Talk:Governor-General of Australia/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

RfC on governor-general's role

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article presently states in the "Constitutional role and functions" section the governor-general exercises only certain powers that are the monarch's and his role as representative of the monarch is "limited". The rest of the section consists of selective quotes intended to support that claim. In light of that:

Is the Governor-General of Australia always the representative of the monarch of Australia and exercises the monarch's executive power sometimes because the constitution says only the governor-general may do so and sometimes because the monarch has stipulated (through letters patent) that the governor-general can?

OR

Is the governor-general sometimes the representative of the monarch of Australia and sometimes another, unnamed form of... chief executive (?), sometimes exercising the monarch's share of the executive power as his or her representative and sometimes exercising the remainder of the executive power given specifically to the governor-general in the constitution?

(Also see: Talk:Australian head of state dispute#The Governor-General's reserve powers, Talk:Australian head of state dispute/Archive 1#The view that the governor-general is the Australian head of state - the Queen's powers, Talk:Australian head of state dispute/Archive 1#Representation, #Reserve powers of the Crown, Talk:Governor-General of Australia/Archive 3#Representative of the Queen, Talk:Governor-General of Australia/Archive 1#Current discussion) 01:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• First option The constitution of Australia (section 2) states "A Governor‑General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth..." In section 61, it says "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor‑General as the Queen’s representative." In neither clause are there parameters around the viceregal role; the constitution nowhere says the governor-general shall sometimes be the monarch's representative and sometimes not. The governor-general is thus always the monarch's representative. Section 61 is also clear that all executive authority it the monarch's; again, no limitations, some is the monarch's and some is the governor-general's.

Now, the constitution does also say (section 62) "the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the Governor‑General...", (section 64) "[t]he Governor‑General may appoint officers...", (section 5) "[t]he Governor‑General may appoint such times for holding the sessions of the Parliament as he thinks fit...", (section 57) "the Governor‑General may dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously...", (section 58) "When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor‑General for the Queen’s assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen’s name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen’s pleasure," etc. These clauses unambiguously declare that only the governor-general can exercise those powers; they are executive powers belonging to the monarch (per section 61), but cannot be exercised by the monarch, since the governor-general is explicitly named as the person who can carry out those functions. Then, further, any other executive powers not said by the constitution to be exercisable only by the governor-general can be allowed to be exercised by the governor-general is the monarch says so via letters patent, according to section 2: "[the governor-general] shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him."

Commentators have stated the governor-general "has" or has been "given" powers. But, read within the full context of the Australian constitution, what they're meaning is that the governor-general "has" them because the constitution says only the governor-general can exercise them. This also means the governor-general isn't a "delegate", as he doesn't need to seek the monarch's permission or consult with her before exercising the powers he's constitutionally empowered to exercise. Being the only person able to exercise them doesn't, however, make them his; again, section 2 is quite clear on who possesses executive power and shows no indication of any sharing of the possession of executive power in the Commonwealth, and the constitution is also clear the governor-general is the monarch's representative, without restrictions on when. This is affirmed by other sources besides the constitution:

• "[T]he Australian governor-general exercises all the powers and undertakes all the duties of the monarch... [including] the reserve powers..."p.118
• "As we understand the situation here, the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands of the Governor-General as the representative of The Queen of Australia."p.86
• "[By] s 61 of the Constitution itself, all executive powers vests in the Queen and is exercised on her behalf by her representative, the Governor-General... The constitutional position of the Crown can be summarised as follows:... The Queen is the head of the executive but appoints a Governor-General as her representative and exercise her powers on her behalf."pp.61-62

--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Mies.. A more concise question would be:

• Is the Australian Governor-General's role limited to representing the Queen?

In addition to being The Queen’s representative in Australia, the Governor-General also has specific constitutional and statutory powers. In fact, since the passage of the Australia Act in 1986, the only action performed by The Queen under the Constitution is the appointment of the Governor-General, on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister. --Governor-General's official website</blockqoute>

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.--The Office of Governor-General by Sir Paul Hasluck. [1]

There are other quotes, but these demonstrate that the role of the Governor-General goes beyond whatever is specified in the Constitution or Letters-Patent. Indeed, the quote from the Governor-General's own page says that his role within the Constitution goes beyond representing the Queen.--Pete (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I should like to feel there is no tendency here to usurp the judicial function of the courts of the Commonwealth of Australia for spurious reasons or at all. It should surprise few who read the article, and fewer still who choose to edit, that there can be no conclusive answer in questions such as this in the absence of a judicial ruling at the highest level, resulting from a contested issue directly in point. If there is one, let it be produced. Often, judicial rulings, including those relied on by specialist writers, are in themselves less certain than the writers concede or others are able to discern for themselves. If there is any authoritative source which a sufficiently skilled and knowledgable person could regard as at least near conclusive, let it be produced. It would be delusory if an editor imagined that such points can be settled, inside or outside Wikipedia, by the use of school room logic, devoid of the methods known to the highest courts applying common law legal reasoning. Meantime, considered statements by persons such as governors-general themselves should be given due weight. Editors will also be aware that, while ex hypothesi all the realms overseas from UK derive their constitutions historically from UK, the law of the constitution of each of them is distinctive, and what may be practically certain in one does not necessarily apply equally or at all to another. What sufficient source rebuts those above in support of the proposition that the Australian Governor-General's role is not limited to representing the Queen? Qexigator (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To answer your question: the constitution and the sources I provided above.

I'm glad, though, you said "sufficient source". So far, we've only been provided here with one sentence from one source saying the governor-general is something more than the Queen's representative. That source is a website. Comparatively, that's not as "sufficient" as the constitution or knowledgeable commentary on it.

The article contains one reference to David Smith saying the governor-general holds a "separate and independent office [from representative of the Queen, one assumes]" by virtue of section 61 of the constitution. That's a more weighty source. However, it's rather lonely and, when one looks at section 61 of the constitution, one's left wondering how the words "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor‑General as the Queen's representative" makes the governor-general more than the Queen's representative. Reading more of Smith's words reveals (besides some errors on his part) he's hinging his argument on the "exercisable by the Governor-General" part ("while our section 61 provides that the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General, the equivalent Canadian provision simply vests the executive government of Canada in the Queen"; quelle difference!), which relates back to what I said above: "Commentators have stated the governor-general "has" or has been "given" powers. But, read within the full context of the Australian constitution, what they're meaning is that the governor-general "has" them because the constitution says only the governor-general can exercise them. This also means the governor-general isn't a "delegate", as he doesn't need to seek the monarch's permission or consult with her before exercising the powers he's constitutionally empowered to exercise. Being the only person able to exercise them doesn't, however, make them his; again, section 2 is quite clear on who possesses executive power and shows no indication of any sharing of the possession of executive power in the Commonwealth, and the constitution is also clear the governor-general is the monarch's representative, without restrictions on when." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The Constitution is a primary source. Arguing over our personal interpretations of a century-old document as if it nothing had changed in the interim is an arid and pointless exercise. We must use secondary sources, not our own opinions. If we want to say that the Governor-General is only the representative of the Queen, we must find a reliable source stating that. We cannot interpret the legislation as if we were High Court judges delivering a Full Bench judgement through RfC. --Pete (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Great. The constitution is a valid source and you need secondary sources to affirm the governor-general is more than the Queen's representative. So, do you have anything other than Smith's (dubious) words and a website? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The Constitution is a primary source and our personal interpretations of it are of no value to the article. Smith is a noted constitutional scholar, with qualifications far outweighing yours or mine. Sir Paul Hasluck's view that the Governor-General's role is more than that given in the Constitution outweighs those of any Wikipedia editor.. --Pete (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

So, the constitution is a valid source. That's what I said.

For all Smith's qualifications, he's still got a political agenda at the core of his speech that's being used as a source and it does contain errors. Just facts to consider.

He's also still alone here in his opinion. You've presented nothing by Paul Hasluck that says the governor-general is more than the monarch's representative. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Where do you get "the monarch's representative" from? From the Constitution, that's where. Hasluck points out that the Governor-General's duties derive from sources additional to the Constitution. If we cast the Governor-General as entirely the creature of one section of one document, we are cutting him short. He is more than that. --Pete (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

We know the governor-general gets his ability to perform certain functions from sources other than the constitution (statute law, letters patent, etc.; section 2 of the constitution covers that). That's not relevant to whether or not the governor-general is something more than the representative of the Australian monarch. Do you have any links to relevant words by Hasluck or not? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do about more sources beyond Smith and the official website. There is a quote from Turnbull that will entertain us. However, with respect, you have no source that states that the Governor-General's role is limited to that of the Queen's representative. Using synthetic logic in your personal interpretation of a primary source is not something we can use to inform our readers. Do you have a source that explicitly states what you opine? --Pete (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let's get this clear, first: The section in the article puts forward as though it's fact the opinion that the governor-general is something more than the representative of the monarch. As the editor insisting the article present that opinion thusly (indeed, you're the one who wrote it to be that way, carrying on your attempts to insert the same POV elsewhere), it's YOUR responsibility to affirm that the POV is indeed fact. Otherwise, the section needs a re-write.

There's empirical proof the constitution says the governor-general is the representative of the monarch and does not say he's something else. So far, all you have empirical proof of is "Smith says the governor-general has a role beyond representative of the monarch and says so because the constitution only allows the governor-general to exercise the executive power vested in the Queen." That's not how the section is currently composed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

First, as noted at the time above, I'm happy to work with you on the article wording, item by item. That's not a problem. Second, if we don't have a source that says the Governor-General is nothing more than the Queen's representative, then we cannot say so. The Constitution does not say this, nor does any other source brought forward here. --Pete (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure who advocated for the words "nothing more" to be inserted anywhere. Suffice to say, the governor-general is the Australian monarch's representative. The question is: on what grounds is the claim being made the governor-general is more than the Australian monarch's representative. Smith's opinion? Your synthesis? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, seeing as you've found no source to support the claims "the Governor-General [sic] exercises certain powers as the Queen's 'representative'" and "The limited form of this representation...", we can alter the opening of the section to read something more like:

The constitution of Australia states that the governor-general is the representative of the monarch. Although the governor-general and the monarch occasionally observe certain formalities, in practice, the governor-general is legally deemed (via constitutional law, statute law, letters patent, etc.) to be the only figure able to exercise almost all executive power and does so without reference to the sovereign. As explained in a 1988 Constitutional Commission report: "the Governor-General is in no sense a delegate of the Queen. The independence of the office is highlighted by changes which have been made in recent years to the Royal Instruments relating to it."

At some other point, it can be explained that David Smith has opined that the governor-general being allowed to exercise certain powers by constitutional (not directly royal) authority means the viceroy is more than a representative of the monarch. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

That looks good to me, allowing for minor style tweaks on "via" and "etc". Qexigator (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• More comment: Given that the federated Commonwealth of Australia is a realm and a monarchy, and not a republic, is it, therefore, classed as a kingdom? It is stale news that the legislative practice used to be to refer to the governments of UK and of Australia as "His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia"[2]. Has it later become the practice instead to refer to "The Kingdom of Australia"? If not, that weighs in the scale for accepting that, while the GG is undoubtedly the Queen's representative in that country to the exclusion of other constitutionally appointed office-holders (save in his absence or in a vacancy when the office of Administrator is active), he also exercises certain of the powers assigned to him by the constitution otherwise than as the Queen's representative. That is not too difficult a concept to allow mention in Wikipedia. By contrast, in the reign of Queen Victoria, the name "Kingdom of Canada" was used in legislation affecting British North America. Qexigator (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

If Australia has ever been called a kingdom in any official sense, I've never heard of it. We chose to style our nation a "Commnwealth", a name with distinct republican overtones, and one that caused the late Queen some annoyance at the time. --Pete (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Totally irrelevant. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Queries with a view of resolving this RfC. First, does specialist knowledge confirm, and are we to take it, or are we to surmise, that the excercise of constitutional powers of G-G Australia when, putatively, not acting as Queen's representative: 1_Does not bring in the question of Queen's "reserve powers". 2_Does not derogate from the Queen's honour or sovereignty in the Commonwealth of Australia or any of the constituent states? Secondly, Given that the UK Parliament website publishes a statement that "Crown" is another way of referring to the monarchy[3] (meaning the line of kings and queens reigning in succession?)[4], is the office of the G-G in Australia included in the concept "the Crown of Australia", and if so, how? Qexigator (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The "Crown" in Australia means the res publica, or things of the state. An officer of a court might be called, "Mister Crown". Crown lands are owned by the State or nation, rather than the monarch - or the Governor-General. The Crown is definitely not the same as the head that wears it. It is sometimes used that way by those who seek to confuse others, but Australia is not ruled out of Buckingham Palace, even at one remove. We do our own ruling, and the Queen has nothing to do with it. --Pete (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

All correct, except the final statement. As a constitutional monarchy, Australia has a monarch. The Queen, thus, has something to do with it.

This is off topic. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No it's not. The notion that the monarch has some actual role in Australian government is a fantasy. She doesn't. She is a ceremonial rubber-stamp in the exercise of her few powers: appointing the Governor-General and signing the occasional piece of legislation. Sure we have a monarch - it's in the Constitution. And sure we have a Governor-General, who commands the military, appoints ministers, sets the times of elections, signs legislation and does all sorts of important stuff. On paper. The real power in Australia is a gentleman not even mentioned in the Constitution. The Prime Minister. And at heart, the true power lies in the people. All powers and offices flow from the Constitution, and the Australian people drew up the Constitution by themselves. Only we can change the Constitution through s128. The Queen cannot change one word of it. She cannot amend or withdraw any power given to the Governor-General, for example, despite what s2 implies. Maybe Canada is different; the powers of the Governor General stem from Letters-Patent, do they not? But in Australia, the powers have been assigned as per the Constitution, and that may only be amended through referendum. Unlike Canada.

Wikipedia should not promote the notion of a fantasy kingdom to those who come here for information. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

She appoints a bloody governor-general, doesn't she? And governors? No? All executive authority is vested in her, right? Talk about fantasy.

This is off topic. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Quote a source that supports your opinion, please. Yelling at each other serves no useful purpose. --Pete (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

OFF TOPIC. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Mies, with the greatest respect for you as a person, and as a Wikipedia editor, I must press you on this point. Do you have a source that states that the Governor-General is nothing more than the representative of the Queen? You have stated your interpretation of the Constitution, but with respect, simple logic tells us that if A has the role of B, it does not prevent him from having additional roles of C, D, E and so on. For instance, I am a husband, and I have documents to that effect. I am also a father, an additional role also documented, though not mentioned in my marriage certificate. In the Commonwealth Public Service, people are employed in positions described by a "Duty Statement". This is not an exhaustive description of the job; other duties may be added from time to time, and of course, there are other duties listed elsewhere, such as in the contract signed on appointment.

This is simple logic. A description of a role in one document does not prevent the officer having additional duties, whether noted at the time or subsequently. It has been a century and more since Federation; the role has grown beyond that envisaged by the Founding Fathers. --Pete (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• More comment: (Thanks for replies above) It is certainly, as I read the Act, beyond doubt that a G-G, in his/her capacity as a a functionary in the legislative process, always acts exclusively in the name of the Queen of Australia, unlike the Ministers of the Crown, who are entitled to have party-political allegiances and pacts for the very purpose of securing parliamentary majorities to enable the government of the country to be carried on (the very issue in the Kerr-Whitlam episode). It is also clear that the oath of allegiance is made always to Australia's reigning monarch, not to the G-G. In activities for law enforcement, or other execution of the laws of the country, whatever s/he does is done as representing the Queen, if s.61 has any meaning: but is there nevertheless remaining any activity or power which the G-G can perform or exercise otherwise than as the Queen's representative? In my view, a reading of the sources from which the above quotes are taken suffices to show that this may be arguable, a moot point at least, and in recent years has been gaining strength in the flux and crises of political affairs. It is not something to be dismissed out of hand or treated as irrational or heretical (but I would not propose to develop the argument in advance of whatever future evolves in the years ahead). Qexigator (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not gasping your point. How does this relate to the wording of the article? (And why are we now conducting four separate discussions simultaneously?) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

One part of the discussion succeeds another. My point? On reading the constitution afresh, etc, cited above by you and Skyring: there is something to be said about the G-G not always acting as the Queen's representative. I have been setting out at some length my reasoning, instead of stating my opinion as a bald assertion. Qexigator (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, we're still trying to find out what actually has been said about the governor-general not always acting as the monarch's representative. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Mies., above you put "Talk about fantasy. This is off topic" (17:55, 15 December). Well, tiresome you may find it, but perhaps it's not so far off topic. After all, when it comes to popular fantasy, promoted not only by state ceremonial (big tourist attraction in London) and organs of state, but also by popular publications in print, moving pictures of all kinds and broadcast media, the monarchy has a good part of any fantasy available in most realms, and especially UK, but I daresay less so in Australia and maybe parts of Canada. One does not have to be a republican or anti-monarchist to see it before our eyes and in our ears ("God Save the Queen" (anthem), "Rule Britannia" and so on). Is a breath of something else from Australia more bracing or chilling? While such fantasies are being indulged, the development of the constitutions as the years go by has been, and will be, unavoidable for the Queen and her heirs, and the politicians and peoples of every realm. Qexigator (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

More comment: Given that the monarch of Australia represents that country as well as the other realms among other monarchs and heads of republican states, and that by the law and practice of the Australian constitution allegiance of the governor-general and government ministers is to the monarch, the concept "head of state" is applicable to the monarch, not the g-g who, in David Smith's words, is described as "head of the executive Government of Australia", while the concept "head of government" as normally understood applies to the prime minister. The more the functions which may be considered those of a head of state are constitutionally distributed away from the monarch to the governor-general, the more what remains to the monarch demonstrates that the governor-general in the official executive capacity represents the monarch who is the prime representative of the realm, with governors and ministers carrying on the government of the realm, and also representing the realm in certain circumstances. Qexigator (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

"The monarch is the prime representative of the realm." A phrase which seems out of touch. Few here in Australia - or elsewhere - would see it that way. The Queen represents the UK, fair enough, and the British Commonwealth as a whole, but few (say) Jamaicans would see her as representing them to the world, and certainly not in Australia, where the she is seen as essentially British, and the Governor-General is increasingly being chosen as someone quintessentially Australian. Even Slim, the last of the British Governors-General, saw his job as "representing Australia to itself", and travelled extensively within the nation. Now that Australian Governors-General leave the country and visit internationally, they are seen as the ultimate representative of Australia in a ay that the Queen could never be. --Pete (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

British Lords Dunrossil and De L'Isle followed Slim. Casey was the first of the modern Aussie GGs, but even he could sit in the House of Lords. The first with no imperial connections was Hasluck, and we're now into the Whitlam era. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The phrase is invented for use within the explanatory context: Given that the monarch of Australia represents that country as well as the other realms among other monarchs and heads of republican states, and that by the law and practice of the Australian constitution allegiance of the governor-general and government ministers is to the monarch, the concept "head of state" is applicable to the monarch, not the g-g... That does not derogate from the role of a governor-general, such as Slim or others, in Australia or any other realm, which so far as I am aware, is taken for granted and acknowledged by the Queen and any other thinking person who gives it thought. Qexigator (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The Queen does represent Australia to other nations, although usually other countries at the same time. ("I address you today as Queen of sixteen United Nations Member States...."[5]) She has also visited the U.S. as the Canadian Queen. TFD (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's about it. She represents the UK, and the British Commonwealth as a whole. The Australian High Commissioner represents Australia in the UK, not the Queen, and when she's in Australia, she represents the UK. I'm struggling to think of any occasion when she could be meaningfully said to represent Australia ahead of any other nation. For any overseas event of sufficient impact, we send the Governor-General. He (or she) represents we Australians in a way that goes far deeper than any words the Queen could utter.[6] --Pete (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The Queen does not represent the UK when she visits Australia and has travelled representing Canada rather than the UK. And she does not just represent the UK and the Commonwealth, but the 15 other Commonwealth Realms as well, even if usually she travels as representing the UK. Also, the Australian High Commissioner in the UK does not represent Australia, s/he represents the government of Australia.[7] TFD (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I think, at the level of official representation, it is taken for granted that "representing Australia" means "representing the Australian government". Given that the government advises both Governor-General and Queen on their official duties, it is hard to imagine a situation where either travels overseas in an official capacity without government involvement. I would be interested to see any source reporting the Queen as "representing Australia." Is there one? --Pete (talk) 07:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

See High Commissioner (Commonwealth)#Current practice: ambassadors carry a letter from their head of state to the Queen, high commissioners carry an informal letter from their head of govenment to the UK prime minister. There is no [UK] government involvement when the Queen travels to Australia and, as I pointed out, she has travelled to the U.S. as the monarch representing Canada not the UK and with no UK government involvement. She said at the UN, "I address you today as Queen of sixteen United Nations Member States...." and the UN described her as "The head of State of the United Kingdom and 15 other UN Member States."[8] While that is not conclusive that she is head of state of Australia, it is conclusive that the UN (of which Australia is a member) accepts her as speaking for Australia. Incidentally, Australian ambassadors also speak on behalf of Australia - it's not as if each country can only have one person speak on its behalf. The Queen has also personally given a speech from the throne in Commonwealth Realms and given royal assent to legislation. TFD (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

When I say "represent the nation", I mean in the sense that we describe a vital head of state role:

Charles de Gaulle described the role he envisaged for the French presidency before he wrote the modern French constitution, stating the head of state should embody "the spirit of the nation" for the nation itself and the world: "a certain idea about France" (French: une certaine idée de la France). Today, many countries expect their head of state to embody their national values with dignity in a similar fashion.

The Queen embodies British values and culture. That's how Australians see her. when she is here, it is obvious that she represents the UK every time she opens her mouth to speak. --Pete (talk) 20:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

When she visited the United States on behalf of Canada, she did not represent the U.K. on any occassion she spoke and said only what her Canadian ministers had asked. When the Queen provided the speech from the throne in Australia in 1954 and 1974 it was not written by the UK government, but by the Australian government. (See Speech from the throne#Commonwealth Realms. Seems odd too to use De Gaulle's views as your source. Do you think that Australians have the same expectations of the governor-general that De Gaulle thought the French had of him? I suspect that it is because people do not want a De Gaulle that constitutional monarchy remains preferable to so many people well beyond the tiny numbers who join monarchist leagues. TFD (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I think people want a head of state who is one of them. In Australia, at least, there is no definitive statement of who occupies the role, and so it is a matter of personal opinion. --Pete (talk) 21:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately for them, Mr. Rudd has no plans to promote himself to president. TFD (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you're wrong about Rudd, but in any case we're wandering off the track. :) --Pete (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

What's the diff?

Contributions on this page have by now covered practically every aspect of the RfC, which, as I understand it, is connected with an edit and revert of 14 December.[9] Would those editors please let us know whether the revision that was undone is now proposed or opposed as no more than a copyedit (not intended to change currently supported information, but to improve the quality of the writing), or as making an unsupported change in supported information, and specify the words of the proposing editor that the opposing editor views as in need of change, and by what criterion? Qexigator (talk) 11:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

...or if preferred, let us know likewise where we stand on the wording proposed by Mies. above (19:42, 20 December ): The constitution of Australia states.... The independence of the office is highlighted by changes which have been made in recent years to the Royal Instruments relating to it. Qexigator (talk) 11:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The latter overlaid on present version

Sections 2, 61 and 68 of the Constitution provide that the Governor-General exercises certain powers as the Queen's "representative". <insert>The constitution of Australia states that the governor-general is the representative of the monarch. Although the governor-general and the monarch occasionally observe certain formalities, in practice, the governor-general is legally deemed (via constitutional law, statute law, letters patent, etc.) to be the only figure able to exercise almost all executive power and does so without reference to the sovereign. As</insert>The limited form of this representation was explained in a 1988 Constitutional Commission report: "the Governor-General is in no sense a delegate of the Queen. The independence of the office is highlighted by changes which have been made in recent years to the Royal Instruments relating to it".

merge into aboveAlthough the Governor-General and the Queen occasionally observe certain formalities, in practice the Governor-General has constitutional responsibilities without reference to the Queen.

That looks like a copyedit to me, which would do well. If adopted, the () words in parenthesis would not be needed: the quoted words suffice. Qexigator (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This goes beyond copyediting, which is why I objected to it. This moves the text towards Mies' unsourced POV that the Governor-General is purely the representative of the Queen and has no powers of his own. As I have shown with quotes from Sir John Quick, Sir Robert Garran, Sir Paul Hasluck and Sir David Smith, the Governor-General has powers that belong to himself alone and executes without reference to the Queen. Mies feels that his own reading of primary sources overrules secondary sources from eminent constitutional scholars. He was attempting to sneak major changes through without discussion. --Pete (talk) 07:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we pin down what was defined in the 1988 report itself as "the Royal Instruments"? Qexigator (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Reading the source, we find "In 1975 the Commonwealth Solicitor-General, Mr (later Sir) Maurice Byers, gave Prime Minister Gough Whitlam a legal opinion that the Governor-General's constitutional powers could not properly be the subject of Instructions, thus again echoing the views expressed at the time of federation by Clark and Moore, and confirming that all Head of State powers and functions, except the power to appoint or remove the Governor-General, had been given to the Governor-General by the Constitution on 1 January, 1901. ... On 21 August, 1984, on the advice of Prime Minister Hawke, the Queen revoked Queen Victoria's Letters Patent and the Instructions to the Governor-General, and issued new Letters Patent..." These last two are the "Royal Instruments" referred to. --Pete (talk) 07:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The article will be improved by making that clearer. Is the actual text of the instruments available? Qexigator (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The governor-general having "powers of his own" is, so far, a fringe theory, at best. As I said above already (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT again, Pete?), the section can say "Smith says [x] because of [y]". The other sources Pete says uphold this theory actually don't; Pete (as he has done many times before) has misread them, misrepresented them, and/or cherry picked pieces of them to make them fit his predetermined conclusion.

Your proposal is essentially what I presented before. I thus can't complain too much about it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I object to presenting the opinions which clearly express the views of a tiny minority presented as if they were the consensus view. David Smith is saying that when the monarch instructed the governor-general, it was constitutionally wrong. TFD (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

So, then, can we (mostly) agree Qexigator's proposal above is okay as the opening paragraph of the section? How the info about Smith's opinion can be inserted seems fairly straightforward. Then, it's a matter of incorporating the remainder. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Responding to the above, I wonder how Mies can aver that the Governor-General has no powers of his own. He is given powers, right there in the Constitution. For an example, I quote from s5: The Governor‑General may appoint such times for holding the sessions of the Parliament as he thinks fit, and may also from time to time, by Proclamation or otherwise, prorogue the Parliament, and may in like manner dissolve the House of Representatives.[10] Has Mies lost the gift of sight, perhaps, not to see this?

David Smith provides sources for the withdrawal of the Instructions to the Governor-General. The view that they were unnecessary and inappropriate was expressed at Federation and again in the Seventies, leading to their withdrawal by the Queen on advice from Bob Hawke as Prime Minister. TFD, is it now your thought that Smith had a wider role in this beyond merely recording the events? --Pete (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Smith said some Australian legal scholars questioned the legality of the Queen's instructions to the governor-general, but UK ministers thought they were legal and the Queen issued instructions as late as 1958. The instructions were originally made on the advice of UK ministers but later on the advice of Australian ministers. IOW both the UK and Australian governments considered the practice legal and we would need a stronger wording in a source to say it was not. That the Queen on the instructions of the PM revoked the instructions does not prove anything.

It is interesting that Australia is unique in the Commonwealth in that it was, like the U.S., created and not a continuation of an earlier colony. Hence unlike Canada or the individual Australian states for example we cannot look at practice before the constitution act because there was no Australia before then.

TFD (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It would certainly be wrong to equate Canada and Australia. We have very different constitutional histories. Each situation should be evaluated on its own, according to the facts. The Instructions have no legal force because they have been withdrawn. That is the situation. It might be that some future Prime Minister might advise some future monarch to issue fresh ones, and we can deal with that situation if and when it comes to pass. I do not think we need be troubled very much by this possibility. At the moment, the situation is as Smith states, and if you think it otherwise, you must provide a source stronger than conjecture. --Pete (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

See The Queen's Other Realms, p. 28.[11] It makes clear that Smith was presenting a minority view, and that is in fact implicit in Smith's article. When you present an opinion, even from a prominent person, the onus is on you to establish its degree of acceptance, not that of other editors. In many cases opinions expressed in papers will receive no coverage. TFD (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, TFD, but could you be more precise, please? What is it about the Instructions to the Governor-General that you see as contrary to what Smith states? It does not seem to be a minority view, for example, that the Instructions were withdrawn. --Pete (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Pete/Skyring apparently can't tell the difference between "has" and "may exercise". Regardless, Smith's view is a minority, at best, most likely fringe, one. It is also his own and can't be here presented as anything but. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Rthe withdrawal of the Instructions is historical fact. Trying to present established fact, now thirty years in the past, as "a fringe view" is a position that needs further elaboration. Please explain your view, Mies. --Pete (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

My view is nobody but you advocates presenting an overview of the Governorship-General of Australia entirely within the bounds of one person's opinion. Are you going to push this to mediation? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Just answer honestly, Mies. When one evades the point, fails to present sources, and makes disparaging comments about other editors - and yes, I saw that "gibberish" comment - then it does not inspire confidence in the position. --Pete (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether the expression quoted by Boyce, of the Crown being nationalised "by a process of juristic parthenogenesis", or the concept of a divisible Crown, aids or fogs the understanding, the plain actuality is that each realm has a monarch, and at this time the monarch is Elizabeth, daughter of George VI, whose heir is her son, Charles, and the monarch, Elizabeth, is recognised and acknowledged as head of state in each realm according to international diplomatic usage and practice, and by all officer-holders who are bound by their constitutional oaths of allegiance. That there is some variation in parts of the several constitutions treating of the distribution of powers and responsibilities of the Crown within each realm is also commonly accepted by thinking people who choose to think about it. That, it may be surmised, is the way it is for the npov of persons who are partisans of neither a republican nor a royalist cause, in any or all of the Commonwealth realms. Qexigator (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no dispute that Elizabeth II is Queen of Australia. The difficulty lies in that there is no definitive source as to who is the Australian head of state. Making assumptions leads to error. For example, the republican position in Australia is that the Queen is the head of state, whereas the monarchists hold the contrary view. The Australian community is divided. International diplomatic usage shows both Queen and Governor-General recognised as head of state, the latter more frequently in recent years. All of these statements have been sourced above. If anyone has a definitive source, please provide it. Making declarations here based on personal views alone is not helpful. --Pete (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a matter for Australian head of state dispute, I think. I'd prefer to see some closure on at least the first paragraph of the section on the role of the governor-general in this article. I think we have a consensus (3-1 out of the only four people who seem to want to engage in this dispute), but, I have a strong suspicion Pete/Skyring is of the mind there's no consensus because he doesn't like what the rest of us find acceptable. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Mies, you have yet to provide a source, other than your own interior conviction, contradicting the words of the Constitution quoted above. This gives the power to prorogue Parliament, among other things, directly to the Governor-General. Source...? --Pete (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Closing time In my view, we are well past closure point on this one, always allowing for tweaks in the usual way. The "definitive source" has already been recited: "protocolary" theory and practice, as well as the content of the Constitution and the practice of the Queen and all office-holders. That suffices to close the question. The opinion of Smith, in so far as it is notable, is sufficiently catered for. The known facts, not any interior convictions, are decisive. Why does the lead include "Although Australia now considers itself an independent country": does anyone doubt it? Does this imply that there is some doubt about this in, or on the part of, any of the constituent states? Or is it mere verbiage? Qexigator (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Qex. Just for the record, could you please provide the definitive source you mention? Looking at the Constitution, the phrase "head of state" is not mentioned anywhere in that document, so that can hardly be a source. --Pete (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Governor-General of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071012082612/http://scouts.com.au:80/main.asp?iStoryID=734 to http://www.scouts.com.au/main.asp?iStoryID=734

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration

Possibly the greatest change in the role of the Governor-General (and those of the other Dominions) came with the Balfour Declaration of 1926, implemented as the Statute of Westminster. I think it is worth considering these crucial words:

We proceeded to consider whether it was desirable formally to place on record a definition of the position held by the Governor-General as His Majesty’s representative in the Dominions. That position, though now generally well recognised, undoubtedly represents a development from an earlier stage when the Governor-General was appointed solely on the advice of His Majesty’s Ministers in London and acted also as their representative. In our opinion it is an essential consequence of the equality of status existing among the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations that the Governor-General of a Dominion is the representative of the Crown, holding in all essential respects the same position in relation to the administration of public affairs in the Dominion as is held by His Majesty the King in Great Britain, and that he is not the representative or agent of His Majesty’s Government in Great Britain or of any Department of that Government. – Lord Balfour, UK Foreign Secretary, 1926 [12]

The effects of that 1926 Imperial Conference were major steps in the independence of the Dominions, and importantly here, marked a transition in the role of the various Governors-General away from the job of British Government agent. Crucially, it meant that the monarch was now advised on Dominion affairs by the Prime Ministers of the Dominions, rather than the Imperial Government. One effect, for example, was that the UK Government could no longer disallow (through the monarch) any Dominion legislation considered to be counter to its interests. I think that the pertinent paragraph(s) are worth quoting in the article. --Pete (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That is generally known as a key text, and needs to be reckoned with by all coming new to the topic. Qexigator (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The Balfour Declaration merely recognized reality, it did not change it. TFD (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It is the summary of the discussions at the 1926 Imperial Conference, when the Prime Ministers of the Dominions met to determine the future shape of the Empire. The whole thing is well worth reading. An Imperial federation was proposed and discarded, with the difficulties of writing a constitution for the resulting superstate seen as insuperable. If the British Government had tried to keep tight control over the ex-colonies, then very likely more would have followed the Irish route, leading to fragmentation, and potential disaster in WW2. Nearly 90 years later, the Commonwealth of Nations not only continues to exist, it thrives. Clearly the deliberations in 1926 were a lasting success, and the BD a remarkably clear summary. Interesting to see that it was marked "Secret" at the time. --Pete (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The full quote seems unnecessary. For an article on a more general topic like Governor-general or Commonwealth realm, maybe. But, here, using the Balfour Declaration as an inline cite for the paragraph now preceding the quote should suffice. A small quote from the BD, at most. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The content of the whole quote is relevant in the History section and, given the discussion in the article, as well as the "...dispute" article, it is not out of proportion here, and better to let the reader see it as it was given than attempt to summarise or paraphrase. Qexigator (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say it's irrelevant, I said it's excessive. It's something that applies to all governors-general from the issuance of the declaration on; hence, it would be more suited to an article on the wider subject of governor-general or Commonwealth realm. Surely you don't think it's appropriate to have such a large quote in the articles about each different governor-general, past and present. If not, then why would this one be special? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I know you did not say it was irrelevant, and in my view it is not excessive for the reason I gave which you seem to have disregarded when restating the point which you had stated and which I had opposed. It is not a question best determined by quantity of words alone. But what shorter quote would you propose? Qexigator (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Governor-General of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120101193113/http://www.usrsaustralia.state.gov/blog/tag/bleich/ to http://www.usrsaustralia.state.gov/blog/tag/bleich/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071204004515/http://www.alor.org/Volume25/Vol25No13.htm to http://www.alor.org/Volume25/Vol25No13.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Governor-General of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140325130621/http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2014-03-25/new-honour-pre-eminent-australians to http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2014-03-25/new-honour-pre-eminent-australians
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040619163640/http://members.ozemail.com.au/~natinfo/colony3-3.htm to http://members.ozemail.com.au/~natinfo/colony3-3.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on terms: "monarch" or "head of state"?

There is an open Request for Comment at Talk:Monarchy_of_Australia#Request_for_comment_on_terms on whether Queen Elizabeth II should be described as the monarch or the head of state. One term is undisputed, the other not so much. --Pete (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The options of having both terms in the intro, is being discussed as well. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

That's the problem right there. Nobody disputes that the monarch is the monarch. On the other hand, anybody who took part in the republic referendum some time ago would be aware that there was and has been considerable debate over the term "head of state", and there are consequent NPOV factors. --Pete (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Isaacs appointment

"Method of appointment" now suggests that George V opposed appointment of Isaacs because he was an Australian. That may be how Scullin reported it, but to my recollection Zelman Cowen's biography of Isaacs states that George V objected to Isaacs not because he was an Australian but because he was a controversial politician. Wikiain (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I think there were several factors at play. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that George wanted to appoint an old friend to the position and the various excuses for not appointing Isaacs were a cover for that. Frankly I don't think we need two giant paragraphs about Isaacs - I think one paragraph is enough and the details can be covered in his article. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

We should also add in a bit more info about appointments prior to Isaac. From memory, the first GGs were just appointed by the British government, then they started asking the Australian government whether they approved, then they started giving lists of candidates to the Australian government, then finally Scullin got to nominate whoever he wanted. I think I read that in a book, but hopefully there's an online source that says the same thing. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Kelly's new book

Paul Kelly, in what is essentially his life's work, has published a new history of the untidy events of 1975. I hadn't known that there was a second letter from Buckingham Palace, but Kelly quotes it on p247. Whitlam wrote to Sir Martin Charteris (HM's official secretary) setting out his complaints about "the conduct of the Crown's representative". He was essentially laying the blame on the Queen and warning of future repercussions.

For some reason Charteris' reply seems to have escaped the attention his earlier letter was given, where he noted that "the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands of the Governor-General as the representative of the Queen of Australia."

In response to Whitlam's accusations, Charteris diplomatically wrote, "I am sure you will neither wish nor expect me to enter into argument about the constitutional propriety of Sir John kerr's actions. I hope, however, you will allow me to make one comment on what you say. It is this. The constitutional role of the Governor-General and his reserve powers stem not from his position as The Queen's personal representative, to which he is appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister, but rather from what is written in the Constitution Act as applicable constitutionally."

Charteris (and it hardly needs saying that he spoke with the knowledge and consent of the Queen here) was pointing out that the Constitution directly assigns several important powers to the Governor-General in his own right, including the power to appoint ministers. It is nowhere stated that these powers belong to any other person than the Governor-General, although some might confect a synthetic argument that they belong to someone else. Here the Queen is making it plain that Kerr used the powers given to him by the Constitution, and did not act as the Queen's representative, but rather in his constitutional role.

It is interesting that this explicit refutation of Whitlam's position did not surface until 2012. Doubtless it suited Whitlam's myth-making to link the dismissal of his progressive government to as many conservative forces as possible, including the monarchy itself. Instead the real reason was that Whitlam's inept handling of government had caused the very man that Whitlam had nominated to lose all confidence in Whitlam.

Whitlam aside, Charteris' statement is an important observation on the role of the Governor-General. --Pete (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You need more than a letter, you need a secondary source that analyzes what it says. Reviews of the book say that the Palace considered the governor's actions to be wrong. It could be that all Charteris was saying was that his actions had the force of law, i.e., when Kerr dismissed Whitlam, Whitlam ceased to be PM, regardless of the wisdom or legality of the action. TFD (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, Kelly doesn't follow it up beyond saying that, "The Palace was washing its hands of the Dismissal". However, though I am sure we can mine Kelly's book for more gold on The Dismissal, I raise it here because of its importance to the role of Governor-General. I notice we do not have any secondary sources in this article stating that the Governor-General's only role is representing the Queen, and yet it has somehow become woven into the fabric of this article. --Pete (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Being the Queen's "representative" is the general characterisation of the G-G's role, stated in Constitution sections 2, 61 and 68 (I've just added 61 and 68 to note 2). The Constitution then gives the G-G some specific functions and there are also the implied reserve powers. The issue here is whether being the Queen's "representative" amounts to anything more. The Constitution provides that it can. Section 2 is in full:

A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.

Those other "powers and functions" are set out in Letters Patent of 2008 and, as stated there and in the present G-G's letter of commission, it remains open for the Queen to alter or add to them. However, those Letters Patent do not add any substantive powers or functions; they deal only with the event of a G-G's absence, death, incapacity or removal, and appointment of a deputy (which has not been done). I think it would now be regarded as unconstitutional, not "subject to this Constitution", to assign any substantive power or function.

In the newly revealed letter, Charteris begins by stating the orthodox position, that the G-G's role as "representative" is confined to what is specified or implicit in the Constitution—and obversely that the Queen herself has no finger in the Australian pie. But I'm not sure what to make of the rest. Neither is Hocking, but I would agree with Kelly that here the Palace is "washing its hands of the Dismissal". (Whether that is actually the whole story is another matter and I'm not going to go there.)

Maybe what Charteris goes on to say means something like: "As you are aware and indeed intended, the creation of the title 'Queen of Australia' has no relevance to anybody's powers or functions and, in case you were thinking that HM has been thinking otherwise, she has not—and you needn't worry that Kerr will manage to persuade her differently over tea." Wikiain (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Pete, re your ... the Constitution directly assigns several important powers to the Governor-General in his own right, including the power to appoint ministers. It is nowhere stated that these powers belong to any other person than the Governor-General, although some might confect a synthetic argument that they belong to someone else

  It's more than a synthetic argument. See Rex Patterson: On 19 October 1973, he was sworn in as Minister for the Northern Territory by Queen Elizabeth II, the only occasion when an Australian minister has been sworn in by the Monarch of Australia directly (rather than by the Governor-General of Australia).

  She clearly had the power to do that, unless some latter-day crusader comes along 45 years after the event and convinces the High Court she exceeded her authority. So, it may be exceedingly unusual, but these powers obviously do belong to someone other than the G-G. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The Constitution states in ss 2, 61 and 68 that the G-G is the Queen's "representative". I would think that a power allocated to a representative can also be exercised by the person represented and that the allocation itself implies that this would not be a normal practice. This might be seen as expressly provided in s 58, where the G-G may reserve the royal assent to a bill "for the Queen's pleasure". In 1901 "the Queen" meant the monarch of the UK acting on the advice of the UK government, so that this was a British leading-string on the young federated colony. But this part of s 58 seems to have been used for HM personally when the bill has concerned her own title: Royal Style and Titles Acts 1953 and 1973. It may also have been used when QEII assented to and proclaimed the Australian version of the Australia Act 1986 (the answer is probably in Anne Twomey's book on the Act). Also, s 7(4) of that act provides that HM can exercise powers of a state governor while "personally present" in the state, although only on the advice of the state premier—as, by change of conventions, "the Queen" in the Constitution now means the monarch of Australia acting on advice of Australian ministers. HM's appointment of Patterson is pretty odd, but could be justified through Constitution ss 61 and 64. Did it happen because she was in Australia at the time and it was thought that she couldn't be "represented" when she was around a corner? (Was it in Australia or Canada that a G-G was not allowed to attend a function at the same time as QEII?) It would be a mistake here to look for a complete and coherent doctrine: Twomey's label "the chameleon crown" (in her excellent book of that name) is apposite. Wikiain (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Apparently Patterson was overseas when the other ministers were sworn in after the recent reshuffle. The Queen was in Oz mainly to open the Sydney Opera House on 20 October. Whitlam reported the swearing-in to parliament on 22 October without any commentary. This being a unique circumstance, I'm surprised he didn't rise to the occasion and at least mention its uniqueness. He was always attracted to things like that. I can find no other discussion of the matter (nothing in Graham Freudenberg's A Certain Grandeur or Gavid Souter's Acts of Parliament, or anywhere online that I can see) . -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Appointment is a different matter to being sworn in. Patterson would still have been appointed by the Governor-General under section 64, I think this is normally done by publication in the gazette. Constitutionally, appointment of ministers of state can only be done by the Governor-General. Section 62 states members of the Federal Executive Council have to be sworn in, but it doesn't say by who. It's just a matter of convention that it's done by the Governor-General. "There is also no legal requirement that the ministry, including the prime minister, take an oath or affirmation of office nor that this include a statement of allegiance to the Crown." https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/OathsAffirmations#_Toc358025341 So as long as someone is already sworn in to the Federal Executive Council they can act as a minister as soon as they are appointed and don't have to be sworn in as e.g. Prime Minister to exercise the powers of the office. It's more a ceremonial thing. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The Queen cannot appoint Ministers nd has never done so. Performing the ceremonial duty of swearing in a Minister appears to have no constitutional force. Who swears in the Governor-General, for example? He or she is appointed by the Queen, as per the Constitution, but a new Governor-General doesn't trundle off to Buckingham Palace to be sworn in.

It is also worth noting that the Royal Powers Act 1953 gives the Queen the ability to exercise any of the Governor-General's statutory powers - i.e. those given to the office by Parliament through the normal legislative process - when personally present in Australia. This stems from Menzies wanting the Queen - on her first visit - to carry out various ceremonial functions such as opening Parliament. Whitlam desiring te Queen to do ceremonial stuff on a personal visit is more of the same. --Pete (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The monarch appoints the governor-general. Can the monarch fire the governor-general? A question which goes for all the 15 non-UK Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Certainly, but only on the relevant prime minister's advice. The fear of exactly this happening in 1975 was at the nub of what caused Kerr to act in the way that he did. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Kelly makes a convincing case that Kerr was moved to act for sound reasons, but did so in such a way as to safeguard his job. Whitlam, rather than the Queen, had the final say over sacking Kerr. HM could insist on written advice and time to consider, but if pressed she had no alternative but to comply. Kerr should have been more open with Whitlam rather than ambushing him. That's no way to run a country.

Of course, this notion of a shoot-out between Governor-General and Prime Minister was not the intention of those who drew up the Constitution. Despite the wording, seemingly assigning the power of dismissing the Governor-General to the Queen, it was really Her Majesty's Government in the person of the Colonial Secretary making any such decision. With the Treaty of Westminster, that option vanished and without a word of the Constitution being altered, the stage was set and the trap baited for 1975. Kerr was worried that if he told Whitlam what he was contemplating, Whitlam would advise the Queen to appoint a more compliant Governor-General. Kerr had been himself ambushed by Whitlam over the Khemlani affair, and there was Whitlam's move on Colin Hannah fresh in Kerr's memory. --Pete (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Reserve powers

The article states: "The power to appoint (or dismiss) ministers (section 64)."
Is this correct? It suggests that someone like (say) Barnaby Joyce, who is a member of the Government and a member of the Parliament, but not a Minister, cannot be dismissed by the GG. Furthermore, I query whether this applies to someone like Tony Abbott, who is a "Special Envoy", not a "Minister". The WP article uses the phrasing: "The Governor‑General may appoint officers to administer [...] departments of State of the Commonwealth [...]. Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor‑General."
Actually, I would have expected: The power to appoint (or dismiss) Members of Parliament — in the upper and/or lower house.
If it is really as currently stated, then please explain the reason why it isn't broader.
Finally, please make clearer whether removing a "Minister" would mean that they remain in Parliament or not.
Please confirm & clarify as needed. —DIV (120.17.234.201 (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC))

The phrasing seems ok as it stands:

• The operative words in s 64 are "officers to administer ... departments of State". The section heading (which has only interpretive effect if any) says "ministers", so it is ok to refer here to "ministers" in a generic way. Whether the office-holder has the actual title "minister" doesn't matter.
• Anyhow, as to dismissal there is little difference between somebody appointed by the G-G on the PM's advice, hence dismissable likewise, and appointed (and dismissable) by the PM.
• If by "member of the Government" is meant a member of the parliament who is a member of the governing party or coalition, that has no constitutional relevance.
• The G-G has nothing to do with appointment or removal of members of either house of the parliament.
• A member of the parliament who is appointed and then removed as a minister remains a member of the parliament, just as before appointment.

Wikiain (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that the article is clear on these specific points, and indeed I don't find the explanation above very clear either.

You mean that someone who is a Special Envoy can count as an officer administering a department of State? Or not? How about the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff? They sound like they're an 'officer' administering a department of State. So can they be removed by the GG?

I don't see why you are raising cases where the PM has appointed somebody. Are you saying that if the PM includes someone in their 'cabinet', it can be treated as if that decision was made by the GG??

If the GG can "dismiss" an entire government (or governing party/coalition, whatever you wish to call it), then how does it fit with "The G-G has nothing to do with appointment or removal of members of either house of the parliament."?

Your last point of explanation is the clearest, but it could be clarified in the article itself.

—DIV (120.17.52.102 (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC))

I'm not a lawyer mate, but by reading the Constitution and its overview (which I highly recommend you give a read, it's easy to understand and helpful; oddly, I cannot seem to find the overview as a plain HTML file, so if you want to view it you might need to download the PDF file linked at the constitution link I just gave), I've surmised that:

1. The Governor-General (GG) has far more power in theory than they do in practice. In practice, they are obligated, by convention, to follow what the ministers (especially the PM) tell them to do, but the Constitution actually gives them very broad powers, especially executive powers. It is rare that they act on their own steam, with the most notable example being during the 1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis.

2. The GG cannot dismiss members of either house of parliament from their seats in parliament. The GG can, however, dismiss them from their position as ministers of state (as ministers of state must, thanks to the constitution, be members of parliament as well), just not from their positions as members of parliament.

3. Ministers of state head the government departments/organizations (e.g. the Minister for Defence heads the Australian Defence Organisation), but chiefs of staff and special envoys do not. Chiefs of staff, to my knowledge, are really just there to take some of the load off of the person they're chief of staff for. They have important roles, yes, but they are not heads of a whole government department. "Special envoy" was a term I was unsure of the definition of too, but I thought I'd use DuckDuckGo to search for answers. Wiki gave me the impression it was a type of diplomatic position, but the ABC gave me a clearer idea: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-30/what-will-barnaby-joyce-and-tony-abbott-do-as-special-envoys/10179238. They're not ministers, they do not head a department, but they still have an important role. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 07:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

DIV, I'll respond to two of your points:

Q. "Are you saying that if the PM includes someone in their 'cabinet', it can be treated as if that decision was made by the GG??" A. No: the G-G appoints ministers; whether they are included in the cabinet is an administrative arrangement and is up to the PM. It is simply convenient for a new PM first to get the G-G to appoint the ministers who are to be cabinet members; then for the PM to work out who will be the junior ministers and get them appointed too.

Q. "If the GG can 'dismiss' an entire government (or governing party/coalition, whatever you wish to call it), then how does it fit with 'The G-G has nothing to do with appointment or removal of members of either house of the parliament.'?" A (given by Fuse809, but I'll put it my own way). When the G-G "dismisses" a government, each member of it is only removed from their ministerial office (position). The appointment of each as a minister is cancelled; they remain a member of the Parliament, just as before being appointed as a minister. Wikiain (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Governors-General of Australia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Bias

Why are Casey and Hasluck "statesmen" while Hayden is a "politician"? Constant Pedant (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

That is a very valid point. It would make sense to change Casey and Hasluck to politicians as well: "statesmen" is in the eye of the beholder. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

What powers & duties, do I perform?

I noticed a bit of activity on this article, in the last few hours. I hope yas can work it out, as to what to have in the article's content. Note, that all 15 Commonwealth realm governors-general, have the same powers/duties :) GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)