This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
One of course notices that in Australia there is a hyphen in the title. Does that not make the plural "governor-generals"? Masalai (talk) 09:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I would guess that many Australian organisations and writers would use the Macquarie Dictionary as the standard for Australian style and spelling: in this case, the Macquarie says that either form is acceptable ("plural governor-generals or governors-general"). Unsurprisingly then, there are style guides and writing manuals which mandate either version. For example: according to the Reuters Handbook of Journalism, their style is to include the hyphen and the plural as "governor-general, governors-general". However, the Southern Cross University School of Law and Justice Style Guide say the opposite, warning caution when spelling "Governor-General or Governor-Generals; not Governors-General". I will check the Commonwealth Style Guide when I get to work tomorrow, but looking at a few federal government websites it looks like they use "Governors-General" pretty widely. --Canley (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Terrific. Do please report on your finding. Odd that I've never previously noticed, having been both a high school teacher, law student and practising lawyer in Australia. Curious though hardly important both that a new spelling -- with a hyphen -- was adopted after 34 years in 1901 and was therefore commonplace among the British for subsequent dominions. Masalai (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The Australian Oxford Dictionary also says either plural form is acceptable. I can't find any references to this specific plural in the Commonwealth Style Manual in the sections on Plurals, Compound words or the Governor-General. However, as I said previously, the Commonwealth government seems to use "Governors-General" almost invariably, including the G-G's official site. --Canley (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, good for you. Thank you. I noted that according to Wikipedia, the Canadian form is "As governor is the main noun in the title, it is the term that is pluralized; thus, it is governors general, rather than governor generals." Both of course make sense and throughout their respective histories both Canada and Australia have freely borrowed from each other without ever acknowledging the source of their supposed inventions. Not at all any cause for indignation of course. Masalai (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I would want to argue that although both forms may be "acceptable" due to common use, "governors-general" is actually grammatically more correct and, therefore, is the preferable form. I remember someone once arguing to me that the correct plural, if there could be such, for two mothers of Jesus would be "Virgins Mary" rather than "Virgin Marys". Not too sure about this one! Afterwriting (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Well no. But then "Mary" is not the adjective that "General" in this context might be. Especially with the hyphen. Curiously, a little further investigation reveals that Newfoundland didn't bother changing "Governor" to "Governor General" when it acquired dominion status. Perhaps because it wasn't a multi-province federation but that had no effect on subsequent dominions that also were not federations. Masalai (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Dismissal
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In the "Reserve powers" section, on describing the Dismissal, we say Kerr determined that he had both the right and the duty to dismiss the government and commission a new government that would recommend a dissolution of the Parliament. This doesn't ring true to me. Kerr said in his autobiography that commissioning a government that could guarantee supply was why he acted. Dissolving Parliament was a secondary consideration. As it stands, the statement makes no sense - he had the duty to dismiss the government because it wouldn't dissolve Parliament? That applies to just about every government, including the current one. Gillard isn't about to dissolve Parliament, and the Governor-General doesn't have the duty to dismiss her because of that. It would be insane for either PM or G-G to hold such a view. Does anybody have a reliably-sourced opinion? --Pete (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Link to "Australian monarchy"
Latest comment: 11 years ago59 comments6 people in discussion
Looking at this edit, Miesianical refers to "factual". In point of fact, the Australian constitution does not reference any other monarchy but that of the United Kingdom. If there has been any change, please provide a source. One that does not involve WP:SYNTHESIS, nor some glib reference to the Statute of Westminster, which contains the words, Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to confer any power to repeal or alter the Constitution or the Constitution Act of the Commonwealth of Australia or the Constitution Act of the Dominion of New Zealand otherwise than in accordance with the law existing before the commencement of this Act. Likewise, the Australia Act contains similar wording: ...do not operate so as to give any force or effect to a provision of an Act of the Parliament of a State that would repeal, amend or be repugnant to this Act, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, the Constitution of the Commonwealth or the Statute of Westminster 1931 as amended and in force from time to time. --Pete (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but Mies is correct. Let's start with the most obvious source, the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973, which is still in effect. It approved the following title: "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth". It, of course, replaced the 1953 act. There are a range of other sources, ranging from infosheets produced by the Government and by Parliament and statements by federal and state MPs: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. There are thousands more from gov.au sites alone. As for your specific question of when, it is (as ever) unclear because of the step-wise fashion in which Australia gained sovereignty. Since nothing relevant happened of constitutional significance between the Statute of Westminster and the Royal Titles Act 1953, which proclaimed her "of the United Kingdom, Australia, and her other realms and territories, Queen", the Statute of Westminster is probably the last event that could be said to have spawned the separate crown. What's more, this article shows both that the phrase "Queen of Australia" and the fact of Australia being a separate realm were acknowledged when she acceded. Calling her queen of Australia based on Australia's being a realm is not synthesis—it is definitional: a realm is an area over which a sovereign rules (i.e., a kingdom). Therefore, she has been Queen of Australia since February 1952. -Rrius (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
It's also slightly baffling to object to a link to Monarchy of Australia with the link text "Australian Monarchy". If the thing doesn't exist, nor should the article. If the thing does exist, linking to it makes perfect sense. So if you truly believe there is no such thing as the Queen of Australia, and AfD is the reasonable course, not link deletion. Of course, given the volume of sources, official, scholarly and otherwise, it would behoove you to present some evidence of your theory besides WP:SYNTHESIS based on a failure to amend 101-yeAar-old language in the Constitution. -Rrius (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. There's no dispute that Elizabeth II has the title of "Queen of Australia", or that the Crown is divisible, or that Australia is a separate Realm. What I'm looking for is a source that somehow overrides the wording of the Constitution. A specific statement, not something that involves synthesis. We cannot say something is in the Constitution if it is not. Nor can we use a website, a letter, nor even an Act of Parliament as a superior source to the Constitution. The Constitution may only be amended by referendum. --Pete (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't fully understand your point, but I think the answer is that the Constitution was superseded by the Statute of Westminster 1931 and the Australia Act 1986. These were Imperial acts, and the Westminster Parliament was not required to follow the amendment procedure proscribed by the Constitution Act.
In any event, there were two links. The first seems to have nothing to do with your objection, and the second has been removed on the unrelated grounds that quotations shouldn't contain links at that having that link for the second time in two paragraphs violates WP:OVERLINK. Do you agree with that assessment? -Rrius (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but I refer you to my first post in this thread. I quoted the Statute of Westminster and the Australia Act, both stating that they do not modify the wording or meaning of the Constitution of Australia. "The Queen" of the Constitution is defined thus: 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. Not in the sovereignty of Australia, but the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. King George V and King George VI both appointed Australian Governors-General after the Statute of Westminster, and before the Royal Style and Title Acts, which only apply to Elizabeth II in any case. If the Queen were to die tomorrow, she would be succeeded by King Charles III of the United Kingdom, who is, under the Australian Constitution, the only person who may appoint an Australian Governor-General. He would not, however, hold the title of King of Australia, as that would necessarily have to wait for a fresh Royal Style and Title Act. --Pete (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's not true. The Statue of Westminster changed constitutional law without changing the wording of the Constitution Act. The Australia Act did so again. There was no requirement for the Imperial Parliament to change the wording because no Westminster Parliament can bind a future one. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act created one constitutional settlement. The Westminster Parliament then created a new settlement via the Statute of Westminster with the proviso that the Commonwealth had to opt in. It did so.
The other point you make is that the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 only applies to the current Queen. That is false for two reasons. First, statutes that discuss the sovereign routinely refer to "the King" or "the Queen", as the case may be, and it is understood that the provision also applies to future holders. Second, you seem not to have read the act. It authorises the Queen to issue a proclamation changing the Royal Style and Titles; it does not actually set the words in stone, it just says what form is acceptable for the proclamation the Queen was to issue. Thus, even if the lack of "heirs and successors" meant anything normally, it wouldn't here because the act was authorizing a one time event that happened in October of 1973.
Frankly, the assertion that the GG is the representative of the UK crown, rather than the Australian one, is the one that needs support, and from more than just looking at one line in the Constitution Act and ignoring every law of constitutional significance issued thereafter. That is especially true since you acknowledge that there are separate Australian and UK crowns, but still assert that the Governor-General is appointed by the latter. Do you have any support from constitutional law experts or scholars of any kind? Because there is a logical inconsistency. Who advises Elizabeth II on whom to appoint as Governor-General: David Cameron or Julia Gillard? Julia Gillard has no power or authority to advise the Queen in right of the United Kingdom on anything whatever. If it is truly the case that the GG represents the Queen of the UK, then David Cameron would advise her on the appointment. I think we all know that is not the case. Also, as mentioned below, the commission for a new GG is issued by the Queen with her Australian title, meaning she makes the appointment as Queen of Australia. Otherwise, her title on the commission would read "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith." -Rrius (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Let me address the points raised above one at a time. First of all, the Statute of Westminster and the Australia Act, as quoted above, specifically do not alter, nor permit anything to be repugnant to the Constitution. If you can show me exactly how either act altered the clear meaning of the definition of "The Queen" in the Constitution, I would be grateful. What is the source of your opinion? If you tell me, I can read it too. Maybe I'm missing something.
My basis for saying that the Royal Style and Titles Act only applies to the current Queen is the wording of the Schedule to the Act, which reads, Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.[9] I do not see the words "Charles the Third" there, nor does the Act provide for any extension or continuance of the title to any further monarch. Again, if you have a source that supports your opinio to the contrary, please share it.
I do not say that the Governor-General is the representative of the UK crown. You are going well beyond what I have said there. The King or Queen of the United Kingdom is advised on the exercise of their Australian constitutional powers by the Prime Minister of Australia. That has been the case since 1 December 1930, when Scullin advised King George V to appoint Sir Isaac Isaacs as Governor-General. This predates the Statute of Westminster of 11 December 1931. The commission of the current Governor-General quotes the Queen's title as ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. [10] This is the exact wording of the 1973 act[11] and includes, by implication, the United Kingdom amongst "Her other Realms". --Pete (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Now I'm no constitutional lawyer/scholar, Pete, but it seems to me that there is more "synthesis" in defining the Governor-General as the representative of the Crown of the United Kingdom than the other way round. The references to the United Kingdom in the Constitution Act 1900 are vague at best—I count three or four, but I suppose you are referring to the one about the provisions of the Act extending to "Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom"? I reckon that would only make it unconstitutional for Australia to appoint a King/Queen who wasn't also the Queen of the UK. In terms of the role of the Governor-General, its powers, functions and authorities are enshrined in section 2, but this does not specify the title of the appointing monarch. The prerogative instrument which defines the Governor-General's role are the Letters Patent Relating to the Office of Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, initially issued by Queen Victoria in 1900 to create the role, and which have been amended several times since 1958, most recently in 2008 [12], and which specifically refer to "ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories Head of the Commonwealth", so unless the Queen is violating the constitution every time she issues Letters Patent for Australia by not referring to herself as the Queen of the United Kingdom... etc., I think it is perfectly reasonable to refer to the Governor-General as the representative of the Queen or King of Australia. --Canley (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Assent original of Australia Act 1986 (UK), located in Parliament House, Canberra Thanks. You've got a line on the problem. The Queen, in appointing a Governor-General or issuing Letters-Patent or any other constitutional role in Australia, does so as Queen of the United Kingdom, but that is part of her Australian title, because the United Kingdom is one of her "other Realms". Along with Canada, New Zealand and so on. The title is a bit of a red herring, in any case. She doesn't need to call herself anything - a signature alone is sufficient. For instance, the Queen signed the 1973 Royal Style and Titles Act here as simply "Elizabeth R". She doesn't have to describe herself. The point is that she performs her constitutional role as the monarch of the United Kingdom, the constitution has not been amended to say anything else, and if we link to an article, it must be that of the British Queen. Perhaps a narrow and pedantic point, but factual nonetheless. --Pete (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
"Queen of Australia" and "Queen of the United Kingdom" are separate roles; you admitted that earlier, but now you are reneging. They are, nowadays, utterly distinct aside from the fact that one human holds both offices. That is called personal union. Neither is subsumed within the other. If the Queen attempted to appoint a Governor-General of Australia under her UK or Canadian title and seal, it would not have any meaning. Everything the Queen does in reference to Australia, aside from sending High Commissioners from other realms, is done as Queen of Australia. You are contradicting that, but all you do to support that is make contradictory statements and point to one line in the Constitution Act, failing to take on board that other acts of the UK Parliament had changed the nature of the Crown with respect to Australia without bothering to amend the text of the Constitution Act. You also refuse to point to any outside source that supports your position that somehow the GG represents the Queen in right of the UK rather than the Queen in right of Australia. That is an unusual (I am tempted to say "fringe") view, and something more than your explanation of your interpretation is necessary. -Rrius (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you are biting off a bit more than you need to here. I didn't say anything about the Governor-General representing the Queen, for example, let along make specific qualifications. I'm also wondering what source you hold for your statement above: If the Queen attempted to appoint a Governor-General of Australia under her UK or Canadian title and seal, it would not have any meaning. Do tell? I refer to the appointment of Sir William Slim as Governor-General on 8 May 1953, twenty days before the proclamation of her new title of "Queen of Australia etc.".
Could you please point to the exact piece of legislation, or otherwise, that alters the meaning of the definition of "The Queen" as given in the Constitution? If you cannot find any direct statement, that's fine. I'm just trying to determine the basis for your opinion. --Pete (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, your reliance on Section 2 is misplaced. It says, "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." All that does is say that the human who is at any given time the sovereign of the United Kingdom is also the person to whom the term "Queen" applies in the act. That does not mean that things done under the Constitution Act are done by that person as sovereign of the United Kingdom. Sure, at the time the Constitution Act was written, there was no distinction. In the meantime, the import has changed, and it now means that the person who is the sovereign of Australia is the same person who is sovereign of the UK. -Rrius (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Does it really? I think that goes beyond any reasonable interpretation of the words. I think it means that the human who is at any given time the sovereign of the United Kingdom is also the person to whom the term "Queen" applies in the act. If you have a source that says anything different, let me know, please. --Pete (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
From australia.gov.au: "The Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia represents the monarch of Australia - currently Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia." That is clear and from a government source. As such, I think the onus is unambiguously on Pete to come up with sources that support his position. -Rrius (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The Constitution of Australia is not modified or over-ridden by a website. For what it's worth, I do not disagree with the statement above, except to point out that using the short form of the Queen's Australian title does not mean the long form is invalid. --Pete (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
What about the argument that the clause about succession—"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"—is not actually part of the Australian Constitution? It is clause 2 of the Constitution Act 1900, an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Constitution of the Commonwealth itself is schedule 9 of that legislation. The Statute of Westminster and the Australia Act(s) apply because they severed the applicability of legislation between the UK and Australia—so neither Australia nor the UK can legislate to amend the monarch's title in that Act (with effect to Australia), and it is therefore overridden by subsequent legislation in both countries without the need for a referendum—as it's not actually the Constitution being changed. --Canley (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Lumb and Ryan are little help to me here, as they follow a circular sort of argument. I think the fact that the British Act has not been amended nor repealed means that the wording still stands, and I cannot find any subsequent British Act which purports to amend or modify the clear meaning. Certainly not the Statute of Westminster, which rules out any amendment at all.[13] --Pete (talk) 05:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
That's what I'm saying: the Constitution Act 1900 has not been amended or repealed, nor can it be, by either country's parliament—it is effectively abandoned. I'm not saying the Statute of Westminster or Australia Act amended or appealed the Constitution or the Act—you are correct, they specifically do not—or that the Constitution Act no longer applies. That said, there must be thousands of contradictory and outdated clauses on the British statute books which have never been formally repealed or amended, but which in practice and law are superseded by subsequent legislation. But that is beside the point. My point is that it's not a contradiction of that clause for the Governor-General to represent the Queen of Australia, and s. 128 does not apply (the referendum requirement) because the clause is not part of the Constitution. The provisions of the Act do apply to the heir and successor of Queen Victoria as sovereign of the United Kingdom, Elizabeth II, who appoints the Governor-General to represent her in the Commonwealth of Australia as the Queen of Australia. --Canley (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Three points. First, I think you are relying on your own interpretation, rather than any specific examination of the relevant clause. We need a source, and as I see it, nobody has provided a source that explicitly contradicts the written word of the Constitution Act. Secondly, the representation of the Queen is a different matter, one I'm not buying into here. Thirdly, I'm not arguing any wider question, merely saying that we can't link to the Queen of Australia when the Constitution doesn't mention such a person. --Pete (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi again, Pete. If I could offer an observation? Perhaps your objection is so subtle that it is lost in all this discussion. Several times now you've suggested that editors are putting words in your mouth. Perhaps it is because your points are just too subtle. Is it so important that wikipedia should not be able reference the Constitution to state the Governor-general as the Queen of Australia's representative simply because it does not use the phrase Queen of Australia?
Two other points pertinent to this discussion: the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953 did not create the Monarchy of Australia. It simply gave Her Majesty a title proper to Australia. The monarchy of Australia was created at least by Westminster, if not before. Secondly, the role and powers of the Governor-gerneral are created by the Constitution itself, not by the delegation of the Sovereign. This is an important constitutional principle, upheld in 1975 when the Queen refused to intervene in the crisis. So it actually doesn't matter whether the Queen in the Constitution is referred to as British or Australian- it makes no difference to the GG's role.Gazzster (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely it's my interpretation/opinion, I don't dispute that. I just wonder what kind of source would satisfy you here: you seem to be dismissing links to government documents, Acts of Parliament and Letters Patent as undermined by the Constitution—yes, in many cases that would be correct—but in this case, I don't think I'm the only one who finds the link between the succession clause in the Constitution Act and the role of the Governor-General really tenuous and based on your interpretation. I don't think you can just point to the constitution and say "case closed, prove otherwise". Constitutional law is complicated and not cut-and-dried, it's why we have the High Court of Australia and constitutional scholars. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to provide a source or an interpretation of the Constitution which agrees that it does override the specific wording in the Letters Patent and the commission documents. --Canley (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
As I've noted several times now, the Queen's Australian title includes the United Kingdom. There's no conflict there. I'm not saying case closed, I'm asking for reliable sources that don't involve synthesis. High Court or Privy Council rulings would be fine. I'm not sure why people are focussing on the Governor-General here, I'm not. I'm talking about the Queen and a wikilink. What link and interpretation are you talking about? --Pete (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
As Canley has said, you've rejected an explicit Government source, the Letters Patent, particularly that of 2008, snd in another place, the official website of the Governor-general's Office, souces which do not use the title 'Queen of the United Kingdom' (but you claim that title is implicit in 'her other realms'). You ask for a High Court or Privy Council ruling. But why would these satisfy you but official statements don't? Gazzster (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Because they are the only things which can change the meaning of the words of the Constitution. If all it took to alter the Constitution was a webpage or a letter from the Queen, there would be no need for referendums or constitutional judgements. A secretary could draw something up. --Pete (talk) 10:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
We have a list of her other realms available, and it is easy to check that the United Kingdom is one of them. --Pete (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
But official statements published in, amongst other places, as website, and 'letter from the Queen' reflect the meaning of the Constitution don't they? The High Court cannot change the meaning of the Constitution. It's purpose is to interpret it. Likewise, the Privy Council could not change the Constitution. The only thing that can change the Constitution is a referendum. THe Constitution however is interpreted in the context of a shared monarch reigning over juridically distinct realms.Gazzster (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I really don't think we can use "reflections" as reliable sources. If you can find something which directly contradicts the specific words of the Constitution, please put it forward. Arguing over the Queen's title settles nothing - what title does she use when signing Australian bills into law? None. Are you claiming those laws have no effect? The Statute of Westminster took effect in late 1931 and the Queen's Australian title changed in mid 1953. And are you claiming that Governors-General from Sir Isaac Isaacs in 1931 to Sir William Slim in 1953 were not correctly commissioned? I don't think you are. --Pete (talk) 10:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
She signs bills under the Great Seal of Australia. Of course her signature doesn't include her title. Why should it? 'And are you claiming that Governors-General from Sir Isaac Isaacs in 1931 to Sir William Slim in 1953 were not correctly commissioned? ' I don't understand. What do you think I'm saying?Gazzster (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, I don't know. You seem to be arguing about the Queen's title. King George VI commissioned Australian Governors-General without calling himself King of Australia. Queen Elizabeth II commissioned Sir William Slim without calling herself Queen of Australia. Do you think the title matters? --Pete (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The title was created in 1953. The substance to which the title is attached was created long before that.Gazzster (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
If you could be more specific, it would be less frustrating in trying to pin down a reliable source contradicting the details of the Constitution. --Pete (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Sections 53–57 of the 1999 High Court case Sue v Hill[14] are quite relevant in this discussion, as they pertain to the status of the monarch and the reference in the preamble of the Constitution Act. "The result cannot be that, because the present sovereign has never been Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, the Australian Constitution miscarries for the reason, in Lord Reid's language, that "the state of things on which its existence depended has ceased to exist. Rather, and consistently with the reasoning of Windeyer J in Bonser v La Macchia, at least since 1949 the text of the Constitution, in referring to "the Queen", has to be read so as to follow these changed constitutional circumstances in the United Kingdom. Those circumstances may change again, and with similar consequences." --Canley (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Interesting, but I think the judges were merely stating the obvious: the change from "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" did not break anything in the Constitution, particularly as the monarch and government of that particular Realm remained unchanged. It was not a revolution. Specifically, they did not say that "United Kingdom" now meant "Australia". --Pete (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Concerning that you could have brushed off the implications of Sue vs Hill so lightly. ESpecially as you have been asking for rulings of the High Court. And this is what Canley brought you. To quote from the conclusion of the judges in Sue vs Hill:
The point of immediate significance is that the circumstance that the same monarch exercises regal functions under the constitutional arrangements in the United Kingdom and Australia does not deny the proposition that the United Kingdom is a foreign power within the meaning of s 44(i) of the Constitution. Australia and the United Kingdom have their own laws as to nationality[132] so that their citizens owe different allegiances. The United Kingdom has a distinct legal personality and its exercises of sovereignty, for example in entering military alliances, participating in armed conflicts and acceding to treaties such as the Treaty of Rome[133], themselves have no legal consequences for this country. Nor, as we have sought to demonstrate in Section III, does the United Kingdom exercise any function with respect to the governmental structures of the Commonwealth or the States.http://www.statusquo.org/aru_html/html/queenofaus.html#HighCourt
So if we go by a literal reading of the Constitution, as you insist, the Queen in the Constitution is a representative of a 'foreign power', a 'distinct legal personality' whose actions 'have no legal consequences for this country'. You seem to be arguing as Heather Hill did, that the Queen of the UK and the Queen of Australia are juridically the same person:
The High Court confirmed that the Queen of Australia does not act as a foreign Queen. One of the main arguments that was raised by Heather Hill was that the Queen of Australia is the same person as the Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. Therefore swearing allegiance to the Queen of Australia was the same as swearing allegiance to the Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. This argument was rejected by the Court on the basis that whilst physically it is the same person (Queen Elizabeth II) they are "independent and distinct" legal personalities. This notion is known as the divisibility of the Crown which Justice Gaudron found to be "implicit in the Constitution." (Summary of Sue vs Hill)http://www.statusquo.org/aru_html/html/queenofaus.html#HighCourtGazzster (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I was there in the court for the three days of the case, as a reporter. It was a great experience to watch the legal high-rollers fling their thunderbolts about. The fellow who impressed me most was actually Terry Sharples. A remarkable performance for a layman to be heard in full by the Full Bench. Nor did Heather Hill argue anything - she sat quietly by, a few seats away, and she probably followed her QC's arguments about as well as I did. But I digress. Sue v Hill has little that is helpful. I'm not arguing that the divided Crown is one. The essence of my point is that they are two and we cannot say that one is the other. Not without a reliable source. But perhaps we are getting somewhere on this line. I urge you to continue. --Pete (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Jeez! What more reliable source than a High Court decision do you want? Gazzster (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Does it explicitly say that the definition of the Queen in the Constitution means something other than what it specifically says? Or are you depending on WP:SYNTHESIS? --Pete (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Again- what more reliable source than a High Court decision do you want? Remembering that it was you who was demanding one. Gazzster (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
A High Court decision would be fine. However, so far as I know, the matter has not yet been decided by the High Court. Have you found some definitive statement on Covering Clause 2? That would be helpful. --Pete (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
Looking further into this, Professor Anne Twomey has written a paper touching upon some aspects of this problem here. See also her Senate Occasional Lecture here. The short answer is that there is no answer, the "cracks in the divided Crown" have been papered over, and whenever anybody attempts to settle the matter, another party delays or ignores it. A charming little anecdote concerns a Bill (on the abolition of Privy Council appeals) passed through the NSW legislature but never given assent due to conflict with Commonwealth advice. It sits in a drawer somewhere. Buckingham Palace officials asked if there had been a postal strike, because they had not yet received it. Twomey looks at High Court cases, but Sue vs Hill appears to have been the only one coming close to resolving the difficulty, and it did not. Perhaps the closest approach occurred with the passage of the Australia Act(s), when the UK expected that covering clause 2 would be repealed, but the Australian government took no action. Twomey continues to give lectures and write articles on the subject, and as of 2012 reports nothing new in this area. --Pete (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm finding it difficult to understand what reference would satisfy you, and why it has to be so specific? You have been presented with a number of authoritive references that explain the matter Why does section 2 have to be repealed? And if you accept the doctrine of the separated crowns, why is it an issue? The Constitutional Commission of 1988 reported:
(Extracts)The Constitution was not devised for the immediate independence of a nation. It was conceived as the Constitution of an autonomous Dominion within the then British Empire. Its founders were not to know of the two world wars which would bring that Empire to an end. But they had national independence in mind. Quite apart from the possible disappearance of the Empire, they could confidently expect not only continuing autonomy but approaching independence. This came within 30 years. They devised a Constitution which would serve an independent nation. It has done so, and still does So according to the Commission, independence from a British Crown is foreseen in the Constitution. THe Commission goes on to say
The disappearance of the British Empire has therefore meant that the Queen is now Sovereign of a number of separate countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea, amongst others. As Queen of Australia she holds an entirely distinct and different position from that which she holds as Queen of the United Kingdom or Canada. The separation of these 'Crowns' is underlined by the comment of Gibbs CJ in Pochi v Macphee[104] that 'The allegiance which Australians owe to Her Majesty is owed not as British subjects but as subjects of the Queen of Australia.' So sometime since 1901 the Crown referred to in sec 2 became an exclusively Australian Crown.
The matter could really not be anymore explicit. I suggest you have to spend more energy convincing us that sec 2 is a real, and not just a perceived problem, and how the importance of this problem is noted by authorities on the same level as authorities other editors have quoted you, that is, the Sovereign herself, the Governor-general of Australia, the Government of Australia, the High Court of Australia, the Constitutional Commission of 1988.Gazzster (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The quote above does not do anything more than reiterate the uncontroversial situation of the divided Crown. It says nothing about the Constitution, let alone Covering Clause 2.
If you would be so very good as to quote a High Court or Privy Council ruling on Covering Clause 2, that would settle this matter. It has to be specific, because the Constitution explicitly says one thing, and if we say in our article that it means something else, then we must have a direct source. And because it is the Australian Constitution, we must have a high level source - not the opinion of a journalist, a lawyer, a professor or even the government. If opinions served to change the Constitution, we would not go through the procedure of a s128 referendum every time the government wanted to change the Constitution. And if there has been a change of meaning in the Constitution, then the only body competent to rule on that is the High Court, again as specified in the Constitution. It is like asking for a Supreme Court judgement on the meaning of the US Constitution. Some circuit judge in Texas may say with all his dignity that there is no right to freedom of speech, but using his opinion as a reliable source in Wikipedia would be problematic. --Pete (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
One more address (with an acknowledged right of reply) and then I think we ought to let the matter rest. There is obviously no consensus for a change of edit.
Why is a government source not considered authoritive? Surely a government understands the principles upon which it functions. And if it doesn't, surely the Governor-general, whose role it is safeguard the Constitution, would correct it. But the Governor-general's authority in this matter doesn't satisfy you.
The High Court has ruled on the meaning of the Constitution vis a viz the divided Crown. You have spent little to no time addressing the extracts I and others have shown you.
You have not been presented with the opinions of lawyers, reporters, circuit judges, etc. You have been provided with extracts from the highest authorities.
Again, you need to find authoritive arguments for your case. Your interpretation of the words of the Constitution, however plain they may appear to be to you, are not enough.Gazzster (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Consensus doesn't beat WP:NOR. No matter how many editors agree on something, if it is unsourced, it doesn't go in.
I'm not sure, judging by your comments above, that you understand how the Constitution works. It is the fundamental document of the Commonwealth of Australia. Except as specifically provided, no other law can over-ride or alter or reinterpret it. It cannot be modified or reinterpreted by fiat - the Queen, the Governor-General, the government are powerless to change one letter of one word without going through the procedure for alteration provided in Section 128. The High Court is now the final authority on interpreting the Constitution, and we have seen how they handle necessary reinterpretation over the years, as with Sue vs Hill, where the Court found that the United Kingdom is now a foreign power for the purposes of s44(i), a finding which would have astonished those who drew up the document in 1900.
The government may say whatever it likes, but the High Court rules, and from time to time the court finds that the government's statements or actions or legislation are invalid, as with Chifley's attempt to nationalise the banks, or Gillard's attempt to send asylum-seekers to Malaysia. The Governor-General has no power to interpret or redraft the Constitution. Nor does the Queen.
The divided Crown is a long-standing convention, stemming from the Balfour Declaration. Of course the High Court has accepted this and made various rulings in accordance with this, as noted in Sue vs Hill, for example. However, they have not ruled on Covering Clause 2. It is really immaterial, because the same person acts as the monarch of each of the several realms, and the difference lies in who advises her: The Prime Minister of Australia on Australian matters and the Government of the United Kingdom on British matters etc.
The effect of Covering Clause 2 is to continue the authority of Queen Victoria through her successors without having to repeatedly use the same formula throughout the Constitution. Where we see the phrase "The Queen", we may insert "King George V" or "Queen Elizabeth II" or "King Charles III". This is generally non-problematic, though it might become so if the succession laws changed in a non-uniform manner throughout the various realms. We saw an example of this when Edward VIII abdicated and for a period of two days the divided Crown was divided in person as well, as the various realms scrambled to deal with the situation.
I don't know what you think I am proposing. Certainly no dramatic reinterpretation of the divided Crown, Australia's constitutional status, nor any free redefinition of sovereignty. I am merely saying that if we state as a matter of fact that the Queen appoints the Australian Governor-General, as per s2 of the Constitution, it is Original Research to wikilink "The Queen" to Monarchy of Australia. The Queen is defined as Victoria's successor in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, not Australia, and this definition has not been amended nor modified no reinterpreted by any competent body. We need a direct source for all our statements, and so far nobody has come up with a source that contradicts CC2 that doesn't operate through some chain of logic and interpretation. We cannot synthesise our sources.
The obvious solution is not to link "The Queen" to Monarchy of Australia when we are describing her constitutional powers. This shouldn't be a problem, because we aren't going to overwikilink every occurrence of "The Queen", and so long as we make it clear who we are referring to, we are not confusing any reader. If and when the arrangements change and King Charles assumes the throne, I would imagine that "Queen Elizabeth II" or "The Queen" will be immediately changed to "King Charles III" or "The King" by the usual eager beaver editors.
What part of the above is problematic, precisely? --Pete (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
can I remind you of a reply you gave to Canley above? ' The Queen, in appointing a Governor-General or issuing Letters-Patent or any other constitutional role in Australia, does so as Queen of the United Kingdom, but that is part of her Australian title, because the United Kingdom is one of her "other Realms". 'You seem to be arguing that the monarch is a generic Coles or Woolworths brand of monarch, who belongs to all her realms and not to one in particular. If so this is quite clearly contrary to constitutional doctrine. Or perhaps you are saying she is distinctly the Monarch of Australia, legally independent of the UK, but her title includes 'of her other Realms',in order to make her acts under the Constitution legal by allowing her to refer to section 2? If so, it is a rather clumsy and unecessary thing to do. Why not simply amend section 2? It is telling that no government has attempted to put such an amendment to a referendum. Evidentally none has considered it a problem in identifying the constitutional sovereignty as the monarchy of Australia.Gazzster (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you are barking up the wrong tree there. Trying to smooth over all the rough edges of the "divided Crown" is likely never going to happen. Just look at the fuss over the "Queen of Queensland" - is the Australian Crown one or seven? Amending CC2 to replace "sovereignty of the United Kingdom" with "sovereignty of Australia" would likely require a referendum - expensive and chancy - and for what effect? Nobody thinks that this clause somehow infringes Australian sovereignty or independence or has any effect other than ensuring that whoever is the monarch of the United Kingdom has the same powers and functions in Australia as Queen Victoria had when she was alive. If there ever comes a time when the UK and Australia have different monarchs, then this can be amended, but I suspect that this time will never come - we'll most likely amend the Constitution to remove all mention of "the Queen", making CC2 moot. The Constitution is already full of dead wood that could be cleared away. If anybody cared.
My point is pedantical and strictly confined to wikipolicy, as outlined above. --Pete (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I see. Thank you. I would observe however that it is, as you say, pedantic, and not really a problem. But I have enjoyed our discussion.Gazzster (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Pete, I think you gave the game away above, when you talked about how the fathers of the Constitution in 1900 would have been astonished at the Sue v Hill ruling. This demonstrates that, while the words remain immutable unless altered by a referendum, the interpretation of those words is a moveable feast. The Constitution lays down the sole procedure whereby the words can be changed, but nowhere does it say the interpretation of those words is fixed. There are huge swathes of the Constitution that the High Court has never been asked to pass judgement on. Does this mean that nobody knows what those sections mean? No, precisely the opposite. There is general agreement about what they mean, so there's no need to involve the High Court. Well, there's general agreement that the words in issue in this thread do now, despite appearances, in fact refer to the monarchy of Australia and not to the monarchy of the UK. It's never going to go the High Court for confirmation, because nobody but fringe-dwellers and your good self differs in their opinion. There are tons of sources saying you're wrong, and your continuing to fight to the last drop of blood just says to me that you find it hard to let go, and hard to recognise when you've lost both the battle and the war.
Good on you for upholding Wikipedia principles so staunchly, but please believe the rest of us when we tell you, over and over again, that your crusade is ill-conceived. I suggest you hire a good constitutional lawyer and take the matter up you know where if it continues to bother you. As for Wikipedia, consensus has well and truly spoken, and if you love Wikipedia's rules as much as you seem to, you will acknowledge this, accept it, and move on. To do otherwise would be the very definition of time-wasting and trolling. Sorry to be blunt, but there it is. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 03:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't think you understand the point I've been making. It's not a matter of popular understanding of constitutional theory, it's a matter of finding a source that's good enough to over-ride the Constitution. --Pete (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I understand only too well the point you've been making. And no, in here it's NOT "a matter of finding a source that's good enough to over-ride the Constitution", it's a matter of allowing consensus to rule the day. What we've all been saying is well and truly verifiable, but that doesn't seem to be good enough for you. You're after your particular version of "The Truth". That's not what Wikipedia is about, and you know it. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 06:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you get the point. I say that the motives and emotions you ascribe to me are wrong. Simple as that. Now, if you think that consensus trumps WP:NOR, then let us take this through the WP court system and find out where the priorities are. --Pete (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I just quoted your own words back at you, and now I don't get your point? Gimme a break, mate. You've explained your position at great length, so if anyone doesn't get what you're saying by now, that says more about your powers of communication than anything about them. Apparently everyone else is out of step, that's what's going on here. I've seen it before: an editor outlines their argument in detail; others read and understand his position; but if someone says "Your position is crystal clear, but I disagree with it", that sends them crazy. How could anyone possibly not agree with me when I've explained it to the nth degree? Obviously, they think they understand what I'm saying but really they don't. Only a person who agrees with me could ever really understand my position. Well, Pete, you have to give other editors more credit than that. It's frankly disrespectful when no response except agreement with your argument is ever acceptable to you. If you really must take this to the High Court of Wikipedia, nobody's gonna stop you. The voice of reason has certainly failed to do that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 07:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
No, you still don't get it. Covering Clause 2 of the Australian Constitution makes a plain statement. What source can you quote that specifically contradicts it? --Pete (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Pete, you state several times above that people have not understood your point here, and I must agree I am one of those. Would you be able to answer the questions below, as I think they will help clarify your point to myself and other editors:
Do you agree that the present Governor-General of Australia is appointed by, and represents, Elizabeth II as Queen of Australia?
Miesianical added two links pointing to Monarchy of Australia in the edit you point to when you raised this. It's not entirely clear whether you object to both of the links or only one. What I mean is, is it only the specific link from "The Queen" in the reference to the Constitution you object to ("The Constitution provides...")? Are you happy with the current state of the article, which has no link in the constitution paragraph, but does link on "represents the Australian monarch" and the infobox ("Elizabeth II as Queen of Australia"). If so, then I actually agree with you that the constitution link is unnecessary, both as possibly ascribing an unproven interpretation to the Constitution, as well as WP:OVERLINKing reasons.
Hard to find a definitive answer to the first one. The Governor-General is appointed by the Queen, but that's a constitutional power, which is held by the British sovereign, according to the Constitution, though the actual commission is signed by the Queen as "Queen of Australia". As for representation, in what way does the Governor-General represent the Queen? Most of the Governor-General's powers are assigned to the office directly, and it is only ephemera where the Governor-General does something in the Queen's name - such as act as commander in chief of the defence force where there is undoubted representation going on. Possibly there is some extra-constitutional representation going in the matter of awarding honours and so on. In another sense, one might argue that the British High Commissioner represents the British Queen, leaving everything specifically Australian to the Governor-General. It's a cloudy area. In any case, most of the Governor-General's job has very little to do with the Queen - there's a vast number of statutory functions assigned to the job by Parliament which would comprise the main workload.
Given the nebulous state of this representation, I don't have much objection to the first link, though as I have argued earlier, I don't think that the Governor-General's foremost function is representing the Queen. The second, where there is a direct constitutional link, I think fails under WP:NOR. Nobody has yet found a link which directly contradicts the Constitution without resorting to WP:SYNTHESIS.
Jack of Oz said I was playing a game, which isn't at all true, but does raise one way of explaining my view. Every morning I brew a big cup of coffee, make a copy of the sudoku puzzle from the Canberra Times, and settle down to solve it. I leave the original for my wife, because she enjoys it too. Solving the puzzle is an exercise in logic, and when all the easy numbers have gone, I have to begin working out the remainder through elimination and little tricks. Sometimes I feel that I know what digit should go in what position because it's the most likely or it feels right, but I won't ink it in until I have proven it correct.
So it is with this point. I wouldn't want to "ink in" the Queen of Australia into the Constitution, because there isn't any direct link. There's always some gap in the chain of logic. If the High Court had made a ruling on this specific point, that would be fine, but they haven't and I feel that anybody who says, "Screw you, obviously they mean the Queen of Australia!" may be right, but they are still jumping over the gap, trying to ink in a number that should only be pencilled in. If we start putting material into Wikipedia that is the result of guessing, even educated guessing, then we are performing original research.
In the real world, it's not a big deal. Australia is an independent, sovereign nation, the Queen is Queen of Australia, and the few moments when there might be a constitutional difficulty, such as during the abdication of Edward VIII, are rare indeed. But if we follow exact wikipolicy, we run into difficulty when we say something that isn't directly sourced. --Pete (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Who owns the reserve powers of the Governor-General?
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There has been some discussion on this subject elsewhere. I am wholeheartedly in agreement with the view expressed by Sir Garfield Barwick:
...the monarch has no power which can be exercised without or not in conformity with the advice of the Australian ministry. The powers given to the Governor-General personally are clearly defined. He has the power to appoint and therefore to dismiss the ministry which is appointed not for a term, but to hold office during his pleasure. This does not mean his personal pleasure, but means in substance so long as that ministry retains the confidence of the Parliament. He is given the power and authority to summon the Parliament, to prorogue it and to dissolve it. These powers of the Governor-General are explicit and are the result of the direct enactment of the Westminster Parliament, and not in any sense derivative from the fact that the Governor-General is representative of the Queen in Australia. The powers which are given to him are given to him personally and directly by the Constitution. There has been talk lately about reserve powers of the Crown. It seems to have been thought that Sir John Kerr's dismissal of the ministry in 1975 may have been an exercise of these reserve powers, but in fact he exercised an express power given him by the Constitution to appoint and to dismiss the ministry. The notion of reserve powers being available to the Crown was developed in Imperial days when it was thought that in the long process of converting an absolute monarchy into a constitutional monarchy there remained some powers of the Crown which were exercisable without the concurrence of the ministry. Whether or not this was a correct view, the Commonwealth Constitution leaves no room for any such notion[15]
The Queen does not, in Australia have any reserve powers such that she could dismiss a government. In fact, she cannot exercise any of the few Constitutional powers given specifically to her without advice. --Pete (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Reserve powers of the Crown
Latest comment: 11 years ago26 comments5 people in discussion
I'm asking for cites because the sources for this phrase "reserve powers of the crown" are sparse and shallow. It is commonly accepted that the Governor-General has reserve powers, and that the most famous example of their use was in the 1975 dismissal, when Sir John Kerr used Section 64 to terminate the government of Gough Whitlam. Equating s64 to the royal prerogative is a bit of a jump, however, and I'm looking for good source for this. It is also unclear whether the phrase "reserve powers" is understood in connection with the British monarch in her United Kingdom role. --Pete (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Please respect WP:BRD & don't restore your 'citation tag', until this is settled. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Please respect WP:RS and provide a source. If we don't have a source for the wording in our article, we cannot keep that wording. --Pete (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I guess you'll never learn. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Citation added. The British don't appear to use the term 'reserve powers', and the concept is part of the 'royal prerogative' (the extent of which are, according to the various sources I've consulted today, totally unclear as they're not legislated and in most cases haven't been exercised in the last 200 or so years). Nick-D (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but looking here, I can't find the phrase "reserve powers". I really must insist on a reference that clearly links the phrase "reserve powers of the Crown" with the royal prerogative. If we don't have a source for this, then we can't use it. My concern is that the phrase is being used to obscure meaning, rather than clarify it. --Pete (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I can't see anything beyond the publishing details of the book at that link. The reference from the 2012 online edition I've consulted (accessible via the NLA's website) makes the comparison pretty clear (the first two sentences are: "royal prerogative is a term which has changed its meaning considerably. In modern times it mainly refers to a reserve or discretionary power entrusted to the monarch.") The entry on "monarchy" in the Oxford Companion to Australian Politics makes a direct comparison between the two concepts, but that's not what's actually being discussed in this wording in the article (which is that the British monarch also has reserve powers, but they're not explicitly set out in a legal document as they are in Australia). Nick-D (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, let us say, "reserve powers of the monarch", if that is what we have a source for. "Monarch" or "Queen" is not the same concept as "Crown". Crown lands are not lands personally owned the monarch, nor does crown copyright mean that the monarch is the copyright holder. The "Crown" in modern parlance is a synonym for "the executive state" as opposed to the monarch personally or a specific government. When Kevin Rudd won in 2007 or Queen Elizabeth II succeeded her father in 1952, Crown lands, Crown copyright, Crown officers did not change. The prerogative powers of the monarch are definitely not powers held by the state in general. --Pete (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what point you're making here to be honest; this part of the article is discussing how the powers held personally by the monarch/GG are specified. Nick-D (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Precisely. The reserve powers are held personally by the monarch and the Governor-General. They are not held by "the Crown". I have changed the wording to what can be sourced. --Pete (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Your tweak to the article's wording is sensible (not least as 'crown' is now something of an antiquated term). Nick-D (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Pete/Skyring seems to believe the words "In Australia, however, the constitution allows for only the governor-general to exercise the reserve powers; their use is the subject of convention" are somehow not reflective of the source provided to support them: [16]. It is entirely unclear how that is the case. Perhaps he can explain. --ĦMIESIANIACAL 06:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Barwick says that the powers are given to the Governor-General alone. Your wording leaves open the odd notion that they were not, and that they might belong to some other body - a direct contradiction of Barwick's words. Let us be precise in our wording so as not to mislead the reader. --Pete (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
"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."[17] And, in case you want a secondary source: "the Australian governor-general exercises all the powers and undertakes all the duties of the monarch... Thus, George Winterton, an influential academic specialist on the governor-general's place in Australia's constitutional arrangements, recognises three areas of vice-regal activity: the ceremonial, the 'ordinary' governmental functions, undertaken on formal advice, and the reserve powers, where personal discretion is exercised."p.118 --ĦMIESIANIACAL 06:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The "executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and exercisable by the Governor-General", sure enough. But clearly this does not cover powers specifically given to officers named in the Constitution. Section 59 states, "The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor‑General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor‑General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known." How, precisely, is this power exercisable by the Governor-General? Or the power in Section 18: "Before or during any absence of the President, the Senate may choose a senator to perform his duties in his absence." Section 50 gives each House of Parliament the power to make rules for conduct of proceedings. Sections 51 and 52 give the Parliament the power to make laws for various functions. Section 70 states, "In respect of matters which, under this Constitution, pass to the Executive Government of the Commonwealth, all powers and functions which at the establishment of the Commonwealth are vested in the Governor of a Colony, or in the Governor of a Colony with the advice of his Executive Council, or in any authority of a Colony, shall vest in the Governor‑General, or in the Governor‑General in Council, or in the authority exercising similar powers under the Commonwealth, as the case requires.". It goes on and on through the arcana of the document. Specific powers are granted to various bodies and officers, and none of them are described as being "vested in the Queen and exercisable by the Governor-General".
If anyone can find a reference stating that the specific powers given directly to the Governor-General in Sections 5, 57, 58 and 64 - constituting the reserve powers of the office - are vested in the Queen, please be so good as to produce it. Once the powers are allocated, they cannot be amended except through the referendum mechanism of Section 128, which requires a special majority of the people of the Commonwealth. The people own these specific powers, and not even the smallest change is permissible without their concurrence, a boon rarely granted. --Pete (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
"The 'executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and exercisable by the Governor-General', sure enough. But clearly this does not cover powers specifically given to officers named in the Constitution." Well, there we have it; Pete/Skyring has personally interpreted the constitution of Australia and that's that, other reliable sources (and logic) be damned. WP:OR does not apply, apparently. --ĦMIESIANIACAL 16:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
You may find it hard to believe that this is the case, but it is. Accept it. Sir Garfield Barwick states that the Governor-General's powers belong to him alone, and another Chief Justice, Sir Gerard Brennan states it more explicitly:
…the law would have to discriminate among the powers presently exercised by the Governor- General. These powers fall into three classes: first, the executive power of the Commonwealth which s 61 vests in the Queen to be exercised by the Governor-General; second, powers vested in the Governor-General in Council; and third, powers simply vested in the Governor-General. Convention requires that all these powers are exercised only on the appropriate governmental advice but, exceptionally, the powers vested simply in the Governor-General may be exercised without or even contrary to ministerial advice in particular circumstances and then the powers are known, somewhat loosely, as the reserve powers. Australians became familiar with the term when Prime Minister Whitlam was dismissed by the Governor- General on 11 November 1975.[18]
Brennan is talking here of the various powers in ss5, 57, 58 and 64, of which the latter was exercised in 1975 by Sir John Kerr. He notes that these powers are not the s61 executive power vested in the Queen, but "powers simply vested in the Governor-General". An interesting footnote is worth quoting here.
Professor Winterton accepted that, at least since 1926, s 61 should be read as “exercisable only by the Governor-General”: see Parliament, the Executive and the Governor-General (Melbourne, MUP, 1983) p 51.
Mies holds the notion that the Queen owns the powers given in the Constitution, and may exercise them if she wishes, for example to dismiss a government. This is very much a fringe view, and we should not present it as anything but that. --Pete (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
"The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor‑General as the Queen's representative..."[19] "[T]he Australian governor-general exercises all the powers and undertakes all the duties of the monarch... Thus, George Winterton, an influential academic specialist on the governor-general's place in Australia's constitutional arrangements, recognises three areas of vice-regal activity: the ceremonial, the 'ordinary' governmental functions, undertaken on formal advice, and the reserve powers, where personal discretion is exercised."p.118
Nobody has said the Queen may dismiss an Australian government; your additions of phantom arguments only serves to bog down discussion; another common tactic of yours. The question is: to whom do the executive powers (which include the reserve powers) belong? Not who is empowered to exercise which of them? The constitution is clear, as are Boyce and Winterton. --ĦMIESIANIACAL 17:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
There are two Chief Justices who disagree with you. Barwick says the powers of the Governor-General are given to him directly, and Brennan distinguishes the executive power under s61 from the powers given directly to the Governor-General. Your personal interpretation of the Constitution, contradicting the explicit statements of two eminent Australian jurists, is a bold step, but not one we can use as a source. If you have a source stating that (say) Section 64 falls under the Section 61 executive power, then please present it. --Pete (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The matter isn't about who agrees with me; I am relaying information from reliable sources and the chief justices don't necessarily disagree with them. It is only your personal, sometimes inventive, sometimes limited, and usually illogical misinterpretations of sources that disagree with the sources I provided. --ĦMIESIANIACAL 17:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Both of them state that the powers of the Governor-General are given directly to the office. Barwick says,
These powers of the Governor-General are explicit and are the result of the direct enactment of the Westminster Parliament, and not in any sense derivative from the fact that the Governor-General is representative of the Queen in Australia. The powers which are given to him are given to him personally and directly by the Constitution.
Brennan explicitly distinguishes the reserve powers from the Section 61 executive power:
These powers (of the Governor-General) fall into three classes: first, the executive power of the Commonwealth which s 61 vests in the Queen to be exercised by the Governor-General; second, powers vested in the Governor-General in Council; and third, powers simply vested in the Governor-General.
Please cease the personal attacks, Mies. In Australia we may accurately and precisely use the phrase "the reserve powers of the Governor-General". This is the normal usage here. Why do you want to use another, less precise phrasing? And do you have any reliable source stating that the reserve powers of ss5, 57, 58 and 64 come under s61? You quote the Constitution repeatedly, but that is your personal interpretation of a primary document, and we really need something better than that. --Pete (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
"The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor‑General as the Queen's representative..."[20] "[T]he Australian governor-general exercises all the powers and undertakes all the duties of the monarch... Thus, George Winterton, an influential academic specialist on the governor-general's place in Australia's constitutional arrangements, recognises three areas of vice-regal activity: the ceremonial, the 'ordinary' governmental functions, undertaken on formal advice, and the reserve powers, where personal discretion is exercised."p.118 Where is my "personal interpretation", please? --ĦMIESIANIACAL 22:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. However, I'm wondering if you have any reliable source stating that the reserve powers of ss5, 57, 58 and 64 come under s61? If you do, please quote the exact wording. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question. --ĦMIESIANIACAL 15:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. You quoted a chunk of Section 61, which is a primary source. My understanding is that you see all of the Governor-General's powers as flowing from the Queen. You see him as exercising the royal powers. You then quoted Winterton on the functions of the Governor-General, and at this point I'm unable to follow any reasoning you may have. What I'm not seeing is any definite statement as to who owns the reserve powers. I'm wondering what chain of logic you are following to support your preferred wording in this article. --Pete (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
It's hard to follow this thread, but this may be of interest. -- Jack of Oz[Talk] 22:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
What exempts the Governor-General and state Governors from voting?
Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
Vice-regal officers act in a politically neutral way and do not vote.
I marked the last part as needing a citation. I've never given any thought as to whether governors-general and state governors vote or not. It makes sense for them to be seen to be totally non-partisan and apolitical, and the Queen certainly does not vote. But on the other hand they are (these days) Australian citizens, and Australian citizens are required to vote, unless they fall into a class of exempt persons. I've had a look through the Commonwealth Electoral Act but couldn't see anything exempting vice-regals from voting.
According to Anthony Green [21] the GG has to be on the electoral roll and "turn up to vote" as he or she doesn't have an exemption from the relevant laws, but historically they have always written "to the local returning officer at each election stating reasons why he is unable to vote" and this has always been accepted as valid by the officer (only in Australia!). Anthony's Green's post here should count as RS. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Nick. What a strange procedure. They're technically in breach of the law, and it's up to an official to exercise his discretion to waive the penalty prescribed by said law. What an absurd position to place all people concerned in. A bit like the traffic cop who catches the Police Commissioner speeding or drink driving and "chooses" to turn a blind eye. If it's widely accepted that the queen's representatives should act impartially and apolitically, a much more practical and transparent approach would be to make them exempt from voting while they occupy these positions. But what do I know. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 12:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems a ridiculous arrangement! (and a dubious practice for the de-facto head of state to not set a good example by voting when they have a legal requirement to do so). My understanding though is that returning officers have discretion to accept pretty much any sensible excuse for not voting, so the GG probably isn't being treated all that differently from other Australians here. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The difference is that other Australians are normally required to vote, but particular circumstances can make it impossible or inappropriate for them to do so, and that can be accepted. On the other hand, I don't think vice-regals should even be allowed to vote in the first place, because even just having their name on the electoral roll is in conflict with their position of official indifference to party politics. Maybe the govt should include this change in its next red tape clearout day. But I won't be holding my breath. Over and out. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 01:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Jack: I think the vice-regals are supposed to be impartial (politically neutral), not indifferent. Indeed, they are expected to take a keen interest in politics precisely so as to be able to act impartially. And, on that view, I see no reason why they should not vote, given that the ballot is secret. Wikiain (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. The fact is that they don't vote, and the fact is there is a procedure that is followed to make this OK. I was merely commenting on that procedure vs. what I assumed would have been a more set-in-stone arrangement via a law. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 02:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
It's a secret ballot, and nobody knows if a citizen actually has voted. I think the legislation requires that we attend the polling place rather than actually number the boxes or whatever. So the Governor-General turns up, gets his or her name crossed off, hands the blank ballot to the returning officer and explains in writing why they are voting informal. This "Queen's representative" business doesn't extend to every action they do. Technically our Governors-General are not viceroys because they obviously don't have the full range of powers available to the monarch under the Constitution, not being able to appoint anyone to the office of Governor-General and a few other bits and pieces. They also have statutory powers normally unavailable to the monarch, and whatever State or civil powers they might have should they also occupy non-Commonwealth positions.
They are not the only Commonwealth officers to normally refrain from voting. There was a case a few years ago where an election resulted in a tie and the winner was determined by tossing a coin. The returning officer explained - perhaps with his tongue in his cheek - that as he had not cast a vote in the election itself, this was his "casting vote". --Pete (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually Nick-D is closest to the fact and you have all touched on the essence of the matter. As the GG and/or State Governor commands the issuing of writs, they are considered in the same way as officers and as such seek permission from the Commissioner of the AEC (or State equivalent) to be excluded from voting due to the nature of their office. This procedure is conducted before the election to avoid impropriety and formalises the accepted practice of the monarchs representative not voting. Another example of how our constitution and regulatory framework has checks and balances. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 08:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
BRDiscussion
Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Looking at these changes, I'm seeing a lot all at once and some of it looks like unsourced personal opinion. I'm not opposed to getting rid of unsourced material, nor including good sourced content, but I'd like the chance to discuss these changes point by point. --Pete (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The section contains a load of WP:OR conducted by cherry-picking sources out of context. The same as you tried to do at Australian head of state dispute and a number of earlier times here. --ĦMIESIANIACAL 22:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy to go through them point by point, with the input of any other regular editors here, Mies. Let's see if we can sort out reliable sources for the content and get rid of any unsourced opinion. --Pete (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
We've already presented our arguments to each other, at this talk page and elsewhere. Has anything changed on your side? --ĦMIESIANIACAL 23:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Let's cover each item you want to change, looking at the sources and let's see if we can eliminate any OR or bias. The two of us working together should be able to highlight any problem area quickly enough, and the comments of other editors may help to guide our work. If we can be as precise as possible, then we can focus in on items of difficulty. And it may be that some of your changes are mutually agreeable. I'm just a little concerned about making a lot of changes all at once, that's all. --Pete (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I made a few changes that were relatively minor: grammar, removing repeated material. That shouldn't need discussed.
There is no "each item", as though they can be handled separately. I've already outlined the problem with the entire section: its full of OR; each "item" is connected to all the other items because the whole thing is an essay promoting your point of view. You and I have argued over your point of view before; anything I say here will only be a repeat of what I've said to you before. I suspect it will be the same from you to me. --ĦMIESIANIACAL 00:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I felt that some of your changes represented personal opinion and were unsourced. Could you supply the specific sources that inform your view, please? --Pete (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Sir Paul Hasluck quote.
Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
Sir Paul Hasluck during his term as Governor-General, summarised the position:
The duties of the Governor-General are of various kinds. Some are laid on him by the Constitution, some by the Letters Patent and his Commission. Others are placed on him by Acts of the Commonwealth Parliament. Others come to him by conventions established in past centuries in Great Britain or by practices and customs that have developed in Australia.[1]
This is a quote from Sir Paul Hasluck, who served as Governor-General from 1969 to 1974, given in a speech during his term, so it's at least forty years old, but it is quoted (with more of the same speech) in the current House of Reps Practice. It looks to be a useful and authoritative quote. In fact we could possibly remove some of the Sir David Smith material for this one. Is there any specific reason you don't like it, Mies? --Pete (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
No one likes the hypocritical editing rules you impose. Whether or not and how the quote gets inserted can factor into the above argument. --ĦMIESIANIACAL 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I haven't reinserted it, Mies. Perhaps we can discuss your objections? It's good, sourced material. What's wrong with it other than my editing style? --Pete (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
If there are no specific objections arising, I shall reinsert it. --Pete (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Now, what is your specific objection to this well-sourced, relevant and non-controversial material that you have waited five days to tell me? --Pete (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not conducting this discussion (as brief as it will be) in two places at once. I answered you at my talk page. I will continue to do so there. --ĦMIESIANIACAL 00:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Unreasoned removal of good content
The insertion of the Hansluck quote was apposite to the article. Its repeated removal is unintellligible. The editor who has been doing that exhibits above that he is more concerned with pursuing the inserting editor with bitterness and anger than discussing here his objections for the reasoned consideration of others. The insertion should be allowed to stand without personal harassment or provocation. Qexigator (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The insertion of the Hasluck quote was to add to Pete/Skyring's essay supporting his thesis. How it's included (if it's included) should factor into the discussion on the section itself. Pete/Skyring also made it abundantly clear there was to be no editing of that section without a consensus for the edit being established first. What's good for the goose, as they say. --ĦMIESIANIACAL 19:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
This quote is seen by the Australian Parliament as worthy of inclusion on their website on the "Role of the Governor-General" page.[22] That's where I found it. --Pete (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
^Hasluck, Paul (1979). The Office of Governor-General. Carlton: Melbourne University Press. p. 10. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
