Talk:Governor-General of Australia/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

An aid to discussion

Two of the Australians responsible for initiating and drawing up the Constitution were Sir John Quick and Sir Robert Garran. The latter, as the Commonwealth's first Solicitor-General, is revered in Canberra. There is a suburb named after him. (Quick, on the other hand, is memorialised by a shortish street, just one block away from my home in Reid. Still, it's more than I or any other editor will have.)

Their great work was the publication, concurrently with Federation on New Year's Day 1901, of The annotated constitution of the Australian Commonwealth.[1] A best-seller at the time, it remains a fundamental work of constitutional scholarship. Now out of copyright, the full text is available here. (A searchable copy may be found here.) As a pertinent, reliable and authoritative source, it is one I will quote from to aid our discussions.

For example, at page 390, the powers of the Governor-General are listed with the comment,

These are powers and functions vested in the Governor-General by statute, to be exercised by him in accordance with the recognized principles of Responsible Government. The point to emphasize is, that they are legislative and executive powers and functions conferred on the Governor-General, not by Royal authority, but by statutory authority.

Note the phrase "vested in the Governor-General by statute, to be exercised by him". These are the powers of the Governor-General alone. --Pete (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

To my mind, this is good to support the proposition, if it can be shown to be current in Australia, "that the Australian Governor-General's role is not limited to representing the Queen". Not yet conclusive, of course, but certainly notable enough for respectful mention. In other words, I daresay it could be argued both ways before a court of competent jurisdiction. Qexigator (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

What are the powers invested in him/her alone? TFD (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

As per the searchable text link above. I quote:

The principal and most important of his powers and functions, legislative as well as executive, are expressly conferred on him by the terms of the Constitution itself. Among these may be mentioned: the appointment of the times for holding the Sessions of Parliament; the prorogation of the Parliament; the dissolution of the House of Representatives (sec. 4); the dissolution of the Senate and of the House of Representatives simultaneously (sec. 57); the convening of a joint sitting of the members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives (sec. 57); the assent in the name of the Queen to Bills passed by the Federal Houses; the withholding of the Queen's assent to such Bills; the reservation of Bills for the Queen's pleasure; the recommendation of amendments to be made in Bills (sec. 58); the exercise of the Executive power of the Commonwealth (sec. 61); the appointment of political officers to administer departments of state of the Commonwealth (sec. 64); the command of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth (sec. 68); and generally, “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” (sec. 70). These are powers and functions vested in the Governor-General by statute, to be exercised by him in accordance with the recognized principles of Responsible Government. The point to emphasize is, that they are legislative and executive powers and functions conferred on the Governor-General, not by Royal authority, but by statutory authority.[2]

Although the list dates from 1901, a quick check of the latest edition reveals no change. --Pete (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I asked which powers were invested in him/her alone and my reply was to the statement "Note the phrase "vested in the Governor-General by statute, to be exercised by him"." TFD (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad to be of service. --Pete (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if the authors are referring to the governor-general-in council, the governor-general-in-parliament, etc. For example, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, Par 2, Division 1, para. 9 (2) says, "The Governor‑General appoints the members on the nomination of the Minister."[3] Other (especially earlier) legislation may not mention a minister, but it would be implicit that the governor was "acting on the advice of" the government or, in some cases, the legislature or the courts. These are really powers given to the government, and the governor has no discretion in carrying them out. TFD (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

They're "given" to the governor-general as much as they're "given" to the government: that is, if one defines "given" as "being the one allowed to use". By law and by convention, the governor-general is the one allowed to use certain powers. By convention, it is the Cabinet that's allowed to use all those powers the governor-general is allowed to use. However, the constitution states only one person actually holds all that power: it is vested in the monarch. (Cue Pete/Skyring's OR in 3... 2...) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Pete's edit uses an authorative (though old) text to support David Smith's argument that the governor-general is "empowered to exercise, in his own right as Governor-General and not as a representative or delegate of the Queen, all the powers and functions of Australia's head of state."[4] That violates neutrality, because we are arguing in favor of one side. It violates NOR too. The authors were not making any sort of argument about who was head of state. Of course, if Smith had used this text to support his argument, then we could mention he had done so. TFD (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

If you can find a source for an alternate view, please put it forward. Smith references Quick and Garran frequently in his book Head of State. Mies, you are confusing the "executive power" mentioned in s61 with (say) the power to appoint ministers assigned in s64. Quick and Garran above make no such confusion, no does any authoritative source. If you think the executive power extends and covers all the other powers of the Governor-General, then please find a source that says as much. (Cue Mies' OR in 3... 2...) --Pete (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Alternative view to what? The "Àustralians for Constitutional Monarchy" do not represent that there is consensus or even majority support for their view.[5] One problem might be that "head of state" is a term developed to describe the office of president or similar position in a republic. It is inexact to apply it to a monarchy such as the UK, because there the Queen is the state. (That's the difference between a monarchy and a republic - whether government is a private or public matter.)

If Smith mentions the quote, then we can mention he uses it. But putting it on its own makes it part of our argument, not his, and we are not supposed to present our own arguments in articles.

TFD (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following your flow here. What quote are you talking about and why should it be funnelled through Smith? --Pete (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)→

The quote is "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." It's what you and Miesianical are edit-warring over. Your added it here (23:43, 14 December 2014), here (23:57, 14 December 2014), here (08:45, 19 December 2014), here (00:19, 20 December 2014), and here (00:23, 20 December 2014), Do you have any recollection of having made those edits?

It should be "funneled through Smith" if and only if Smith used that quote to support his arguments. If he did not then it should not be mentioned because it is not our role to provide support for arguments beyond what the arguers themselves have made.

TFD (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. I'm with you now. I thought you were talking about the quote from Quick and Garran in this section. The Hasluck quote is taken from the Australian Parliament House site on a page explaining the role of the Governor-General. It's one Governor-General giving his views on the role and powers of the post. Perhaps we could move discussion on that quote up to the relevant section?--Pete (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You need a secondary source to explain the relevance. Incidentally, I have applied for full page protection. TFD (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The secondary source would be "House of Representatives Practice", which thinks the quote is relevant enough for their page on "The Role of the Governor-General" as per the link above, which you don't seem to have followed. If it's good enough for Parliament to explain the role of the Governor-General with this quote, it should be good enough for us. Do you think you could articulate your exact objection? --Pete (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You placed it following Smith's argument which it appears to support. It is not btw a secondary source, but a primary one. If you cannot understand that providing arguments to support your personal point of view in articles is against NPOV, then I am wasting my time explaining it to you. TFD (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds to me like you have your own personal views on the subject. Would you regard any of the page indicated as relevant, and if so, which portions? --Pete (talk) 05:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I see the argument as irrelevant because monarchies do not have heads of state. As for the article, if it is relevant then you need a source that says so. It appears to be wholly irrelevant. The legislature has provided authority to lots of officers, that does not make them head of state. For example the legislature provides powers to Canberra - that does not make any official there head of state of Australia. The authors of your source were not arguing the fringe position of Australian monarchists and please do not misuse it to support those arguments. TFD (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

So you say monarchies do not have heads of state. Right. Now, this quote about powers isn't about who is head of state, is it? It's about the powers of the office. If you have read the source page, you don't consider it relevant. Fine. For my education, could you explain why you consider the quote to be from a primary source? --Pete (talk) 06:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

monarchies do not have heads of state is, to say the least, an uncommon point of view and is no sufficient reason for resisting the quote. Qexigator (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

"The Queen is often described as the de jure "head of state" of a Commonwealth country while the Governor General is described as the de facto "head of state" by people trying to explain the simple fact the Queen has representatives because she cannot be everywhere at once, but succeeding in causing constitutional confusion.

"In British or Canadian constitutional law there is no such thing as a "head of state," de jure or de facto. It is a republican term that is meaningless in a monarchy. The Queen is the legal embodiment of the State. That is to say, she is the State, not merely it head." (Queen and Consort: Elizabeth and Philip: 60 Years of Marriage, pp. 123-125)[6]

That is why for example the Treaty of Paris 1783 was between George the Third and the United States, rather than between the United Kingdom and George Washington.

There are more on this view and sources at Monarchy of Canada#Personification of the Canadian state.

TFD (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to dispute that there may be some confusion about this Bourbonese in the particular milieu of Canada, as reported in Monarchy of Canada, but it is not commonly accepted elsewhere, and perhaps not by better informed opinion there either. English claims to the French throne, including that of the illustrious George III, were abandoned long ago, after the deposition of the House of Bourbon, of whom a Frenchman is famously said to have remarked "They learned nothing and forgot nothing." Elizabeth is never and nowhere "the state", by proclamation or by positive law. Qexigator (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing in UK positive law that defines the state or the head thereof. If the monarchy seems "Bourbonese" ("L'etat, c'est moi!"), it is because it also has its origins in the Middle Ages before the idea of the nation state or nations as legal persons had even been considered, let alone heads of states. The wording of constitutional law remains unchanged in the Commonwealth Realms, while other countries have either become republics or developed constitutions that distinguish between the sovereign and the state. The Swedish constitution for example says, "The King or Queen...shall be the Head of State." (Art. 5) There is no similar wording in the Australian constitution. TFD (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Louis XIV supposedly said "L'État, c'est moi", which is much the same sort of thing. (I thought it was Charles de Gualle, to be frank. Lucky I checked.) An antique point of view, IMHO. We can talk about unchanged wordings, but the meanings change. The UK is now regarded as a foreign power in Australia through Sue v Hill even though the original meaning of the Constitution was that it wasn't. The effects of the Balfour Declaration had their own impacts, and one of the biggest was that the Governor-General no longer represented the British Government. Not a word of the Constitution changed to reflect this. Privy Council appeals were terminated, again without the Constitution being altered in any way. Reading the raw text of the Constitution and arguing that one's own personal interpretation is correct because that is what the document says in black and white, is not the best way to proceed. Things change, the queen is now a head of state rather than being the state. Even if she personally believes this, the rest of the world does not. --Pete (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It is commonly known everywhere that she doesn't and never did. Qexigator (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not the UK has become foreign to Australia has no bearing on the Queen's role in Australia. All that has changed is that she acts solely on the advice of her Australian premiers. Prosecutions are still carried out in the form "Regina versus", not "the State" or "the People" versus. The Oath of Allegiance (Australia) in the Constitution still reads, "I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen..." TFD (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and she's on the coins too. Just saying that there's no definitive answer, opinion is divided, and anybody trying to push one view to the exclusion of others is going to fall foul of NPOV. --Pete (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Try here. Wikiain (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

In this connection, it may safely be conjectured that if it were decided, by positive law or in some other lawful manner, to change the practice and prosecute in the name of "The Commonwealth" or "The State" or "The Public Prosecutor", the heavens would not fall and it would make no difference to the monarch's position or status under the Constitution. My guess is that it could be done by suitably drafted proclamation, and issued on the government's advice in the usual way. But, for the avoidance of doubt, some positive enactment would be required to the extent that any common law or statutory crime is defined by reference to "the Queen's peace" (useful description but largely unsourced). Qexigator (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The "dispute" is between the bulk of constitutional experts and a very small group of Australian monarchists. TFD (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No. The article makes clear that the dispute is far wider and deeper. When Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister described the Governor-General as "Australia's head of state", was he speaking as one of a very small group of monarchists? Hardly. When the major metropolitan newspapers do the same, are they being controlled by some sort of monarchist cabal? I don't think so. In any case, the question of who occupies the position of head of state is not settled in any definitive fashion by referencing symbols. I dare say we may find monarchies where prosecutions are carried out in the name of the State or the People, and we may certainly find coins where neither side bears a representation of a person. Some constitutions reserve the pre-eminent position for a deity. If anybody can find some hard and fast rule, that covers every situation, that is uncontroversial, please bring it forward. --Pete (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Could Rudd and others have been forgetful of the accession proclamation issued by the Governor-General of Australia :" We,...The Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief in and over the Commonwealth of Australia and members of the Federal Executive Council do now hereby, with one voice and consent of tongue and heart, publish and proclaim that the ...Princess Elizabeth... is now, by the death of our late Sovereign ...become Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of this realm and of all her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, Supreme Liege Lady in and over the Commonwealth of Australia, to whom her lieges do acknowledge all faith and constant obedience, with hearty and humble affection: Beseeching God, by whom Kings and Queens do reign, to bless the Royal Princess Elizabeth the Second with long and happy years to reign over us. (Proclamation of accession of Elizabeth II) ? Qexigator (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The quote above "vested in the Governor-General by statute, to be exercised by him in accordance with the recognized principles of Responsible Government" seems more to confirm than deny that he is duty bound to exercise the powers so vested according to the Constitution which acknowledges the monarch as the topmost person to whom all allegiances are owed. In that sense, if no other, when Kerr dismissed Whitlam, as when he appointed him, he was representing the monarch, as the monarch represents the sovereign state named the Commonwealth of Australia, and ambassadors and high commissioners are appointed to represent her as monarch in right of the several realms. It is difficult to see what ground is left for contending that the governor-general is, and the monarch is not, head of state in any notable sense recognizable in ordinary language, in that great country or anywhere else. Has any commentator argued that treaties entered into by Australia must or may be ratified in the name of the Governor-General and not of the Queen, so that at least to that extent ordinary usage compels the concept "head of state" to apply to the Governor-General? Qexigator (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

+It is quite wonderful to find that as recently as February 2010 The Telegraph newspaper had a report from Bonnie Malkin in Sydney headlined Australians puzzled as Queen reclaims 'head of state' title Buckingham Palace has raised eyebrows in Australia by referring to the Queen as the country's "head of state" in an apparent break in convention.[7] I wonder if it seemed as comical then as now. But it mentioned : "John Warhurst, senior deputy chair of the Australian Republican Movement, said that the country was in the "invidious position" when it could not work out who exactly was in charge. He said it was time for Australia to vote on whether the population wanted her to remain in the role. 'I don't know if the British royal family is attempting to reimpose itself in some way.' " Well, he got a headline for a day, but funny thing is, everyone else has no suspicion at all that the British royal family is attempting to "reimpose" itself on Australians. Qexigator (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

+In 'Why The Governor-General is Australia's Head of State', David Smith used the phrase "head of the executive Government of Australia"[8], in the context: " when the Governor-General exercises his constitutional duties as head of the executive Government of Australia he does so in his own right and not as a delegate of the Queen." He later asserts that the defining Head of State power is the power to appoint and remove the Prime Minister, and cites Kerr's dismissal of Whitlam as an exercise of that power. The obvious riposte is, not the defining power while there is a reigning monarch above him to whom allegiance is sworn, or any other person, perhaps by title "President", or "Supremo", or "Protector" or "First Citizen" or "Appointor-General", with power no more and no less than the present monarch. His argument was fallacy, but not neccesarily sophistry. He seems to have been unduly impressed by the fact that the old style instructions addressed to a colonial governor no longer obtained. Smith's phrase "head of the executive Government of Australia" suffices, but is not equivalent under the Australian Constitution to "head of state". Qexigator (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

All of the above points are less than definitive. There is no ultimate statement and to say that one person or another is the head of state is to construct an argument. There is no Australian law saying who is the head of state, there is no ruling by the High Court, there is no certainty. It comes down to opinions. Strongly held, opinions in some cases, and those holding one opinion often regard those holding a contrary view as deeply and fundamentally wrong. It is not Wikipedia's place to make any final ruling, based on opinions, chains of logic, selective quotes or any other artificial mechanism. The nation is divided in its view, this is easily demonstrated, and we have NPOV to prevent us from promoting any one particular view over another. --Pete (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there an authoritative definition of a head of state? Does it mean the person who appoints the PM? And if so does it mean that the governor of each British overseas territory is head of state? TFD (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Good point. If "authoritative" means defined by positive law, or judicial ruling, there seems to be nothing other than international usage evidenced by treaties and "protocolary" documents. To assert that it "means" the person who appoints the PM would be a private opinion or conjecture, whether or not publicly expressed,and, in a person such as David Smith, would be evidence of confusion in high places. Qexigator (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

If there is no agreed definition, then it is possible that one or both offices meet one or another definition, making any argument pointless. I note that both the Queen acting as sovereign of a Commonwealth Realm and governors-general are accorded the status of heads of state when they visit other countries or the UN. TFD (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be fantastic if there were a universally-agreed definition. If it's a matter of who signs treaties and letters of credence, then in Australia, that would be the Governor-General. The UN list of heads of states puts it diplomatically by including both. The name and title of the Governor-General is given, but the Queen is mentioned first, in brackets (and does so for each Commonwealth realm.[9] For Wikipedia, the situation falls under NPOV - we don't pick one out of multiple points of view as a favourite, we give them due weight. --Pete (talk) 07:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The appointment is made by the monarch under the realm's constitution, not by the Head of the group of sovereign states known as The Commonwealth. If at least some thinking Australians who give it thought feel that the conduct, among Australians, of one or more of their governors-general represents the federal state of their Commonwealth in an exemplary fashion, that tends to strenghthen more than lessen the attribution of the term "head of state" to the monarch by whom governors-general are appointed, and to whom oaths of allegiance are due. That is so, not as a matter of opinion, and irrespective of any person or party's aspirations for converting the Australian monarchy to a presidential republic. --[User:Qexigator|Qexigator]] (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The difficulty encountered by the proponents of any one particular view is that they need good, reliable sources stating their opinion; they cannot use logic or argument to overcome original research, and even if they find sources, NPOV prevents them from eliminating any widely-held contrary views. This prevents (say) the supporters of Islam, Christianity and Judaism from using wikipedia as a means to settle the question of the One True God to the detriment of those holding contrary beliefs. It is easily demonstrated that opinion on this question is divided and neither side can be dismissed as fringe. --Pete (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Reporting the "Royal Instruments", npov

The "Constitutional role and functions" section was tagged The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (December 2014), as of 22:32, 14 December 2014(tags: grammar does not adhere to MoS/NPOV))[10]. But it is not self-evident what specifically is disputed and by whom. Nor does the RfC above shed much light on this. Two editors have made their mutual hostility apparent, but that is about all. Unless a better reason for the tag is disclosed, it should be removed. The tag should not stand in the way of npov copy edits which improve the article and are consistent with the article and its sources. The Hasluck quote[11] is something and nothing for this article, perhaps little better than padding. He was certainly an eminent public servant, and in his day his opinion would have been attended to by the monarch and others. But the quote comes from a publication of 1979, and the royal instruments to which he refers generically or specifically as "Letters Patent" and "Commission" have been superseded from the revocation reported in the first paragraph of the section. Qexigator (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I'd regard Hasluck as a "public servant". As Governor-General his comments are certainly informed by his high office, and this quotation from his book is seen by the authors of "House of Representatives Practice" as relevant today. It was my thought that this more authoritative quote could be used to replace similar material sourced from Smith. The "Instructions" have been withdrawn entirely, and the Letters-Patent updated at least once. The 1984 version may be seen here. Regardless of any perceived antipathy - and I wish to record that I do not hold any negative personal feelings towards Mies - I'd like him to discuss his proposed changes. In particular, I'd like to see his sources. --Pete (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for link, showing the letters patent (given at Balmoral) issued, under her hand and the Great Seal of Australia, by "ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth", revoking the Letters Patent dated 29 October 1900 (as amended), and royal Instructions to the Governor-General dated 29 October 1900 (as amended), and reciting that by the Constitution of Australia, "certain powers, functions and authorities are vested in a Governor-General appointed by the Queen to be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth", and showing the document was counter-signed by Bob Hawke as Prime Minister. "public servant" implies the opposite of belittling disrespect. Qexigator (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Living in Canberra, I am most familiar with the term "public servants" being used to describe the clerks and managers who perform the business of government in their cardigans and shiny-bottomed trousers. Those who see themselves as occupying more exalted positions avoid using this term to describe themselves or their peers. The Letters-Patent are concerned with the appointment of the Governor-General - a power undeniably given to and exercised by the monarch alone - and the authority under s126 to authorise the Governor-General to appoint deputies. This latter is possibly the only power that falls under those noted in s2: "such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him". There is no mention, for example, of the power to appoint ministers, command the defence force, issue writs for elections etc. These are already given in the Constitution and are not the subject of instruction from the monarch, which is why the "Instructions to the Governor-General" were withdrawn in 1984. --Pete (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for those clarifications-- explains quite a lot. Veering off topic: variations for "public servant"-- dictionaries, [12], [13], [14], [15]; for "senior civil servants"[16], Canada[17]. I was taking my meaning from UK obituaries: [18], [19]. But now I learn Geoff Miller (public servant) "was a senior Australian public servant". Perhaps this tells us something about the ways the English language adapts: compare "sheriff" in England, in Scotland, in USA, Australia, Canada. How easy to drift into SYN and OR, not to mention pedantry. Seasonal Cheers, whatever the climate! Qexigator (talk) 08:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Peace and war

More for clarification, if possible. Is anything affected by the well-known event of Australia's declaration of war against Germany in 1939 being announced by Australia's head of government, just as was UK's by UK head of government? The Australian g-g was commander in chief, but was in allegiance to the monarch. Is there a record of the head of government advising the g-g or the monarch? Was it supposed at the time that the now-revoked royal instruments affected the constitutional position? Qexigator (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Not following here. The PM (and other senior ministers) advise the Governor-General. That's what "Governor-General in Council" means. Very rarely does s/he act without advice. The Australian PM advises the monarch on his/her only real power - that of appointing the G-G. This has been the case since 1931; before that the British Colonial Secretary advised HM on this matter. I don't think anyone - anywhere in the world - has declared war since 1941. It's rather a moot point. The Australian "Instructions to the Governor-General" were revoked because it was pointed out that the G-G's duties were not the subject of instruction. The PM tells the G-G what to do. HM does not. --Pete (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, perhaps to oversimplify: in the UK there has never been any doubt that a declaration of war against another power is constitutionally an act of the monarch, with ministerial responsibility, but taxes to pay for it cannot be raised without the consent of Parliament. Thus, war, like diplomacy, is formally in the name of the monarch. The method of communication of declaration to the enemy, to the people, to allies and neutrals is according to circumstance. Has it been proposed that under Australian positive law and practice, war has been declared, not in the name of the monarch, but in the name of the Governor-General as head of state, and if so is there any document such as a proclamation or instruction to an ambassador to support that proposition? Qexigator (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting question. I don't know if there's an interesting answer. The UK and Australia found themselves on opposing sides during the Vietnam War, when RN warships were escorting British merchantmen into Haiphong. RAN warships were serving in that theatre, but both were flying the same flag: the British White Ensign. Shortly thereafter Australia was told to find a new flag, which we did: the Australian White Ensign. But it's been 75 years since the last time we declared war; just as with treaties and letters of credence, I imagine that if we ever did so again, it would be the Governor-General's name on the document. But who really knows?--Pete (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Professor George Winterton seems to think that it is the Governor-General (as advised by the PM).[20] Parliament House has a reseach paper indicating it's the Governor-General.[21] --Pete (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The declaration of war by the King of the United Kingdom etc. was deemed by the Australian PM to include Australia (just as it had in 1914) and he said so in a radio address.[22] The 1931 act did not come into effect until 1942, although it was backdated to Sept. 3, 1938, the date of the address.

If the PM can tell the governor what to do, it is because s/he exercises the prerogative powers of the Queen, just as the UK PM once did in respect of Australia.

Issues of declaration of war are now moot, as countries no longer declare war. But under common law, it is an executive function and the Austalian constitution says, "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative.... (Para. 61)."[23] So presumably either the sovereign could declare war (as happened in 1914 or 1939) or the governor can, but by convention does so on the advice of the PM.

TFD (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but while in UK the government has responsibility for advising and communicating a declaration, it is the monarch's war, and there is no reason to doubt that is so in every realm of the Commonwealth. When Australia enters into treaties, it is as a monarchy headed by the Queen, whether the governor-general signs things, or an ambassador, or foreign minister, or an ad hoc envoy, or the Queen herself. The Royal Australian Navy's allegiance is to the Queen. HMAS Cerberus (naval base): "The present Royal Colours were presented by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in 1986".[24] Qexigator (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

But maybe this is another stray from topic on my part: it does not affect the wording of the present version of the article, where head of state is mentioned. Qexigator (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts

Pete/Skyring needs to explain. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

As per my edit summary. I worked from Qex's version, not yours. I thought that was obvious. Sorry. --Pete (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not see the need for capitalization. TFD (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Apparently it's in the MoS, so I'm not going to argue. I wonder why we capitalise the Queen? --Pete (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:MOS says "In generic use, apply lower case for words such as president, king, and emperor (De Gaulle was a French president; Louis XVI was a French king; Three prime ministers attended the conference)." The expression, "the Governor-General's position under the Constitution" is generic. And there is nothing in the MOS about capitalizing "Constitution." I suppose we would do so if it were part of a name, such as the "Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900," but that is not the case here. TFD (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not see any explanation for the revert. Please point to a specific edit or part of an edit you find problematic and identify the problem. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Before 1986

Does any editor consider the article should mention the constitutional position of the monarch within the federal Commonwealth up to 1986, as reported in Monarchy of Australia? Could this be compared with Canada? --

Elizabeth remained as a queen who reigned in Australia both as Queen of Australia (in the federal jurisdiction) and Queen of the United Kingdom (in each of the states), as a result of the states not wishing to have the Statute of Westminster apply to them, believing that the status quo better protected their sovereign interests against an expansionist federal government, which left the Colonial Laws Validity Act in effect. Thus, the British monarch could still – at least in theory, if not with some difficulty in practice – legislate for the Australian states, and the viceroys in the states were appointed by and represented the sovereign of the United Kingdom, not that of Australia; as late as 1976, the British ministry advised the Queen to reject Colin_Hannah as the nominee of the Queensland Cabinet for Governor, and court cases from Australian states could be appealed directly to Privy Council in London, thereby bypassing the Australian High Court. It was with the passage of the Australia Act in 1986, which repealed the Colonial Laws Validity Act, that the final vestiges of the British monarchy in Australia were removed, leaving a distinct Australian monarchy for the nation.

Qexigator (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This seems to have little relevance to the Governor-General role. --Pete (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that relates to Monarchy of Australia#States and territories. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Executive power

Looks like we need to talk about "the executive power" mentioned in s61. The view among Australian authorities is that it comprises whatever is left of the ancient royal prerogative after assigning the bulk to the Governor-General, plus some nebulous power on treaties and the like. Mies seems to think it's every skerrick of power, though he has failed to find a source for his view. --Pete (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Where is the problem in current version? Qexigator (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It needs to be clear that the Governor-General holds constitutional powers in his own right, ones that do not belong to the monarch. --Pete (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

So what are you proposing for improving the article? Maybe a tweak, but where exactly, and supported by what source? Works of scholarship tend to confirm, what most thinking people know by experience, that terms such as "executive power" take their purported meaning from the intent of the writer and the understanding of the commenter, so far as these can be discerned. For a country's constitution we look to positive law, judicial rulings, and conventions evidenced by known conduct such as the Kerr-Whitlam episode. Obviously, we do not rely on the whim of any opinionated editor for reporting information and presenting article content to readers. Where does the present version demonstrably err? Qexigator (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. Wikipedia relies on sources, not editorial opinions. I have commenced a discussion here, which seems to be the most apposite place, where I have quoted from two authorities. You'll remember the quote from Sir Paul Hasluck, which Mies so strongly objected to. Now that he has inserted material relying so heavily on "the executive power", it needs to be made plain as to the exact nature of this power, so far as we can find sources support ing it. We cannot leave it in the mind of the reader that it has a wider meaning than is actually the case. --Pete (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It may be useful to note, as the article mentions, that while

• s.61 provides The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative,

by contrast

• s.68 provides The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative

but I do not see that a discussion of Twomey's highly specialist and academic article on the High Court's judgment in Pape v. Commissioner of Taxation ("the Commonwealth has executive powers beyond those derived from statute, the prerogative and its capacities as a person") helps with improving the article here, fascinating though it may be to some students of the issues in the Pape case, the concepts used in the course of judicial reasoning, or some of the more abstruse language of jurisprudence. Qexigator (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

When considering Pete/Skyring's Hasluck quote, also take into account all the rest of what's said in the source it's drawn from as well as the wider context of writings on the Australian governmental order. Hasluck may well not (clearly doesn't) align with Pete/Skyring's highly selective, pedantic interpretation. (Note: Hasluck himself states "So long as the Crown has the powers which our Constitution now gives to it, and so long as the Governor-General exercises them [all emphasis mine], Parliament will work in the way the Constitution requires, the Executive will remain responsible to Parliament, the Courts will be independent, the public service will serve the nation within the limits of the law and the armed services will be subject to civil authority.")

Additionally, it's certain Hasluck's opinion isn't the equivalent of "supreme diktat of truth". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The significance of Twomey - and any other authority commenting on s61 - is that "the executive power", far from being some fundamental plank in the machinery of government allowing the Governor-General to exercise all powers rightfully belonging to the Queen (as is the case in Canada) is that it is basically a catch-all for whatever remains of the royal prerogative after specific powers (proroguing parliament, appointing ministers, commanding the defence force etc.) have been excised, as well as being the authority to perform miscellaneous actions consistent with the maintenance of the nation. Kerr didn't draw his authority to sack Whitlam from s61 - he got it from s64.

The wider significance is that Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for dogma, it presents the real world. Modern Australia isn't some colonial outpost of monarchy, where the Queen sits in her palace in London Town, drinking the blood-red wine and telling her personally-selected minion in Canberra what to do. The reality is that monarchy has but a token involvement in government. The Governor-General himself is not much more than a rubber-stamp for the Prime Minister. No future Prime Minister is ever going to get himself into Whitlam's situation. And no future Governor-General will ever emulate Kerr. As the years go by, the trappings of monarchy have been and continue to be whittled away. We've reached the stage where the media, the government, the Prime Minister are comfortable referring to the Governor-General as the head of state. It is commonplace and unremarkable, as demonstrated in the Australian head of state dispute article.

This isn't my personal view, nor that of a few like Sir David Smith whose voices sound in private. This is something that is so widespread that it reaches the top levels of government and is presented on the front pages on any day of national celebration - or mourning. The Governor-General is seen as an apolitical national representative far more than he is seen as the representative of an absent and irrelevant monarchy.

Possibly the most visible role of the Governor-General, as the office has evolved over the years, is to encourage, articulate and represent those things that unite Australians as a nation. (previous versions of the page, used "important", rather than visible, but the point remains) --Governor-General's Role on official website

That's the real world, here in Australia. I have to laugh when I see the efforts of Mies to present his imperial dogma as worthy of public consumption. When I ask him for sources and he presents his own personal interpretation of the Constitution, now well over a century old, as representing modern Australia, I know he's running on empty. What counts is the real world, the views of modern authorities and scholars. Such as Anne Twomey. I don't know where Mies gets his views of Australia from, but I've met many of the modern commentators, I've heard them present their views in public, I've seen them discuss their views in print and the electronic media. Sadly, the spectacle of two constitutional experts having a go at one another is not often seen on prime time television, but there is some media interest, and I follow it avidly. I sat in the Press Gallery during the Constitutional Convention in 1998, watching the debate.

Where Mies gets his views from, I cannot say. Certainly not from the contemporary Australian community. --Pete (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Where is the problem in the current version? What are you proposing for its improvement? Twomey's article is about something else. Qexigator (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the article needs to reflect the reality of the contemporary situation: that the Governor-General is less the representative of the Queen and more the representative of the nation. As per the Governor-General's own website, that is now his most visible role. I'm not proposing to use Twomey's article here; it supports Chapter II of the Constitution. --Pete (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for informing us of what seems to be your own interior conviction on this, with which any of us may or may not agree. So now: what are you proposing for improving the article, and supported by what source? Qexigator (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I think a good start would be to include the Governor-General's own interior conviction on his most visible role: as representative of the nation, and the source is the Governor-General's website. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What a g-g volunteers to do, by custom and/or interior conviction, in Australia, or other Commonwealth realm, with his/her spouse, in imitation of a monarch of a realm and his or her spouse, is not usually regarded as part of the law and customs of the constitution: "Possibly the most visible role of the Governor-General, as the office has evolved over the years, is to encourage, articulate and represent those things that unite Australians as a nation. In this capacity, the Governor-General and his or her spouse travel widely throughout Australia "(etc.)[25] Spouse of the Governor-General of Australia: The generality of the spouses of Governors-General have been content to be background figures providing the office-holder with support. Some have been all but unknown to the general Australian public. However, some have been notable in their own right. Qexigator (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be a mistake to view the position as solely a constitutional role. Just as it would be an error to dismiss the role of the Prime Minister in Australian affairs because he has no mention in the Constitution. The extra-constitutional aspects of the job have long been viewed as being of prime importance - especially by those actually doing the job. Here is an ex-Governor-General, musing over the role if Australia should turn to an overtly republican model of government:

These constitutional powers will invariably be exercised subject to the continuing conventions of our Constitution, and almost invariably on ministerial advice. But, as I believe, the more important role of the President, as of the Governor-General, is that of representing the nation to itself. That may sound high-flown, but it says what I deeply believe. Sir Zelman Cowan - An Australian Republic, a Guide for the Perplexed

This doesn't sound like mere shallow imitation to me. Sounds heart-felt and true. --Pete (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course, the imitation includes heartfelt and true, as is that of the Queen and her spouse. So now: what are you proposing for improving the article, and supported by what source? Qexigator (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

As above. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a section in this article titled "Ceremonial role" which deals with the governor-general's role beyond the constitutional. What change to it do you propose, Pete/Skyring? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That would seem to be an appropriate place. I think the section about the car might be usefully moved down a little. --Pete (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

On the subject of executive power, we find a curious usage in our article text: in practice, the governor-general is legally deemed (under the Australian constitution) to be the only figure able to exercise almost all executive power. Qexigator, you inserted this, and I'm wondering about two points. First, what is your source? I'm assuming that it is your direct reading of the Constitution, but if otherwise, please share. Second, "almost all executive power" - what exactly is meant here? --Pete (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Search the governor-general is legally deemed at "RfC on governor-general's role" above (if you have not already). The phrase was adopted from another's wording and not opposed in later discussion. It seems more or less a fair way of putting it, but admittedly such words are not necessarily found elsewhere, and may need tweaking. Qexigator (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If that's what the constitution says, then, that's what the constitution says. (By the way, secondary sources are not absolutely required in Wikipedia.)

"Almost all executive power..." refers to the fact the governor-general can't appoint a governor-general, nor can the viceroy create or amend the letters patent for Australian honours. There may be others. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

So it's your contention that the powers directly given to the Queen (appointing a Governor-General, signing legislation etc.) form part of the executive power mentioned in s61? There is no doubt that she can exercise those powers in s2, s58 etc, as she has done so on multiple occasions, but a close reading of s61 shows that the executive power is exercisable by the Governor-General, as acknowledged by the Queen (via her Private Secretary) in 1975. George Winterton (who is of the "Queen is Head of State" brigade) notes that the Queen may not exercise the executive power.

the Commonwealth's executive power is 'exercisable' by the Governor-General, which meant that it was exercised on the advice of Commonwealth (and not British) Ministers, since it is the former who advise the Governor-General. Although s 61 vests executive power in the Queen and does not expressly require it to be exercisable only by the Governor-General, s 61 should be interpreted as impliedly so providing because its second clause, interpreted in the light of British constitutional principles, meant that Commonwealth executive power was to be exercisable on the advice of Commonwealth (not British) Ministers, who were unable directly to advise the monarch until 1931

Do you have a source to gainsay Professor Winterton? --Pete (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Winterton also notes, in his book on the subject:

"executive power has always been something of a mystery, frequently being defined merely as the 'residue' of governmental powers after legislative and judicial powers are excluded" --(quoted by Chief Justice Robert French in Inaugural George Winterton Lecture, Sydney Law School)

The Constitution is, of course, legislation, and the powers it lists are legislative powers. --Pete (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Your question related to the sentence "in practice, the governor-general is legally deemed (under the Australian constitution) to be the only figure able to exercise almost all executive power..." Other than the beginnings of the first and second sentences, the quote you supply is about something else.

You had an opportunity before to voice complaints about the proposed wording and were silent. Do you have a proposed alternative now? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm expressing my concerns now and I'd like your input:

• Is Professor Winterton, author of the seminal book on executive power, Parliament, the Executive and the Governor-General [26][27] correct when he states that the Queen cannot use the executive power in s61?
• Is Winterton correct when he notes in his book that the executive power is the residue of governmental powers after legislative and judicial powers are excluded?
• If you say that Australia's greatest authority on the executive power is wrong, who or what informs your contrary view?

I might also ask whether you think the personal views of editors' readings of primary sources should override those of respected authorities on the subject, but I am sure that you grasp the point I am making here. --Pete (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Conjecture on the part of any commenter here about whether Winterton's private opinion would be upheld by judicial decision does not determine the actual effect of the constitution, and need not be discussed on this page, which is concerned not with such conjecture but improving the npov presentation of the article's content. Qexigator (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It is unlikely that the High Court is ever going to judge a monarch's attempt to exercise the executive power, but until that interesting day occurs, we are left with the views of constitutional experts. We are bound by the need to use reliable sources, and I say that the private views of editors comprise original research and must be removed from our encyclopaedia. Having said that, you are welcome to express your own views on this point, and to quote any useful sources. --Pete (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Constitutional role and functions

The first paragraph of "Constitutional role and functions" has recently had a series of edits. The result is that the second sentence is surplus and the paragraph would now read better if it were removed thus:

The constitution of Australia states that the governor-general is the representative of the monarch. Currently, letters patent from Queen Elizabeth II, dated 21 August 2008, also set out certain provisions relating to the governor-general. Although the governor-general and the monarch occasionally observe certain formalities, in practice, the governor-general is legally deemed (under the Australian constitution) to be the only figure able to exercise almost all executive power and does so without reference to the sovereign. Australian Solicitor-General Maurice Byers stated in 1974: "The constitutional prescription is that executive power is exercisable by the Governor-General although vested in the Queen. What is exercisable is original executive power: that is, the very thing vested in the Queen by section 61. And it is exercisable by the Queen's representative, not her delegate or agent."

Qexigator (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Travelling abroad

I've put a "cite needed" after the statement in the lede, "When travelling abroad, the Governor-General is seen as the representative of Australia, and of the Queen of Australia, so is treated in the manner appropriate to a head of state." That looks like a bit of OR there. The overseas travel is not mentioned in the body of the article, and so properly does not belong in the lede, which is a summary, but should we find a source, that may be rectified. Looking at the diff when the wording changed, I see Wikiain made the change to the current wording.

As we see from the UN's Protocol and Liaison Service, their list of heads of state includes the Governors-General of most of the Commonwealth Realms (all but the UK, where of course the Queen is listed alone). For each of the other Realms, the Queen is listed in brackets, a curious convention, until one accepts that the list is used for protocol purposes, and the Queen is already listed under the UK entry. This is a list of people who may be treated as heads of state, and there is no distinction between any of the non-UK realms; each has their Governor(-)General named, and there is no explanatory note or instructions to treat these people as splendid fakes or anything of that nature. Even for Realms where the Queen is clearly stated to be head of state (such as New Zealand, it's right there in their constitution), the Governor-General is treated as a head of state by other nations.

So I don't think we need be coy here. For the time being, I intend to restore the long-standing (since 2009) and more neutral wording: "When travelling abroad, the Governor-General is seen as the representative of Australia, and of the Queen of Australia, so is treated in the manner appropriate to as a head of state." --Pete (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Let that be done. Qexigator (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

That is strange wording. When travelling abroad, the Minister of Foreign Affairs or any envoy is seen as the representative of Australia, or of HM in right of Australia or of the Governor-General, depending on how one sees it. The only fact we can mention is that inside and outside Australia, protocol requires the Governor-General to be treated with the same respect as a head of state or reigning monarch (e.g., gets a 21-gun salute), although the Queen would be treated in protocol as senior to a Governor General. TFD (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Funny old world, isn't it? If Wikipedia arranged things, it would be a very different place. More ordered and less peaceful, perhaps. --Pete (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)