Talk:Australian head of state dispute/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Head of state per UN list

My revision is to show the relevance and import of the UN List from the point of view of international relations and diplomacy. The previous link failed to work for me. In the list the UK Head of State is given simply as Her Majesty Queen Elilabeth II, like other heads of state. Qexigator (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's look at the two entries, shall we?

	Australia	UK	USA
Name	(Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II)	Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth	His Excellency Mr Barack Obama
	Her Excellency Ms Quentin Bryce, AC
Title	Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia		President of the United States of America
Date	05-Sep-08	06-Feb-52	20-Jan-09

I invite close examination of the entry for "title" (of head of state) in the Australia column and contrast it to the title of head of state in the USA column, and elsewhere through the protocol list. Interestingly, the Australia model is followed for New Zealand and other realms where the Queen is explicitly stated as head of state in the national constitution, so we see a conflict in sources right there, even though so far as I know, New Zealanders regard the Queen as head of state with a support rating of approximately 110%. --Pete (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I linked my source (pdf) which can be seen to give the result I described. Where is yours? Qexigator (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe my source is the pdf linked in my comments above. I merely copied the one you provided. --Pete (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

--Excellency in the Commonwealth of Nations is used for high commissioners and similar. H. Majesty " first assumed by Charles V, who believed that—following his election as emperor in 1519—he deserved a style greater than Highness, which preceding emperors and kings had used. Soon, King Francis I of France and King Henry VIII of England followed his example". Don't we both and others know that none of this proves the point one way or the other. Qexigator (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that. It is interesting. However, if you look at the title of the head of state for Australia, the title is not that of the Queen. It is that of another office. --Pete (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"Excellency" is used as a courtesy title for foreign dignataries, but is a formal title for viceroys. The historical origin of calling foreign dignataries "excellency" was to confer on them the same respect as one's own viceroy. This historical coincidence is irrelavent to the head of state dispute. The U.N. list in any case is irrelevant because no one questions that governors-general act as the Queen's representative. TFD (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the UN gives the title of Australia's head of state as "Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia". To my feeble mind, this indicates that they regard the head of state as the person holding that title. How could a reasonable person read the document otherwise? Remember, the list is prepared for general use by reasonable people - there are no explanations or footnotes about representation and executive powers and such to direct interpretation in other directions other than exactly what is stated. --Pete (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess that wraps that up, looking both ways to cross the street. I was only dropping in for a small correction in the article. Not too pedantic, I hope, but I don't seem to concur with TFD's understanding of relevance here. Perhaps Pete's case is the winner? Now to fathom out what the Chief Justice section is about. I may be some time. Qexigator (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It provides the names of both the Queen and the governor-general. It does the same for HM's other realms, even though there is no "dispute" about who is head of state in any of those countries. In diplomacy, governors-general are awarded the same courtesy as heads of state. But this is a primary source. The proper place to argue the significance is on a blog, it has no place in this article as original research. TFD (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It provides the names of both Queen and Governor-General. It provides the title of the Governor-General and has the Queen's name in brackets. I think it is a stretch to say that they regard the Queen as the undisputed head of state, otherwise they would merely list the Queen. If they regarded the Governor-General as something other then head of state, then why not put her name and title in brackets? That would be the normal expression of such a view. I again point out that there are no footnotes provided - a reader is expected to make up their mind from the information given. I accord this source about the same level of authority as the CIA's list, which has different information. --Pete (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That is original research. It is a protocol list. In protocols, governors-general rank with heads of state above heads of government and ministers for foreign affairs. Elsewhere the protocol office says, "On the occasion of the national holiday, cable messages from the Secretary-General will be sent to the Head of State or to the Governor-General." I think it is a stretch to say that they regard the governor-general as the undisputed head of state, otherwise they would not have no used the word "or". TFD (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the UN regards the Governor-General as the undisputed head of state, otherwise they wouldn't list the Queen at all, would they? I think the purpose of including the Queen in brackets above the Governor-General is to establish precedence. The Queen certainly ranks higher than the Governor-General and has precedence when the two are together. --Pete (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Or it could be that for foreign countries are to treat the governor-general as if he were head of state for purposes of official contacts between nations. Offical congratulations, etc., are sent to the governor-general, ambassadors are sent to him or her, and they are received with 21 gun salutes just like heads of state. TFD (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be one interpretation. The Australian Governor-Generan and the Queen are both treated as heads of state. It might take a keener diplomatic eye than I possess to discern any difference, apart from the fact that you'd have to be Valentine Smith not to know who the Queen is. Quentin Bryce is known to a smaller subset of the world's population. --Pete (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

We can only speculate why the protocol office at the UN listed two heads of state for each dominion and why the Queen is in brackets, which is original research. TFD (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Please let me say that I see the topic of the article as notable, and of interest to students and practitioners of public law, and perhaps others. For me, in this moot over a fine point, Pete has been the more convincing. The page is at least as educative (partly because so enthralling and entertaining) as the article. Well argued and edifying in its way. Much more than some others any of us could name. Deserves a Barnstar, or better still Oz Star. The post-Tudor notion of sovereignty in public law has been evolving and is now fading everywhere, but not yet to the point where it could be a Wikipedia topic. Qexigator (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I find it fascinating that there is a dispute at all, let alone that a Prime Minister cannot make up his mind from one press release to another as to who is the nation's head of state. Bizarro. I'm also enthralled by the attitudes of those who take it as a matter of deep religious faith that their view is the one and only correct one. So far as I can see, various people have various opinions, based on various sources and interpretations. Sorting out one definitive answer is impossible. And yes, this page exemplifies all that. --Pete (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Noting TFD's latest comment, have reworded my previous revision. Qexigator (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

-- Pete's wording[1] is what I should have put: sorry to have given you the trouble. Bit worried about the third comma though. Internationally, for the purposes of protocol, the United Nations lists as head of state, the Queen (in brackets).... It is not as it was when I left it[2], but I forbear commenting on intervening edits. Qexigator (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

--Thanks to Mies for replacing ...the Queen (in brackets) as head... with ... the Queen, in brackets, as head... --Qexigator (talk)

I've adjusted the wording slightly. For this primary source, we cannot make any interpretation. Describing what the UN list shows is all we can do. They do not list the Queen as head of state - otherwise they wouldn't include the Governor-General's titel. Neither are they showing the Governor-General as head of state, otherwise they wouldn't include the Queen. It's very diplomatic. --Pete (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In my view far away from OZ that is seen as a good point and consistent with the apparent purpose and content of the document; and the punctuation seems impeccable. All positions remain as status quo at any one time. Qexigator (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"has" is simpler than "shows" and negates the suggestion that the protocol document could be produced and shown in evidence for determining the matter in dispute, other than as evidence of the currently accepted practice in connection with diplomacy. Qexigator (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The Governor-General's reserve powers

Thanks for the reference, Mies, but it quite clearly clarifies the reserve powers as those of the Governor-General. Though they may be exercised by the Queen in her United Kingdom, they are in Australia specifically given to the Governor-General alone and may not be exercised by the monarch. Calling them "the reserve powers of the Crown" merely muddies the waters - they belong to the Governor-General alone, not any other office. If you have a source that explicitly states otherwise, I would be interested in seeing it. --Pete (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You contested the words "the Crown" in the phrase "the reserve powers of the Crown", deeming them inadmissable because they were "unsourced". You now have four sources supporting the phrase "reserve powers of the Crown". Your worry has been more than adequately assauged. Cheers. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I do beg your pardon. When counting up the sources, I reach a total of zero. Would you be so good as to point out precisely where you see the phrase "reserve powers of the Crown" employed? --Pete (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

On checking, I find that you have added some extra cites. Let us examine them. Here we read, "There has been talk lately about reserve powers of the Crown. It seems to have been thought that Sir John Kerr's dismissal of the ministry in 1975 may have been an exercise of these reserve powers, but in fact he exercised an express power given him by the Constitution to appoint and to dismiss the ministry. The notion of reserve powers being available to the Crown was developed in Imperial days when it was thought that in the long process of converting an absolute monarchy into a constitutional monarchy there remained some powers of the Crown which were exercisable without the concurrence of the ministry. Whether or not this was a correct view, the Commonwealth Constitution leaves no room for any such notion." Is it seriously your intention to use this source which specifically rejects the notion of "reserve powers of the Crown"? The only other instance of the phrase occurs here, in what is a very lightweight source, apparently intended as an overview for schoolchildren, summing up the totality of "Parliamentary Democracy" in a few paragraphs. --Pete (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The source supports the phrase "reserve powers of the Crown". There are other sources doing the same. Cheers. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You have one very weak source. Even that has the phrase "reserve powers" in inverted commas. The reserve powers of the Australian Governor-General are his alone, as multiple sources note. If you can point to a specific instance supporting the phrase, I will be happy to discuss it with you. Or anybody. You have refrained from commenting on the quote above which directly refutes your view, and if you can offer no more than vague assertions that your opinion is well supported, without the actual cites, then please stop wasting my time and yours. --Pete (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The sources meet WP:RS; they support the phrase "reserve powers of the Crown". The governor-general's use of the reserve powers are another matter. Cheers. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Your sources do not support the phrase. I have asked you several times to point out the precise location and you have failed to do so. As we are required to use reliable sources, your unsupported opinion cannot remain. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

They do. The precise location is either indicated in the footnote or can be found by reading the article linked. Cheers. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Last chance. Quote the words you say supports your wording. --Pete (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't oblige ultimatums. Cheers! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Cap I s. 2 of the Constitution says, "A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him." Note that the Queen may act on the advice of the her Australian PM, for example in awarding honors or appointing a new governor-general. TFD (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Those are the Queen's powers that she may assign to the governor-general. Then, completely separately, are the powers the governor-general has in his/her own right, which may never be exercised by the queen. I suppose the Administrator of the Commonwealth would be able to exercise them in the absence of a deceased or resigned governor-general, so in that light the administrator has more power than the queen. I refer to the powers conferred on the governor-general alone by ss. 5, 7, 16, 64 et many al. The idea of the queen appointing Australian ministers under s.64 is absurd. That's a power that has only ever been held and exercised by the governor-general, -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Queen's powers under the Constitution are extremely limited. The Governor-General's powers are defined in the Constitution and the Queen is unable to assign, reassign or withdraw them, as the only mechanism available for constitutional amendment is provided by the referendum process outlined by s128. The only powers of the Queen that might be covered by s2 are those listed in the Letters-Patent, such as the power to appoint deputies in s126.[3] The power used by Sir John Kerr to dismiss Gough Whitlam as Prime Minister is not a "reserve power of the Crown". It is in fact specifically given to the Governor-General in s64.[4]. It is certainly a reserve power of the British monarch in the United Kingdom, but the Queen is unable to exercise it or any similar power in Australia. --Pete (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I thank Mies for the provision of another two sources, neither of which contain the phrase "reserve powers of the Crown". I wonder how long this obfuscation will be dragged out. I think it is very wrong to imply that the Queen possesses any reserve power such as the one used by Sir John Kerr in 1975. it is ridiculous to suggest that the Queen could or would dismiss an Australian government ( or dissolve Parliament, call an election etc.), let alone do it without advice. --Pete (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No such suggestion has been made.

The sources each contain a synonymous variation of the prhase: "the Crown's reserve powers". Cheers. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sir John Kerr certainly used a reserve power in 1975 when he dismissed Gough Whitlam and appointed Malcolm Fraser. The power to appoint ministers, without ministerial advice is certainly a reserve power of the Queen. In her role as monarch of the United Kingdom, that is. Not in Australia, because the power Kerr used is explicitly and irrevocably given to the Governor-General in Section 64 of the Australian Constitution. It is not stated that it is the Queen's power, to be exercised under her direction - it is given to the Governor-General alone. No serious student of Australian constitutional practice, from Quick and Garran in 1900, through the various High Courts in their decisions, to the academics such as Crisp or Zines or Winterton have ever found that the Queen can act alone and without advice in this or any other power under the Constitution. And the limits, the extent, the exercise of power has been the main study of the High Court since its inception. There is no corner of common, legislative or constitutional law left unexamined in the quest to specify what powers exist and who may exercise them.

The constitutional powers of the Governor-General - to appoint ministers, to prorogue Parliament and so on - are the traditional prerogative powers of the monarch listed and assigned, insofar as they apply to government. The minor prerogative powers, things like salvage and honours and so on, are left unstated by the Constitution. We are not talking about these minor aspects here, nor do they bother the High Court much. As stated by Barwick above, the Constitution leaves no room for such a notion as "reserve powers of the Crown". When Kerr sacked Whitlam, he did so using his own power, and the Queen concurred, stating that the power was placed firmly in the hands of the Governor-General.

Now, we may call the Governor-General's powers the "reserve powers of the Crown" in two fashions. In a historical sense, meaning that the Governor-General's powers are the old monarchical powers, as possessed by the Queen in her United Kingdom dominion. Or in a general sense, where we use the word "Crown" to mean "polity", such as "The Commonwealth" or "the State of "Queensland". But to use such a phrase without qualification misleads the reader and leaves a crucial point needlessly vague. Furthermore, it raises the notion, contrary to Barwick, contrary to every serious constitutional scholar, that the Governor-General's powers might actually belong to the person wearing "the Crown".

Miesaniacal, you have stated in the past that you believe this nonsense, and I think that you are trying to perpetuate it here. I would like to make it quite clear to our readers that this is not the case. When we talk of reserve powers, we need to clarify that they are the reserve powers of the Governor-General and not the monarch. --Pete (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

They are the reserve powers of the Crown, as indicated by the numerous sources. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

One of your sources directly contradicts this. That's the longest-serving Chief Justice of the High Court stating that there is no room for the notion. That tells us right there, that even if the rest of your sources are correct - and the best of the rest seems to be a third-level source aimed at schoolkids - then there is a divided view. Consequently, at the very least, we need to change the wording you support which is now shown to be misleading and contentious. --Pete (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No source contradicts the statement; no source contradicts itself.

The phrase "the reserve powers of the Crown" is contentious to noone but yourself. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Paragraphs 2 & 3 of this source, says the Australian monarch has the reseverd powers. GoodDay (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

What do we mean by 'the Crown'? "The Crown is a term used to mean, in effect, the state....It is a symbol of the power of the state, which was formerly vested in the monarch. Thus, for example, the prosecution of crime is said to be on behalf of the Crown." (White and Willock, http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/Crown.aspx) The person of the Sovereign, is of course, an essential part of the state , but the term is much broader. The Governor-general represents the Sovereign in a constitutional sense, though she is not, in accordance with the interpretation of the Constitution, her deputy. She excercises the powers of the Crown in her own right. Therefore it is perfectly correct to say that the reserve powers of the Crown belong to the Governor-general.Gazzster (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That is pretty much my understanding. However, the wording needs to make this clear, rather than obfuscate it. --Pete (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

How is "the reserve powers" any more clear than "the reserve powers of the Crown"? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the Queen is the state, not its head.[5] TFD (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Is Section 64 a reserve power?

Looking at that Sir Garfield Barwick quote:

There has been talk lately about reserve powers of the Crown. It seems to have been thought that Sir John Kerr's dismissal of the ministry in 1975 may have been an exercise of these reserve powers, but in fact he exercised an express power given him by the Constitution to appoint and to dismiss the ministry. The notion of reserve powers being available to the Crown was developed in Imperial days when it was thought that in the long process of converting an absolute monarchy into a constitutional monarchy there remained some powers of the Crown which were exercisable without the concurrence of the ministry. Whether or not this was a correct view, the Commonwealth Constitution leaves no room for any such notion.[6]

Seventeen years as Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. His views on the "reserve powers of the Crown" must carry more weight than any editor here. Here is the wording in the article:

The governor-general may use the reserve powers of the Crown as prescribed by the constitution, though these are rarely exercised. One notable example of their use was by Governor-General Sir John Kerr during the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975.

Where are "the reserve powers of the Crown" (or their usage) prescribed by the Constitution? The term does not appear in the document and we must therefore turn to other sources. Barwick says that they do not exist. There is no room for any such notion, as he puts it. The "notable example of their use" was the exercise by Sir John Kerr of the power in s64 to appoint ministers. Was that the use of a "reserve power of the Crown"? Clearly, our text is incorrect and misleading however it is read. We need to clarify the matter of reserve powers, because the use by Sir John Kerr in 1975 is so crucial to understanding the relationship between the Queen, the Governor-General and the government. --Pete (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Why did Prime Minister Whitlam ask Kerr if he (Kerr) had contacted the Australian monarch concerning the Whitlam's dismisal? GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I concur with User:Skyring's interpretation of Barwick's essay. Barwick is clearly (for a lawyer) stating that there are no uncodified reserve powers exercisable by the Monarch in the Australian Commonwealth, and furthermore that many powers of the GG are granted to him by the constitution directly (not inherited from the Monarch). However, this ref from parlinfo: [7] directly contradicts this:

  there are powers that the Governor-General may, in some situations, exercise without Ministerial advice or even contrary to Ministerial advice. These 'discretionary powers' are known as the reserve powers. The scope of the reserve powers is uncertain and their use has proven contentious. This is in part because the Australian model of government relies on unwritten rules or 'conventions' to flesh out the 'bare bones' of the Constitution. It is thus (by convention) accepted that there must be an office of Prime Minister and a Cabinet even though their existence is not constitutionally mandated.2 Likewise, not all the powers of the Governor-General are codified in the written Constitution and many of them are similarly constrained by such unwritten rules.

  Barwick's essay was written in 1995. The Parlinfo article is dated 1998. On balance, given the the Parlinfo article is more recent, and also that it is also the one more likely to be referred to by parliamentarians, I think we can give it more credence, and use it to support the extant text. --Surturz (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC) P.S. Of course, if there is significant debate on the point, we should cover both sides of that debate. --Surturz (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

An interesting and useful point to discuss. Against Barwick, the Governor-general's website list the 'reserve powers' thus:'However, there are some powers which the Governor-General may, in certain circumstances, exercise without – or contrary to – ministerial advice. These are known as the reserve powers. While the reserve powers are not codified as such, they are generally agreed to at least include: 1.The power to appoint a Prime Minister if an election has resulted in a ‘hung parliament’; 2.The power to dismiss a Prime Minister where he or she has lost the confidence of the Parliament;

3.The power to dismiss a Prime Minister or Minister when he or she is acting unlawfully; and 4.The power to refuse to dissolve the House of Representatives despite a request from the Prime Minister.' http://www.gg.gov.au/governor-generals-role It is then, clearly the view of the Governor-general's Office that the reserve powers exist.

It should be borne in mind that Barwick's advice to Kerr in 1975 was made as a prtivate individual, since the High Court had not been asked for its advice, but only the Chief Justice. Probably for this reason Whitlam had warned Kerr against consulting Barwick. Another question however is whether Kerr actually exercised the reserve power,assuming Barwick to be wrong, for the GG's office lists as one of the powers 'to dismiss a Prime Minister when he or she has lost the confidence of the Parliament'. Whitlam had not lost the confidence of the House of Reps, and the Senate has constitutionally no direct power in regards to money bills.Gazzster (talk) 08:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC) And remember that the law officers of the Government had given informal advice to Kerr, to the effect that the power to dismiss a prime minister was not exercizable in the circumstances. Of course, we can't reference that opinion precisely because it was informal.Gazzster (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

In common parlance, Kerr's action was called an exercise of a reserve power because it was made without advice, as happens from time to time. I see most of the newspaper reports at the time and in the books since, describing it as a reserve power in that sense. We could revisit some of the existing literature. I don't see anybody saying it was the Queen's reserve power that Kerr was exercising on her behalf, in a s2 or s61 sense. I think Mies is trying to use the common phrase to generate a notion that everybody else rejects. The Queen did not and could not intervene. Kerr did, and whether his actions were conventional or not, he certainly had the power given directly to him in the words of s64. Significantly, there was no move to change or clarify that wording afterwards, as there was to change the Senate casual vacancy mechanism, so we might assume that the exercise was legal and supported by the governments since. Not that any future (or existing) PM is going to be ambushed like Kerr did Whitlam. --Pete (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere in this article does it say "the Queen's reserve powers". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe the phrase being used is 'reserved powers of the Crown'. Neither Mies nor yourself seems to be disputing that. Section 64 gives a constitutional power. What makes that power reserved in a hypothetical circumstance is the fact that it is exercised without ministerial advice. The presumption, of course, is that the viceroy attempts to resolve the situation conventionally, that is, by seeking the advice of the prime minister. It is of course, an academic question as to whether Sir John followed that convention or not. Even so, I think its a stretch to say that governments have supported the dismissal ever since. Aquiesced in it, is perhaps a better phrase. Gazzster (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"Reserve powers of the Crown" is indeed what the article says, and Pete/Skyring contests the use of the two words "the Crown". It's unclear why he brings up the Queen and her non-role in certain historical events. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Without a lengthy explanation, many readers would erroneously conflate "the Crown" with "the Sovereign". Best to remove confusion, rather than encourage it. Section 64 is the power used by Sir John Kerr in 1975, which is the event most often raised as an instance of "the reserve powers" being used. S64 is not any general power of Crown officers, nor is it a power capable of being used by the sovereign. It is given to one officer alone, and that is the Governor-General. --Pete (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does it say otherwise. 'The Crown' is the proper term to use. THe independence of the Governor-general is quite clearly explained.Gazzster (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

But the Governor-General's constitutional powers are not the powers of the state in general, which is what "the Crown" means here. Saying that they are "the reserve powers of the Crown" implies that some other officer of the Crown could use them. Worse, for those readers who don't know any better, it implies that they belong to the Queen - i.e. the wearer of the crown - and not the Governor-General. Nobody else but the Governor-General may prorogue Parliament, appoint ministers and so on. If we look at the Constitution itself, we find only three mentions of the word "Crown": "office of profit under the Crown" in s44 Disqualification, "Crown lands" in s 125 Seat of Government, and "one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" in Notes. So if we want to use the word "Crown" when talking about the powers of the Governor-General, we must use another source, because the Constitution does not provide one. --Pete (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The Constitution does not need to provide one. It presumes the traditional legal understanding of the term, according to the definition I cited above. The Governor-general represents the Crown though exercises those powers in her own right. That is clear. That is the stated position of the Governor-general's Office and of the Government. Therefore, it is perfectly correct to say that the powers of the GG are the powers of the Crown. No Queen, no Governor-general. This is obvious. Three references (if you are right about only three are three references nevertheless. If you want to avoid the use of 'the Crown' because of a potential misunderstanding, then they should be ommitted from the articles that deal with the constitutions of the all the Commonwealth realms, including the United Kingdom. Ommitting references to 'the Crown' when it is part of the legal discourse of constitutional law for the sake of clarity is clearly unwarranted, especially when the position of the Governor-General vis a vis thew Sovereign is made perfectly clear. And it is.Gazzster (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I knew this was all about Pete/Skyring's unique and personal interpretation of the governor-general's position. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

In this case, my "unique and personal interpretation" is also shared by Sir Garfield Barwick, Australia's longest-serving High Court chief justice. Mies, if you could just scroll back to the beginning of this section, you would see this for yourself. Surely you are not declaring that such an eminent authority is dead wrong on what he states explicitly? That's rather a bold position for you to hold, if I may say so. --Pete (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You've misinterpreted Barwick. This was explained to you already. Yet, you adhere to your personal opinions and continue to prop them up on false information. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not misinterpreted Barwick. He says the Constitution leaves no room for the notion of "reserve powers of the Crown." That's pretty straightforward and i concur with him. --Pete (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If so, it is still, like yours, a personal opinion that can't be used to edit.Gazzster (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Mies thinks otherwise - he supplied the quote as a source. --Pete (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I will repeat myself just this once: Barwick theorises that there are no reserve powers, period; none belonging to the Crown, the governor-general, or anyone else. He explains that what people mistake for reserve powers are actually not, since they are powers prescribed in the constitution as belonging to the govenror-general, and any powers beyond those can only be exercised by the Queen "in conformity with the advice of the Australian ministry" and cannot be exercised by the govenror general "without the concurrence of the ministry". In fact, altogether, his wording only disproves your belief that the Queen and Crown and the governor-general are somehow mutually exclusive.

As I said the last time I explained all that for you, it is an entirely separate matter and, if you want to start rewriting a dozen or more Wikipedia articles to suit Barwick's opinion, you should raise the matter in a more prominent, central location so as to get the input of as many concerned editors as possible. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the article, it is clear that Barwick rejects absolutely the notion of "reserve powers of the Crown" in the Australian context. He says "These powers of the Governor-General are explicit and are the result of the direct enactment of the Westminster Parliament, and not in any sense derivative from the fact that the Governor-General is representative of the Queen in Australia. The powers which are given to him are given to him personally and directly by the Constitution." They are not the Queen's powers. They are not the nebulous "powers of the Crown". They are the powers of the Governor-General. Barwick is explicit. In other realms, such as the United Kingdom, the monarch possesses reserve powers. Not in Australia. --Pete (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Further to this, while Barwick rules out the notion of "reserve powers of the Crown", it is clear that the Governor-General possesses reserve powers, as laid out in the Parliamentary Research Note previously quoted. This is the generally accepted sense here. The reserve powers are held by the Governor-General, and extend to certain very limited situations where ministerial advice cannot be relied upon, such as when a government has lost the confidence of Parliament. No serious authority contends that the Queen possesses any discretionary powers under the Australian Constitution. --Pete (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Gazzster, but I'm not following you here. You say "the Governor-General represents the Crown", a phrase not found in the Constitution. Are you equating "the Crown" with "the Queen"? --Pete (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The Constitution does not have to be so pedantic as to use the exact phrases you might like it to. Why should it? It rests on understood constitutional principles established by the Westminster tradition (on a similar matter, there is no need for it to use the exact phrase 'Queen/King of Australia'). You are of course aware of these exerts from the Constitution:

'A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.'

'The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.'

The Queen by herself is not the Crown. But she is obviously an integral and essential part of it. If the GG represents the Queen, then she represents the Crown. From the Sir Maurice Byers, Solicitor-general in 1975: 'The Constitution binds the Crown. The Constitutional prescription is that executive power is exercisable by the Governor-General although vested in The Queen. What is exercisable is original executive power: that is, the very thing vested in The Queen by Section 61. And it is exercisable by The Queen’s representative, not her delegate or agent. The language of Sections 2 and 61 had in this respect no contemporary parallel...' Note that he says, 'binds the Crown'. http://www.gg.gov.au/governor-generals-role

Gazzster, could you tidy this up and sign it, please? When done, you may delete this line and I'll respond. --Pete (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Gazzster (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

With due regard, Gazzster, but I can't properly respond to such a muddled and contradictory posting. I think if you untangle it, you will clarify your thinking. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhapsa you could explain what is confusing you.Gazzster (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhapsa you could tidy up your text? --00:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

In agreement with you (Gazzster) and Mies. Afterall (for comparison) shall we say that the British monarchy doesn't exist, on the basis that there's no written UK Constitution? These EXACT WORDING arguments aren't persuasive. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, GoodDay (G'day!). I'm not quite sure what Pete wants to argue. That the Governor-general doesn't represent the Crown? It's getting confusding.Gazzster (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Move the discussion

As suggested earlier - thank you Mies! - it may be time to move this discussion elsewhere. I suggest Governor-General of Australia.

Mies, you are going to have to find a way of dealing with authoritative views that contradict your deeply-held beliefs. Regardless of how firmly and truly you believe something within yourself, when someone like Sir Garfield Barwick directly states the exact opposite, we really need a better response than "he doesn't say that - you misinterpreted him!". He says, "These powers of the Governor-General are explicit and are the result of the direct enactment of the Westminster Parliament, and not in any sense derivative from the fact that the Governor-General is representative of the Queen in Australia. The powers which are given to him are given to him personally and directly by the Constitution." If you, with your excellent research skills, cannot find any source as good or better than Barwick to contradict this, then I can only conclude that there is none, and you are putting your own personal views ahead of any reliable source. I have given you a day and more to come up with a response and there has been none.

Gazzster, this is heavy stuff we're talking about. The topic of executive power within the Australian Constitution has been comprehensively examined in the century since Federation by the finest legal minds in the nation. As near as I can conclude in your scrambled post above, you are attempting to argue an opinion from first principles, using the Constitution as a primary source. That will not do. Find a reliable source. Please. --Pete (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Already addressed above. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

With respect, Mies, but no. Find a source that contradicts Barwick. Your own hand-waving, protestations and so on are merely expressions of your opinion, and I can respect that, but they do not move the discussion forward. --Pete (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

But yes.

There are plenty of sources that oppose your misinterpretation of Barwick. I know you won't listen to me; but, you'll find out in time, anyway. Best get that new discussion started, Pete. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There are "plenty of sources" but you cannot present them. I'm listening carefully, Mies, but I'm not hearing anything but the waving of hands.. --Pete (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Gazzster gave you two above. There are six in the article. Many more have been given to you over this long campaign of yours to rewrite Wikipedia so it aligns with your personal opinion that the governor-general and the monarch are mutually exclusive entities.

If you want to pursue this further, I suggest you take the next step in the dispute resolution process; you are trying to make a change to the status quo in the article, so the onus is on you to get the consensus to do so. I have had quite enough of your deliberate obliviousness and resulting cyclical tendentiousness. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You say I have misinterpreted Barwick. Very well. Here is what Barwick says:

"These powers of the Governor-General are explicit and are the result of the direct enactment of the Westminster Parliament, and not in any sense derivative from the fact that the Governor-General is representative of the Queen in Australia. The powers which are given to him are given to him personally and directly by the Constitution."

Here is my interpretation of Barwick's words:

"These powers of the Governor-General are explicit and are the result of the direct enactment of the Westminster Parliament, and not in any sense derivative from the fact that the Governor-General is representative of the Queen in Australia. The powers which are given to him are given to him personally and directly by the Constitution."

I have left no room for misinterpretation. Not a skerrick. I am in complete agreement with him.

What sources are there to contradict Barwick, precisely? There are none. You cannot present them. You are full of hints and bluffs and evasions and obfuscation and personal attacks, but you cannot find a reliable source to contradict the longest-serving Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. Enough hand-waving, Mies. Take a sober appreciation of the facts. We are reasonable people here. We have policies to exclude personal opinion and included reliably-sourced statements. Show me what someone else has said. That's all I ask. --Pete (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:DR. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Anybody care to help Mies out or clarify the issue? I accept that there is only so far he is able to go in discussing this before he is put in the position of choosing between what he adamantly believes or what our best sources say, and that is not a button I wish to press too firmly, for the sake of his well-being and good humour. --Pete (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Mies, is not the editor, who needs help. GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Pete, I don't want to go into an interpretation of Barwick's opinion. It's because I can't. I don't know what he meant. I don't know the context in which his statements are made. However, we can be sure that Barwick's opinions are exactly that. They are not authorative. He was the Chief Justice, but he was not making a ruling on the matter as Chief Justice and certainly not without consulting the other Justices of the High Court in an official capacity. So I don't know why you are pinning your arguments so much to this one man. Wikipedia can however edit according to the understanding of the Australian Government, which understands, according to the Constitution, that the Governor-general is the Queen's representative, and that the royal power is 'vested' in her. However, this power is not delegated. That means that the royal power belongs, by right, to the Governor-general and is exercizable only by her.Now these powers are of two kinds: first, there is the power that is specifically given to the office by the Constitution - this is the power to which Barwick refers. Second, there are certain 'reserve' powers. Some come from the Constitution. Others do not. They are not precisely defined.

'Reserve powers

As well as the above duties and powers, the Governor-General has some powers that may be exercised in certain situations without ministerial advice, or even in contradiction to ministerial advice. These powers are called 'the reserve powers'. Because of the reliance of the Australian Constitution on convention, not all of the reserve powers are explicitly stated in the Constitution. This means that the exact nature and scope of the reserve powers is open to interpretation, and there is some dispute about their use.

The reserve powers of the Governor-General have been used on four occasions in the history of Australia.

1.In 1904, Governor-General Lord Northcote refused to dissolve the House of Representatives to allow for a federal election.2.In 1905, Governor-General Lord Northcote allowed Alfred Deakin to replace George Reid as Prime Minister without facing an election.3.In 1909, Governor-General William Humble Ward allowed an unelected coalition of parties to form government.4.In 1975, Governor-General Sir John Kerr sacked Prime Minister Gough Whitlam11 and forced a federal election. Whitlam's party, the Australian Labor Party, subsequently lost.This last exercise of the reserve powers is the most famous and controversial in Australia's history. The legalities of the Kerr dismissal have been the subject of debate ever since its occurrence.'

http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/governors-general

But all this is something of a red herring. The real question is whether 'reserve powers of the Crown' may be used to describe the reserve powers of the Governor-general. Of course it may. The Governor-general represents the Crown. The Governor-general possesses reserve powers. Therefore the reserve powers of the GG are the powers of the Crown (not the Queen of Australia or of the UNited Kingdom). The term is used. Therefore Wikipedia may use it.Gazzster (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You can, however, use Barwick's opinion, in a balanced manner, to represent an argument in favour of the GG being head of state, as long as you can support your interpretation of Barwick's views and ensure that they are presented as Barwick's opinion.Gazzster (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You astonish me. Did Barwick have an opinion on the matter? --Pete (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be best to say "The reserve powers of the Governor-General". They are given to him alone, as per the list here. These are entirely covered by Section 5 (sessions of parliament), Section 57 (double dissolutions)Section 58 (assent to bills) and Section 64 (appointment of ministers), They are not part of the minor powers noted under Section 2 and the Letters-Patent, nor the executive power under Section 61, "vested" in the Queen and exercisable by the Governor-General. The Queen's specific (but notional) power to disallow legislation is clearly not part of the executive power, because it cannot be exercised by the Governor-General. Likewise the Queen's power under Section 2 to appoint the Governor-General. It is a nonsense to say that these specific powers are exercisable by anyone else but the Queen. Likewise it is a nonsense to say that the power specifically given to the Governor-General in Section 64 to appoint ministers somehow belongs to the Queen. There is no credible authority to support such a view.

My opposition to the use of the phrase "reserve powers of the Crown" is that it is imprecise. It is undefined. The Parliamentary Library reference lists the reserve powers of the Governor-General, and that is what we should call them. --Pete (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You have indeed touched on the crux of this issue in your last paragraph, Gazzster. Barwick says this: "The notion of reserve powers being available to the Crown was developed in Imperial days when it was thought that in the long process of converting an absolute monarchy into a constitutional monarchy there remained some powers of the Crown which were exercisable without the concurrence of the ministry... [T]he Commonwealth Constitution leaves no room for any such notion." Of course, Barwick uses "the Crown" and "governor-general" interchanably; in fact, in the rest of the paragraph from which the above quote is drawn, Barwick clearly differentiates between reserve powers and powers granted by constitutional statute and he specifically cites the fact that it was a statutory constitutional power (and thus, to Barwick, not a reserve one) that the Governor-General used when dismissing the government in 1975 as support for his claim that any notion of the Crown having reserve powers is an invalid one. But, as Pete/Skyring has this personal belief that the Crown in the modern Australian constitution is that of the United Kingdom (despite Barwick's own words "the Australian monarchy emerged, separate and distinct from the British Crown") and the governor-general is entirely separated from it, he has taken the aforementoned Barwick quote to mean the Crown has no reserve powers but the governor-general does. This kind of thing has been not at all uncommmon with Pete/Skyring.

Of course, "reserve powers of the Crown" is, as you say, an entirely valid statement in the context and it is thus used by a number of sources. The only ambiguity there is here is in Pete/Skyring's mind. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Barwick uses the word "Crown" precisely four times in his speech:

1. "...our Australian monarchy emerged, separate and distinct from the British Crown, as it is from the monarchies of New Zealand and Canada."
2. "There has been talk lately about reserve powers of the Crown."
3. "The notion of reserve powers being available to the Crown was developed in Imperial days when it was thought that in the long process of converting an absolute monarchy into a constitutional monarchy...
4. "...an absolute monarchy into a constitutional monarchy there remained some powers of the Crown which were exercisable without the concurrence of the ministry. Whether or not this was a correct view, the Commonwealth Constitution leaves no room for any such notion."

Mies, could you point out which of these four instances you consider to be used interchangeably with "the Governor-General"? And how? --Pete (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

2. I explained how in my comments immediately preceeding your last. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You did not. This is a favorite tactic of yours when backed into a corner. You say a source has been supplied, but none exists and when pressed you cannot supply one. You say you have explained something, but are unable to provide the explanation when politely asked. And so on and on. The crux of the matter is that Barwick directly contradicts something you believe deeply within yourself, and you are unwilling to admit it. What is wrong with accepting that the facts show that you have made an error? We all make mistakes, and when shown exactly how, we should accept reality. You are like the weather bureau staunchly defending a prediction of a sunny day from beneath a dripping umbrella. A Monty Python knight gallantly insisting that he can keep up the battle when all his limbs have been chopped off. This attitude of yours causes me a deal of personal unease, because I do not like pushing you to this point, but neither can I defend falsehoods and personal opinion being inserted into our encyclopedia and presented as fact. --Pete (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I did. Willfully ignoring people's explanations and then accusing them of offering no explanation is a tired old tactic of yours.

I wonder why it is you won't take the next step in the dispute resolution process. I'm perfectly willing to participate, if you do. Why are you hesitating, or "flapping your hands", as you'd so eloquently put it? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Please don't get upset. I honestly cannot see any place where you explain how Barwick treats "the Crown" and "the Governor-General" interchangeably. I have listed the only four instances of the word in Barwick's speech, and in each of the four cases he is clearly not equating "the Crown" with "the Governor-General". I am puzzled as to how you could think he does, and I would like your explanation. Please don't tell me you have already provided it, because you haven't. --Pete (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Please don't mistake highlighting your hypocricy with being upset; I am quite used to your accusations of bad faith. I told you exactly where I gave the explanation you ask for. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Following those links, I find your assertion, "Of course, Barwick uses "the Crown" and "governor-general" interchanably." I am asking for your explanation of that assertion. --Pete (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Read the rest. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I have read the rest of that section several times. I can find no explanation. I'm not playing games with you, Mies - I just cannot find anything that could be construed as an explanation or an amplification of your bland assertion. If any other editor could point it out to me, then possibly that would help us both? --Pete (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Another Chief Justice weighs in

I present the pertinent remarks of a more recent Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Gerard Brennan. In talking about the pathway to a formal republican method of government for Australia, he touches upon the reserve powers of the Governor-General:

…the law would have to discriminate among the powers presently exercised by the Governor- General. These powers fall into three classes: first, the executive power of the Commonwealth which s 61 vests in the Queen to be exercised by the Governor-General; second, powers vested in the Governor-General in Council; and third, powers simply vested in the Governor-General. Convention requires that all these powers are exercised only on the appropriate governmental advice but, exceptionally, the powers vested simply in the Governor-General may be exercised without or even contrary to ministerial advice in particular circumstances and then the powers are known, somewhat loosely, as the reserve powers. Australians became familiar with the term when Prime Minister Whitlam was dismissed by the Governor- General on 11 November 1975.[8]

Brennan is talking here of the various powers in ss5, 57, 58 and 64, of which the latter was exercised in 1975 by Sir John Kerr. He notes that these powers are not the s61 executive power vested in the Queen, but "powers simply vested in the Governor-General". An interesting footnote is worth quoting here.

Professor Winterton accepted that, at least since 1926, s 61 should be read as “exercisable only by the Governor-General”: see Parliament, the Executive and the Governor-General (Melbourne, MUP, 1983) p 51.

Mies holds the notion that the Queen owns the powers given in the Constitution, and may exercise them if she wishes, for example to dismiss a government. This is very much a fringe view, and we should not present it as anything but that. --Pete (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is already proceeding at Talk:Governor-General of Australia#Reserve powers of the Crown. Please do not confuse matters by starting another one here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

He may or not believe that. But he does not assert it here. Remember what this is about: the phrase 'reserve powers of the Crown'. Mies has not asserted that the Queen possesses these powers. It is you who reading this into the phrase. You are ascribing to Mies an agenda he has not expressed in this discussion.Gazzster (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "reserve powers of the Crown" is inappropriate. Barwick dismisses the notion completely, and both he and Brennan state that the powers of the Governor-General - those commonly and uncontroversially called the reserve powers - are given to the office directly. The phrase we should use, to be as exact and unambiguous as possible, is "reserve powers of the Governor-General". That is a phrase we can support with excellent citations, and we have several examples of their use. If Mies does not believe or wish to state that the Queen possesses or may exercise the reserve powers, then that is good, and if I have asserted that he holds beliefs which he does not, then I apologise.

I flagged my intention above to move the discussion to another article and commenced a discussion there. As other editors wished to keep the discussion going on this talk page, I responded. It would probably be best to consolidate discussion at Governor-General of Australia, as suggested by Mies and initiated by me. We don't have to keep going here. --Pete (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The phrase 'reserve powers of the Crown' is not inappropriate. It is a phrase that is used. The role and powers of the GG can easily be understood in context. And the context is given, so there is no ambiguity. However, if you wish to edit with the phrase 'reserve powers of the Governor-general', fine. As long as you don't delete 'reserve powers of the Crown' wherever it occurs. The two phrases are interchangeable and I see no harm in using both side by side.Gazzster (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The two phrases are not interchangeable. "Crown" does not equate to "Goveror-General" any more than it equates to "Queen". At best "reserve powers of the Crown" is imprecise, at worst misleading. I prefer the precise term "reserve powers of the Governor-General" because there is then no doubt who holds and exercises such powers: it is the Governor-General, not the Queen, and certainly not some unspecified clerk or magistrate of the executive state. When David Smith read out the proclamation dissolving Parliament, he exercised no personal power, but due to the publicity and the television cameras, some people think he was the one personally dismissing Whitlam. Awareness in the Australian population of constitutional affairs is abysmal to begin with; we should not add to the depth of ignorance by using ambiguous or misleading language. --Pete (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The Acts Interpreation Act, S.16, states "In any Act references to the Sovereign reigning at the time of the passing of such Act, or to the Crown, shall be construed as references to the Sovereign for the time being." The constitution vests all executive authority in the Queen and dictates that the governor-general shall exercise it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Which particular inclusion of the word "Crown" in the Constitution do you think is relevant here, Mies? The one about Disqualification of MPs or the one about the Seat of Government? Neither seems to hit the spot. Your interpretation of the Constitution is erroneous - the Queen exercises some powers in her own right (s59), and the Governor-General is vested with some powers which never belonged to the Queen (s70). Clearly there is no blanket summary of executive power which vests it in the Queen exercisable only by the Governor-General. One example disproves your theory and there are several to be found within the document. And, again, it is a primary source. If you could find a secondary source to back up your personal interpretation, then we could have more confidence in what you affirm so strongly. --Pete (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about the Queen exercising powers. Please focus on what's being said. The Crown and the Queen are considered in law to be the same. The constitution vests all executive authority in the Queen and dictates that the governor-general shall exercise it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You should take your own advice here, Mies. Focus on what's being said. You said the Constitution vests all executive authority in the Queen and dictates that the Governor-General shall exercise it. I pointed out two instances where this was not the case. There are several others. Clearly your assertion cannot be true, unless you have some secret and extraordinary power over Australia's Constitution. However, we are now in the position of promoting our own individual interpretation of a primary source, and I again ask you, with respect, to supply a secondary source which supports your opinion. --Pete (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You pointed out nothing that contradicts the constitution. A secondary source stating the executive powers are vested in the Queen and exercisable by the governor-general was already provided. Here it is again with others:

• "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor‑General as the Queen's representative..."[9]
• "[T]he Australian governor-general exercises all the powers and undertakes all the duties of the monarch... [including] the reserve powers, where personal discretion is exercised."p.118
• "As we understand the situation here, the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands of the Governor-General as the representative of The Queen of Australia."p.86
• "[The governor-general] is not a mere delegate or agent of the Queen, but enjoys the full federal (but not state) powers of the Crown."p.86
• "The Chief Justice contended that the Governor-General's responsibilities related to the Crown in right of the Commonwealth..."p.23
• "[By] s 61 of the Constitution itself, all executive powers vests in the Queen and is exercised on her behalf by her representative, the Governor-General... The constitutional position of the Crown can be summarised as follows:... The Queen is the head of the executive but appoints a Governor-General as her representative and exercise her powers on her behalf."pp.61-62

--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I pointed out nothing which contradicts the Constitution. Exactly right. However, you said "the Constitution vests all executive authority in the Queen and dictates that the Governor-General shall exercise it." If you think about it, how can the Governor-General exercise the power given to the Queen in Section 2?[10] He cannot exercise the power to appoint himself, surely? In Section 70, we find certain powers - executive powers as Lumb describes them - vested in the Governor-General.[11] Not in the Queen. I'd be interested in your thinking on these points. --Pete (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Mies, I again request your attention to this point. If only the Governor-General may exercise power, then how is it that the Queen exercises the power to appoint the Governor-General under Section 2 of the Constitution? As well as giving assent to legislation in Section 58 and (theoretically) disallowing it in Section 59? You quote the Queen above saying, "the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands of the Governor-General", and yet she would have been aware that her signature could be found on the commissions of several Governors-General and on a few pieces of legislation, such as the Royal Style and Titles Act. Undeniably she has exercised executive power, which you maintain may only be exercised by the Governor-General.

Likewise, you say that the Constitution vests all executive authority in the Queen, yet in Section 70, we find that certain unspecified powers are vested in the Governor-General, and yes, that specific wording is used. These powers would be those associated with the transfer of departments from the existing colonies such as postal, defence, customs and do on. They vest in the Governor-General, not the Queen, as per the exact wording of the Constitution and contrary to your repeated belief. I would like to progress this and other articles, but when I change the wording, you edit-war over it. Tenacity is all very well, but stubbornness in defending an untenable position is stupid, and you are most certainly not stupid. --Pete (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well the consensus seems to be that 'reserve powers of the Crown' is not ambiguous, so an edit is not warranted. But by all means take my suggestion, use both phrases alongside one another.Gazzster (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. And given that Pete/Skyring doesn't want to pursue this dispute any farther, methinks this particular matter is settled. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Heh. It's just getting interesting. Mies, your faith in the supremacy of the Queen is touching, but the reality is that in Australia she doesn't really have much of a role. We are not governed out of Buckingham Palace, nor is the Governor-General the lapdog of the monarch. You may interpret the Constitution however you wish, but I place more weight in the direct statements of Chief Justices of the High Court, who spent years with their hands full of this stuff. They weren't just looking up essays on the internet like you and I. --Pete (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:DR --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Would other editors like to comment on the points I have raised about executive power vested in the Governor-General and exercisable by the Queen? That's straight out of the Constitution, demolishes Mies's contention that all power is held by the Queen and exercised by the Governor-General on her behalf. That is why Chief Justices Barwick and Brennan say that the reserve powers are specifically given to the Governor-General and are not those of the Crown. They belong to the Governor-General, not the ancient preserved royal prerogative and not the Constitutional Queen. --Pete (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

'The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor‑General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.' (sec 61) Now that's 'straight out of the Constitution'. Gazzster (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but Pete/Skyring knows how to interpret that the "right" way; he's revealed the secret that "the executive power of the Commonwealth" actually means "a tiny fraction of the executive power of the Commonwealth"... Who knew? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears two Chief Justices of the High Court knew. I support their interpretation. As pointed out, the Constitution itself refutes the interpretation that only the Queen holds power and only the Governor-General exercises it. Mies, I can understand if you find simple logic threatens your beliefs, but there it is in black and white - the Queen exercises some powers (s2, s58, s59) and the Governor-General holds some (s70). Gazzster, we already know about s61, how do you square these sections which apparently contradict it? Ignore them, as per Mies? --Pete (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. The Constitution reserves the exercise of a portion of the executive power to the person of the Sovereign; the rest to her viceroy (and by the way, viceroy means 'in place of the king', not beside the king). It is perfectly simple. But forgive me speaking my mind - I forgot your two sources are the supreme authority when it comes to the Constitution.Gazzster (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Technically speaking, the Governor-General is not a viceroy because she doesn't have all the powers of the Queen in her Australian context. For instance, she cannot appoint State Governors. But that's by the by. What I'm looking at is the contradiction in Mies' interpretation. Let me quote it: "the Constitution vests all executive authority in the Queen and dictates that the Governor-General shall exercise it." That's clearly not the case. I'm interested in your interpretation, which I partially agree with - if you say a portion of the executive power is reserved for the Queen's use, then where is this stated? Is your view implicit in the fact that the Constitution obviously gives some powers directly to the Queen for her exclusive use (s2, S58, s59)? That's a valid interpretation, in my eyes. Or do you have another source? --Pete (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's my understanding. 'The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen', is plain enough. The exercise of that power is defined by the Constitution. There is no contradiction between the power being rooted in the Crown but exercizable by a viceroy. As authors have noted, it is unparralleled. But there is no inherent contradiction. 'Dictates' is perhaps not the word I would use, but it is correct. The Constitution defines that the Monarch's executive power is exercizable by the viceroy, according, of course, to the meaning of explicit clauses and the conventions of Westminster. When you say the GG can't appoint state governors, we are of course talking of different jurisdictions. THe states have their own viceroys.Gazzster (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

But if the executive power is to be exercised by the Governor-General, as stated in Section 61, and emphasised by Mies with his use of "dictates", then how can the Queen execute any power at all? Either the appointment of the Governor-General under s2 is not an exercise of the executive power, or it is an exception to s61 implicit in its express assignment to the Queen. --Pete (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you are giving too much weight to his use of 'dictates'. I haven't seen Mies overstating the royal power as you seem to believe. As I said, there is no contradiction. The Constitution states that the executive power resides in the Crown, but limits its exercise to the Governor-general, except for the instances you have referred to.Gazzster (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The constitution is pretty direct ("dictatorial"?) about executive power being exercisable by the governor-general and what executive powers exactly are exrciseable by the governor-general alone. However, it's also unambiguous about whom executive power (not just some of it) belongs to: the Queen. When someone says the constitution "gives" some executive powers (like the reserve power to dismiss a government) to the governor-general, they likely mean that, since the constitution states that only the governor-general may exercise those powers, it "gives" them to the viceroy; rather like how it's freqiently said, even by academics, that the prime minister "has" the power to appoint the governor-general. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Mies. We shall explore that thought soon. So you are comfortable with some power being exercised by the Queen? I think Gazzster has it precisely: The Constitution allows the Queen to use power by defining the situations in which it may be exercised. The Governor-General can hardly appoint himself, sign the Queen's name to legislation after referring it to her, nor disallow legislation already assented to by himself - or herself in the current instance. Those are functions which must be performed by the Queen, the Constitution was drafted with these exceptions to the specifics of Section 61 in mind, and the circumstances were explicitly defined. --Pete (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Which leads to the interesting situation, that when, the Sovereign performs an executive function in her realm (though it is unlikely to happen again) she does so as a deputy of her own viceroy and by statutory, not constitutional, authority.Gazzster (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The Royal Powers Act is a bit of a red herring, really. It covers powers given to the Governor-General by the Australian Parliament, and these are pretty mundane things really. Administrative and ceremonial functions that nobody imagined the Queen would ever be around to do. Looking at Mies' comment here now: "And the constitution is clear that executive power is the Queen's but much of it can only be exercised by the governor-general." So that means that Mies accepts that there are exemptions to Section 61, which allows that the Queen is vested with the executive power but the Governor-General may exercise it. Given that the Queen can exercise the power to appoint the Governor-General, and the Governor-General cannot possibly exercise that power, that's implicit in the wording of the Constitution. The power is given to the Queen who is the only person who can exercise it. --Pete (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, 'much' is better expressed 'all'. The exceptions are, as you intimate, the appointment or dismissal of the GG, and that strange power to disallow Acts of Parliament that nowadays means nothing.Gazzster (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"British Council"

I haven't traced when "British Council" first occurred in "Scholarly sources". It is incorrect and far from scholarly. The British Council is a totally different body from either Cabinet or Privy Council. If it is what Turnbull actually wrote in the cited work, then it should be in quotes, with a corrective phrase if that can be supported. Either way, this cannot be resolved merely by a piped link as in the present version. Can anyone find the page of the book and give us the quote? Qexigator (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't say "the British Council", it says "her British Council" and the context makes it clear what council it is that's being referred to: her group of ministers who advise her as Queen of the United Kingdom; the "council" in "Queen-in-Council". If you've some other term that could be used... --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Far from making clear what Turnbull had written, the context actually shows a reader what looks like a crass blunder, whether on his part or an editor's, and "her" only makes it worse! It would make better sense simply to put the Queen in the (Briish) Privy Council, in clear text. But what did Turnbull himself write? To give him the benefit of the doubt, what we have must be supposed to be misattributed. Qexigator (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

+In the earlier source Turnbull was concerned with the role of the British Government in matters of foreign affairs and treaty-making, in other words, the Cabinet of the United Kingdom, which is composed of politicians who are or become sworn of the Privy Council, and it is normally some of them who attend formal meetings of the Queen in Council for authorising the issue of proclamations and certain Statutory Instruments. The Secretaries of State responsible for Foreign Affairs, or (formerly) the Dominions or the Colonies or the Commonwealth would have collective responsibility with the Cabinet as a whole, which in this context is synonymous with the British Government (not British government). Of course, the constitutional practise has almost invariably been for the Cabinet to meet without the monarch, and for the prime minister alone to report to the monarch. Qexigator (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Despite the fact that 'Counil' in 'Queen-in-Council' means the Privy Council, of which cabinet is only a part, the term 'Queen-in-Council' has come to refer to the monarch acting on the advice of cabinet, since it's the only part of the privy council that gives the sovereign direction. Hence, 'the government' and 'the Queen-in-Council' are effectively synonyms. But, given that, it's obviously not necessary to say 'Queen-in-Council' (or a variant thereof) when wanting to refer to the government (though it can be more specific, since 'the government' itself has at least two meanings). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Original research

This article appears to be original research. While the Queen is head of state and her functions are normally carried out by the governor-general, some persons have sometimes referred to the governor-general as head of state. That does not constitute a dispute. Could someone please provide a source that any such dispute exists. We need a source that someone claims the Queen is not head of state. TFD (talk) 09:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not simply read the article? What is your source for believing the Queen is the Australian head of state? And what functions of the Queen are carried out by the Governor-General? Genuinely interested in your answers here. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 10:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

In agreement with TFD. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is presented as a collection of statements by people claiming the Queen or the governor-general is head of state, rather than explain the conflict between them. I can find examples where people haved called the prime minister the head of state. That is more properly called confusion than dispute. However, The Queen's other Realms devotes a paragraph to the dispute on pp. 28-29.[12] It would make the article more interesting if the competing arguments were explained. TFD (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That is the essence of the matter. The existence of a dispute. We are not trying to prove the question one way or another, merely document it. It is not yet within Wikipedia's ability to determine who a nation's head of state is. That is up to Australians, and as you can see, opinion is divided. --Pete (talk) 19:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Australians will make that decision at a referendum. Wikipedia reflects facts & the fact is the Australian monarch is Head of State. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you, but many would dispute your so-called fact. Something is not a fact merely because you assert it to be so, which is what you've just done. It has to have very widespread agreement, of the same order as "The moon is not made of green cheese", or "2 + 2 = 4", and that's lacking when it comes to the Oz head of state. Sir David Smith has gone to the trouble of writing a 400-page book stating his case for why he believes the governor-general is the head of state. That he went into print proves that there was something at issue, something he wanted to convince doubters about. If the matter were simply one of confusion, he need hardly have bothered with his book, but could instead have pointed to the authoritative document that proves his point without further ado. Trouble is, there is no such animal and never has been. This has nothing to do with any future referendum on a republic; it has to do with who is the Head of State right now, today. That's what the dispute is about. There is most certainly a dispute. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm nailing jello to a wall, again. I'm outta here. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont see much in the article about a dispute, just a random comparison of sources for and against. If a reliable source for an actual dispute is around cant this just be a paragraph in another article like Monarchy of Australia. MilborneOne (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Now there's a dubious article! People have strong views on the question of the Australian head of state, and they dispute and debate and snipe at each other in Parliament, in letters to the editor, in public lectures and so on. It's been a slow-moving sideshow in Australia for a couple of decades. However, it does engage wide public attention from time to time, especially during the republic referendum campaign around 2000. Prime Ministers, High Court judges and so on make statements every now and then whenever the thing threatens to drop off the radar, and a royal visit brings out the usual suspects. The "random sources" reflect the history and visibility. As mentioned above, there will come another referendum time when Australians make a choice, and it is handy to have the subject documented and described, because it will be front page news for a year or so and people will come here looking for information. --Pete (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I can understand the strong views but as somebody not from Australia the article doesnt give me that view. I get a a says b and x says y bunch of statements with no connection to a "dispute" that I can see. You seem to indicate it is polarised by the republican/monarchy debate would it not be better as part of articles on that debate which is clearly an ongoing argument even from a foreign perspective. Also note that Australian head of state redirects to here which is clearly misleading although it would be a better article name. MilborneOne (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

As I recall, this article has changed name once or twice. I preferred a different one but got rolled on that. We can revisit the topic, for sure. --Pete (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, the article is merely a platform for its creator's agenda to make the monarch's HoS status unclear. The article's creator is opposed to the Australian monarch being recognized as the country's Head of state, but has (in the past) shown a preferance towards the Governor-General being recognized as such. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

My opinions aren't important. The fact that there is a dispute and it extends across all levels of Australian society, including government and political entities, is what matters. This is an encyclopaedia, full of information. Why on earth would anyone want to suppress information about a significant subject? The article is even-handed and well-sourced. People can read the sources and make up their own minds. --Pete (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay: If there were no dispute, why would it be necessary for you (or anyone) to keep on insisting the monarch is the head of state? Or for anyone to insist the governor-general is? If everyone agreed about this, what would there be to talk about at all? That there are two opposing camps, who both refuse to give way, means there is a dispute. That's the definition of a dispute. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I see, from the lack of evidence presented, that nobody really feels strongly enough about it to raise it to the level of a notable dispute. All of this lengthy article boils down to a longish sentence stating that in the absence of any constitutional or legislative statement, the issue is ambiguous, and there are various opinions as to who may be considered to be the head of state, with the possibilities being .... There's no evidence here of serious conflict over the matter; indeed, that the matter is unresolved at this late date suggests that it doesn't really matter. Mangoe (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

In the context of the republican movement in Australia, which still sporadically comes to the fore after the 1999 referendum, it is useful to present the sources supporting the various opinions. People write letters to the editor on the matter, students write reports on the republic movement, talks are given to interested parties. We are not here to battle it out over who is the one true head of state, we are here to provide information for those seeking it. --Pete (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

In agreement with you, Mangoe. This article is basically making a mountain out of a molehill. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's a serious dispute. It has been a line that the monarchists have used against the republicans. In all the article, there are only a few sources that consistently argue that the Queen is not the head of state. This needs to be distinguished from stray remarks calling the GG the head of state, particularly when these sources (like Rudd) corrected themselves. It's easy to find sources that call "Sydney" the capital of Australia. That does not constitute a dispute. This article ought to be confined to sources that argue one way or the other.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)