Talk:Peace, order, and good government

message: The way that the POGG is described in Australia is wrong, in Union Steamship v King (1988) 166 CLR 1 at (9-10) the High Court are quite clear that the words of peace,order and good government are NOT words of limitation, that is the no court could strike down a law on the basis it is not for peace, order and good government. [Although the court did acknowledge that residual rights could exist outside POGG] This approach has been cited in Mobil Oil v Victoria in the joint judgement and Kirby J in Bennett v Commonwealth (2007) 235 ALR 1, so if anyone who is knowledgeable on the issue wants to edit it it would probably be good, and finally the POGG powers are very relevant in Australia (Well at least those who study the Constitutions of the States') --124.169.141.223 (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Application of POGG in Australia

message: POGG seems to me to be a Westminster-wide term not just restricted to Canada. IIRC it originated in the UK and Canada was just one instance of its use. For example, POGG Orders-in-Council are issued by the UK govt. 124.197.4.190 12:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Westminster system 

message: :Image:Can-pol w.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Can-pol w.jpg

message: I have added the South Africa Act 1909 to the list of relevant 20th-century constitutional legislation enacted by the Westminster Parliament containing the words "peace, order, and good government". Specifically, Chapter IV, Sec. 59 of the aforementioned act, referring to the powers of the parliament of the Union of South Africa, states that:
"Parliament shall have full power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Union."
161.24.19.112 (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: South Africa Act 1909

message: Need to update:  the UK government won (by a majority) an appeal to the House of Lords. Wikiain (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bancoult Case 

message: Should this be updated to King instead of Queen?
"It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters......" 99.209.77.186 (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No change needed. It’s a direct quote from the Constitution Act and can only be changed by constitutional amendment. This wording dates back to Queen Victoria’s time (1867) and was not modified for the four kings between Victoria and Elizabeth II. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Quotations like this are starting to prompt recurring discussions. I'd be happy to leave the direct quote from the constitution as is, but an option might be to change it to "... for the [King], by and with...", or something like that. Indefatigable (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I disagree. We should never modify a direct quote from the Constitution. Only Parliament and the provincial Legislatures can do so. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that the Act uses « Queen » is itself a piece of information about the Act, its origins, and its interpretation. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen -> King?