Talk:Governor-General of Australia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Order of Australia

I found this photo [1] of Michael Jeffery wearing the Order of Australia, but he apears to also be wearing the former Knights Star... is this some kind of special badge worn only by the Governor General ? Dowew 02:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd need to check, but I suspect it's the badge worn by the Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Australia, which is a job the G-G has ex officio. -- JackofOz 06:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Chief Scout

I understand that the G-G is always appointed Chief Scout of Australia. Well, almost always. I seem to remember Bill Hayden declining the job of Chief Scout because it meant swearing allegiance to God, and he is an atheist. Apart from that exception, it's virtually an ex-officio appointment. What can we say about this in the article? JackofOz 11:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the description of the ceremonial role could be more detailed than simply "patron of charitable institutions". There are many positions like this, including Prior in the Order of St John, etc. JPD (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a new Patronage section, including relevant cites for the Chief Scout job and Bill Hayden's declining the office. Disclaimer: I have no associations with the League of Rights or what they stand for, but it's the only cite I could find on Google. If anyone can come up with one from a less controversial organisation, that would be good. -- JackofOz 00:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Role of GG

I've taken a look at the lead and added a source (the GG's own website). While the Governor-General is undoubtedly the representative of the Queen, he performs most of his job in his own right. The old wording made it sound as if he was just the Queen's Aussie agent, which is a long way from the truth. --Pete 17:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Inserted Internal Links and Removed Websites

I have inserted Internal Links in this article and removed websites where there were Page not found or Not on this Server notices. Kathleen.wright5 10:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats all well and good, but there are now unreferenced quotes that need to be re-referenced. I'll see what I can do, but any help would be appreciated given the nature of the task. DirectEdge 11:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You've also tried to link "representative". This is problematic, as the G-G is not a political representative, nor an agent. At Federation, he was the representative of the British Government, and saying he was the Queen's representative was a polite way of putting it. But after the Statute of Westminster, he no longer represented the British Government, and High Commissioners were appointed to the various dominions. That left the G-G as the monarch's representative, and that involved awarding honours, receiving ambassadors and a few other ceremonial things. His real powers are given to him in his own right and have nothing to do with the monarch. --Pete 03:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting argument, and undoubtedly disputable, but I think we can agree that the link on "representative" is not helpful. However, I don't think linking to "Queen Victoria" is helpful either. The aim of a link in that context shouldn't be to make a point about constitutional arrangments in 1901 (the sentence is written in the present tense, after all)- it should link to the article most relevant to understanding the current situation. The GG is (still) appointed by the current Sovereign, so it would seem the best article is actually Monarchy in Australia. JPD (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the link. While I'm aware that the meaning of the Constitution can alter without the words changing - if we look at Sue vs Hill we find that the UK somewhere along the way became "a foreign power" - the actual text of the document is quite clear on who "the Queen" is, and it's the British Queen, her heirs and successors. Maybe I'm being too much the pedant, but what happens should the Queen die and we change the link to point to King Charles III? Wouldn't our readers be entitled to think there was something going on under the covers that we weren't telling them? --Pete 16:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem - the article Monarchy in Australia deals exactly with the various meanings that "the Queen" in the Constitution has held, and should continue to do so unless/until that aspect of the consitution is changed. It's a more helpful link than Victoria, Elizabeth II or Charles III. JPD (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Monarchy in Australia is fine. That's better than pointing to any particular monarch. --Pete 18:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Reserve Powers

In the reserve powers section it is stated that the Governor-General has the reserve powers explicitly assigned to him by the constitution and he exercises them on ministerial advice. This is incorrect. The whole point of a reserve power is that it is exercised without ministerial advice, i.e. the Governor-General acts on his own initiative. The powers which are expounded in the Constitution are just normal heads of power which are exercised on ministerial advice in the normal course of government. This section needs to be changed to recognise what reserve powers are. Due to the fused nature of the Australian Legislature and Executive, the definition in the reserve powers article of reserve powers being exercised by the executive without reference to any other branch of government is not entirely correct. This is the case in most parliamentary Westminster systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.44.60 (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually even the reserve powers must be exercised upon ministerial advice, except where it is clearly impossible.There might be some occasions when the GG might be expected to act alone. However this is a controversial area. There are very few precedents. The most notable is of course the 1975 claim. To this date there is no agreement as to whether Kerr was justified in claiming use of the reserve powers.And as pointed out, the Constitution does not explicit what the reserve powers are.--Gazzster (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Style/Infobox

I would like to remove the style "Right Honourable" from the box at the right, as Australian Governors-General are no longer appointed to the British Privy Council. The style, "The Honourable" would only be used by a GG who had been a Minister of the Crown or a judge. The current G-G, Major General Michael Jeffery does not hold the style "Honourable", neither did the previous G-G, the Right Reverend Peter Hollingworth.

Does anyone know how to edit the box?

Anglicant (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have edited {{Infobox vice-regal}} to remove the Right Honourable style for Australia, although I think it would be better to completely redesign the template so that styles were entered for each article. I had also already left a message on the template's talk page concerning the badge which is incorrectly described as a crest, but noone has replied. JPD (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone has sensibly fixed the info box to identify the G-G's "badge". Anglicant (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

They have fixed the box so that it is sensible in this case. I don't think they fixed the box sensibly. It would be much better to allow the caption to specified at point of use, rather than incorporating a one-off special case in the code. As it is, we still have silly things at Governors of New South Wales. I might get around to rewriting the infobox at some point. JPD (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffery's "resignation"

We should not treat this as a resignation in the normally understood sense of the word. I've given my reasons at Talk:Michael Jeffery#Resignation?. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

How on earth does this part make sense.

From the titles and background section.

All Australian Governors-General have been male and most have been at least nominally Christian (unlike several recent Governors-General of Canada and New Zealand). Sir Isaac Isaacs, the first Australian-born Governor-General, and Sir Zelman Cowen were Jewish, while Bill Hayden, an atheist, took an affirmation rather than swear an oath at the beginning of his commission. None have had an indigenous or non-European background.

The first sentence doesn't match the rest of the text; but just removing the first line leaves the rest without context.

I'm going to edit to change the first line somewhat, but I wonder whether this para is needed at all.

Just a reference for future editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.65.142 (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And just which gg's of canada recently have not been christian ?

Michaelle jean is a catholic, Clarkson was devoutly anglican, leblanc was catholic, Sauve was catholic. No idea about Schreyer but im pretty sure he was at least nominally Christian. Dowew (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

First UK High Commissioner

We're currently saying:

Thus, in 1931, this transformation was concluded with the appointment of the first British High Commissioner and the first Australian Governor-General, Sir Isaac Isaacs.

However, the first person to be specifically appointed “High Commissioner” from the UK was Geoffrey Whiskard, in 1935. Between 1931 and 1935, the role was filled by the “British Representative in Australia”, Ernest Crutchley. I’ve raised this issue at Talk:List of High Commissioners from the United Kingdom to Australia.

The issue for this article is: can we say the first UK HC was appointed in 1931 (which is not literally true); or is term to be construed in its more general sense of the senior British representative?

My other reason for this is that the sentence as it stands could be misread that Isaacs was both "the first British High Commissioner and the first Australian Governor-General", so to avoid this, I'd like to make it "the first British High Commissioner, <name>, and the first Australian Governor-General, Sir Isaac Isaacs". The question than arises, who's name goes in: Crutchley (1931), or Whiskard (1935)? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I have a solution - see this diff. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, we could really do with a List of High Commissioners from Australia to the United Kingdom... right now it's just a bunch of ad-hoc templates at the bottom of HC's pages ie Andrew Fisher... Timeshift (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Good idea. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's existed since 31 October 2008 - see List of Australian High Commissioners to the United Kingdom. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

governor-general

The title is usually capitalised, unless we are describing an abstract rather than a specific position or person. This is in line with other titles such as the President, the Queen, the Prime Minister etc. The article itself is entitled "Governor-General". --Pete (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried to keep my changes to abstract references to the office, rather than to mention of any specific G-G. I can't track it down now, but someone (it might even have been me) did a similar thing with changing some abtract "Prime Minister" references to "prime minister", and it seemed to get some positive feedback. So I acted boldly. But I'm very happy to discuss the matter if anyone's unhappy.

I wouldn't pin much on the title, btw. The title of this office is "Governor-General of Australia", and it's always capitalised in that context, so it would have been wrong to spell it with a lower case "general". But look at Governor-General: it immediately starts out with: The term governor general or governor-general refers to a vice-regal representative .....

So, there's a distinction between the title "Governor-General of Australia/Jamaica/wherever", and general or abstract references to "the/a governor-general" or "governors-general" (unless they start a sentence, of course). -- JackofOz (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It follows the same rules as other office titles. If you refer to a specific person or office, it's the Queen lives in Buckingham Palace, the President is sworn in by the Chief Justice, the Prime Minister's Sydney residence is Kirribilli House. But if you refer to a general or abstract office, then the title is not capitalised. One might say that governor-generals have viceregal rank, because you are not referring to any one in specific. But the whole article is about the Australian Governor-General, a specific office, and in many cases referring to a specific person. --Pete (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Which Queen?

I'm wondering where this notion that the Governor-General represents the Queen of Australia came from. The Constitution is quite clear on the matter: the Queen is the Queen of the United Kingdom, defined in the preamble in The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.[2] and the schedule as the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.[3]

Of course, at Federation this was a polite fiction - the Governor-General didn't represent the Queen so much as Her Majesty's Government. The Governor-General reported to the Colonial Secretary in Whitehall, not Buckingham Palace. The Statute of Westminster and the appointment of British High Commissioners brought this increasingly nebulous role to an end, except insofar as he was responsible for performing various minor functions, such as presenting awards, in the monarch's name. --Pete (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 (Imp.), the Statute of Westminster, and the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953 all played a role in this. Her title in respect of Australia has evolved since 1901. Even in respect of the UK, her title is no longer what it says in the Constitution because it’s not the "King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", but the "King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Reading the words in the Constitution literally without regard to subsequent developments can sometimes lead you down the garden path. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's very true, but the words in the Constitution haven't been changed, nor can I find anything that states that the words of the Preamble and Schedule have been over-ruled. According to our Constitution, the Governor-General represents the Queen of the United Kingdom, and looking at the Australia Act and other legislation, that is a very limited role indeed. I think, before we claim that she represents the Queen of Australia, we should find a very high level source saying precisely that. Relying on opinion and chains of logic isn't good enough. --Pete (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this authoritative enough? She refers to herself as the "Queen of Australia", but it's curious that it was signed by Gordon Brown rather than by Kevin Rudd. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That's Kevin Rudd's signature. See this for an example. 124.148.50.242 (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

So it is. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yarralumla is a suburb, not the name of the Residence

Edited out the part that says that Government House is referred to as Yarralumla as it is a suburb not the residence. As a lifelong Canberran I've never heard Yarralumla used to refer to Government House. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.13.21 (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it should go back. I lived in Canberra for over 25 years, and I often heard it referred to as "Yarralumla". Even before I lived there, the G-G's residence was known to me as "Yarralumla" rather than as "Government House". How often do we hear "The Prime Minister is expected to see the Governor-General at Yarralumla this morning to advise a general election". They're certainly not referring to the Yarralumla shopping centre. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I am a resident of Canberra and of course Yarralumla is the name of the residence, after which the suburb was named when it was created.--Grahame (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Representative of the Queen

The article leads off by stating that the Governor-General is the representative of the Queen. Well, yes, the Constitution says this, but is this really his or her most important function? SFAIK, this is limited to handing out the odd Imperial medal and a few other ceremonial things. Nothing important. For any practical purpose, the Queen's representative in Australia is the British High Commissioner, which the role envisioned in the Constitution for the G-G, but superseded in 1930 with the Statute of Westminster. --Pete (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the UK High Commissioner certainly does not represent the Queen of Australia - in Australia or anywhere else. He or she might represent the Queen of the United Kingdom, though. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. It's not a very significant role, though, is it? Hardly his primary function. --Pete (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is—are you saying that we should change that paragraph? Aside from "handing out the odd Imperial medal and a few other ceremonial things", one could argue that one of the primary roles of the Governor-General is to give Royal Assent to legislation on behalf of the Queen of Australia. --Canley (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess you could argue that, but I'm not sure where you'd get an authoritative source stating it in those terms. A good source for the role of the G-G is the official website, where the representation of the Queen is barely mentioned, and certainly not as a primary function. My point is that representing the Queen is not something that occupies a great deal of the Governor-General's official time. On a par with duties as Chief Scout. --Pete (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, as a constitutional role, the Australian Constitution is going to be a more authoritative source than the Governor-General's website: "When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen’s assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen’s name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen’s pleasure." and also wielding executive power in the Commonwealth: "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." I still don't really get the point about how much actual time the G-G spends "representing the Queen"—as constitutionally they are doing that all the time—in fact it could be argued that the Queen's role is also largely ceremonial and that many of her roles, responsibilities and day-to-day duties are just as trivial (opening shopping centres, Chief Scout, head of the defence force, etc.) --Canley (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Constitution is a document of the Australian Colonies and rarely updated. It is out of step with reality. For example, there is no mention of the Prime Minister at all. And you will find a description of the Inter-State Commission. Yet, despite the words of the Constitution, the PM exists and the I-SC does not. The official documents of the Twenty-First Century are a better source of useful information to our readers than those of the Nineteenth. You mentioned the Queen of Australia earlier - where is she in the Constitution? In fact the document specifically describes the "Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", and the Crown referred to is the royal sovereignty of that vanished kingdom. Our job is to reflect the facts, and the fact is that the Governor-General's prime role is NOT representing the Queen, however described. Public awareness of civics and government is at a low level, and we should not be fostering the notion that we are somehow ruled out of Buckingham Palace via a local flunky. --Pete (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you're getting at. So despite the fact that the role of the Governor-General is specifically defined in the Constitution, we should disregard that because some parts are outdated and/or have been superceded by subsequent legislation such as the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 or the Australia Act 1986; because Wikipedia "reflects the facts" we should develop some waffly notion that because the role is largely ceremonial in a practical sense, the G-G does not represent the monarch? --Canley (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my poor phrasing. According to the Constitution, the Governor-General represents the (King or) Queen of Great Britain and Ireland. However, that is not the major role, which is to exercise the executive powers given to him or her. I don't think that we should accord this representation undue prominence. --Pete (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

What is or is not "undue prominence" is always a judgement call, in this case particularly so. Leaving aside all the frippery such as official openings of buildings and such like, the school fetes (worse than death), the Chief Scout role etc, what's left

• giving assent to legislation
• giving assent to regulations
• opening, proroguing and dissolving parliament
• commissioning governments (and, since 1975, withdrawing said commissions)
• swearing in ministers
• presiding over EXCO meetings
• signing official declarations
• signing treaties
• presenting awards in the Order of Australia
• representing Australia overseas on behalf of the government
• receiving credentials from foreign ambassadors and high commissioners
• anything else of significance?

The first three are done on behalf of the Queen, the others in the G-G's own right. That's my understanding. What's the relative importance of each of these functions, and how do we come up with a weighted measure of the overall relative significance of the representative role vs the executive role? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

In theory, the Queen can do the Royal Assent thing, but she can't prorogue or dissolve parliament, so it's kind of moot to say the G-G is doing it in her name. The G-G also commands the armed forces in the Queen's name, but that's another moot point -the government is in command there and the G-G can't act unilaterally.

My point here is that the article shouldn't have The Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia is the representative in Australia at federal/national level of the Australian monarch... as the opening sentence. That gives the impression that that is the most important function of the job, and it isn't. Using the Constitution as a source is problematic - for reasons referred to above. I think the G-G's website is a useful source here. I might see if I can find some recent speech or paper by a constitutional expert. High Court judges and others offer their opinions on a regular basis. --Pete (talk) 08:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This all revolves around what is meant by 'representative'. It does not mean delegate, in the sense that the Queen invests her powers in the GG. The GG has power in his/her own right. The GG is the representative of the Crown in the sense that he or she is an integral part of the institution we call the Crown. That is simply a fact- a fact upon which the legal existence of Australia rests. The GGs executive authority is very real, but it is exercised upon advice, according to Westminster tradition. Gazzster (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you are confusing "Crown" with "Queen". Any public servant is a representative of the Crown. However, you are striking closer to the heart of the matter. The Governor-General is an integral and important part of the national institution - to a larger extent than he is a representative of a monarch distant in time and space. --Pete (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

In amongst all this, we have to consider what happens to the G-G when the Queen visits Australia. Typically, he takes a very low profile indeed. I don't remember seeing a G-G at public functions where the Queen is in attendance. The PM, yes; the G-G, no. I could be completely wrong about that, but it's my recollection. So, if the G-G is an integral and important part of the national institution (and I don't dispute that for a second), and has powers in his/her own right quite distinct from representative functions, why does he not adopt a higher profile when the Queen is here? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Any specific occasion in mind? You might be thinking of the opening of the High Court, as publicly misremembered by Sir Anthony Mason. The G-G would have loved to attend, but the PM made sure he wasn't invited, because he then became the next in the order of precedence. --Pete (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank God I qualified my post with "I could be completely wrong about that".  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary! You are likely far more informed than the average man in the street, but the subject of the Governor-General is still one where the floppiest of rumours passes for gospel. Few care. The other day, listening to members of the crowd at the Prime Ministers XI - where the English wiped us again - it became obvious that the average Joe on the Hill was keen to remove the British monarch from our affairs and this extended to her local lackey. This is a bit tough on the Governor-General, who has tended to be a distinguished Australian with a lifetime of service, who does a lot more in the job than act as the Queen's front man. --Pete (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

But isn't that the point? If the Australian monarchy were dispensed with, there would be no Governor-General (*). The office exists only because of its connection to the Queen, and most people see that connection as the most important aspect of the job.

(*) There might well be a President, but the nature of that office would be very different: the office-holder would indisputably be our head of state; it would be politicised at least to some degree, depending on the method of election/appointment used; and he/she would be representing nobody except the ultimate will of the Australian people. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The US has a bunch of governors heading up their states, and they kept their titles after 1776. The 1999 republic referendum kept the Governor-General, but restyled him as President, leaving powers and role essentially unchanged. (Incidentally, I think that's where Turnbull came unstuck with his model. If Australia was going to have a President, then Australians wanted to vote for him, just like the only other republic they knew about. None of this parliamentary appointment malarkey!) And having a directly-elected President retaining the (on paper) wide powers of the Governor-General is a recipe for conflict - in an election the ALP will put up a candidate, the Libs will as well, and one of the two will be elected on whatever platform they run on, with a national mandate for action. At some stage President and Prime Minister are going to be from different parties, each with partisan interests, and we could get 1975 repeating every few years.

But I digress. The fact is that the representation of the Queen is a very small part of the Governor-General's current role. About the only important thing the G-G does in the Queen's name is to assent to legislation, as pointed out above, and that can be done without reference to the Queen. (In fact, I would not be surprised if the nature of that assent has been "watered down" over the years. However, I can't find any facsimiles of current legislation to check on the wording.) I don't think that Wikipedia should contribute to popular misinformation about the role of the Governor-General by casting him or her as primarily the Queen's representative.

As another aside, having a female Governor-General means that we have to watch our wording carefully - it used to be easy to say "him" or "her" and everybody knew exactly who the pronoun referred to, with two different genders in play. Supposing the Queen was run over by a bus, we'd have Bonnie King Charlie and we'd have to rewrite a whole bunch of stuff with opposite pronouns to what old farts like me are used to. --Pete (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Being the sovereign's rep is not a small part of the GG's role. It is the very raison detre of the GG. If she were not the Queen's rep she would have no authority whatsoever! She is precisely GG by virtue of being the Queen's representative. Representative does not necessarily mean delegate. If you take away the Queen she is just a woman in a nice suit squatting at Yarralumla.Gazzster (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Not that nice a suit - she goes out for coffee at Manuka and she dresses casual! I've seen her in a puffy quilted jacket I wouldn't touch with tongs. The Governor-General's authority and power stems from the Constitution and not the Queen - I would have thought that this was beyond question. --Pete (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That's true, but on the other hand we'd never have had a need for a Governor-General at all if we didn't have a Queen who lived on the other side of the world - which is precisely why the UK is the only Commonwealth Realm that doesn't have any need for a Governor-General - so the two are very closely connected. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Just popping in here to give my view: I think that the present lead should stay, and the first sentence kept as it is. The main reason for the existence of the office of Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia is to represent the Queen. And most official acts of the GG are done in the name of the Queen of Australia. Indeed, though, the GG is not merely a delegate of the Queen, and has powers vested in the office directly by the Australian Constitution. However, nonetheless, the central role of the GG is to be the Queen's representative. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 05:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Knowzilla is quite right: the sole purpose of the governor-general is to be the personal representative of the monarch; the Queen appoints this person to sit in council, in parliament, and (in theory) on the bench in her place. This is precisely how the viceroy differs from a high commissioner; the latter is merely a representative of a government of one Commonwealth country to that of another. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The G-G was originally the representative of the British Government and saying he was the Queen's rep was a polite way of putting this. Times have changed. Clearly we have a diversity of opinion on the subject. The actual involvement of the Queen in Australian executive government is pretty minimal - she gets told by the Australian PM who to appoint as G-G and she does it. She really has no say in the matter. I'd be interested to see any sources saying that the sole purpose of the G-G is to be the Queen's representative. Not even the Constitution goes that far, because it adds a bunch of other functions. The G-G's website noted above is a reliable source, and it lists a whole slew of functions, with the Queen's representative role a way down the list. Do we have anything more definitive than that? --Pete (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the constitution. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act establishes that it is the Queen who is a part of parliament and the Queen in whom executive authority is vested. The same document then explains that the governor-general shall exercise the Queen's powers in her stead. In essence, the governor-general has no power to govern without a monarch to govern in the name of. As Gazzster already said, the governor-general is nothing without the Queen.

Further, there is no power that the constitution says the governor-general can exercise that the Queen can't; the Royal Powers Act 1953 says that, when the Queen is in Australia, any "power under an Act exercisable by the Governor-General may be exercised by the Queen." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation there. The Governor-General's powers are given directly to him. He might be said to execute a few powers in the name of the Queen, but that is beside the point - the powers are assigned to him in the Constitution and the Queen cannot change the wording of the Constitution. Nor may she give the Governor-General any orders or instructions on how to exercise his powers. There is also the matter of statutory powers given directly to the Governor-General, and again, the Queen cannot change those. Section 64 is a good example of an executive power given directly to the Governor-General, and exercised in 1975 in his own right. The Queen cannot appoint or dismiss ministers, nor may she direct the Governor-General to do so. --Pete (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Are there any duties, functions, roles of the Governor-General of Australia that are not essentially equivalent to those performed by the Queen of the United Kingdom in that realm? That might give me pause for thought if there are. If not, it's a pretty good indication that representation of the monarch is the primary role of the G-G. I think it's bizarre to dismiss the Constitution of Australia, which defines the role explicitly and is the framework for the entire parliament and Commonwealth law, as some outdated colonial relic in preference to the prominence given to vice-regal functions on a website. I think you'll find that any reliable source regarding the role or duties of the G-G will always refer to the Constitution in the first instance. --Canley (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The Governor-General performs the same duties as the Queen in the UK - this is the essence of the Statute of Westminster. At the 1926 Imperial Conference, the Empire’s Prime Ministers declared that the Governor-General of a Dominion was no longer to be the representative of His Majesty’s Government in Britain, and that it was no longer in accordance with a Governor-General’s constitutional position for him to continue as the formal channel of communication between the two Governments. The Conference further resolved that, henceforth, a Governor-General would stand in the same constitutional relationship with his Dominion Government, and hold the same position in relation to the administration of public affairs in the Dominion, as did the King with the British Government and in relation to public affairs in Great Britain.[4]

I'm not disregarding the Constitution, but it certainly gives a greater role to the Governor-General than merely being the Queen's representative. As the Governor-General's website demonstrates.--Pete (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I think I finally understand what you're getting at. --Canley (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The Royal Powers Act covers statutory powers only. The Queen may exercise powers given to the Governor-General by an Australian Act when she is personally present in Australia. --Pete (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Again: the constitution explicitly says it is the Queen - not the governor-general - who forms a part of parliament and the Queen - not the governor-general - in whom executive authority is vested. The constitution says the governor-general may exercise the associated powers on behalf of the Queen, and then spells out how.

The Royal Powers Act doesn't differentiate between statutory and other powers. The Queen may exercise whatever duties the governor-general may according to an Act of Parliament, such as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, for instance. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act is an act of the British Parliament. Furthermore, unless the Constitution explicitly provides for legislative augmentation (usually using the formula "until the Parliament otherwise provides"), it may not be altered except through the provisions of s128. As the Commonwealth Solicitor-General put it at the time, The Constitution expressly vests in the Governor-General the power or duty to perform a number of the Crown’s functions in the Legislature and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth. In this regard, the Australian Constitution is a great deal more specific and detailed than is the earlier Constitution of Canada. The bottom line is that no Australian Act may amend the Constitution except as provided, and the Royal Powers Act does not give the constitutional powers of the Governor-General to the Queen. Only we the people may do that through a referendum. Furthermore, the Queen's response (expressed through her Official Secretary) to the 1975 crisis states, As we understand the situation here, the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands of the Governor-General as the representative of the Queen of Australia. The only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and The Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution. Her Majesty, as Queen of Australia, is watching events in Canberra with close interest and attention, but it would not be proper for her to intervene in person in matters which are so clearly placed within the jurisdiction of the Governor-General by the Constitution Act[5] --Pete (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act was originally passed in the British parliament, but I don't understand the significance of that fact to this discussion. It's still an act of parliament and one now only within the jurisdiction of the Austrlaian parliament. It makes the Queen - not the governor general - a part of that parliament and the Queen - not the governor-general - the person in whom all executive authority is vested. The power to govern Australia, therefore, is the Queen's and carried out in her name by her representative, the governor-general, unless she is in the country herself, and then either can do so. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I reckon things are intepreted differently in Australia. Remember the old 'care-taker prime minister' argument? GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Got a reliable source for that opinion? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No offence intended, Miesianiacal, but while I draw upon the published statements of constitutional scholars, you appear to have an interior authority and expertise. It seems to be your contention that (for example) the power to appoint and dismiss ministers belongs to the Queen, despite that power being expressly given to the Governor-General. It would also follow that you regard the Royal Powers Act 1953 as unnecessary, as the Queen supposedly possesses all the powers of the Governor-General, because you regard all executive authority as belonging to the Queen, and he is solely her representative. Can I ask you what your understanding is of Sections 2, 101 and 128, and are you familiar with the thought experiment known as Plato's Cave? I'd also like to direct your attention to R v Governor of South Australia (1907) and solicit your comments thereon. --Pete (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The appointment of ministers is an executive power. In whom is executive power in Australia vested? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Come on, Miesianical. No Australian minister has ever been appointed or dismissed directly by the crown, and never will be. The Queen washed her hands of Kerr's actions in 1975, saying it was not a matter for her and entirely a matter for us Australians to sort out. The Constitution says "61. The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative ...". Then, "64. The Governor-General may appoint officers ... Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General". So, the very authority that gives the Queen this theoretical power also denies her the possibility of ever exercising it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Miesianical is trying to say that this power is the Queen's but the Governor-General exercises it on her behalf, which is an obvious but incorrect interpretation, because s128 negates the possibility of any revocation implied by s2. Only the people may amend the Constitution to add to or remove or modify the Governor-General's constitutional powers. Therefore this power (among others explicitly assigned) is not part of the Queen's "vested" executive power. The Constitution is not a logically complete document, all ends neatly tied up and squared away. Nor is it frozen in Imperial aspic. Australian constitutional arrangements have similarities to Canada's, but it would be very wrong to treat them as identical. I'm relying on Professor RD Lumb here, but other more recent texts would have the same interpretation. --Pete (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, how is one to play this game when you keep setting new and arbitrary rules? Now the constitution is no longer a reliable source. Who knew? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Things are interpreted differently in Australia. When PM John Howard lost to Kevin Rudd, I argued that Howard was PM until her resigned, but others here, said he was 'care-taker PM'. It was something we didn't use in Canada. GoodDay (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Constitution, like most legislation, must be interpreted, and we rely on other documents and judgements. The Statute of Westminster, for example, and the subsequent Australia Act, changed the rules. In Sue v Hill, we found, without a word of the Constitution being changed, that between 1901 and 1999 Australia had become an independent nation to the extent that the United Kingdom was regarded as a foreign power. If the Canadian Miesianacal would find something than his own individual interpretation of the Australian Constitution to use as a source, then he might be able to push his opinion a bit further. I'm not out to score debating points here, merely to see if I'm correct or not in observing that representing the Queen is not the primary function of the Governor-General. We surely don't want to be peddling myths to those readers seeking information. --Pete (talk) 07:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Canadian Miesianiacal is not interpreting the Australian constitution, he's quoting it verbatim. It's you who's offering the interpretations based on some unfounded idea that the constitution can no longer be considered a valid source. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent my position. I'm grateful for your input, but if you really want to be helpful, you could hunt up some reliable sources for your argument. I notice that you didn't respond to my request for your views on certain sections above. I took that to mean that you felt unsure of your ground. --Pete (talk)

GoodDay, please see Caretaker government of Australia. Both sides of that argument are right: Howard did indeed continue as PM until he handed in his commission; and he was indeed the caretaker PM, and had been ever since the Parliament was prorogued prior to the election. Being a caretaker PM is not a lesser form of PM-ship, it's simply a temporary "holding pattern", if you like, pending the outcome of the election. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested in arguing about that 'again'. I just wanted to point out to Mies, that Australia interprets things differently, then Canada. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Consider the significance of the Royal Powers Act. It was passed precisely because constitutional authorities were advising the Government that the Constitution did not give the Sovereign authority to act in the stead of the Governor-general. We have the odd situation that when and if (it's unlikely she would again) the Queen in Australia performs an office of the executive she does so in the name of the GG, her representative. As mentioned, her authority so to act is by leave of the Parliament of Australia, not from constitutional right.And even that power is ad hoc, to be used at the discretion of the Australian Government. As mentioned, 1975 is also significant. The House of Representatives, dominated by angry Labor MPS, petitioned the Queen to revoke Sir John Kerr's decision. THe Palace not only answered that the Queen would not, but she could not. Sure, the GG has no authority without the Queen. But then the Queen has no authority except that which the Constitution specifically gives her. And there are only two: to annul an act of Parliament, moribund, and never exercised, a leftover from imperial times, and to appoint or dismiss a Governor-general.Gazzster (talk)

And even in the latter case she has no power to make up her own mind. Her approval is of course required for the appointment of a G-G, but for her to act contrary to the advice (= command) of her Australan PM would now be unthinkable. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, monarchial vetoes from Elizabeth II are rare. PS: Though this is off-topic, I hope a full recovery for your country, from the flooding. GoodDay (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing to say the Queen couldn't refuse the advice of her Australian prime minister; she hasn't been stripped of her reserve powers, for use in certain (albeit extremely rare) circumstances. Regardless, Gazzster reiterates my point: the GG has no authority without the Queen. The executive authority to issue orders-in-council isn't the governor-general's; it's the Queen's. The authority to give Royal Assent to bills isn't the governor-general's; it's the Queen's. Etc. The constitution says the governor-general, not the Queen, is to exercise those powers as her personal representative (though, the Royal Powers Act says the Queen may do so herself when in Australia (with no mention of it being in the name of the governor-general)). There's therefore nothing wrong witht the opening of this article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing to say that the Queen cannot act unilaterally, likewise the Governor-General. Nothing at all apart from the fact that if either did so they would very quickly be out of a job. The convention is that neither acts without advice, except in the very rare cases where the reserve powers are called into play. I don't think that the Queen has any latitude at all in her few powers, and the Governor-General very little, as we saw in 1975, when he acted without advice to commission a new Prime Minister who would guarantee Supply and advise an election. It is incorrect to say that the Governor-General's powers belong to the Queen - they are specifically given to him in the Constitution and the Queen can neither exercise them herself, nor augment or modify or remove them, nor give directions on their use.

It should be remembered that the Constitution stems from a time when the Governor-General was a British official appointed to represent the Imperial Crown and the only advice given to the Queen (Victoria, in those days) was from the British Government. Attempting to argue that because the wording of the Consitution remains largely unchanged, that likewise nothing in our relationship with the UK and the Queen has changed in the intervening years is ridiculous - the Constitution must be read in contemporary context, for example by taking into account the Statute of Westminster, the Australia Act, the withdrawal of the Queen's Instructions, the updating of the Letters=Patent and so on.

May I suggest that editors, rather than expressing their opinions in an increasingly repetitive and strident fashion, turn to reliable sources? Here's a beginning, one of the Parliamentary Library's very useful Research Notes dealing with The Powers of the Head of State. I underscore the fact that the powers listed are those of the of the Governor-General, not the Queen. --Pete (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever's decided here (concerning interpetation) is gonna have a ripple effect on all political articles related to Australia & articles related to the Elizabeth II. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a matter of presentation, I suggest, rather than Wikipedia making a unilateral decision on who to anoint as the Australian head of state. For the moment that is really out of our grasp, but give us another ten years... Personally, I got into this rather arcane area some fifteen years ago when I learnt that Australia's arrangements on this point were not as cut and dried as I had imagined, and that the Governor-General was not merely the monarch's deputy. Stuff keeps emerging - an early High Court decision found that the State Governors - and not the monarch - were the heads of their respective states, and that the Governor-General - and not the monarch - was the head of the Commonwealth of Australia. These were judges who had helped draw up the Constitution and presumably they knew what they were talking about. While it's a field full of dusty old trivia, it is also something that is important in the modern world, where Australia steadily throws off the links to the colonial past, emerging as an independent sovereign nation. --Pete (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You guys seem to have a monarchial republic, or a republican realm. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Australia has long been described as "a crowned republic". One unusual aspect of our constitution is the high level of public involvement. An election was held for delegates to the Constitutional Conference charged with drawing up the document, the final form was approved in a referendum, and amendment is not possible without another referendum, where a majority of voters in a majority of states must agree. The monarch may not change the Constitution at all, and Parliament may only do so if the people give them that power. Ultimate control over the form of the government, its offices and powers therefore resides with the Australian people, a feature which is one of the definitions of a republic. But of course, the well-loved Queen Victoria could not be left out, and as a matter of practical consideration, the British government was not going to cut Australia completely loose. --Pete (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Victoria? GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Queen Victoria was the British monarch during much of the Nineteenth Century during which the Australian colonies (including those of Victoria and Queens-land) slowly moved towards federation. That is why the Constitution says "Queen". However, she died in early 1901, between the proclamation of the Commonwealth of Australia and the first meeting of parliament. --Pete (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I must thank ya'll here. You've proven that Elizabeth II's status in the 16 commonwealth realms is not equal. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I've woken up this morning with a clearer head. Sorry guys/gals, Elizabeth II is Australia's Head of State. The Australian Constitution doesn't say the Governor Gneral, therefore it's the Queen's postition to loose. Until & if it's proven that the GG is HoS, we should not assume the Queen isn't. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In relation to the original question in this thread, this comes from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs: "Australia's Head of State is the Queen of Australia, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Under the Australian Constitution, the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercised by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative".[6] Particular attention should be payed to the last four words. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the original question, is representation of the monarch - a fact which nobody disputes - the primary function of the Governor-General? While some editors think that this is his or her sole duty, I disagree strongly. Representation of the Queen constitutes a very minor part of the job. --Pete (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The constitution says it's the primary function of the governor general: All of the powers the governor general exercises - executive and legislative - are, according to the constitution, the Queen's and exercised by the governor general as her representative. S.1-2: "The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives... A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth..." S.61: "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative." But, then, you've dealt with that by simply dismissing the constitution as an unreliable source that's "out of step with reality." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Despite what others in Australia believe or think, Elizabeth II is the Head of State. By perfoming HoS duties in the Queen's absence, the Governor General is representing her. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The Queen could be standing beside the Governor-General in Parliament House in Canberra and she would still be unable to perform any of the constitutional duties specifically given to the Governor-General. The Queen is quite unable to appoint a minister or prorogue Parliament or command the armed forces. Her response to the 1975 situation made that quite clear and this is backed up by any number of constitutional scholars. Your opinion is out of step with reality. --Pete (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Do we have an article on the 1975 situation Pete? It would be good to read the details on it. Thanks. John Hendo (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

1975 Australian constitutional crisis? --Canley (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Due to (my) temperment, I've chosen to drop out of this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, sorry, you've lost me again, Pete. Are you saying that the Governor-General only represents the Queen where and when they perform duties in her absence which she could herself perform were she in Australia (such as opening parliament)? That because the Queen (of Australia) is bound by the Constitution and convention not to hold certain positions and exercise executive and reserve powers on her own prerogative, because these are specifically assigned to the G-G, that these constitute the Governor-General's primary role but they are not representing the monarch in fulfilling this role? --Canley (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2011

When the Queen is in Australia and opens Parliament, she represents the Governor-General. The Royal Powers Act had to be passed and certain Parliamentary regulations rewritten to allow her to do a job normally performed by the G-G. The "politeness" of the Constitution is misleading. An uninformed reading gives the impression that the G-G's powers are wide indeed. She is charged with the command of the military, for example, and her website devotes some space to explaining that the defence force is under the control of the government. Likewise, the Queen is specifically given the power to disallow legislation, and this notion frightens many. But, of course, she only acts under advice, and it is now inconceivable that the Australian Prime Minister would advise the Queen to disallow her own legislation.

And, while the Governor-General is said to represent the Queen and to do many tasks in her name, just how real is this representation? The Governor-General doesn't take instructions from the Queen and the Queen has no actual power. If the Governor-General were to dismiss the Prime Minister, then she would be doing so entirely from her own specific power and she would not seek prior approval from the Queen. The Queen could be standing in Parliament House beside the Prime Minister, and she would not be able to dismiss her, nor appoint another in her place. How can Kerr's act in 1975, arguably the most important moment in our constitutional history as a nation, be said to have been performed in the stead of the Queen? It is one thing to talk of "the Queen's representative" but that is not a complete description of the office. --Pete (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I found this communication by the Queens private secretary in 1975 to be of interest: "As we understand the situation here, the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands of the Governor-General as the representative of the Queen of Australia. The only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and The Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution. Her Majesty, as Queen of Australia, is watching events in Canberra with close interest and attention, but it would not be proper for her to intervene in person in matters which are so clearly placed within the jurisdiction of the Governor-General by the Constitution Act."

It has obviously been very carefully worded but this sentence interests me. "The only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and the Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution." Let me ask you this, why would a Head of State say they have no part in a ruling taking from the Constitution? Let me just say, I'm not saying here that she is not the head of state, but it does seem to be a strange communique from a Head of State. John Hendo (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I must say this is a very strange discussion. The Government site linked above (the DFAT site) says the Queen is the HoS, Kevin Rudd (then the PM) said the Queen is HoS when Ms Bryce touched off a controversy about it, constitutional scholars say the Queen is the HoS, and republican groups talk about replacing the Queen with an Australian Hos, yet editors here seem unwilling to recognise that although the GG could be regarded as a de fact HoS, the Queen is in fact the HoS. It may in fact be a bit daft that in 2010 the Queen remains the HoS, but there it is none the less. -Rrius (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I am perplexed by this statement - "When the Queen is in Australia and opens Parliament, she represents the Governor-General". GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That is the effect of the Royal Powers Act. She is able, when personally present in Australia, to exercise powers specifically given to the Governor-General. I chose this wording deliberately, trusting that it would set thought flowing. It is always instructive to look at things through another's eyes. --Pete (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

They're the Queen's powers to excercise. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The Royal Powers Act only says that whatever powers that belong to the Queen and are exercised by the governor-general can be exercised by the Queen, too. It makes no mention of representation, whatsoever. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

If the powers belonged to the Queen, then why bother to pass an Act? --Pete (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

To permit the Queen to exercise the executive and legislative powers of Australia given to her in the constitution. Surely you've read the act, have you not? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have, and I disagree with your interpretation. You sound quite confident in your view, so you must have some source that isn't your own opinion. Would you be so very kind as to share it, please? --Pete (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You're entitled to disagree with me, of course. But, you're only expressing your opinion as much as I am. You've not yet provided any reliable source that claims Elizabeth represents her governor-general. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

After reading through all of this I have come to the conclusion that the Queen is Head of State in name only, almost a ceremonial role. The Governor General appears to hold all the authority that a Head of State should have. We can't actually call him the Head of State of course, because even though he does have the authority of one, he doesn't actually hold that position in an official capacity. The Queen is the Head of State (officially) but can't use the powers of that position. Would that be about right? John Hendo (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That's kinda an argument for all the commonwealth realms. Reserve powers, which AFAIK haven't been used without PM advice to do so. Nobody would suggest she's like the Swedish monarch though. GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to tell me what AFAIK means. I'm no good at this jargon. John Hendo (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Queen is not defined as the Australian Head of State in any law. Anywhere. It is all opinion. So where is this "official" capacity? --Pete (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It begs the question. If no one person is defined in law as the Australian Head of State, does Australia actually have a Head of State? If government websites are not in any way official, then fair enough, it's not official. John Hendo (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2 The governor-general doesn't hold the authority a head of state does in other parliamentary democracies; the Queen holds it. It's only that it is just the governor-general who's permitted by the constitution to exercise the Queen's powers, except for the Royal Powers Act, which permits the Queen to personally use whichever of her powers the constitution says the governor-general may.

Also, AFAIK is an acronym for "as far as I know". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Mies's interpretation of the Royal Powers Act is not correct. He believes that the Act ednables the Queen to use her constitutional powers. But surely if the Constitution gave her the powers comeasurate to the powers of the GG, an act would not be necessary to activate them. All that would be required would be a regulation, if that. Consider also the implication for the 1975 crisis. We would have to interpret the Queen's refusal to intervene on the request of the House of Representatives to be partisan. For if the Queen could have acted, and chose not to, she must have done so for political motives.Gazzster (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your comment, Gazzster. A quick look at the Royal Powers Act is quite revealing. Firstly, the short title is "An Act relating to the exercise by the Queen of Powers under Acts of the Parliament" - that is, under Acts of the Parliament of Australia. The Constitution is not an act of the Parliament of Australia. David Smith says this act was necessary to enable the Queen to open sessions of the Australian Parliament and to preside over sessions of the Federal Executive Council. That is, until this act explicitly allowed her to do these things, she had no power, right or authority to do so. That is, the Governor-General has always since 1901 had powers that the Queen didn't have until 52 years later. Had the Menzies government chosen not to introduce this bill, the Queen would have been powerless to open the very Parliament of which she is an integral part. It also means that whenever a governor-general opens parliament ostensibly in the queen's name, he or she is NOT doing so as a representative of the queen but in the governor-general's own right. But that still doesn't make the governor-general our head of state. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I know Smith supports the idea that the GG is head of state, but there seems little justification for his claim. The GG acts as head of state, and enjoys some of the dignities of one (such as being commander-in-chief of the armed forces). Constitutionally Australia is unique and that's all that can be said.Gazzster (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Mies' interpretation appears more correct than any other here. The constitution explicitly gives executive power and the power to make law to the Queen. The Royal Powers Act was necessary because, as has already been pointed out a dozen times, the constitution permits only the governor general to exercise the powers that belong to the Queen; the act permitted the Queen to personally use the powers given to her by the constitution. (It is also irrelevant to 1975, since the Queen is required to be in the country to personally exercise her royal powers, and she wasn't at that time.)

If there was some subsequent amendment to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act that said "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General" and "The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Governor-General, a Senate, and a House of Representatives... When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Governor-General's assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Governor-General's name", then I've yet to see it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you find a source that validates your opinion that the Royal Powers Act 1953 allows the Queen to exercise the Governor-General's constitutional powers, please? Your interpretation is at odds with the conventional view. --Pete (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll try when you find a source that validates your opinion that the constitution doesn't reflect reality. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you can't find a source. Fair enough. Thanks for trying. As for my supposed opinion, you puzzle me. Could you, please, find where I said the constitution doesn't reflect reality? My recollection is that I said it was out of step with reality, giving the examples of the Prime Minister, not mentioned in the Constitution, but nonetheless playing a significant role in the government of the nation, and the Inter-State Commission, sprawling over four sections of the Constitution, but not to be found in the real world. If you took a different interpretation than the one intended, we can sort it out, but please don't attack me for statements I never made! --Pete (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

And, apparently, nor can you find a source to support your opinion that the constitution doesn't reflect reality; or is "out of step with reality" as you put it. Thank you for saying so. Now, back to your question: it's a red herring. I never said the Royal Powers Act allows the Queen to exercise the governor-general's constitutional powers. I said it allows the Queen to exercise her constitutional powers; the ones explicitly given to her by the constitution but otherwise only exercisable by the governor-general, as per the same constitution.

You seem confused by the difference between having a power and exercising a power. Executive power is the Queen's, for instance, and is exercisable by the governor-general, but, for all intensive purposes, it is actually exercised by the prime minister. That doesn't mean, however, that the power is the prime minister's. The power is lent to the ministers of the day and may be denied to them by the Crown should they abuse it. Along the exact same lines, the constitution of Australia is explicit in giving executive and legislative power to the Queen. Though the governor-general may be the only person permitted by the constitution to exercise those powers given to the Queen, they're not his powers. Of course, I'll stand corrected if you can show me where the constitution was amended to give executive and legislative power directly to the governor-general. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The Queen's response (via her Private Secretary) to being asked by the Speaker to intervene following the dismissal of her Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975 is very instructive:

As we understand the situation here, the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands of the Governor-General as the representative of the Queen of Australia. The only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and The Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution. Her Majesty, as Queen of Australia, is watching events in Canberra with close interest and attention, but it would not be proper for her to intervene in person in matters which are so clearly placed within the jurisdiction of the Governor-General by the Constitution Act.

Now, if the 1953 Royal Powers Act gave her the power to do anything the Governor-General can legally do, surely that would have made her at least theoretically competent to commission a Prime Minister. But here she is, denying that she has any such competency. She wasn't saying it was inconvenient or inappropriate or even undesirable for her to play a role in the issue, but that she had no competency at all. This adds weight to my view that the Royal Powers Act had absolutely nothing to do with powers deriving from the Constitution, but everything to do with powers deriving from acts of the Australian Parliament. It's a red herring in the context of the issues of who is the Head of State or what constitutional powers the queen and the governor-general have or who represents whom, if anyone. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As I've said already, the Royal Powers Act has nothing to do with events in 1975 as the act only permits the Queen to exercise her constitutional power when she is in Australia. I don't believe she was in Australia at all in 1975. So, she was quite right to say, at that time, that only the governor-general could exercise the royal prerogative to commission a prime minister, per the constitution. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you keep missing the point I'm making. Even if she had been in Australia at the time, she still would not have been able to commission a Prime Minister. The Royal Powers Act did not give her that power, because that power derives directly from the Constitution and the RPA is about powers created under acts of the Australian Parliament. The Constitution is an act of the UK Parliament. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The Royal Powers Act makes no reference acts passed by the Australian parliament. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act is now an Australian act (unless you can prove that it is still within the jurisdiction of the British parliament). It thus follows that the Royal Powers Act permits the Queen to exercise the executive and legislative powers given to her by the constitution but otherwise exercisable only by the governor-general. If you see it differently, I wonder how it is you think the Queen is able to carry out executive functions like chairing meetings of the Executive Council or issuing Royal Proclamations. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It certainly does make mention of acts passed by the Australian parliament. As I pointed out above, the short title is: "An Act relating to the exercise by the Queen of Powers under Acts of the Parliament". What could "the Parliament" refer to, other than the Parliament of Australia. The Constitution is now fully Australian and cannot even in theory be amended by the British Parliament. But that's only been the case since the Australia Acts 1986, fully 33 years after the Royal Powers Act was enacted. Other than sections that say "Unless the Parliament otherwise provides" etc, I very much doubt if the Australian Parliament can simply pass a law that allows Person B to have the powers given to Person A by the Constitution, because that would amount to an amendment of the constitution, which requires the approval of the people at a referendum. Also, while only Australia can amend the Constitution, I still would never say it is "an Australian Act", certainly not in the sense intended in the Royal Powers Act. But IANAL (are you?) and we may need support from reputable sources about the intent of the RPA. I've looked for the Second Reading speech from 1953 online, in vain. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to steer clear of using SDS as a source, because although he knows his stuff, he is participating in a political debate. Winterton or Craven might be seen as more objective, but trying to find useful references is heavy going. Mies, you are just plain wrong on the powers issue. The Queen doesn't have much power at all, either in the Constitution or anywhere else in Australia. She can appoint (and theoretically dismiss) the Governor-General, but that's about it. You really should try to find yourself a good book on Australian constitutional law, rather than relying on your own uninformed interpretation and then getting grumpy when other editors don't agree with you. We're all in pretty much the same boat here. Even if one of us were a you-beaut professor of law, we still would have to find exterior sources. --Pete (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The Queen can and does exercise her powers under the Australian Constitution without being in Australia. From the comfort of the royal couch in Buckingham Palace she languidly slopes her name across the parchment proffered by a page, and Lo! a new Australian Governor-General is commissioned. She doesn't have to jump into the royal barge and urge the crew over the seas to do it in Australia, though I am sure that every Australia Day, as she surveys the cold and grey skies drizzling down over the Mall, she wishes that it were otherwise. Nor did her father, nor grandfather, nor greatgrandfather and so on have to leave London to commission a fresh Governor-General. --Pete (talk)

In agreement with Mies. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Not even a murmur of happiness at my jokes? Geez. --Pete (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Mies, if the Constitution Act (both an Australian and British act since patriated into Australian law) gives the Queen power to exercise the Governor-general's powers), no act of Parliament is required for her to exercise those powers. She could do it by prerogative, whether she was outside of Australia or not. That's pretty straightforward.But you get yourself into a bind when you say an Act of Parliament was necessary for her to exercise her constitutional powers. If Parliament is necessary to activate those powers then Parliament must have been binding them in the first place. If not, why is an Act necessaery? Gazzster (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's a reliable source [7], stating that Elizabeth II is 'head of state' of all 16 commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the text of the Royal Powers Act 1953:

• (1) At any time when the Queen is personally present in Australia, any power under an Act exercisable by the Governor‑General may be exercised by the Queen.

  (2) The Governor‑General has the same powers with respect to an act done, or an instrument made, granted or issued, by the Queen by virtue of this section as the Governor‑General has with respect to an act done, or an instrument made, granted or issued, by the Governor‑General himself or herself.

  (3) Nothing in this section affects or prevents the exercise of any power under an Act by the Governor‑General.

  (4) In this section, references to the Governor‑General or to the Queen shall be read as references to the Governor‑General, or to the Queen, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council.

Two things to note: section 2 and section 3 seem to indicate that the acts of the Queen under the Act cannot supercede or annul the acts of the Governor-general.Section 4 state that neither the Queen nor the Governor-general may act without ministerial advice. Section 3 would appear to suggest that the Queen acting with the GG's powers does not act from constitutional right. And just as a matter of interest, section four seems to suggest that Sir John Kerr acted contrary to the Royal Powers Act in 1975. Gazzster (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ya mean Kerr shouldn't have fired Whitlam? GoodDay (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn;t form that conclusion. The Royal Pwers Act affected only the powers the Queen has, it had no effect on the powers the G-G has, nor is he/she bound by it, imo. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hiya GoodDay! It's a bit off-topic but there were two conflicting constitutional principles at stake in November 75. The first was the principle that a government cannot govern without supply. The second, equally important principle is that a ministry that does not enjoy the confidence of the Lower House cannot govern. So while the Senate blocked supply to the House of Representatives, Whitlam still enjoyed a majority in the Reps. In fact,only hours after the dismissal, the House of Reps passed a motion of no confidence in the caretaker PM. Fraser should, according to Westminster convention, have stepped down. In fact the Speaker of the House and Whitlam had both booked meetings that afternoon with Kerr to advise him to re-commission Whitlam. But Kerr dissolved Parliament before they could see him. It was a terrible tragedy. Neither Kerr nor Whitlam were communicating with each other as frankly as they should have. The disaster was Whitlam's as well as Kerr's.Gazzster (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

At least politicis is more exciting in your country. In my country, things began to stir up in the winter of 2008/09, but then the GG spoiled it, followed by the Liberals stabbing the NDP in the back. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Australian head of state

I have created a new article, based on text found in the Government of Australia article, at Australian Head of State. I urge all editors involved in the discussion above to edit the article, using reliable sources to reference their statements. --Pete (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)