Talk:Governor-General of Australia/Archive 1

message: "in an extremely limited sense". This phrase is dramatic and not appropriate for
the opening section of the article. The limitations of the represenatation need
to be explained showing the full range of opinion on this issue
--129.78.228.114 02:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should register and explain the full range of opinions in the article. Use sources. Skyring 21:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: In fact it is consistent with the black letter law of the Constitution. I urge you to read it. But the thrust of the statement is that the Governor-General's powers are not exercised to the extent one might imagine. Mind you, Gough Whitlam underestimated his man. Skyring 21:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I rather doubt it, but if you could provide an example, we can discuss it. Can you do this, please? Or apologise. Skyring 09:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An example? Sure, why not?  Smith says this "... scholarly commentators such as Richard McGarvie, ...; and Professor George Winterton, ..., referred to the governor-general as head of state." Winterton says this in response "Sir David cites ... newspaper reports, and 'scholarly commentators' such as former Victorian Governor Richard McGarvie and the present writer. ... However, the cited newspaper articles do not support Sir David; McGarvie twice described the governor-general as "operative head of state", while I used the term "effective head of state". In his major work, ... Richard McGarvie stated that 'the Queen is head of state ...' ... I wrote that '[t]he Constitution makes it clear that the formal Head of State of the Commonwealth is the Queen, not the Governor-General'. Evidence enough that Smith does not write in good faith. Furthermore, he said in a rebutal "on pages 60 and 61 of my article I listed 'constitutional', 'de facto', 'virtual' and 'effective' as examples". His actual words were "albeit on occasions prefixed by an adjective such as 'constitutional' or 'de facto'" and later "without the customary adjectives such as 'de facto'" Evidence of habitual lying and twisting of the truth? What's to discuss! BTW, black letter is a type of legal interpretation/approach to law. Any first-year knows that... I don't have the time to connect the dots for you any more than that. --Dlatimer 13:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't made your case. If you think you have then I suggest that your interpretation of "habitual lying and twisting of the truth" sets the bar so low that nobody is exempt. Certainly you would trip yourself up if the standards you demand of others are applied to yourself. I'm asking you again to provide a single example of a case where I have confused interpretation with fact. Can you do this? And yes, you had best connect the dots, if you have both dots and connections. Skyring 20:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What a poor sport you are! Do you really think anyone is surprised by your response? I for one am not. Waste someone else's time. End of discussion. --Dlatimer 23:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dramatic language for a political point 

message: The governor-general is *not* the head of state.  In theory, they are the Queen's representative in Australia.  While, in practice, the gg acts without reference to the Queen, go check the CIA World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/as.html#Govt, the Monarchy's website http://www.royal.gov.uk/today/realms.htm, or, more to the point, the Australian constitution itself: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/chapter1.htm  
Some monarchists as part of the "no" campaign in the 1999 referendum made the claim that the gg was Australia's head of state, but virtually nobody agreed with them.  
Some reference to this belief might be appropriate on the main page, but any claim that this represents popular or expert majority opinion is utterly false. -- Robert Merkel
The Constitution states that the Governor-General is the Queen's representative, but this is woefully obsolete. He does not act as such in any significant manner, certainly not in the sense of an agent or deputy. His constitutional powers are given to him in his own right, and he is not subject to instruction from the Queen. This was pointed out by Quick and Garran and belatedly rectified.
Relying on the CIA as an authoritative source as to who our head of state might be is ludicrous. The Constitution is silent on the matter, as is the High Court. References to the Governor-General as head of state abound, excluding those from monarchist sources. I am surprised that the republican position on this is so Anglocentric - it seems ridiculous to inflate the role of the Queen and diminish that of the Governor-General, who is an Australian. Perhaps this is done to create a sense of need and urgency for change. That worked well, didn't it? Skyring
I have removed the ludicrous claim that the GG is de facto head of state and said that though not a head of state, he fulfills most of head of state functions, which is the accurate situation. 
I also removed the nutty claim that the GG is appointed by the Queen as head of the Commonwealth. He is appointed by the Queen of Australia. The head of the Commonweath has no powers whatsoever and is purely symbolic. STÓD/ÉÍRE 17:55 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)
There is nothing ludicrous about the claim that the GG is de facto head of state. This explanation has been used The word de facto just means that he or she is, "in practice" the Head of State. In the GGs own speeches and reports the words "effective Head of State "are used. 
--Dlatimer 12:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is GG Head of State? 

message: I'm unsure as to if the block pertaining to the incorrect use of the term Major-General after retirement is correct.  From my memory the correct protocol is to refer to someone as Major (or General or Major General for that matter) after they have left the services, and therefore this is the correct title.  Does anyone else have any thoughts?
----
If we're going to list Administrators here as well, is anyone going to scream if I list Guy Green, because he took over between Hollingworth and Jeffery? Ambivalenthysteria 14:04, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Appropriate Protocol in listing GGs

message: I have to say I find the list of Governors General and Administrators extremely fussy, to the point sometimes of being inaccurate. 
* First of all, a reader who comes to this page wants a simple list of Governors General. The title of the page being "Governor General of Australia", it is too much to put every person who was Administrator of the Government of the Commonwealth for one day or one month.
* The form "Joe Bloggs, the eighth Viscount Townsville" sounds strange and is particularly needless: what is wrong with "Joe Bloggs, 8th Viscount Townsville", which is the standard Wikipedia format for hereditary peers, and links straight to the article? 
*The idea that any of this reflects the person's "Official Name and Style" is pure fantasy: "His Excellency The Duke of Gloucester, His Royal Highness Prince Henry William Frederick Albert, Earl of Ulster and Baron Culloden, KG, KT, KP, GCB, GCMG, GCVO, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia" was never known as such, officially or otherwise. The idea of a royal prince being addressed as His Excellency is particularly bizarre. You might as well add in "His Grace", since he was also a duke, and "The Right Honourable", since he was an earl and baron. Why does one title come before his name and the rest after? 
*I have never seen Dr Hollingworth called "The Honourable", but if he is in some way entitled to it it would come after "The Right Reverend", not before.
*Why place "Governor General of the Commonwealth of Australia" at the end of every person's name in a list of Governors General of the Commonwealth of Australia? Why not "Governor General and Commander in Chief in and over the Commonwealth of Australia"?
*Lord Linlithgow would have been "The Most Honourable", being a marquess.
*British Commonwealth usage is not to put commas after "His Excellency", "His Royal Highness" etc.
*Why are all the Administrators denied the style "His Excellency"? Seeing as the Administrators are appointed from the state Governors by seniority, they would all already be Excellencies.
I have moved the more detailed list to a separate page, List of persons administering the Government of Australia
Andrew Yong 12:10, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms of list

message: We need to remove the reference to delegated powers. The powers of the Governor-General are threefold. First are his constitutional powers, which are given to him alone and are not able to be exercised or influenced by the Queen - only the Australian people may add to, modify or withdraw these powers by virtue of s128.
Second are his prerogative powers, those deriving from common law, mostly those of the British monarch, exercisable by virtue of the Governor-General "representing" the Queen. These are powers such as recognising diplomatic representatives, giving pardons, conferring honours and so on, now much diminished by legislation, but still subject to Royal Letters-Patent. The power to appoint deputies mentioned in s126 is a special case of a directly delegated power.
Third are his statutory powers, those given to the Governor-General by Act of Parliament. An interesting point is that the Royal Powers Act 1953 gives the Queen the power to exercise the statutory powers of the Governor-General when personally present in Australia, which makes her a delegate of the Governor-General.
Almost all of the Governor-General's powers are routine, non-contentious. Even most of the constitutional powers are exercised under advice. However, some of his constitutional powers, as Gough Whitlam discovered in 1975, may be exercised without advice. These are the reserve powers, and they belong to the Governor-General alone. They are not "the reserve powers of the Crown", as some try to present them, implying that they belong to the Queen or the State, because the constitution does not give these powers to the monarch or the "Crown" meaning the Commonwealth, but to the Governor-General alone.
So it is quite incorrect to say that the Governor-General is merely a ceremonial head of state. He alone holds the ultimate executive power. 1975 proves this point. Sir John Kerr did not act with the authority, the advice or the approval of the Queen. He acted alone, using his own powers, and he demonstrated his authority over the Prime Minister. Previous Governors-General have also refused advice by Prime Ministers.
The title of "head of state" is nowhere defined in the Constitution, so we must choose another authorative source. I reject sources as the CIA website, which essentially leaves us with only three potential sources. The High Court could provide an answer, but has not yet been asked this question. My opinion, following Sue v Hill, is that the High Court would say that the Governor-General is now the head of state, using the same reasoning that they used to find that the UK is now a foreign power, but was not in 1901, despite the Constitution not having been changed to reflect this.
A second source is the body of constitutional experts, including judges, academics, Governors-General and others. This is probably our best bet, but the sad fact is that opinion is quite divided. I note with some amusement that some Governors-General such as Bill Hayden referred to themselves as the head of state, whilst others such as Michael Jeffery have named the Queen in that position.
Thirdly, there is the opinion of the Australian people. However, the Australian people are notoriously ignorant of constitutional theory and it is hard to accept their opinion as an informed one. Furthermore, if the Australian people alone determine who is and who is not the head of state, then all that is required for us to have an unequivocally Australian Head of State is to change popular opinion.
I stress again that there is no official definition of who (if anybody) occupies the position of head of state. Until we can come up with an agreed definition, I intend to remove all reference in Wikipedia to an Australian head of state.
And please, no hand-waving. I really don't care how much you personally believe one person or another is the head of state, if you don't provide a bloody good source using that precise term, don't bother posting. Let's have a bit of scholarship, please! Skyring 21:16, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Head of State. State of Play

message: "envisaged as one of the great offices of the British Empire, on par with the Viceroy of India. But the office never attracted candidates of the seniority originally envisaged, and Australian public opinion never accepted the idea of the Governor-General as an imperial pro-consul" This is nonsense! --Dlatimer 02:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your source is interesting, but hardly impressive. Skyring 21:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked my sources and cannot find any support for this. In particular - who envisaged this? what seniority was envisaged? how can the GG be compared with a pro-consul? This is from the convention debates 12FEB1890 -- "Sir Henry Parkes ... unquestionably referred to the Dominion of Canada, he did so only in these words:- "The scheme of Federal Government, it is assumed, would necessarily follow Close upon the type of the Dominion Government of Canada. It would provide for the appointment of a Governor-General, for the creation of an Australian Privy Council, and a Parliament consisting of a Senate and a House of Commons." "  --Dlatimer 01:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: The Henry Parkes quote seems to be the more relevant --Dlatimer 14:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invention is not approprate 

message: "a non-Australian appointment, although technically still possible, would now be unthinkable in practical terms. Suggestions that the Prince of Wales become the Governor-General have come to nothing, and this possibility seems increasingly remote." If its unthinkable, then why are people thinking about it. This section is a contradition!
--Dlatimer 02:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In practical terms the reality is that any Australian Prime Minister who advised the Queen to appoint a British Governor-General would probably not survive the next election. People may think it and there is no constitutional difficulty, but the practical effect is one that you don't seem to have thought about. As noted, the appointment of the Prince of Wales was once a possibility, when he was still reasonably popular. We are talking decades ago, here. However, the constitutional difficulties of having as Governor-General someone who could also simultaneously and unexpectedly be the monarch if the Queen were to be run over by the proverbial bus don't bear thinking about. Skyring 21:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All you have to do is state what happened and what is happening. You are writing according to your opinion as to what is possible or unlikely.--Dlatimer 12:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that there is much of an argument to be made for the counter case - that it would be practical to have a British Governor-General appointed. I think any Prime Minister who did this would be seen as being out of touch with public opinion. Perhaps you disagree. Perhaps JackOfOz was imprecise in his use of language when he inserted the sentence. Easily fixed. Skyring 19:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The unthinkable is thinkable 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Republican Proposals 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spring Clean 2005 new organisation 

message: 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)
replies: text: Cheers. JackofOz 07:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peers, the Privy Council and the Rt Hon

message: Come on guys. Stop reverting and discuss it please. Xtra 02:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Where the Queen lives 

message: 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. --Fang Aili  說嗎? 23:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my general feeling as well, and I'm glad someone else backed me up. Thanks. --Fang Aili  說嗎? 23:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the Queen and recent edits 

message: Substituted at 20:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: a 202.4.28.1 (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  h 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion