Talk:Jervis Bay Territory

message: this article says its 26 miles big. is that the total area? which is land and water? if so i need further clarification as to what its surface area is.
99.51.212.6 (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  id like more information on its surface area size 

message: I have seen maps which show the southernmost part of the Beecroft Peninsula as part of the Jervis Bay Territory. The map on the JBT official site does not show this though. Can anybody confirm or deny? If the JBT does include part of the Beecroft Peninsula, this fact should be included in the article. --Humehwy 09:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've discovered what the reason for this is. A lot of the Beecroft Peninsula is land controlled by the Department of Defence, which the Commonwealth has some control over. However,  just like any other Commonwealth land in Australia, it is still part of the adjacent state, which means it is still NSW land for most purposes. The only land that is the JBT is on the south side of Jervis Bay. (JROBBO 04:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beecroft Peninsula

message: Why was it  felt necessary to give the ACT access to the sea? --Jfruh 05:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because at the time, there were no planes so overseas travel was done by boat. It would have been important for the non New South Wales States that the nation's leaders and politicians could use a port that was not controlled/on territory owned by the NSW government. All of the Australian capital cities are on the coast, so perhaps it was envisioned that somewhere like Eden (as had been proposed) would become the capital. --Crazycrazyduck 01:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is interesting information (I too wondered why? when I read the article). Perhaps it could be worked into the article text somehow? --kingboyk 14:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even so its still apart of Australia, its not like its a foreign country they have to bypass. So still begs the question as to  why they felt it needed the area. -- RND  T  C  11:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It makes you wonder why they put the ACT inland in the first place, though.  Jimp 07:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The site of the nation's capital was a bone of contention between NSW and Victoria. Canberra's location was chosen as a compromise because it was roughly half-way between Sydney and Melbourne. A much better site in what is now , to be called "Pindimar", had been considered but it was rejected by Victoria, even though it had both road and sea access by virtue of being between Port Stephens and the Pacific Highway. In 1918 that land was subdivided and a network of dirt roads based on the design of Pindimar was constructed. These roads are still visible today at . Unfortunately the city of Port Stephens never eventuated and the population of North Arm Cove is concentrated in a few streets close to the water. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: They put the ACT inland as a prevention against sea bombardment and disease, and the story about the NSW/Victoria feud is a myth. --Anatole Vasilyevich Kuragin 9:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: User:Felix Portier has repeatedly added several NSW towns to this article, as though they were in the territory. Please provide references for these towns being in JBT. If there are no references, they must be removed from the article. JPD (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My Explore Australia is clear that Hyams Beach is outside the territory. It's not clear about Sussex Inlet though. --Scott Davis Talk 12:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion? 

message: Those who believe that Sussex Inlet is in Jervis Bay Territory need to produce some official documents proving such.  The burden is on them.  I, however, will produce documents that prove Sussex Inlet is indeed located in New South Wales:
*http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/d4f3b7af766a4c4dca256f1900134a73/$FILE/Other%20Territories.pdf
*http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/act6-a1559-1915-19.rtf, which reads [emphasis mine], "1.  The State shall surrender to the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth shall accept, the territory (hereinafter called the territory), now being part of the State, described hereunder, namely:— All that piece and parcel of land and water situate at Jervis Bay in the Parish of Bherwerre, County of St. Vincent, State of New South Wales, Commonwealth of Australia, area about 18,000 acres, commencing at a point on the high water mark on the left bank of Sussex Inlet at its intersection with the western boundary of portion 12 of 40 acres and bounded thence westerly and north-westerly by that high water mark to the high water mark of St. George’s Basin, thence in a general easterly and north-easterly direction by that high water mark to its intersection with the production westerly of the southern boundary of portion 18 ..."
The only connection that Sussex Inlet has with Jervis Bay Territory is the fact that the JBT administration leases housing in Sussex Inlet for 18 individuals (cf. http://www.dotars.gov.au/territories/jervis_bay/index.aspx).  It was in 1986 that "the Commonwealth acquired the workers cottage Pamir (erected Sussex Inlet leases area circa 1935) ..." (http://www.dotars.gov.au/territories/jervis_bay/history.aspx).  However, a lease does not constitute territory (e.g., Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is not US territory but leased Cuban territory controlled and administered by the US government).
Lastly, I can find no evidence whatsoever that Sussex Inlet constitutes the capital of Jervis Bay Territory.  Again, I ask that those who claim such to show definitive proof of this.  So, until this occurs, I'm removing the mention of Sussex Inlet being Jervis Bay Territory's capital.  --Mike Beidler 13:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made some changes, although I feel the infobox here is pretty useless - much of the content is misleading at best. I have also asked an admin to move Sussex Inlet to the right name, and nominated :Category:Councils in the Jervis Bay Territory for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 14. JPD (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sussex Inlet Controversy

message: I have removed the infobox from the article, as almost of all the fields are irrelevant to JBT (see some discussion concerning this above). If an infobox is necessary, I would suggest making a custom one with significantly less fields. JPD (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Hasn't Jervis Bay an own flag? Is it represented with the Australian Capitol Territory's Flag or with the Australian Flag? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.117.55.134 (talk • contribs)  06:21, 26 December 2006  (UTC)
:No, it doesn't have it's own flag. It is not represented by any flag, although obviuosly, as part of Australia, the Australian National Flag is used there. Since it is no longer part of the ACT, the ACT flag would be completely inappropriate. JPD (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag

message: While it is true that for the purposes of the electoral act, the ACT includes JBT, I am not sure putting in this way in this context gives the right impression. It seems to imply that this is somehow to do with the fact that it used to be part of the ACT, however the arrangements for other small territories are for the most part similar, even though the history isn't. JPD (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electoral representation 

message: This article says "It was administered by the Department of the Interior and later, the Department of the Capital Territory as if it was part of the ACT, although it was always a separate Commonwealth territory. The perception that it is part of the ACT arises from the fact that under the terms of the Jervis Bay Territory Acceptance Act, the laws of the ACT apply to the Jervis Bay Territory."
By contrast, the Beecroft Peninsula article says "The ACT section was transferred to the Commonwealth of Australia in 1915, as part of the Jervis Bay lands transferred by New South Wales to federal control to provide the national capital with access to the sea. While the bulk of this land was established as a separate Jervis Bay Territory when the Australian Capital Territory was granted self-government, the portion on the Beecroft Peninsula remains part of the ACT."
So this article says JBT was always distinct from ACT, whereas the Beecroft Peninsula article suggests that the existence of JBT as distinct from ACT only dates from ACT self-government. I don't know what the answer is, yet I find the Beecroft Peninsula account more believable. Given that the s. 4 of the Seat of Government requires the ACT to have sea access, it is clear why the ACT has territory on the Beecroft Peninsula. Why then would JBT exist separately from the ACT? Self-government seems a reasonable explanation (separate the populated areas of coastal ACT from the ACT, but keeping the unpopulated coastal areas in the ACT to meet the legal requirement.) But why would have both JBT and coastal ACT have existed as a separate territory back in the early 20th century when there was no ACT self-government? It just doesn't make any sense. --SJK (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, having done some more research, the two most relevant primary sources are Seat of Government Acceptance Act 1909 (Cth) and Jervis Bay Territory Acceptance Act 1915 (Cth). From that it seems clear that FCT (now known as ACT) and JBT were originally separate, even though both had territory in the Jervis Bay region. But I have trouble parsing the exact holdings of each in each region. (The description of FCT territory in SOGA1909 sounds broader than just the Beecroft Peninsula, but maybe its no more than that.) Its also not clear why if FCT already exists, why was JBT separately incorporated in 1915? It sounds like HMAS Creswell had something to do with it, but I would love if someone could dig up the relevant Hansard... --SJK (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction with [[Beecroft Peninsula]] article 

message: Postcodes in Australia indicates that Jervis Bay Territory uses 2540, however the article says it uses 2541.
----  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepointer (talk • contribs) 22:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postcode contradiction with [[Postcodes in Australia]] 

message: 
I see there is a conversation above about removing the infobox completely. The infobox currently on the article is .  has some code relating specifically to Jervis Bay Territory in it, so I tried to fill it out to match. Here is what I came up with. There are quite a few fields I have not populated, possibly because they have no meaning for JBT (eg floral emblem). This alternative is presented here for comparison, in case I have missed a long previous discussion that led to the current choice. There is nowhere in this infobox for the climate summary, I guess as it wouldn't make sense for most of the states. --Scott Davis Talk 11:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to the discussion from 2006, more than 10 years ago? I added the code to  but, like others, found that JBT doesn't really lend itself well to that infobox as well as it does to IAP. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox revisited 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jervis Bay Territory. 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/20130428091831/http://foundingdocs.gov.au/enlargement-eid-105-pid-95.html to http://foundingdocs.gov.au/enlargement-eid-105-pid-95.html%23
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Australian English isn't rhotic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.103.159 (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: pronunciation