Talk:Australian Government/Archive 7

message: There has been an ungoing dispute here between one wikipedian, Skyring and everyone else on this page over whether Australia has one or two heads of state. Everyone else says one and has produced evidence. Skyring insists two and demands more evidence for what he maintains is a POV for which no evidence has been produced and insists on his right to put his version of events (for which he has produced scant evidence, most of it misquoted, out of context, or demonstrably wrong) in the article. Read the evidence below, much of which has already been pointed out to him, and see what you think. 
:That's just plain wrong. I don't insist that there are two heads of state. Please be so very good as to point out where I have said this, either here or in the article.
:What I have done is to point out that there are three different views on the matter, and have quoted sources such as the Prime Minister demonstrating this. If you want to debate the issue, send your material to them. Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Overview (archive change)

message: * Presidential Commission (Ireland) - the collective vice-presidency of Ireland, which acts as president, but whose members don't become president, if the President is unavailable or unwilling to carry out any or all or their powers, functions and duties; 
* The Vice-President of the United States, who can on occasion be called on to assume the powers, functions and duties of the presidency, but again is not regarded as being a head of state in those moments; 
* Counsellors of State in the UK - senior royals who act in loco reginae where the Queen is unavailable due to illness or travel. (As the Queen is currently  in Canada, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of York and the Princess Royal, as far as I know, are current acting as CoS. However no-one on the planet right now regards Charles, Andrew and Anne as being heads of state, merely acting as a head of state. 
* A regent - they may act as a head of state if the monarch is underage or is in longterm medical care and so unable to act as head of state. Again no regent is ever regarded as being the head of state, merely the de facto head of state during the regency. An example was the regency of George, Prince of Wales (later George IV) during the 'madness' of his father, King George III. 
* The President of Ireland from 1937 to 1949. Though the office was constitutionally created in 1937, and filled in 1938, legal advice to the Government (revealed by then Taoiseach John A. Costello in 1948) was that the President was not head of state legally until the coming into force of the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948 in April 1949. The advice was that while the President possessed many of the powers, functions and duties of a head of state, they did not make him a head of state because non-heads of state (eg, colonial governors, regional governors, etc) could also exercise the same powers, such as appointing governments, signing laws, etc. Legally the key power that only heads of state possess, and which if one has it unambiguously shows one to be head of state, is the diplomatic role. 
Until 1949 that continued to be vested in the King of Ireland, meaning that it was King George VI who appointed signed and sent Letters of Credence, signed treaties and carried out the diplomatic role as in effect 'Mr. Ireland' on the world diplomatic and protocol stage. The Republic of Ireland Act took these powers from the King and gave them unambiguously to the President, making him, from 1 April 1949 the Irish head of state. Costello explained to parliament that making the President the head of state was a major consideration in changing the law. They were also annoyed when the Governor General of Canada proposed a toast during an official visit by Costello to Canada to "the King" not the President. That brought home to them the fact that the President was not head of state. 
:Interesting, but irrelevant. The Australian Governor-General exercises his major powers in his own right. He is not assigned the powers of the monarch in the same way that a viceroy or regent is given a blanket assignment of prerogative powers. He is given his constitutional powers directly by we the people and nobody else but we the people can take them from him, certainly not the Queen. See s128 for more on this. Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples of 'de facto heads of state' worldwide

message: 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". 
The Commission correctly highlighted one notable change in the evolution of the governor-generalship. In 1900 a governor-general or governor was seen as possessing three roles; delegate of the monarch, representative of the monarch, and representative of the British government. The third of these roles was legally abolished by the Statutes of Westminster enacted in 1931, which implemented the decision of the 1926 Commonwealth Conference. As new powers, functions and duties were given to governors-general, not just in Australia but throughout Commonwealth Realms since 1931, the Governor-General's delegatory role, as merely a stand-in for the monarch, disappeared, with many roles given to the Governor-General himself or herself. However under Commonwealth of Nations theory, governors-general have continued with the respresentative role mentioned in Commonwealth Realm constitutions. So while such powers belong to the Governor-General, they do so by virtue of their representational role for the head of state, given that they are appointed by the head of state in all cases, can be dismissed at will by the head of state in all cases, take an oath of allegiance to the head of state and so must in their actions in exercising these functions not break that oath they have taken to the head of state, and have their ability to exercise these functions conferred on them by the act of appointment of the head of state.
:In point of actual fact, that is quite wrong. You will find, if you go hunting for examples to back up your claims above, that the term "head of state" is not used. That's something you made up and put in as if it were somehow factual. For example, the oath or affirmation used in the Australian Constitution does not say "head of state". It says "Queen Victoria", with a note stating  "The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time." You will not find the term "head of state" mentioned in the Australian Constitution at all. Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 1988 Constitutional Commission report

message: Maintaining Our Democracy in Monarchy or Republic by Richard E. McGarvie, AC
:And what, precisely, is the cite? A reading of the entire document shows that the late McGarvie was of the "two heads of state view". Pete 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Academic and legal papers

message: ===Hon. Michael Kirby, Justice of the High Court of Australia===
There are rational arguments for the system of government which constitutional monarchy establishes - barring ex-politicians (or for that matter ex-judges) from the position of Head of State. In some ways the very absence of the Head of State from Australia creates a system which appeals to some Australians. At the least the system, as such, has overwhelmingly performed as duty - not personal ambition or self-interest - required. We may change it. But we should make ourselves aware of its paradoxical strengths before we do. The Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG, Justice of the High Court of Australia. President of the International Commission of Jurists "The Constitutional Centenary and the Counting of Blessings". Fifth Sir Ninian Stephen Lecture. 1997. 
===Sir Anthony Mason, former Chief Justice===
Interview: ABC TV, 1997
LJ: Many monarchists say that we do already have an Australian Head of State, Sir William Deane. He is our Head of State. He is Australian.
AM: Well, those people haven't read Section 2 of the Constitution where the Governor-General is clearly described as Her Majesty's representative in Australia. It is nonsense to say that Sir William Deane is the Australian Head of State - much as I would like him to be our Australian Head of State - he just isn't our Head of State.
What about the view that we have two Heads of State — one the Queen and one Australian, Sir William Deane?
That's equal nonsense, arrant nonsense.
:Sir David Smith tears Sir Anthony's opinions to shreds in a paper rebutting those views, demonstrating that many of Mason's statements are falsehood. Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Views of judges

message: Interview: ABC TV, 1997
LJ: Many monarchists say that we do already have an Australian Head of State, Sir William Deane. He is our Head of State. He is Australian.
AM: Well, those people haven't read Section 2 of the Constitution where the Governor-General is clearly described as Her Majesty's representative in Australia. It is nonsense to say that Sir William Deane is the Australian Head of State - much as I would like him to be our Australian Head of State - he just isn't our Head of State.
What about the view that we have two Heads of State — one the Queen and one Australian, Sir William Deane?
That's equal nonsense, arrant nonsense.
:Sir David Smith tears Sir Anthony's opinions to shreds in a paper rebutting those views, demonstrating that many of Mason's statements are falsehood. Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sir Anthony Mason, former Chief Justice

message: ===Australian federal and governmental documents===
====Letters Patent====
*page one of 2003 amended Letters Patent signed by Elizabeth R as Queen of Australia 
:Nobody is disputing that the Queen is Queen of Australia. Perhaps you could remove motherhood arguments and save everyone time? Pete 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a document in dispute. I should point out that it does not say that the Queen is head of state, contrary to the claim you quoted above. Pete 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

text: While there has been no formal reassignment of powers of legation, the actual situation for many years has been that all Australian diplomatic functions are carried out by Australians. The Queen merely asks to be kept informed and plays no other role. Your quote can be seen as supporting both the "Queen as sole head of state" view or the "two heads of state" view in which the Queen is often described as the formal or ceremonial head of state. Pete 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary sources

message: ====Letters Patent====
*page one of 2003 amended Letters Patent signed by Elizabeth R as Queen of Australia 
:Nobody is disputing that the Queen is Queen of Australia. Perhaps you could remove motherhood arguments and save everyone time? Pete 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a document in dispute. I should point out that it does not say that the Queen is head of state, contrary to the claim you quoted above. Pete 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

text: While there has been no formal reassignment of powers of legation, the actual situation for many years has been that all Australian diplomatic functions are carried out by Australians. The Queen merely asks to be kept informed and plays no other role. Your quote can be seen as supporting both the "Queen as sole head of state" view or the "two heads of state" view in which the Queen is often described as the formal or ceremonial head of state. Pete 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Australian federal and governmental documents

message: *page one of 2003 amended Letters Patent signed by Elizabeth R as Queen of Australia 
:Nobody is disputing that the Queen is Queen of Australia. Perhaps you could remove motherhood arguments and save everyone time? Pete 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Letters Patent

message: Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 as amended in 1993 
:Not a document in dispute. I should point out that it does not say that the Queen is head of state, contrary to the claim you quoted above. Pete 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The constitution of Australia

message: 2.6.1 Form of address of Head of State (section heading used)
Letters of Credence and Letters of Recall should be addressed to the Queen of Australia. In accordance with the Royal Style and Titles Act of 1973, the correct style and title for this purpose is:
"Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth."
Protocol Guidelines: Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for diplomats.
:While there has been no formal reassignment of powers of legation, the actual situation for many years has been that all Australian diplomatic functions are carried out by Australians. The Queen merely asks to be kept informed and plays no other role. Your quote can be seen as supporting both the "Queen as sole head of state" view or the "two heads of state" view in which the Queen is often described as the formal or ceremonial head of state. Pete 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Diplomatic usage by the Commonwealth - advice to diplomats

message: "The Queen is Queen of Australia. However, under our present constitution, the Governor-General is effectively Australia's head of state."
Clearly Sir William Deane under the Constitution of Australia effectively discharges the role of Head of State. John Howard, ABC TV interview, November 1999. 
:Both clear statements of the "two heads of state view". Pete 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: John Howard, the Prime Minister

message: International protocol is quite strict on the categorisation of who is a head of state. Only heads of state can fulfil certain functions: 
* Treaties are signed either by them or by the government on their behalf. 
* Letters of Credence and Letters of Recall, which legally give someone diplomatic status (including diplomatic immunity) can only be signed by a head of state, issued on the name of a head of state, and received by or in the name of a head of state. 
To symbolise their status, a head of state is honoured by having a toast proposed in their honour at state dinners and banquets. Non-head of state do not receive this honour.
===Australian protocol rules on toasts===
While we are flexible on the order of proceedings our preferred approach is for the Head of Mission to invite the Chief of Protocol to propose a toast. The Chief of Protocol then proposes a toast to the Head of State, followed by the national anthem of the country.  The Head of Mission then proposes a toast to "the Queen and people of Australia", followed by the Australian anthem.  Australian Government Protocol guidelines 
====Some examples of diplomatic reference to heads of state====
* Governor-General Sir William Deane toasts the President of Ireland at a state dinner 
* Toast from the Governor General of Canada to the President of Ireland at a state dinner 
* Examples of toasts to and by US presidents
====Toasts to the Queen of Australia as head of state, not to the Governor-General====
* Speech by HRH Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark at state dinner hosted by the Governor-General of Australia 
* President of Israel's toast at state dinner hosted by the Governor-General of Australia 
* President George Bush senior toasts the 'Queen of Australia' while Prime Minister Bob Hawke toasts the US president
:We have your views on toast. Nevertheless, it is up to we the Australian people to say who is our head of state, and the demonstrable fact is that there is a difference of opinion within Australia. Would you change your opinion if we changed our protocol? Would you change your mind if we passed a Head of State Act declaring the Governor-General to be the head of state? Pete 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Diplomatic usage

message: While we are flexible on the order of proceedings our preferred approach is for the Head of Mission to invite the Chief of Protocol to propose a toast. The Chief of Protocol then proposes a toast to the Head of State, followed by the national anthem of the country.  The Head of Mission then proposes a toast to "the Queen and people of Australia", followed by the Australian anthem.  Australian Government Protocol guidelines 
====Some examples of diplomatic reference to heads of state====
* Governor-General Sir William Deane toasts the President of Ireland at a state dinner 
* Toast from the Governor General of Canada to the President of Ireland at a state dinner 
* Examples of toasts to and by US presidents
====Toasts to the Queen of Australia as head of state, not to the Governor-General====
* Speech by HRH Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark at state dinner hosted by the Governor-General of Australia 
* President of Israel's toast at state dinner hosted by the Governor-General of Australia 
* President George Bush senior toasts the 'Queen of Australia' while Prime Minister Bob Hawke toasts the US president
:We have your views on toast. Nevertheless, it is up to we the Australian people to say who is our head of state, and the demonstrable fact is that there is a difference of opinion within Australia. Would you change your opinion if we changed our protocol? Would you change your mind if we passed a Head of State Act declaring the Governor-General to be the head of state? Pete 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Australian protocol rules on toasts

message: * Speech by HRH Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark at state dinner hosted by the Governor-General of Australia 
* President of Israel's toast at state dinner hosted by the Governor-General of Australia 
* President George Bush senior toasts the 'Queen of Australia' while Prime Minister Bob Hawke toasts the US president
:We have your views on toast. Nevertheless, it is up to we the Australian people to say who is our head of state, and the demonstrable fact is that there is a difference of opinion within Australia. Would you change your opinion if we changed our protocol? Would you change your mind if we passed a Head of State Act declaring the Governor-General to be the head of state? Pete 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Toasts to the Queen of Australia as head of state, not to the Governor-General

message: * UN reference to the Head of state of Australia the 'Queen of Australia 
* chief of state: Queen of Australia ELIZABETH II (since 6 February 1952), represented by Governor General Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Michael JEFFERY (since 11 August 2003) head of government: Prime Minister John Winston HOWARD (since 11 March 1996); Deputy Prime Minister John ANDERSON (since 20 July 1999) CIA World factbook (it calls all heads of state 'Chief of state') 
* "Queen Elizabeth II is head of state" Intergovernmental Fiscal Arrangements: Background Papaer for the international symposium on Fiscal Imbalance, Quebec, September 2001 
* 117.	In the Commonwealth of Australia, the head of State is, and always has been, the person who, for the time being, is also the King or Queen of the United Kingdom though since 1953 that person has been separately styled and titled Queen of Australia. The Constitution does not refer to the Queen as the head of State. It is nevertheless proper to regard her as head of State because of the role in government the Constitution assigns her. Section 61 of the Constitution vests the executive power in the Queen and declares that it is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative.  UN International Human Rights Instruments HRI/CORE/1/Add.44 
:Again, this is all very interesting, but it doesn't detract from the demonstrable fact that there are three distinct opinions on who is seen as the Australian head of state. You may present as many opinions as you want for one of the three views, but you cannnot alter the fact that there are other views. In the end, it is we Australians who get to say who our head of state is, and Australian opinion is divided. 
:I also note that you refer to many sources without quoting from them, and that some of these sources are used by people who are directly opposed to your opinion. Perhaps you do not see this as a problem. Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: International views

message: It is a pity to have to waste so much time disproving Skyring's patently inaccurate claims.
:One gets the impression from the comments you make to other editors on their talk pages that you don't see your contributions to this discussion as "a pity" or "a waste of time", but rather as entertainment, a piece of theatre to be enjoyed.
:Nor have you disproven my claims. I claim that there are three positions on the question of Australia's head of state, and I merely quote from the statements of those who hold those different opinions. Perhaps you think that when I point out an error on your part I am making a "patently inaccurate claim" because you are incapable of error? Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: May I make the comment, after wiping my screen clear of coffee, that you should look into the mirror and try to say that with a straight face. I don't say that everything you claim is wrong, but a lot of it is! Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Are you seriously trying to claim that I am stating either here or in the article that the Governor-General is the sole Australian head of state? It seems to me that you are, and I reject your claim entirely. I suggest that you are operating under a delusion. Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dealing with Skyring's behaviour on wikipedia

message: * I'd like Cyberjunkie's comments on his hamfisted attempt to send me a rude and anonymous message. As can be plainly seen, he was editing Wikipedians/Australia and New Zealandwhen he decided to log out and send me a piece of ASCII art. Unable to get the line breaks right, he sent a new version. He then forgot that he had logged out and went back to editing the same article!
* I'd like jtdirtl (or anyone, really) to comment on this page out of the Australian Commonwealth Government Directory for March 1997. This is the Commonwealth Government, in its own directory, saying that the Governor-General is the Head of State, without qualification. I am not saying that I support the opinion, merely demonstrating that there are different opinions.Pete 05:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A "semi official" publication? You're having a laugh! How much more official can you possibly get than the Commonwealth Government's own official directory? And you are going to tell the Commonwealth that they are wrong! Perhaps you should stick a pin in yourself and let out a bit of the puff. Pete 08:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of requests 

message: I think Skyring has given ample evidence that he has
* an extremely superficial understanding of constitutional theory; 
* a laughably weak understanding of constitutional terminology; 
* an inability to understand, or an unwillingness to understand, the comments of others;
* the support in pushing his wacky theories of just one user, himself; 
* a determination, in the face of all the evidence, to force his ignorance of constitutional theory and terminology on articles relating to Australia. 
In view of this, I think the best route is to 
* ignore and not answer all his attempts to justify his demonstrably inaccurate views by provoking rows;
* revert all attempts by him to force his wacky theories on all articles;
* keep all comment for the arbitation committee, who can deal with his outrageous behaviour. 
Serious credible users have wasted enough time treating this gentleman as if he was a credible but simply misinformed user in need of information. His behaviour has shown that he is not a credible and serious contributor on this issue, but little short of a vandal. I for one am not going to waste any more time on this gentleman. I recommend everyone else adopt this course. FearÉIREANN(talk) 20:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ignore Skyring from now on

message: The ArbCom case has been accepted, the page for evidence is here Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Skyring/Evidence--nixie 13:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ArbCom