This is an archive of past discussions about Australian Government. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Skyring has repeatedly accused me of deliberately misquoting the Constitution. Here is section 2 of the Constitution, cut-and-pasted from the Parliamentary website.
2. A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may 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.
Now: does Skyring dispute that this is indeed the text of the Constitution? Does he deny that the Constitution says that (a) the Queen appoints the Governor-General and (b) the Governor-General is the Queen's representative? Given these two things, in what capacity does the Queen appoint the GG? And in what capacity is the Queen represented by the GG? If Skyring wants to deny that it is the capacity of head of state, he has to tell us what other capacity could it possibly be. Adam 01:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You stated that the Constitution says something it clearly does not. You said "the fact is that the Constitution says the GG is the Queen's representative". This is not a fact. It is incorrect.
"SHALL BE HER MAJESTY'S REPRESENTATIVE" WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOU? CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND PLAIN ENGLISH? Adam 02:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Calm down, Adam. Please. You misquoted the constitution, as I pointed out above. I've quoted the exact words you used. In the same breath you accused me of circular arguments, and I asked you to provide examples, none of which have been provided. However, none of this seems to be getting us anywhere. Others have provided useful directions on how to proceed, and frankly I think you should either keep out of the discussion for a while or try to aim for a more professional manner. Skyring 03:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I believe I am entitled to complain if you misquote the Constitution to suit your own purposes. Maybe you think the difference is minor, but if so, then why not use the actual words of the document? You can hardly be mistaken after several corrections, including an extended discussion on this very point in another article so I ask what is your purpose in deliberately misquoting the Constitution?
I suggest that you should really answer a few of the questions I put to you before demanding I answer yours. Be fair. Skyring 01:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I said: "the Constitution says the GG is the Queen's representative." The Constitution says: "A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth." How is that a misquotation??? I really have no idea what you are talking about. Adam 03:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's a misquotation because the words you used are not in the Constitution. Keep going. Skyring 03:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I see. Such stupidity from someone of some evident intelligence is sad to see. Adam 04:05, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's not a misquotation, it's a paraphrase, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Otherwise we would just copy the text of the Constitution and not write articles. --Michael Snow 04:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's a misquotation. Adam says it is a fact that the Constitution says words it does not. He should either use the literal text if he wishes to quote it, especially if he is insistent that it is factual to the extent of boldfacing his words, or use a form of speech which makes it clear that he is paraphrasing. This is standard academic practice and I must say that I am quite upset by the unprofessional behaviour displayed by Adam recently. Skyring 05:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Fine. "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth." That's in chapter II: The Executive Government. See [1]. What Adam said. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:12, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
But it's not what Adam said. You will also note that the executive power is exercisable by the Governor-General and is clearly not one of the delegated powers under s2. He is also in ss5, 64 and others given powers directly, rather than by the Queen or through some "flow-on" mechanism, such as we see in New Zealand and Canada. Again I urge you to read a constitutional text - this is pretty basic stuff. Skyring 07:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well I'm upset (really pissed off actually) by your deliberate obfuscation and timewasting, your dishonesty, your malicious misrepresentation of other people arguments, your rampant vanity and egotism and your general obnoxious fuckwittedness, so get used to it. Adam 05:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Moving on to unprotection
I think we should be able to get past this often circular discussion and reach a consensus. Several people have indicated they think we have a consensus already, and I agree that we're pretty close to it. I suggest that it's possible we could get general agreement on the following points:
The Queen is head of state in the usual sense of that title, but the title is not actually used in the Constitution. The Governor-General acts as her representative, exercises the powers associated with the position, and is often accorded the type of recognition given a head of state, especially in the diplomatic context. The article covers this reasonably well; some of the finer details belong in the head of state article, where they are adequately explained already.
The article used to start with the sentence: "Australia is a constitutional monarchy, a federation and a parliamentary democracy." These are all basic characteristics that should be introduced at the beginning of the article. Why it was considered necessary to remove this sentence, I'm not sure, since I haven't seen anything to indicate that any of these assertions are seriously disputed.
None of them were. However, it was also added that Australia is a republic! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The notion that Australia is also, or effectively, a republic, might be mentioned at the end of the "Structure of the government" section, where the material on the republican movement currently is. An easy way to do this would be to quote Howard's "a crowned republic" line. To go beyond this would be lending excessive credence to the argument.
Using this as a general outline, I would like the article to be unprotected, and I think we can hammer out exactly how we want to express these points by collaborative editing in the usual fashion. It should be simple enough to revert edits that contradict the consensus view. --Michael Snow 04:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree with that course of action. The sentence "Australia is a constitutional monarchy, a federation and a parliamentary democracy" was only disrupted by Skyring's egotistical insistence on inserting his own pet theories in the opening paragraph. It should be restored. Adam 04:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Adam that this is an excellent solution. Go for it. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Adam, please. We would all get on a lot better if you weren't quite so prickly. You removed the sentence IIRC, and I have no objection to its reinstatement in its original form. We had actually come to an agreement over this, if you look back. John Howard's 1997 quote on "a crowned republic" should be included. I think it was Bagehot who originally coined the phrase, but I must admit that I find it hard to swallow its application to the 18th Century United Kingdom. However, it is an apt description of Australia with our combination of republican form of government and the symbolic but powerless monarch.
My difficulty lies in the description of the Queen as head of state. Adam says it is convention, but the only convention he quotes in the article is that expressed by Howard to the opposite effect, and I quote: "As a matter of undisputed constitutional convention, the Governor-General has become Australia’s effective head of state."
I have quoted the views of several constitutional authorities, and the opinion that either the Queen or the Governor-General is the one and only head of state is a minority position, with most informed commentators inclining to the "two heads of state" view, using various words such as "defacto", "ceremonial", "effective" and so on to prefix the phrase "head of state". Clearly there is no consensus of opinion, and the conflict rages in genteel fashion in magazines such as Quadrant.
I also take expetion to the description of the Governor-General as merely the Queen's representative. The degree to which he represents the Queen and her government has been declining since Federation. Unlike other dominions such as New Zealand and Canada, the Governor-General does not draw any but the most trivial powers from the Queen - he is given his powers directly in the Constitution by we the people, and this is the single most republican aspect of our affairs. Quick and Garran pointed this out at Federation in their massive work of constitutional commentary.
He was given them in his capacity as the Queen's representative, that much is perfectly clear. At any rate, this evades the central point - that the Governor-General is not a democratically selected head of state and thus Australia is not a republic. Lacrimosus 07:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just how do you define "democratically selected"? Many republics have appointed heads of state. In fact in the republic model rejected in 1999, the President would have been selected by the Prime Minister, which is exactly what happens now with the selection of the Governor-General. There was to be a nominations committee, but that was to meet in secret and its recommendations were not binding on the Prime Minister - he could have nominated whoever he wanted and if the disgruntled members of the committee complained that this wasn't their nomination, they would have been guilty of an offence. As it stands in Australia, the leader of the majority party or coalition selects the Governor-General. Skyring 08:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Skyring is correct. We are still not a republic, as our head of state is still the Queen (shared with GG). - Ta bu shi da yu 20:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
We have heard your views on these topics ad nauseam. We have decided that we don't agree with you. We are now proceeding to edit the article in accordance with the majority view. That is the way things work here. If you don't like it, feel free to leave. Is that clear enough for you? Adam 06:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The proposed solution is desirable and should be implemented ASAP. Lacrimosus 07:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As an outsider who has read the Australian Constitution, and this article, I agree with the proposed outline above. Constitutionally, the Crown appears to have most of the same authority in Australia as it does in the U.K. The proposed solutions seem appropriate and accurate. -Willmcw 08:45, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
It really is a grand juxtaposition, to take these constitutional (shall we say) features/parallels/peculiarities, and on the basis of that call Australia a republic, outright and as such, in the leadof the article, no less (!) I'm currently (still) writing about Southern Rhodesia and after UDI, while the colony was in rebellion, formally they continued to attest loyalty to the Crown (the Queen, specifically). Then, later, upon the declaration of a republic, while the fundamental relations of power didn't change in any meaningful way (just like they won't if and/or when Australia becomes one), the constitution was formally written to reflect that (explicitly). Until Australia formally recognizes itself a republic, that lead clearly amounts to original reserach. Constitutional parallels can (and will) be drawn, but they need to be correctly qualified. The lead for this article only needs to account for formal statements and for widespread (mass) attitudinal sentiments, with all due respect to some constitutional scholars. Hrm, I didn't intend on writing at such length. El_C 01:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad you did, though; your comment is very helpful. SlimVirgin 02:10, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Sweet. As Master Yoda has often been known to utter (probably): republican traits, a republic make not. El_C 04:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) File:Yoda.gif
After unprotection
Okay, I have restored the opening sentence and made some additional changes that I hope will be acceptable. First of all, I moved the "Head of state" section down below the "Structure of the government" section. Given the relative power and prominence of the head of state in the Australian system, it strikes me that this is not the subject that should lead off the article, though I'm willing to listen if people think it is.
The republican movement is now its own subsection within the "Head of state" section, because it's more about this aspect than the general governmental structure. The theories about already being a republic and two heads of state are basically all in the context of this debate, so I think that's the appropriate place for them to be mentioned, and they are properly attributed to sources.
Also, as a minor stylistic issue, I wrote "Governors-General" because in my experience this is the correct way to say this rather unusual plural in formal writing. If for some reason my usage here or elsewhere is not correct by the lights of Australian English style, please change it. --Michael Snow 18:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Governors-General" is correct. It grates in the mouth, but it is like "mothers-in-law" and similar hyphenateds-plural. Skyring 23:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Lead section
Can we work towards getting a lead section? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What's wrong with the one we have? Adam 03:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It didn't exist with the last couple of edit, so the menu was the lead (and before, it was just the lead sentence from that paragraph). I can't confess being familliar with the edit history of this article, I changed it thusly because, appearence-wise, it strikes me as an improvement over it being unleaded. El_C 03:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
We had a perfectly good intro section before the Skyring Wars. One of the problems with edit wars caused by cranks like Skyring is that they distort the balance of articles by forcing people to add more and more material about the disputed matter. The issue of who is Australia's formal head of state is actually a fairly minor one, and the repeated edits around this topic have distorted the whole article. Adam 04:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Makes sense. My changes were limited to and driven by immediately-percieved aesthetical considerations. Feel free to modify whatever I overlooked in that respect El_C 05:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Head of state and Republican movement
If you look back to [2] of nearly a month ago, you may see that in fact I proposed deleting any references to head of state because it was not a term that could be definitively sourced. Any additions are the property of others - my contribution was a single letter, which has since disappeared, I note. Let us be fair. Skyring 08:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Accordingly, I will remove the Head of State section because it is contentious. Adam has not provided any verification for his statements that there is a convention that the Queen is head of state, that the authors of the Constitution thought this axiomatic, and that "most authorities" say that the Queen is the head of State. As User:SlimVirgin has argued repeatedly, the criteria criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability.
The "Republican Movement" section is full of errors. For example, Sir David Smith did not oppose the referendum, nor did he argue during or after the Constitutional Convention, to which he was a delegate, that we had two heads of state. Could whoever wrote this stuff please correct it, or I'll do it for them. Skyring 19:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Remove the Head of State section? That sounds like a coup d'etat. ;) Why don't we just rename it to "Governor-General"? -Willmcw 20:37, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Joking aside, the fact is that it is a contentious issue, and none of the three alternative views has a consensus amongst people who know what they are talking about. I think it is better to remove it entirely. An alternative could be to do something like what the Parliamentary Research Office has done in their paper, and summarise the arguments for each position without making a definitive statement. Skyring 21:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Or, it can be renamed to "Chief of State", the term used in the CIA Factbook. [3]. Is that not a source? -Willmcw 21:56, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but a dodgy one, going by recent history. Skyring 22:00, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oh? I've never heard of any complaints about the accuracy of the "Factbook". Please share. -Willmcw 22:03, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Have they changed the WMD entry yet? Skyring 22:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Red herring. That has nothing to do with the Factbook, which is a well-respected almanac of nations. -Willmcw 22:40, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Did you actually read the article? If you did, then you've heard a complaint about the accuracy of the CIA Factbook. Skyring 22:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And which is the WMD entry? There's no such three-letter acronym in the article. The only criticism of the Factbook I see is that the authors complain that, as of 1996, the Factbook listed Gabon as a member of OPEC even though it actually left in 1994. I acknowledge that it is a criticism. And that the criticism is irrelevant to this matter. -Willmcw 23:05, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Skrying should not be allowed to create further pointless edit wars at this article in pursuit of his pet theories. If he does he should be reported to whoever is running this circus and barred from editing this article. The only reason this stupid "two heads of state" nonsense is in the article at all is because Skyring insisted on putting it there. If he doesn't like it, then by all means delete that paragraph, which is peripheral to the topic of the article. The rest of the "head of state" section should be retained. Adam 23:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Are you going to provide verifiable sources, Adam? If I don't see any sources, I'm going to take out the bits that are just your opinion. Skyring 23:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Skyring has completely failed to identify any errors in the "Republican movement" section. Sir David Smith has very explicitly articulated the two heads of state theory. In this article, which was apparently published in the Australian National Review, he opens with the words, "Under our Constitution we have two Heads of State - a symbolic Head of State in the Sovereign, and a constitutional Head of State in the Governor-General." As a dead giveaway to the fact that this is definitely not the standard position, his next sentence opens with "This is not some bizarre theory..."
He changed to the one head of state view during the late 1990s. Certainly before the referendum. Skyring 23:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The Australian National Review article is October 1996, the Quadrant article is November 2004. Please show evidence for a change of view before the referendum. The referendum is the context in which the argument is being discussed, so I would say the article from the run-up to the referendum is more relevant. The Quadrant article also opens with a comment about the lack of "a decent debate" about the issue, which indicates to me that the subject has dropped from the public radar screen since the referendum and does not warrant additional elaboration here. It strikes me as an intellectual's attempt to get some attention after the room has already emptied by saying the same thing as before, but putting it more shockingly. --Michael Snow 00:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A letter to the editor published in The Canberra Times on 31 Aug 1999 notes his change of position. In a lecture to the Samuel Griffith Society in July 1999 he had dropped the two heads of state view.
The most prominent constitutional scholar to support the two heads of state view is Professor George Winterton. Skyring 03:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The letter to the editor is not by Smith, but somebody attempting to describe Smith's position. --Michael Snow 17:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You astonish me. Make the scroll bar your friend! Here is the letter in full, taken directly from the link I provided:
"We already have an Aussie head of state
BRYAN PALMER (Letters, August 30) is right. I did indeed once argue that we had two heads of state. I described the Queen as our symbolic head of state and the Governor-General as our constitutional head of state. It was a clumsy attempt on my part to get republicans to read our Constitution beyond section 2, but my republican friends (yes, I have some) found the task and the concept too difficult. Then the republicans solved my problem for me. They decided that when the Governor-General exercises the executive power of the Commonwealth he is not our head of state, but as soon as we changed his title to president he would become our head of state. Since then, I have described the Queen as our Sovereign and the Governor-General as our head of state, bearing in mind that it is the Governor-General alone who actually does the job, even when the Queen is in Australia. More importantly, I have always cited the eminent constitutional authorities and experts, going back to those involved in drafting our Constitution, on whom I have relied for my views. Now that Bryan Palmer has found them on the Samuel Griffith Society web site, perhaps he will stop shooting the messenger and concentrate on the message, which is a simple one. The Governor-General is the holder of an independent office under our Constitution; that when he exercises his constitutional duties he is not acting as a delegate of the Queen; and that in the Governor- General we already have an Australian head of state.
(Sir) DAVID SMITH
Mawson
It is an explicit statement of his change of opinion, and he refers to the moment of change as a response to the republican model emerging from the Constitutional Convention, where the title of the Governor-General was to be changed. Skyring 18:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I did indeed miss that. Accordingly, I withdraw the stricken part of my comment below. --Michael Snow 18:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's rather a moot point anyway, now that Adam has removed the entire section. Skyring 19:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In any case, it still acknowledges his position that the Queen is a "symbolic head of state", so it's not evidence for a change in position. The lecture describes the Governor-General as the "constitutional Head of State", a position already represented in the article by a quote from Howard, and does not exclude the possibility that the Queen is also a head of state. Neither of these clearly shows a change to the position taken in the Quadrant article. Anyway, mentioning Smith's position in this article is already dubious, and incorporating a full exposition of his statements on the matter is beyond all reasonable sense of proportion. The proper place to present the evolution of Smith's views on the head of state question is of course David Smith, and I encourage you to go there and share your expertise on the subject.
Winterton's position is that the Queen is the legal head of state. He acknowledges the de facto position of the Governor-General, who is her representative. This is not significantly different from the way it is currently expressed in the article. --Michael Snow 17:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Winterton says that there are two heads of state, and he explicitly names and describes them. Attempting to misrepresent this as support for the "Queen as sole head of state" view strikes me as a poor sort of argument. Skyring 18:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As explained below, you are using "Queen as sole head of state" as an oversimplification of the generally held view, from which Winterton does not significantly deviate. --Michael Snow 18:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am talking about the opening paragraph of the section specifically. What other understanding could a reader get from this paragraph but that there is only one head of state and that is the Queen? This is not Winterton's view, no matter how many times you try to make one head of state out of the two he lists. By way of illustration, let us use a more conventional use of the term "defacto". Let us say that a man has a wife to whom he is legally married, but long seperated. She lives overseas and visits on rare occasions. But sharing his house and his bed and his heart is his defacto wife, his full time companion and his partner in life. Does the man have one wife or two? One could take a narrow view and say that he has only one wife, the legal wife, and the other is merely a defacto wife. Alternatively one could say that the wife on the far side of the world is not his true wife in any realistic sense of the word and his real wife is the one in the conventional role of life partner. But the most commonly held view would be that he has two wives, a dejure wife and a defacto wife, and their roles are clearly distinct. I say that likewise you are taking an extremely narrow view of Winterton's position and of all the others who say that we have two heads of state, by trying to say that there is only one and the other is unimportant. Skyring 19:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ludicrous analogy. Nobody would ever suggest that the de facto wife "represents" the de jure wife. --Michael Snow 19:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Certainly not me. The point I am making is not that there is any sort of equivalence between the Queen and a wife or a wife and a widget, but that the existence of a defacto widget and a dejure widget means that there are two widgets not one. Winterton and many others say that there are two heads of state, so you cannot argue that he says there are one. The opening paragraph gives the impression that there is only one head of state and this is simply not the consensus or conventional view amongst constitutional scholars. It is entirely possible to chart the course of the debate across the decades. In the Menzies epoch, it would have been a wild man indeed who said that anyone other than the Queen was the head of state of any description. The picture changed in 1975 when it became clear that the Governor-General could and did act on his own. The lead up to the referendum saw the use and general disussion of terms such as defacto or "effective" head of state, and this appears to be a common view amongst constitutional scholars. Greg Craven adheres to the "Queen as sole head of state" view, but his position looks very shaky to me, and I would not be at all surprised if he were to change his stance yet again.
The trajectory is clear. From a position of viceregal shadow in the 1960s, the Governor-General is becoming increasingly visible in his own right. Skyring 20:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In 2004 Smith said of his earlier stance,
In those early days I accepted the conventional wisdom that the powers and functions of head of state resided with the Queen but were exercised by the governor-general...
In this, like other articles, we should put the "conventional wisdom" first and foremost. Let's move on. -Willmcw 00:45, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
The site to which I have linked is that of the Australian Monarchist League, and Smith lent his support to that organization by allowing multiple articles to be published there. Under the circumstances, I think it is entirely fair to describe Smith as an opponent of the referendum. --Michael Snow 23:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
He was in favour of the referendum. See his voting record at the Constitutional Convention. Perhaps what you mean is that he didn't support the change. He was all for the people having a say, because he knew what they would say. Skyring 23:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The above is typical of Skyring's word games. Of course Smith was in favour of having a referendum. He was opposed to the proposition being put at the referendum. Skyring knows quite well that is what is meant, but he plays these smart-arse semantic games to cause confusion and waste everyone's time. Adam 00:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Quite right, the information is entirely correct in its natural reading, and Skyring's argument is a deliberate misreading. The reasons why a monarchist attending the Constitutional Convention would support the version of the referendum that ultimately failed are fully explained at the article about the referendum itself. They are excessive detail for this particular article. --Michael Snow 00:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I was at the Constitutional Convention as a member of the Press Gallery. I spoke to Sir David Smith, Kerry Jones and many other delegates from all sides of the debate, both informally and through questions put at media conferences. I am not making a deliberate misreading. The strategies being adopted at the convention were quite plain. The ARM wanted to put its model to referendum, and made modifications in order to secure additional votes. They were not successful in gaining a majority, but they had enough votes to beat any other model. The direct-election republicans, who from my jouranlaist point of view were the most exciting and colourful, at first supported a referendum with some sort of direct-election model, but on the final day of the convention were doing their utmost to prevent there being any referendum at all. Given their anarchic organisational model, they had little success in this, the final throw of the die being an objection on procedural grounds. The monarchists were solidly in favour of the referendum being put, and though I will not reveal my source, they were told "put your trust in John Howard", who despite indicating on the first day of the convention that majority support would be required, pushed forward the model that emerged as the best supported. The monarchists were quietly confident as the convention broke up. The ARM delegates were mostly ecstatic, but Turnbull looked very weary as he spoke of the struggle ahead. The article as it stands is incorrect, and some minor surgery needs to be performed. Skyring 03:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Discussion of the referendum in this article is exclusively in the setting of the campaign to get the referendum passed. The maneuverings to formulate the proposal or get it submitted as a referendum are not mentioned at all. Accordingly, there is no reason for anyone to think that "opponents of the referendum" means anything other than "people who opposed passage of the referendum". Your personal recollections of the Constitutional Convention have little bearing on this issue. --Michael Snow 03:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Smith was in favour of the referendum because he, like the other monarchists, wanted a definitive NO result. He was against the changes proposed in the referendum. Again I suggest some minor surgery to clarify this.
Adding this "clarification" would be unnecessarily confusing. The information is contained in the article about the referendum, which is already linked. --Michael Snow 05:04, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand your position. I have changed "Some opponents of the referendum" to read "Some opponents of the referendum proposals", which is, as I said, minor surgery and clarifies the position. I can't see how anyone could be against this.
Likewise, I'll now alter the wording about Sr David Smith's position. I think the essence of his argument is unchanged in this regard, namely that voting YES to bring about an Australian Head of State was unnecessary because we already had one in the Governor-General. I can't see how anyone could complain about such minor surgery. Skyring 05:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have made the corrections. In passing, I note that the photograph of Parliament House was taken with the sun low in the western sky and consequently the facade, an impressive cliff of white marble, is not readily visible in the shadow. Can we not find a better photograph? I will be in Parkes tomorrow morning and may be able to take one myself, should the weather be clear. Skyring 05:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
By all means, more pictures to choose from is always good. Regarding the changes you made, see below. --Michael Snow 06:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I hadn't realised that it is Adam's picture. Poor love, he must think I'm out to get him! I'm not likely to be able to take anything as good for a while. Apart from the sky being a little hazy and there being no wind to extend the flag, it's quite impossible to avoid the tall fences, construction materials and machinery in front of the forecourt. They'll be busy for weeks or months yet. I'm sure it will look better than the temporary barricades when it's finished, but I think we're going to look back on September 10 with a deal of nostalgia. Washington is exactly the same at the moment - barricades and concrete blocks everywhere. Skyring 23:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Skyring, I agree with Adam & Michael that you seem to be playing word games here. This kind of thing is counterproductive -- I certainly agree with you that precision in wording is important, but it is here being carried to a fault. No good can come of the kind of stickling you're doing -- on the contrary, all it seems designed to do is antagonize/infuriate those who are trying to work with you on this article. Please stop. For a while I was perfectly willing to accept that you were having a genuine disagreement here, but your continuing to antagonize editors who are being perfectly good and clear contributors is simply expending all the good faith I am willing to assume on your behalf. Jwrosenzweig 00:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate what you are saying, but it is not in me to let an error go unchallenged. Skyring 03:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What is in you, and indeed what you are full of, is quite evident to all of us. Adam 05:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Would a vote be a suitable way of establishing the correct treatment? -Willmcw 00:48, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Yes and no, in my opinion. Skyring's objections seem to float from one area to the next. If it was merely the referendum, a vote would be successful in resolving matters, but I'd say recent history here suggests that the argument would merely travel to another minor point. I think the most successful way of ending this will be Skyring openly committing to a more productive kind of dialogue, and I hope he will. In the meantime, though, a vote could certainly clarify community opinion....though I think it's becoming fairly clear already. Jwrosenzweig 00:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You are mistaken if you think that I live for dispute over petty issues. Adam and I had similar discussions over the Governor-General of Australia article, and we came to a mutually agreeable text. I wanted to settle that before correcting similar errors in this article and accordingly on 14 February I posted a notification here that I intended to bring this article into line with others.
I note that Adam has participated in today's discussion and I take this opportunity to ask if he intends to provide any verifiable sources for his wording in the Head of State section. His opinion of what went on in the minds of the framers of the Constitution is clearly something that cannot be supported, as those debates were well reported at the time and subsequently by many commentators, Quick and Garran, Alfred Deakin and many others publishing books about the momentous events. Skyring 03:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have no intention of playing any more of your games. Adam 04:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone else provide sources for Adam's claims? Skyring 05:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Skyring's changes
Based on the foregoing discussion, the changes made by Skyring clearly do not have consensus. I have reverted them, but others may wish to consider more precisely whether any of these changes are worth making. --Michael Snow 05:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, let's take them one at a time and we'll see if we can isolate any areas of contention. On the referendum, you seem to be the only one having any difficulty with my alteration. I have provided a link to the voting record of the Constitutional Convention, showing Sir David Smith as voting YES to the motion " this Convention recommends to the Prime Minister and parliament that the question be put to the people in a constitutional referendum". Clearly Smith was in favour of the referendum being put. I don't think that there is any dispute over this. Nor do I think we will find any dispute to the fact, clearly verified in news reports, articles, letters to the editor and so on that he was against the referendum proposals. Adam supports this view, saying "Of course Smith was in favour of having a referendum. He was opposed to the proposition being put at the referendum."
My change clarifies the article and, despite your claim that "adding this "clarification" would be unnecessarily confusing", I cannot see how this is so. I don't think any reasonable person could be confused by the change, whereas they could have previously been led to the incorrect that Smith was against the referendum being held. If there is any area of disagreement, it is Adam's use of "proposition" rather than "proposal". Skyring 06:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You've barely given anyone else any time at all to see if there is, in fact, someone besides me who objects to your changes. I'm not disputing the fact of Smith's vote at the Constitutional Convention. I'm objecting because the level of detail alludes to issues that do not need to be raised in the context of a general article about the Government of Australia, especially when they are covered in the article on the referendum. It disrupts efforts to have a clear and concise presentation of the important facts and distorts the scope of the article. The previous version was quite sufficient on these points; not a single error has been shown. --Michael Snow 07:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's been twelve hours since I pointed out the error in Sir David Smith's supposed opposition to the referendum, the referendum he in fact voted for, as shown by the link I provided. During that time several people have commented and there has been 2670 words of discussion. There seems to be no dispute that Smith voted for the referendum to be put, and against the referendum proposition itself. Adam Carr agrees on the essential point of this one word change, and I have adopted the word he proposed. Nobody but you sees this as contentious, and I cannot understand how you can see a clarification such as this one as confusing. I have indicated that we will discuss my changes one at a time, and we are now discussing this one word change. I am not aware that any editor needs a consensus of opinion before making a change. In fact, you are in a minority on this point. Do you have any real opposition to this small and common-sense change, or are you going to keep reverting it for your own unstated reasons? Skyring 08:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The voting record of David Smith at the Convention, and indeed everything that happened at the Convention, is totally irrelevant to this article. This is just another semantic swamp into which the troll Skyring is seeking to drag us to gratify his own egotism and vanity. His edits should be reverted until he goes away and finds somewhere else to masturbate. Adam 08:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have now solved this problem by deleting the paragraph in question, which was only inserted in the first place to pacify Skyring. Since he is not pacified, it can be deleted (as should Skyring). Adam 08:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't think Michael put it in the article to pacify me. In fact I barely glanced at it until today. Oh well, I suppose if that source of error has gone, there's no need to correct it!
Let's work on the next one. As I noted here about four weeks ago, I propose to remove all references to head of state because it is a contentious issue. Any section dealing with this is necessarily going to end up as long and confusing. On examining the first paragraph of the section, I see three errors:
That the issue of who is the head of state is a matter of convention. This is not the case. It is a matter of contention, not convention, and I ask for some definitive statement of this "convention". Over the past decade or so, governments under Paul Keating and John Howard have listed the Governor-General as Head of State in the official directory, though this changes from edition to edition. Sometimes it's the Queen, sometimes it's the Governor-General. Various constitutional scholars hold various opinions on who it might be, summarised as:
Queen as sole head of state
Governor-General as sole head of state
Queen and Governor-General as two heads of state
"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." This is unsupported opinion.
That "it is the view of most authorities that Queen Elizabeth II, who holds the title Queen of Australia, is Australia's head of state." Again, this is unsupported opinion. We have the Queen the title of Queen of Australia, but we did not give her the title of head of state. Other ex-Dominions found it necessary to spell out who was the head of state in their constitutions - we did not. John Howard, as the head of government, does not support the view that the Queen is our head of state, for instance. It is the "most authorities" statement I question. Has Adam done any research on this, or did he just make a guess?
Adam has indicated that he is unwilling to defend his opinions with verifiable sources. Perhaps he feels he is authority enough in his own right. Can anyone else provide verifiable sources to help him out?
The tripartite summary is an oversimplification that misrepresents what we're writing into this article. The current content indicates that the Queen is the head of state, while the Governor-General is her representative and exercises the powers and functions of a head of state in that capacity. It is not simply "Queen as sole head of state".
Meanwhile, in debating the evolution of Sir David Smith's position above, we can see that he has at various times argued for some form of the latter two summaries. In each case, he has felt the need to defend an obviously nonstandard position against the "conventional wisdom" I have just described. And voila, what have we here? A source? --Michael Snow 17:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For "powers and functions", not title. I also note that "conventional wisdom" is not the same as "a convention". I suppose I will be accused of "playing with words" but really it is hard to avoid semantics when talking about titles and definitions. I rather wish that our founding fathers had explicitly defined the head of state in the Constitution and we would not need to have this discussion, but contrary to Adam's view of what passed through their heads, the term was not in any sort of currency at the time Parkes and Griffith and their colleagues held their collogues.
You are arguing from an inferred position here, and referring to times gone past, as Sir David clearly is. Do you have a current and explicit statement of this supposed convention, one that cannot be countered by me merely finding a contradiction from another source of equal authority, thereby demonstrating that it is a matter of contention rather than convention? Skyring 18:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, the article doesn't indicate that the "title" is applied to the Governor-General because there isn't really a "title" of Head of State. As pointed out, the phrase is not used in the Constitution, and the Queen's title, Queen of Australia, is correctly identified, I believe. The text provides a suitably sophisticated explanation of the situation, with decent quotes from appropriate sources. And it is possible for something to be a convention even when some contention exists - the generally accepted view that the earth orbits around the sun is no less a convention in spite of the fringe elements that believe otherwise. Nor have we discussed any statements on the issue from anyone other than Sir David Smith that don't correspond generally to the "conventional wisdom" as it is elaborated in the article. --Michael Snow 19:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Your views have been noted. Adam 10:04, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Enough circularity already
We have the Queen the title of Queen of Australia, but we did not give her the title of head of state.
Aherm, again, by convention, contention notwithstanding. Please cease from playing with semantics. Supplanting the word in this way amounts to original reserach, and strikes me as an intellectually dishonest tactic. That said, I urge you, Adam, to maintain an imperturable stance, as you did directly above (but unlike as you did directly above that). Moving right along, onwards in this circular path, Thomas Ross in Colony and empire: A broad background to Australia's subservient relationship with Britain, writes in the 'The Queen: an unaccpetable head of state for Australia,' that:
Australia does not have a truly Australian Head of State. Our Head of State is an English Queen, who is not an Australian, does not live in Australia and, worst of all in terms of our national dignity, has her principal loyalty and commitment to another country (her country, the United Kingdom).87 [bald and italics are my emphasis]
87 Malcolm Turnbull. "Addressing the Republic" in: David Headon, James Warden, and Bill Gammage (eds.) Crown or country: The traditions of Australian Republicanism (Allen and Unwin, St. Leonards, New South Wales, 1994). pp. 130-1.
Looking at my copy of Crown or Country, I am puzzled about your quote. On pp130-1, Malcolm Turnbull (a partisan source if ever there was one!) actually says Legalities aside, however, the monarchy simply is not Australian because the monarch is not an Australian, does not live in Australia and, worst of all in terms of our national dignity, has her principal loyalty and commitment to another country (her country, the United Kingdom). I very much agree with Turnbull on this point, and support the removal of the Queen from our affairs as soon as we can find an acceptable method of replacing her only real input, that of appointing the Governor-General, however I wonder at Ross making changes to Turnbull's quote, seemingly to make the very point you are looking for. In the very next paragraph, Turnbull goes on to describe the Governor-General as a deputy, a substitute, a stand-in for someone else. I reject this interpretation entirely because the Governor-General's constitutional powers do not derive from the Queen, but from the people. The events of 1975 leave us in no doubt that the Governor-General used his own powers in his own right with no direction from the Queen.
Thomas Ross seems to be merely presenting the popular view that the Queen of England is the head of state. Maybe there is some scholarly argument for his view, but if so, you have not presented it. Nevertheless, it is easy enough to rack up an informed view in opposition. On page 108 of Crown or Country, Professor Stuart Macintyre talks of the vice-regal head-of-state such as we have now in the context of merely changing one title (that of Governor-General) for another (President). Getting back to Thomas Ross, a few sentences after the words you quote, he says "most Australians do not believe that the sovereignty of our nation resides in the Crown - our national sovereignty resides within the Australian people. ". I find this somewhat startling, because although he is quite correct at the source of sovereignty, I would not have thought that "most Australians" shared his view. In fact I would say that most Australians, if asked the source of ultimate power, would indicate the Queen. Still earlier, Ross makes reference to the supposed involvement of the CIA in the 1975 dismissal. He seems to give it some credence in that he does not dismiss it out of hand. Another contributor to this debate also sought the guidance of the CIA, in defining the "Chief of State".
You hint at circular arguments. Perhaps you could show precisely the path by which you come to this conclusion, because I am unable to detect any circularity in my own statements. Perhaps I am standing too close to the fire. Skyring 16:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Circularity ensues
You hint at circular arguments. Perhaps you could show precisely the path by which you come to this conclusion
I did, I will.
I look forward to seeing how you go. Skyring 05:09, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Looking at my copy of Crown or Country, I am puzzled about your quote. On pp130-1, Malcolm Turnbull (a partisan source if ever there was one!) actually says Legalities aside, however, the monarchy simply is not Australian because the monarch is not an Australian, does not live in Australia and, worst of all in terms of our national dignity, has her principal loyalty and commitment to another country (her country, the United Kingdom). I very much agree with Turnbull on this point, and support the removal of the Queen from our affairs as soon as we can find an acceptable method of replacing her only real input, that of appointing the Governor-General, however I wonder at Ross making changes to Turnbull's quote, seemingly to make the very point you are looking for.
You have failed to demonstrate that Ross misquotes Turnbull. You are puzzled by my quote? I am puzzled by the quote you use to express your puzzlement (directly bellow).
Bellowing aside, I didn't say that Ross misquotes Turnbull. I said he changed his quote. He replaced "the monarchy simply " with "Our Head of State is an English Queen, who", as may be clearly seen from comparing the two quotes in full:
Turnbull: ...the monarchy simply is not Australian because the monarch is not an Australian, does not live in Australia and, worst of all in terms of our national dignity, has her principal loyalty and commitment to another country (her country, the United Kingdom).
Ross: Our Head of State is an English Queen, who is not an Australian, does not live in Australia and, worst of all in terms of our national dignity, has her principal loyalty and commitment to another country (her country, the United Kingdom).
Malcolm Turnbull (a partisan source if ever there was one!) actually says Legalities aside...
Ross dosen't misquote him, he just cites him to complete that sentence. I neglected to include his quotation marks, I noticed now, but luckily, that has no bearing on your copy of Crown or Country.
So why cite him at all? Why not use the quote entire or use his own words? It's hardly standard practice. As for my copy of Crown and Country it contains Turnbull's original words. He doesn't use quotation marks to quote himself because he is writing the whole chapter. It's all his words. You left the quotes out of your quotation of Ross quoting Turnbull and then you wonder why it is confusing. Be fair, please!
Legalities aside, however, the monarchy simply is not Australian because the monarch is not an Australian, does not live in Australia and, worst of all in terms of our national dignity, has her principal loyalty and commitment to another country (her country, the United Kingdom). I very much agree with Turnbull on this point, and support the removal of the Queen from our affairs as soon as we can find an acceptable method of replacing her only real input, that of appointing the Governor-General, however I wonder at Ross making changes to Turnbull's quote, seemingly to make the very point you are looking for. In the very next paragraph, Turnbull goes on to describe the Governor-General as a deputy, a substitute, a stand-in for someone else. I reject this interpretation entirely because the Governor-General's constitutional powers do not derive from the Queen, but from the people. The events of 1975 leave us in no doubt that the Governor-General used his own powers in his own right with no direction from the Queen.
Thomas Ross seems to be merely presenting the popular view that the Queen of England is the head of state. Maybe there is some scholarly argument for his view, but if so, you have not presented it. Nevertheless, it is easy enough to rack up an informed view in opposition. On page 108 of Crown or Country, Professor Stuart Macintyre talks of the vice-regal head-of-state such as we have now in the context of merely changing one title (that of Governor-General) for another (President).
How is this pertinent to the Queen being considered head of state by convention?
I might ask the same of your quote. I assumed that your point was to demonstrate that Ross views "the English Queen" as Australia's head of state. Macintyre expresses an opposing view. One point for, one point against. If you want to demonstrate that there is a convention or a consensus you are going to have to do a dam' sight better than one for one, otherwise we end up with a position where there is no consensus, merely a clear division of opinion.
Getting back to Thomas Ross, a few sentences after the words you quote, he says "most Australians do not believe that the sovereignty of our nation resides in the Crown - our national sovereignty resides within the Australian people. "
How is this related to any of this. I find that slipping sovereignty into this discussion is a very crude, simplistic device, designed to divert attention from the subject at hand.
Such was not my intention. I make two points. First, Ross seems to believe that sovereignty resides in the people, the classical definition of a republic. Second, he makes an unsourced claim about "most Australians" which undermines his credibility, as it would be difficult indeed to demonstrate the truth of his statement. I, for one, flatly reject it. What are your own thoughts on the matter?
Do you believe our national sovereignty resides within the Australian people? YES/NO
(and the very next sentence continues)
I find this somewhat startling, because although he is quite correct at the source of sovereignty, I would not have thought that "most Australians" shared his view. In fact I would say that most Australians, if asked the source of ultimate power, would indicate the Queen.
I find that to be outright lunacy, I'm sorry.
Please explain.
Still earlier, Ross makes reference to the supposed involvement of the CIA in the 1975 dismissal. He seems to give it some credence in that he does not dismiss it out of hand. Another contributor to this debate also sought the guidance of the CIA, in defining the "Chief of State".
I have some thoughts on that, but I feel it goes beyond the scope of this.
You hint at circular arguments. Perhaps you could show precisely the path by which you come to this conclusion, because I am unable to detect any circularity in my own statements. Perhaps I am standing too close to the fire.
Perhpas (!).
You need some help with quotes, I see. In fact you need some help with a lot of things. You add to and delete from my material without my permission or approval. You switch it around likewise. I always find it interesting when people snip or move material, because it indicates that they don't want to address it. Are you going to address the points I raised or not?
To me, it makes no difference to me whatsoever whether Australia becomes a Republic or not, I don't think it would make a difference for the Australian people (even if some think it would), and I think the pro-Republicans, the Monarchists, and others are wasting their time as such.
Thomas Ross seems to be merely presenting the popular view that the Queen of England is the head of state. Maybe there is some scholarly argument for his view, but if so, you have not presented it.
Merely (?) You promote an unpopular view so as to state in the lead sentence of this article Australia is a republic..., and I challenge that thus far you have performed poorly in demonstrating that a consensus among scholars, politicans, judges, etc. exists (even remotely) for such a statement. Ditto for the Queen and convention, perception of sovereignty among Australians, et cetera, etc.
Hmmm. We came to an agreement last week that blandly presenting Australia as a republic is not the way to go, even if true. Time to move on. As for the rest, I think you are confused about what my views are. If you feel you must respond to this, kindly do not alter my material. Skyring 05:09, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just to make more explicit what I think El C is saying about sovereignty...there is nothing which says that either a head of state in general, or a monarchical head of state in particular, is the individual from whom sovereignty derives in a state. This may (sort of) still be true in Britain - although even there, it is the Queen in Parliament, in whom sovereignty rests, not just the Queen as such. And Britain is a particularly weird case. Most European constitutional monarchies have written constitutions, and I don't think any of them claim that sovereignty resides in the monarch. If it did, the ceremony with which most European constitutional monarchs take office - a swearing-in ceremony where they promise to honor the constitution, much like the inauguration of American presidents - wouldn't make any sense. The only reason Britain is (kind of) different is because it evolved out from absolute monarchy before all that constitution-writing and so forth were in vogue, so they just kept a lot of the old baggage around, formally, while making it not mean very much. johnk 07:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Two different things. The point of a republic is that sovereignty is resident in the people and power is exercised by officers chosen (elected or appointed) on their behalf, rather than through a monarch who is chosen by "divine right" and merely "advised" by ministers. Even if the monarch exercises little independent power, he or she normally performs some governmental functions, such as assenting to legislation. It is difficult to compare Australia directly to a European monarchy because the latter have no-one in a similar position to the Governor-General. He exercises the powers that are (in the UK) exercised by the monarch, but he is an appointed officer, indirectly selected by Parliament. (Indirectly in that he is selected by the leader of the majority party.) Remove the Queen and her mainly ceremonial role, leaving all else unchanged, and we are indisputably a republic.
The head of state issue is related but different. The big push by the ARM is based on populist rather than constitutional arguments. They point to the coinage, the flag, the titles, the archaic sections of the Constitution and so on to foster the impression that the Queen is the head of state and the Governor-General merely a deputy. Their battlecry is for an Australian as head of state and if you take this all at face value, it seems reasonable enough. The fact remains that if you delve into our constitutional history and practice, it isn't quite as cut and dried as the ARM tries to make out. The public, lamentably ignorant on constitutional matters, accept the Queen as head of state. Those who know what they are talking about aren't quite so single-minded.
The linkage occurs in some simplistic definitions of a republic as one in which the head of state is not a monarch. I rather doubt that those who compiled such dictionary definitions thought about Australia at all, and the more authorative dictionaries use definitions which clearly include Australia, but nevertherless, Adam has seized upon these definitions, and if he were to accept that the Queen is not the head of state, he would also have to accept that we are a republic. Then again, Adam's tactics recently seem to centre upon abuse and evasion rather than calm discussion, which is rather a pity. Skyring 04:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Arguing with trolls
Arguing with trolls like Skyring only encourages them. That's what they want. The only way to get rid of trolls is to revert them ruthlessly and without debate. Then they get bored and go away. Adam 11:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
He exclaims after much arguing! :D El_C 12:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but Skyring is a rather untypical troll. He is intelligent and does know this subject matter quite well. It takes a while to realise that he has no actual interest in editing articles, merely in starting and prolonging edit wars and gratifying his childish vanity by making himself the centre of attention - which is the usual motive for trolling. That's why I was initially deceived and spent a lot of time arguing with him, and of course I do enjoy a good argument. It wasn't until the exchange at the top of this screen about my "misquoting the constitution" that I realised that he was a complete troll and not, as I had thought, a somewhat annoying but otherwise legitimate editor. Adam 12:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I reject your view, Adam. I'm interested in ensuring that Wikipedia is accurate and non-partisan, and, quite frankly, debating with you is more a matter of chasing you down rabbit-holes than any intellectual pursuit. From our very first exchanges I thought that I'd found a smartarse teenager because of the swiftness with which you evaded giving any sources and instead turned to abuse. You accused me of being a Young Liberal, something that made me chuckle, when you yourself gave every appearance of being a Usenet campaigner. I asked you to provide sources and you turned to standard Usenet tactics of evasion and abuse. I'm talking four months ago here: [4] and subsequently until I deleted the whole sorry mess as an embarrassment to both of us, but especially you. Skyring 16:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Another try
I've given the head of state issue a slightly different presentation by swapping around and rewriting some of the paragraph content. The Howard quote is gone, as I don't think it's any more useful to the description than a paraphrase, and there's not much reason to say he's the best-positioned or most quotable representative for the underlying principle. --Michael Snow 21:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Needs work. I have asked for a verifiable source on that "matter of convention" wording. None has been provided except a most unsatisfactory back-argument based on Sir David Smith's remarks of some years back. It is easily demonstrated that while the general populace might consider the Queen to be the one and only head of state, opinion amongst constitutional scholars is divided.
Likewise the "axiomatic" material. This is original research and nobody has come close to providing a source that is not Adam Carr.
The final sentence of the first paragraph is better, but incomplete. Any sentence that gives a reader the impression that the Queen is the sole head of state is unsatisfactory. It should be labelled as a popular but disputed view, or similar caveat.
I won't go on any further, save to note that the first sentence of the next paragraph appears to give the Queen some discretion in appointment, or that she could possibly exercise the powers of head of state if she were personally present in Australia. Of course she cannot. The constitutional powers of the Governor-General are given to him alone and could only be exercised by the Queen if she were somehow to be appointed as Administrator or a deputy. Perhaps the Royal Powers Act 1953 has been misunderstood. This act allows the Queen to exercise the statutory powers of the Governor-General, i.e. those conferred by parliament through legislation. Skyring 00:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Conventions and axioms are frequently taken for granted and left unstated when there is no question about them.
We've gone past that stage, wouldn't you say? Skyring 01:53, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The opening sentence doesn't even say what the convention is, it just says the issue is a matter of convention. An explanation of that convention is left for the rest of the section. Something needs to be said about who was head of state in 1901 - are you contending that it's incorrect to say that the monarch was the head of state at that time?
As the term was not in use then, it may be difficult to find a source from that time. How do you propose to overcome this difficulty? Skyring 01:53, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The rest of these objections are over-interpretations of the text to claim inferences that are not stated in it at all. Any sentence, taken alone, could give a reader all kinds of bizarre impressions, and objections that fail to read passages in the context they are presented are not worth discussing. If people want to read between the lines to see things that aren't there, they can do so no matter how hard we try, and we can't distort the article by ladening it with "clarifications" against every imaginable misunderstanding. --Michael Snow 00:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The solution is to either remove all references or qualify them so as to eliminate misunderstanding. The issue has long ago passed beyond consensus and the trend is away from the monarch. The Queen has increasingly withdrawn from head of state activities and the Governor-General is increasingly seen doing these things, especially amongst those who watched as Sir William Deane opened the Sydney Olympics.
I fear you are falling into the same hole that claimed Adam. When I ask you for verifiable sources, you present your opinions. I don't mind if we have opinions, but I must insist that they be labelled as such. Skyring 01:53, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You have already provided us the source, Skyring. Let me repeat this posting:
In 2004 Smith said of his earlier stance,
In those early days I accepted the conventional wisdom that the powers and functions of head of state resided with the Queen but were exercised by the governor-general...
In this, like other articles, we should put the "conventional wisdom" first and foremost. Let's move on. -Willmcw 00:45, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Asking for sourcing is fine. Turning a blind eye to existing sources is just tendentious. -Willmcw 01:57, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Nobody's turning a blind eye to Sir David Smith's throwaway line as a source. Once again I point out that it is a negative reference, it refers to a time gone past, and it refers to "conventional wisdom" rather than "a convention", even IF you accept it as a definitive statement. Do you have anything current from a recognised authority that explicitly states what the article claims? A source that can't be negated by me pulling up something of equal authority that says the opposite? Be reasonable, please! Skyring 04:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I ask you again. Do you have anything current from a recognised authority that explicitly states what the article claims?
"By Australian law, the Queen is currently accorded the title 'Queen of Australia and her other realms and territories'. The holder of that title is head of state of the Commonwealth and of each of the Australian States, although represented in each of the polities by a different vice-regal officer".
--Constitutional Law in Australia Second Edition (1996), Peter Hanks. p. 158.
Further below, it states:
"The Queen's functions in relation to the government of Australia are exercised by her representatives, the Governor-General of the Commonwealth and the Governors of the Australian States. The only real power which the Queen retains in relation to the function of government is the power of appointing these representatives" - this point is not in dispute. NB, the very significant absence of any suggestion that this disqualifies her as head of state.
NB. also that I cannot find anywhere in the extensively annotated chapter discussing the Executive (Chapter 5) anything describing the Queen and GG as joint heads-of-state. The words "crowned republic", or anything similar, appear neither in that textbook nor in Suri Ratnapala's Australian Consitutional Law:Foundations and Theory (2002), anywhere that I can find. Lacrimosus 05:09, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I thank you for your contribution, however. Whilst very good insofar as it goes, all it does is put Peter Hanks into the camp of constitutional scholars holding the "Queen as sole head of state" view. I note that he makes no mention of convention, and I also note the date of 1996, which is prior to the 1998 Constitutional Convention and the debate leading up to the referendum. This is akin to using a pre-1975 source to discuss the role of the Governor-General. As already noted, the perception of the roles of the Queen and Governor-Generals are changing, both amongst constitutional authorities and in the mind of the public. Skyring 06:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I strongly reject the suggestion that a biased (ie. against making constitutional changes to bring about a republic) writer in a right-wing periodical, even if more recent, is a more authoritative source than a legal textbook. (Note that Suri Ratnapala's book was published in 2002). But I am prepared to contact constitutional law professors from around the country if it will be satisfactory for claims of a source. I myself was lectured by Mr. Ratnapala two years ago, (ie. after 1998) and I can assure you, that in his position as one of Australia's foremost constitutional scholars, he did not feel it necessary to quote Mr David Smith at any point or make reference to this landmark shifting of the vice-regal role that has allegedly occured over the past decade. The point largely is that the "camp" of persons claiming two heads of state is limited to a small subset of constitutional monarchists, and has little to no wait in the scholarly debate. That is why we were arguing any suggestion of "equal time" to their arguments, let alone the article validating them as "correct" above the weight of popular opinion, is invalid.
Furthermore, the textbook readily admits what I understand is Smith's central point (the Queen's constitutional role is essentially limited to appointments, and the GG has more constitutional power than her) readily, without considering that this in any way detrimental to her role as de jure head of state (just as the existence of a de facto spouse does not erase the de jure status of a pre-existing marriage. Unless of course one were to obtain an annullment or divorce - ie. a referendum!) Lacrimosus 21:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Of course, lawyers are all of one mind, and it is a common saying that the Full Bench of the High Court would most certainly find that black is not white. By a 4:3 majority. I notice that I said "the perception of the roles", but you talk of "this landmark shifting of the vice-regal role". Perhaps we are talking of different things. Perhaps you can find a legal opinion who talks of a convention.
I'm not deliberately ignoring your quotes. Heaven knows I can make the most horrendous boners and I welcome correction, but if the source doesn't address the point, it is not much use. By way of overthetop example, if I were to ask "Is the Jeep Grande Lambada a good off-road vehicle?" and I were to receive a response saying "It has an excellent sound system and power windows." then that would be useful insofar as it goes, but not a good response to the question. Do you see the point I'm making here? You're not going to imagine that I'm comparing the Queen to a 4WD or something equally prattish?
Just out of idle curiosity, but why do you refer to David Smith as "Mr" rather than "Sir"? Do you likewise omit Sir William Deane's title? Or that of any other of Australia's last remaining knights? I ask because it appears to indicate a certain frame of mind, but if it is a mistake, that's okay. Skyring 21:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is a mistake and I apologise - I didn't read closely enough. Lacrimosus 21:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You don't need to apologise for an honest mistake! It's not as if you set out to slight or insult anyone. I was just curious, that's all.
As for this supposed camp of monarchists supporting the "two heads of state" view, that's not the case. Professors Brian Galligan and George Winterton have impeccable republican credentials. The monarchists seem to hold the "Governor-General as sole head of state" view nowadays. It's bizarre that the monarchists are pumping up the Governor-General and the republicans are pumping up the Queen, but there it is.
A question
May I ask a question? Has there been any explicit change in the constitutional situation wrt monarch and governor-general since the constitution was adopted in 1901? Since everybody's been quoting the constitution and arguing about the meaning of shall, I can only assume that there has not. In that case, it seems absurd to me for Peter to even suggest that the monarch is not Australia's head of state - a constitution written in 1901 would simply have taken this for granted, since, well, if you have a monarch, that monarch can be presumed to be head of state. I would assume some changes were made under the Statute of Westminster in 1931, but this involved the relationship of the governor-general to the British government, which was severed, iirc. But if the position of the monarch and governor-general are still defined based on the 1901 constitution, it seems to me that it is impossible to argue that there is any doubt that the queen is Australia's head of state, and that the governor-general, whatever his de facto powers, is not head of state. johnk 23:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I refer you to Sue vs Hill, in which the High Court found that despite there being no changes to the relevant words of the Constitution, the UK had become a "foreign power" by 1999. None of the seven justices of the full bench were able to pin down the time of the change, but there was a consensus that it had occurred. The context of the case was that a young lady born in the UK but resident in Australia since childhood had been elected as a Senator and despite having become an Australian citizen some years previously, had neglected to renounce her birth citizenship, as nobody had ever seriously considered, until 1999, that the UK was a foreign power.
In the same way, the role of the Governor-General has changed despite no alterations in the wording of the Constitution. The biggest change occurred with the Statute of Westminster, when the Governor-General ceased to be the representative of the British Government. Henceforth the extent of his representation of the monarch was to exercise the residual prerogative powers that had not already been explicitly given to him in the Constitution. These do not amount to much and the Queen has since "opted out" of intervention in the award of honours, and matters of legation, meaning recognition of ambassadors, issuing of credentials and so on, is entirely formalised, with the Governor-General handling this work and keeping the Queen informed. The formal "Queen's Instructions to the Governor-General" were withdrawn in 1984.
There have been other changes, but for a very good and well-researched narrative of these changes, see Sir David Smith. Be aware that he is the loyalest of loyalists and wishes to retain the monarchy indefinitely, but he is also an able scholar. For alternate views without quite so much history, see Greg Craven and George Winterton, who represent the "Queen as head of state" and "two heads of state" view respectively. Skyring 23:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, if the term "head of state" is not defined in the Australian Constitution, I'm not sure how much it matters whether or not the constitutional provisions have explicitly changed. All the more reason why the bickering over "shall be" vs. "is" was silly. Heads of state are not necessarily defined in constitutions, and constitutions don't necessarily dictate who is head of state.
For the situation in 1901, I absolutely agree that it would have gone without saying that the monarch was head of state. It's still true that on a fill-in-the-blank question "Who is the Australian head of state?" answering "The Queen" would be correct and answering "The Governor-General" would be incorrect. However, for an encyclopedia article we don't need to treat this as a fill-in-the-blank question; we can provide a longer answer.
Since the Governor-General represents the Queen in her capacity as head of state, apparently some people (George Winterton, John Howard) have taken to referring to him as a de facto or effective head of state. We can mention this in a neutral fashion without saying that the Governor-General is head of state in his own right (POV), that the Queen is not head of state (POV and just plain wrong), that a country can only have one head of state (not inherent in the term), or even saying how many heads of state Australia has (let readers draw their own conclusions). There doesn't seem to be anybody, other than Sir David Smith, who would actively deny the Queen a designation as head of state and give it to the Governor-General instead. So I don't think that theory is particularly necessary to this article. --Michael Snow 00:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No-one disputes that the GG has become the de facto head of state. But a de facto head of state is not the Head of State. That can only be the de jure head of state. About that the meaning of the Constitution is perfectly clear - the GG represents the Queen, and the only capacity in which he can represent her is that of head of state. The changes in the constitutional relationship between the UK and Australia since 1901 are irrelevant, because the expression "the Queen" in the Constitution now refers to the Queen of Australia, not the Queen of the UK, even though they happen to be the same person. Australia is now an independent constitutional monarchy, whose head of state is a monarch resident in London, and whose functions (but not her title) are assigned by the Constitution to the Governor-General. This is all perfectly commonplace and straightforward, and is only being complicated by the troll Skyring. Adam 01:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Who are you trying to convince, Adam? Your opinion is merely your opinion. I keep on asking for sources and you keep on waving your hands all the harder. Skyring 03:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"It is not necessary to define a dog." (Mr Justice Higgins). Adam 08:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is if you are having a detailed discussion on dogs. [Dogs|The dog is a canine omnivorous mammal that has been domesticated for somewhere between 14,000 and 150,000 years.]] If that is your best shot, Adam, I suggest that you leave the running to others who can participate without abuse or evasion. Please. Skyring 05:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The accusation of evasiveness is ridiculous. Lacrimosus 05:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I beg your pardon. Adam has a history of refusing to answer my questions whilst demanding that his own be addressed. I have presented many useful and verifiable sources, whilst Adam has limited himself to just two - both suggested by other people. I ask for sources and he merely waves his hands all the harder, as if his own opinion mattered. Skyring 06:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Adam's point is that it is not neccesary to define a dog: ie. the opinions he and everyone else are advocating are so mainstream, so widespread, and so uncontentious as to require very litte in the way of source material. (By considering it necessary to add the definition, you appear to be playing right into Adam's hands). But if you still need convincing, see the references quoted by me above. Lacrimosus 05:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Your reference is of limited use, and of none whatsoever in providing a verifiable source to Adam's contention that the head of state is a matter of convention. I appreciate Adam's point, that to define a dog is unnecessary because everyone knows what a dog is. My point is that if one is having a detailed discussion on dogs, it is necessary to define a dog, because otherwise we are unsure of the status of related canines such as dingos and wolves. Wikipedia sees fit to include a definition of dog, and I ask that Adam, or someone else, provide a verifiable source for his opinion. If the issue is so uncontentious and widespread, then it should not be difficult to find an explicit statement. So far none has been provided, and if we were to re-call the roll of constitutional authorities I think we would indeed find that those who hold the opinion of "Queen as sole head of state" are outnumbered by those who hold the "two heads of state" and "Governor-General as sole head of state" views. This is not a matter of convention, but of contention. Skyring 06:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Skyring, do not modify talk page comments
I will not engage in discourse with you unless you restore the original passages I cited within the comment space. You are not allowed to take a three-word citation, for example, and then duplicate the whole quote (available above, anyway) in that section, in that particular space and order (!). Do that in another section, but do not modify my original excerpts directly. I did not modify any of your comments and you will not modify mine, even though you falsely accuse me of this. If you wish to quote myself (through excerpts and otherwise), do so in another section. If you wish to respond to the section I created, you must do so with new comments only, without duplicating anything prior, without dramatically disturbing the original comments and their respective order, and you must note very clearly who made which comment (if code does not suit you, sign our name after each transition). I can follow your changes, but other readers will likely find it difficult. If you wish to hear my responses to your comments (and I'm prepared to provide these) you will restore, restructure, and reorganize that section (which is a mess now) to its original form and add new comments only to it and/or create an additional section if you wish to be so dramatically expansive and to so idiosyncratically disturb the original order. –None– of the content in your comments will be lost as a result, and you can clearly note if and/or when you believe my citation(s) of you lack the propper context. You have taken far too much liberty with comment indentation, which amounts to a highly questionable tactic bordering on vandalism. Sheesh. El_C 05:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I reject this entirely. You modified my comments so as to remove material and present a different order of argument. I think I am entitled to complain in such a situation, and instead of acknowledging this, you accuse me of doing exactly what you have done. This is not the case. I did my best to restore my material in the same order, and merely indented your material without any alteration. As anybody may plainly see. Skyring 06:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nonesense, [5] shows that I cited (copy&pasted) existing comments without modifying the space where they were originally placed, period. While [6], clearly indicates that you modified my original comments. I will judge the length of the excerpts I choose to cite, and you will cease immediately from this sort of vandalism or I will consider other channels and approaches to dealing with you. El_C 06:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I beg your pardon. Precisely which comments of yours are you claiming I modified? I cannot see anything of this nature, except that I indented your comments. Are you seriously complaining that by recreating my material I am changing your comments? I say again, by removing my material and re-ordering what remains, you have presented a different text to what I presented, and I will not stand for it, just as I imagine you would not tolerate me doing the same. Be fair. Skyring
I have been more than fair, I continue to be more than fair with you, sir. Yes, I am seriously claiming that — I will choose the lengths of the excerpts, and you will not insert a whole pargraph of a quote I excerpt in several words (available above anyway) within that same space. That is, at best, an un-editorial practice whose basis is unfamiliarity with basic WP conventions and policy. El_C 08:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I ask you again. Precisely which comments of yours are you claiming I modified? Skyring 09:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I take your point that you presented "excerpts" from my material and left the original unchanged, but why didn't you see fit to respond directly? It looks to me that you didn't want the full quotes to be compared, that you wanted to produce an effect that was not intended by me, and that you wanted to avoid addressing some of my points. Skyring
That is not pertinent at this point (though I will provide an answer to that if you comply with my standards), and at any rate, it is my preogrative, and you are certainly welcome to take me to task over it, but you may not do so by modifying my original comments directly (which intimates that I placed them there as such). And yes, excerpt-size counts as per originality in that given space. El_C 08:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If you want to take further action, then go for it. I am calling your bluff. I think the facts are plain, as I stated above. Skyring
I am one of the few editors still willing to discuss this with you, here and on W-l, which I find quite revealing. I don't need to have sanctions imposed on you for you to get nowhere with this article. There's already currently overwhelming consensus against your changes, in case you haven't noticed. Continue to modify my original comments and we'll just see about my so-called bluff. El_C 08:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
However, it seems that you are now removing yourself from the discussion unless I knuckle under to your demands and threats. I addressed your points honestly and completely, but you do not wish to extend the same courtesy to me. Why is this? Skyring 07:09, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, you are removing myself from the discussion so long as you refuse to revert your vandalism; *** once again Skyring breaks my comments without attribution I note that, to Skyring's discredit, the comments that he has broken above (largely my reason for having created this section, –not– to discuss Adam's sources) remains unsigned and in disarray. Signing after the fact, El_C 11:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've made my points in the ongoing discussion. You haven't responded to them. You said: I will not engage in discourse with you... Seems pretty clear to me. Skyring 09:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
restore the section, and insert your comment propperly therein and/or create a new section where you can, if you wish, duplicate the entire section you vandalized as such (so long as the section exists where my original comments are not modified within their own space, to be mistaken with your insertions, it no longer constitutes vandalism). How much more clear can I be? But no, I will not continue to respond to you under this 'textual intimidation.'
Still, you can view the following as my last gesture of goodfaith (restore, restructure, reorganize, and reinsert in accordance with policy, and I will reply to your comments further and substantively – otherwise, it is clear, that it is you who are removing myself from this discussion, inappropriately so). Sheesh.
Australia does not have a truly Australian Head of State. Our Head of State is an English Queen, who " is not an Australian, does not live in Australia and, worst of all in terms of our national dignity, has her principal loyalty and commitment to another country (her country, the United Kingdom)"Ross, which I manged to find on-line
