of little consequence.--nixie 06:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Agree abakharev 07:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The opening two paragraphs

Although many people regard 'Commonwealth of Australia' as an obsolescent term—an undesirable hangover from colonial days—it looks as though we'll have to put up with it as is, emblazoned TWICE across the top of the article, and several times in the rest of the text. One or more contributors clearly feel strongly about highlighting this term. While it IS embedded in the constitution, if we restricted ourselves to constitutional terminology, we'd have to give up words such as 'cabinet' and 'prime minister'. In addition, 'Commonwealth Realm' is, frankly, an arcane term that won't mean much to most readers; I don't understand why some contributors are doggedly insistent on retaining it. These terms create the wrong impression right at the start, in my view.

Aside from that, I'm concerned that the second paragraph of a substantial article on Australia mentions Boigu Island and crossing of the waterway between PNG and Australia; these matters would be better located much further down in the text, to leave the opening as 'broad brush-strokes'. Why not tack the first sentence—'Australia's neighbouring countries include Indonesia, East Timor, and Papua New Guinea to the north, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu to the north-east, and New Zealand to the south-east'—onto the end of the opening para, and relocate the rest?

Tony 06:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Demography, economy

I think the explanation of the economy is weak, or at least incomplete. I've added something about the tax system, but more is required to characterise the Australian economy, particularly in relation to other OECD countries.

Demography needs beefing up with respect to education.

I wonder whether we could remove the bit about AusLan (sign language), which is well and truly being superseded by other methods, including the Cochlear implant. Many hearing-impaired people claim that sign languages are retained through sentimentality.

Tony 07:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)