Talk:Governor-General of Australia

Talk:Governor-General of Australia/Archive1

I don't want to get involved in further controversies at this article, but this quote from the current GG, showing his understanding of his representative role, probably merits inclusion: "Her Majesty is Australia's head of state but I am her representative and to all intents and purposes I carry out the full role." [1] Adam 02:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Adam! I think it should be included too. Mind you, the perception of whether they are the head of state seems to differ according to the incumbent. Bill Hayden described himself as such and I suspect that Peter Hollingworth might have put himself higher still.

That's twice I've seen you do that archive trick. How is it done? Skyring 03:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is there a quote in which Hayden described himself as being the head of state? I'd believe anything of Hayden, but it seems an odd thing for a monarchist to say.

Bill Hayden, "Hayden: An Autobiography", Angus & Robertson 1996, pp515, 519 and elsewhere. Indirect references, but unmistakable. Hayden states that he is not a fawning royalist, and indeed his style had the effect of scaring Sir David Smith, who could be so described, out of his job as Official Secretary. Skyring 04:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Archiving: I went control-A, control-X to pick up all the text, then typed [[Talk:Governor-General of Australia/Archive1]] on the blank page, then saved the page. I then opened the new page (Talk:Governor-General of Australia/Archive1) thus created, and went control-V to dump the old text into the new page, which I then saved. Adam 03:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Skyring

I think Adam's quote is good. dlatimer

I propose[d] the the writing a replacement sentence, which explains the occasional co-operation on some minor matters, but affirms the ultimate independance of the GG in relation to the Queen, especially in a constitutional crisis or significant matter. --dlatimer 00:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Skyring: "The Governor-General acts as the representative of the Queen in exercising her personal prerogative powers under delegation, such as the appointment of ambassadors, the awarding of honours and other minor functions. When exercising his constitutional powers, the Governor-General does not consult with the Queen and is under no obligation to do so."

I think skyring on archive1 has simply re-proposed his own conclusions on the matter. I don't think its useful to the average reader, because it implies that prerogatives are seperate to the constitution, whereas I have read repeatedly that the GG relies on s61. The distinction made between preprogatives and other executive powers is useless, because the implication is that the GG's independence is subject to this distinction, which we all agree is not the case. Anyway, there is clearly no firm agreement on this. Secondly, how will an ordinary reader, especially a younger or O/S student make sense of it. The downplay argument is lost on me - Sure, assert the GG's independence by all means. But know this, the present arrangement has been arrived at through mutual co-operation with the Queen, albeit on Australian advice. It is pointless to pin down the nature of the representation. "does not consult" is too strong, given the evidence which I provided. Skyring is somehow convinced of this, but how? The GG does correspond with the Queen[2], so how can he be sure consultation does not take place. I am satisfied that for the Queen to open parliament requires consultation and use of s60 is consultation, if necessary replace "consult" with something weaker, such as "corresponds", where there is no doubt.

A point on protocol and politeness: Usually, I quite enjoy an interesting discussion, because I like to learn and practice being respectful to the views of others (I do need the practice). At first, I thought skyring was a smart teenager. Now, I don't know what to think. An open-source project like this depends on the adoption of certain epistemological understandings. Who shall say, who is right and who has acted rightly? But I now am arguing over nothing and hating it. That's it. --Dlatimer 06:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

At first, I thought skyring was a smart teenager. My initial perception of Adam!

My objection to the use of "consult" in relation to the exercise of the Governor-General's constitutional powers is that it makes him appear to be the agent of the Queen in this respect, when this is not the case. I use the term constitutional powers to mean those powers explicitly given to the Governor-General in the Constitution, rather than the prerogative powers, the extent of which depends on interpretation of the term "executive power" in s61.

Saying that the Governor-General consults with the Queen on the rare use of ss58&60 is not a given. The Queen doesn't tell the Governor-General that she wants to sign a Bill into law. The Prime Minister would see such a Bill through Parliament and advise both the Governor-General and the Queen that it is to be reserved for the Queen's pleasure and both would act on advice. On looking into this, I see that the Australia Act 1986 was not reserved for the Queen's pleasure, but rather the Queen signed a proclamation brining all eight Acts into effect - the UK, Australian and six State Acts. To the best of my knowledge the last Act reserved for the Queen's pleasure was the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973. I presume that a Constitution Amendment Act to formally remove the Queen from our affairs would be reserved as a matter of courtesy, but I do not know.

I don't want the GG to be seen at the agent of the Queen either. Rather than discuss the merits of my argument, let's look at your statement "reserved as a matter of courtesy". This is exactly the thing which I see as excluded in your text. In effect, my idea of consultation is really the observation of certain courtesies between the GG and the Queen. McGarvie also talks about the dangers of using the word prerogative in the Australian context. [3]

So we could say: "Although the Governor-General and the Queen occasionally observe certain formalites, the Governor-General carries out his constitutional responsibilities with complete independence." From there add the 2 quotes (QPrivSec, Hayden) supportive of this independence. Then next paragraph, explain the nature of "representative" in terms of constitutional detail, as you do, but McGarvie says the prerogative is converted by s.61 to statutary law, so I hope you could consider that.

I like your wording, but would add " from the Queen." to remove confusion, because he usually acts under advice. I'm also thinking that s126 is a function he doesn't exercise independently because this is delegated from the Queen by the Letters-Patent. Do you have the McGarvie quote?

Yes, add that. As far as I am aware s.126 is considered dead, because we don't and never had deputy GG's and the reason for its existance, poor communications, is no longer an issue. McGarvie doesn't refer to it.

Actually, I am wrong. s126 is used so that the vice-president of the exectuive council can temporarily preside during an absence of the GG. --Dlatimer 09:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have (or rather had) a lot of time for McGarvie. I shared a lot of Professor Craven's annoyance with the monarchists at the Constitutional Convention because if they had voted strategically they could have ensured that McGarvie's model was put to the people rather than the clumsy ARM thing. Even better, McGarvie would have been a less abrasive spokesman than Turnbull, who got right up the noses of the people whose votes he most needed. A bit like me, I guess. I'll delete this para soon.

Following Craven's suggestion would have alienated their base. The monarchist strategy worked out anyway.

Now, about the literal text thing. My problem is that the literal text of the constitution doesn't say that he is the Queen's representative. It says "shall be Her Majesty's representative". Furthermore, the example of s101 is before us, where the literal text says there "shall be an Inter-State Commission", which there plainly isn't. I think if we are talking literal text then we need to be very careful and nit-picky. Skyring 20:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comparing s101 and s2 may not be applicable. I've found very little info on s101, but I think (and need to double-check) that the excuse for its abandonment is that no powers were given to it. Maybe, one day, a clever lawyer will try to get a company out of hot water with ASIC by referring to s101, but on the other hand if that were practicable, it should have happened by now.

If "shall" really means "may be", but it happens, then it "is". You're saying that literal truth cannot incorporate this logic. If so, the best option is to quote s2 directly, as it done on the GG website: ... constitution provides that "A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth..." So maybe "The literal text of the constitution states the Governor-General "shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth". Then add "the GG and the Queen take advice from the PM" --dlatimer 22:08, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Flag

I have uploaded an image of the flag of the Governor General. Can someone add it to the page when the protection ends.

File:Flag of the Governor General of Australia.gif

Flag of the Governor General of Australia

Astrotrain 20:46, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Republican Proposals

I have moved the Hayden quote to the Republican Proposals section where it works very well. It was improper to make this quote and then state Hayden believed he was the Head of State. Let the reader assume this themselves if they want. In my opinion, its a statement about the transition to a republic and nothing more. The debate about Head of State is described in context of opposition to republicanism. --dlatimer 04:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, I am interested in your view on this? ... for the record. --Dlatimer 07:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Clean 2005 new organisation

I have opened up a can of worms for myself, trying to get my head around this article, but I think I have made some progress. Essentially, I broke down the main parts of the article into Tenue, Constitutional Role, Ceremonial Role and History.

The existing paragraphs were moved under these main headings and where possible new sub-headings were created. It became obvious that under Tenue there was lots of missing information and inconsistancies. Where possible there is an explanation and a historical example.

Historical information was repeated over and over again. How many times did we read about 1926. Now all of that is put into the one history section. OK, its still mentioned under "method of appointment" but that too will be streamlined.

The section on Constitutional Role remains totally unwieldy. Slabs of constitutional sections copied verbously! This needs to be cleaned out. More info on the ceremonial role including what happens on overseas trips.

Please review what I have done and we'll see what fixes come out of it. --User:dlatimer 20:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have made further changes and believe I have fixed up the Constitutional Role, taking out the slabs of constitutional sections and replacing it with hopefully reasonable explanation. Still more to do on the ceremonial role. --dlatimer 04:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have repaired much of the recent damage done to this article. Please note that the Australian Constitution is not the same thing as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, an act of the UK Parliament which is no longer law in Australia. Adam 05:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, Big Thanks for helping with this clean up.

My concern with the new opening section that I'd like to raise is the repeated use of the words 'head of state' in the opening section. While I strongly agree with the idea that the Queen is head of state, are the sentances "which in other countries are carried out by the head of state" and "role of a ceremonial head of state" necessary? Head of state is to some extent illdefined in this context. Additionally is it true he "carries out his functions in the name of the Queen"? For example section 5 and section 61. The words of section 58 "in the name of the Queen" are presented under Role in Parliament.

There is also some gender assignment.

You have taken out the words "encouraging, articulating and representing those things that unite Australians as a nation" which is a leading phrase to describe the GG and on the GG website and Royal website

Looking up Prince Charles, I found 1982 was a key year. Source B Source A

Regarding 1975 why take out "most famous and controversial"? What about "most notable" rather than "recent substantial"? --Dlatimer 07:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In reply:

I don't see anything wrong with the opening paragraph, but I suppose you could delete "Although he is not a head of state" without causing any loss of meaning if you think the phrase "head of state" appears too often.
The GG is the Queen's representative in Australia (s2), but the Queen is head of state, and the GG therefore carries out all his functions in her name. I don't see anything at ss5 or 61 which contradicts that.
All GGs to date have been men. If you want to change "he" to "he or she" throughout, feel free.
"Encouraging, articulating and representing those things that unite Australians as a nation" is someone's opinion about what the GG's job is. It is not one of his functions set out in the Constitution. I also think it is a fatuous cliche.
My memory of the 70s and 80s is fading as senility overtakes me. Change the Charles reference if you wish.
"Famous" and "controversial" are the two most pestilential cliches at Wikipedia, and I usually delete them on sight.

Adam 08:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Head of state - Could we consider "ceremonial head of state". This is not explained clearly anywhere in wikipedia that I can see. For "in other countries are carried out by the head of state, I suggest "carried out by the Queen in the United Kingdom" i.e. more specific.
While ss5 or s61 does not contradict, GG does not refer to Queen for all things. A good example is making regulations. Should we not err on the side of caution?
Gender - OK, I'll do that
Since its the GG saying it, perhaps it could be mentioned under Ceremonial?
OK - thanks
Perhaps we could say "the most pestilential use of the reserve powers..." ;) Substantial is overused too. Do you like "notable"?

Pls see also Republican Proposals above. Thanks --Dlatimer 09:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No objection
The GG does not refer to the Queen about anything. That doesn't alter the fact that he is acting in her name when he performs any official act.
I didn't realise it was a quote from the GG. But it's still only an opinion. The description of the GG's functions should be closely linked to the Constitution.
No objection to notable
I don't think the republic debate should be explored at this article, except to say that the referendum proposal entailed the abolition of the GG, but was rejected by the people.

Adam 10:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! I've implemented what was discussed plus one or two minor changes and hope you find it mutually agreeable. I didn't return anything about the republic. --Dlatimer 14:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peers, the Privy Council and the Rt Hon

Adam, I think it's the reverse of your edit. Peers are styled the Rt Hon, and have PC after their name if they are members of the Privy Council. Non-peers who are appointed to the Privy Council are styled the Rt Hon, but do not have PC, because the style is sufficient indication of their membership. It's only peers who have both, because they get the Rt Hon by virtue of their peerage, and need a further indicator where they are also members of the Council. JackofOz 06:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I had forgotten that peers are Rt Hons by virtue of their peerages, not only if they are PCs.
"Non-peers who are appointed to the Privy Council are styled the Rt Hon, but do not have PC" That is correct and I have removed the PCs accordingly.

Adam 06:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. JackofOz 07:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where the Queen lives

Come on guys. Stop reverting and discuss it please. Xtra 02:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to discuss? Gambino's edits are factually wrong and must be reverted. Adam 03:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His edits may be wrong, but if everyone took the above attitude, no progress would ever be made. JackofOz 04:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, smartypantses, I will leave it to u 2 to deal with. Adam 04:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Gbambino to discuss it if he wants to keep going. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen lives in the UK. Gambino is confusing (1) to live somewhere, with (2) to be somewhere. [[--Dlatimer 13:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)]][reply]

It's a fine line, which is why I'm surprised "lives predominantly in the UK" is so objected to. As she spends so much time out of the UK every year, I'd wager my wording is acceptable. And how does one explain her own words, on various occasions, describing Canada as "home"? --gbambino 23:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we need to come to slightly more formalised wording, such as "whose principal residence is in the UK". That way, we're talking about where her house is, and where her address is if you wrote to her, which is sufficient to pin her down for this purpose. When she's visiting Canada or NZ or OZ or Timbuktoo, she's obviously still living, and she is obviously provided with a temporary abode whenever she's away from her usual British abode, but that's not what we're talking about. JackofOz 02:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the Queen and recent edits

Ok folks, you know more about this than I do. Is Xtra or Pnatt right? I don't know much about Australia or its monarchy, so you have to help me out. I urge those involved to mind 3RR. Thank you. --F a ng Aili ^說嗎? 23:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pnatt is completely wrong. A review of his edits suggests that he is simply a vandal. He has been repeatedly blocked, then come back and vandalised more articles. He has picked up a host of final warnings. In view of his repeated blocks and final warnings, given the fact that he vandalised the page straight after yet another final warning, I have imposed a one week block. Given that shorter blocks failed to get through to the numbskull, maybe this might get through to him. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was my general feeling as well, and I'm glad someone else backed me up. Thanks. --F a ng Aili ^說嗎? 23:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish

Is it at all important that two governors-general were Jewish? We don't mention which ones were Catholic, Anglican (apart from Hollingworth), Lutheran, agnostic or atheist. --Scott Davis ^Talk 15:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable in the sense that they are the only minority group to be represented with governors general. Xtra 23:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the other groups I mentioned are minorities in Australia, too. Is being Jewish any more special than them? --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the context in the article is that of ethnicity, not religion. JPD (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Scott and think the whole paragraph is bizarre. It is not a summary of the backgrounds of Governor-General and has no practical relevance to the role or how it is perceived. --Dlatimer 03:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's "no original research" policy forbids the introduction of novel narratives and syntheses. If there exists a reputable reference that states that two G-Gs were Jewish, kindly cite it. If no such reputable reference exists, then this is original research. Snottygobble 05:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it original research? It is historical fact that two were. Xtra 06:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xtra: I'm not sure if it's OR, but it's POV to include just one race/religion/denomination and not the others. JPD, if it's about ethnicity, perhaps instead of " Sir Isaac Isaacs, the first Australian-born Governor-General, and Sir Zelman Cowen were Jewish." It should be extended to " Sir Isaac Isaacs, the first Australian-born Governor-General, and Sir Zelman Cowen were Jewish, all others were Aryan." Do we think it would survive vandalism for long? --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is deffinitely not OR. but, on the point of POV, I personally do believe it relevant that a group that makes up only about .1% of the population has provided 2 GG's. Xtra 11:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Historical fact" and "original research" aren't mutually exclusive, else all history theses would be flights of fancy. WP:NOR is clear on this: it is not Wikipedia's job to draw the facts together in novel ways. If some reputable resource has thought it worthy of note that two of Australia's Governors General were Jewish, then let's cite that source. If no reputable resource has ever mentioned that two of Australia's Governors General were Jewish, then Wikipedia should not either.

I realise that the published fact that Cowan was Jewish can be put together with the published fact that Isaacs was Jewish, to form the synthesis that two of Australia's Governors-General were Jewish. Such a synthesis, as obvious as it may seem, is OR if not previously published. I highly recommend you thoroughly re-read WP:NOR before replying. Snottygobble 12:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so bloody ridiculous. Adam 12:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam - don't get personal. I see you've reverted removal of the sentence from the article, else I couldn't tell who you meant by this comment. Xtra: you underestimated the Jewish population in Australia - it's more like 0.5%. [4], [5]

I'd be more interested to find how the proportion of GGs with convict heritage compares to the general population, and whether the Australian-born ones typically are of foreign-born parents, or are they 4th and 5th generation Australians. And I still think it's not NPOV to identify one group/minority/whatever (ethnic, religious, sexuality or whatever) without doing the same for the rest. If the issue is comparing this group's representation as GGs to its representation in the population, then that overall statistic must also be presented. Both archbishops and star-ranking military officers are also over-represented as GGs I suspect. --Scott Davis ^Talk 15:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on whether their Jewishness should be mentioned, but it seems to me that well worded or otherwise, the original general intent of the paragraph was to say something along the lines of "They've all been white Anglo-Celtic males, apart from two Jewish GGs." That may be borderline OR, but it shouldn't be hard to find a reference for it somewhere, if it is considered relevant. The only NPOV is thge assumption that it is obvious what ethnicity the others were. The archbishops and military officers are mentioned in the paragraph before. Whether the Jewish comment goes or stays, I think a mention of Isaacs as the first Aus-born GG should stay somewhere in the article. JPD (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just not relevant. If this was an article about Germany, then yes, it would be relevant. GG's have all been male - that is relevant. Anyway, a person can be both Anglo-Celtic and Jewish, can't they? --Dlatimer 07:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facts do not need cites. PMA 18:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a fact? --Dlatimer 07:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]