Talk:Monarchy of Australia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Queen is Head of State?

The Queen is Australia's Head of State. She's at the top of the tree as far as command goes. The Governor General has no powers of command over the Queen, but the Queen has powers of command over the Governor General. I don't know how this could be considered debatable. The opening of this article currently states that it is debatable whether the Queen is Australia's Head of State. She is. Here's a Gerard Henderson piece on it. Regards, Lester 23:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I happen to agree that the Queen is the head of state. However, given that there is no supremely authoritative document (such as the Constitution) that spells this out, it is inherently debatable. One person being convinced of the rightness of one side of an argument does not equate to "the debate has ceased to exist". There are just as many "experts" who argue passionately that the Governor-General is the head of state, most particularly Sir David Smith, Official Secretary to five of them. He even published a book, Head of State (2005) in which he argues his case. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be debatable while Australia remains a Commonwealth realm, but within Australia it apparently is. Therefore, that debate is correctly mentioned in this article. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"the Queen has powers of command over the Governor General". How fascinating. And how very wrong. --Pete (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The Constitution (sec.2) 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'. If you read 'representative' in a strict sense, you could argue that the Sovereign is the true head of state. But I agree that it is not clear. The Constitution is ambiguous on the subject. After all, it is the GG, not the sovereign, who actually performs the functions of a head of state. JackofOz's comment about the ongoing debate about the GG's constitutional role is certainly valid and noteworthy. We need not edit, except perhaps to further reference the statement in question.--Gazzster (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As the Gerard Henderson piece (above) says, the ones who debate otherwise are from the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy group. If you search through news items, which I have been doing, the many I have read all state that the Queen is Australia's head of state. It's almost as if the ACM group are diminishing the Queen's role to further the debate to keep the Monarchy. However, I think there would be a good case for considering this a minority view. If it must be included, maybe it should stated it is a view of the ACM group.Lester 00:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the debate itself is what must be kept in the article. That's my view. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe we should say that the Queen is generally considered the Head of State, though Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy argue that the Head of State is the Governor General. Also, does the ACM group still adhere to that line? Or was it just a stance they had back in 1997?Lester 00:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

They still adhere to it. But it might be speculative to state that they are the only people who do. There may be non-monarchists who have the same opinion. --G2bambino (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I refer to today's edition of The Canberra Times. On page 15, under the headline "Head of state dons party hat", we see a picture of Michael Jeffery, apparently wearing an Akubra, celebrating his 70th birthday. --Pete (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting that ACM still holds that view, as to me it seems to diminish what they are trying to do. Anyway, who we attribute the debate to probably depends on what the references say. The Gerard Henderson piece attributes the debate to the ACM. Sir David Smith (mentioned above) is also a member of ACM. Lester 00:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(after 2 ec's) I was going to make exactly the same point as G2bambino. ACM may be the most prominent group that takes this position, but they don't represent the totality of everyone who agrees with them. Has there ever been any kind of public poll about this question that we could use to justify saying the ACM's opinion is a minority opinion? (I exclude the 1997 referendum because this question was not asked.) Without such a cite, there actually is no evidence that their's is the minority opinion. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of amusing, then, that Australia is a country that debates who its head of state is. I don't recall this debate occurring prior to 1997.Lester 00:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it was discussed in academic circles, but ordinary people didn't seem to be too concerned about it. They knew what the Queen's role was, and what the G-G's role was, and that seemed enough for most people. I think it was probably the events of 1975 that sparked some interest in the question, and the 1997 referendum brought it into sharp focus. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The Queen is Head of State. The Governor-General, however, is the representative of that Head of State and is authorised by the Constitution to act almost fully within that role. If we want a definitive answer, why not straight from the GG himself? "Her Majesty is Australia's head of state but I am her representative and to all intents and purposes I carry out the full role."[1] If anything, Australia has two Heads of State who inhabit different aspects of the same office. One regal, one vice-regal. The regal Head of State is simply a figurehead while the vice-regal holds executive power. The text of the Constitution would appear to support this interpretation: "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General". DirectEdge (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarify folks, 1997 Referendum? GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think they mean 1999 referendum... DirectEdge (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think from your qualified answered you've acknowledged the matter is debateable.--Gazzster (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It is kind of amusing, I suppose. The debate has been going on for a while now. It's evidence of Australia becoming more aware of itself and its role in the globe. While I certainly agree that there is discussion about who Australia's head of state is, I think we need some good citations. Editorials from newspapers won't do, however reputeable the journalists are.--Gazzster (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The 1997 Refereundum asked the Australian People if they wanted a republic with an elected head of state. Most answered no, because Aussies have a distrust of politicians. Since only one model of a republic was presented, even many republicans rejected the proposal.--Gazzster (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

'Elected' by Parliament, not the people, I should clarify. 1999? Yes, it was.--Gazzster (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(Yep, 1999, sorry). I don't think this is the place for deciding the question one way or another, DirectEdge. We're an encyclopedia, not some sort of constitutional court. Assertions (however strongly worded) that one side or the other is correct have no place here. The referendum was about what arrangements might apply in the future - it certainly did not clarify who the head of state was under the existing arrangements. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Forget my conjecture about dual Heads of State then and let's concentrate on the Governor-General's quote. If anybody ought to know who the Head of State is, it's him. DirectEdge (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We aren't debating about who's the Head of State, that's not the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We're pursuing the facts, of course. The current article says there is debate about who the head of state is. Fair enough, but surely we should note the official position which I have tried to bring to collective attention. DirectEdge (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. MJ is a very modern Major-General, but is he a constitutional authority? In any case, he seems to have changed his opinion on the matter, though he's too much the diplomat to say flat out that he's the HoS. The fact that The Canberra Times, hardly a bastion of monarchical thought, routinely refers to the G-G as HoS, gives the lie to Lester's assumption that it's just the ACM. The truth of the matter is that it's debatable. --Pete (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Skyring (Pete), please be civil. Nobody's lying. It's just a discussion about what the article should say, and it's OK for people to state their differing views. The introduction of the article seems to leave it ambiguous who is Australia's head of state.Lester 01:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There are facts and there are facts. It's a fact that Jeffery has described himself as the virtual Head of State. It's not necessarily a fact that that statement makes him the Head of State. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't get your undies in a bunch, Lester, it's just a figure of speech. Lacking any definitive source, we can't make a definitive statement. It all boils down to opinion. Including MJ's. --Pete (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK so "Her Majesty is Australia's head of state but I am her representative and to all intents and purposes I carry out the full role" is not definitive enough to mention that while there is debate, the official position is this? DirectEdge (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

AS I said, he appears to have changed his mind since then (2004). In 2005, he declined to name the Queen as head of state, instead saying in response to a direct question, "The Queen is the Monarch and I represent her, and I carry out all the functions of head of state."

The discussion is, do we mention in the article, that there's debates in Australia about who's the Head of State. GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but as long as we clarify what the various opinions are and who holds those opinions. It's better than leaving relatively ambiguous as it is at present. DirectEdge (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that such clarification is likely to be quite long and involve lots of references. I suggest that we make an article of it and link to it, rather than adding the same material to several different articles, which will inevitably diverge and differ as edits are made. --Pete (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that DFAT says the Queen is head of state.Lester 01:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's as may be. The High Court says the Governor-General is the head of state. Feel free to seek leave to appeal to the Privy Council. --Pete (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, the High Court's wording is not quite as simplistic as that, but yes there is a debate. There will continue to be a debate until the constitution specifically names a head of state, since the term "head of state" is not particularly well defined, and people can use it to mean various different things to make whichever point they wish to make. Since the issue is really what is meant by "head of state", rather than Australia's constitutional arrangements, I really don't see why this debate is mentioned in the opening. It should be covered in the article, but apart from this we should simply avoid the term "head of state". JPD (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Does the High Court really say that? It's a detailed document but after a brief reading of it I think it is talking about the Governor of South Australia, and when it mentions the Governor General, it says he is the officiating Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth, which means officiating on behalf of the Queen.Lester 21:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Read on just a little more: We do not think that the Governor of a State in the issuing of a writ for the election of senators is acting as agent for the Sovereign in this sense, since the duty imposed by the Constitution is imposed by Statute law and not by delegation from the Sovereign himself. But, as already pointed out, it is a duty cast upon him as Head of the State. This also goes directly to the issue of the Governor-General's constitutional powers; they are not a delegation from the sovereign. --Pete (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

While the above passage states the G.G acts in his own accord for the election of senators, this does not mean he is the über-power that would make him head of state. The argument that the G.G is head-of-state is a minority opinion, formulated by one group, the Australian Republican Movement, to further its cause for retention of the monarchy, but in doing so actually diminishes the monarchy. This minority argument only gained traction around 1997 when Keating fired up the republican debate. You'll find it much easier to find references that the Queen is Australia's head of state, because it is the most common opinion.Lester 19:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not precisely sure about the situation in Australia, but in Canada the Governor General is often - by various parties - referred to as the head of state; as much, or more often than the Queen is. In fact, there's a palpable effort on the part of Government House to put forward the GG as head of state, above the Queen herself. So, the issue of viceroy as head of state is not limited to Australia, and it is obviously not clear cut. --G2bambino (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"the über-power that would make him head of state". I don't know what you think a head of state is, Lester, but it seems to be something like a dictator. Perhaps you should read up on the presidents of India and Ireland. Undoubtedly head of state, but almost completely without power. Neither Stalin nor Khrushchev were heads of state, but they were all-powerful rulers of the Soviet Union. Perhaps you could remember that this is an encyclopaedia we are writing, and not a compilation of random fantasies? --Pete (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with G2. The question has quite simply not been answered. That is why we can argue about it. Realms like Australia and Canada are in a sort of constitutional limbo. It will be answered when the legislatures or courts of those nations clarify their constitutions. We can't decide it ourselves. We can however, note there is a debate and reference accordingly.--Gazzster (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Are there any pre-1997 references for the G.G as head-of-state idea? That's why I think it was an argument concocted by Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy (the group I meant to say previously) to further their cause, as a reaction to Keating's republic.Lester 04:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a reasonable question. But Jeffrey's ambiguous reply to a question asked him by a journalist (see References, below) seem to suggest that the GG (Or Jeffrey at least) doesn't really know who the head of state is.--Gazzster (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Something to consider is - What is the Head of State? If it is a position, who has it? Is it something constitutionally defined in the Australian context? If it isn't, why is it being argued? After all, from what I am reading above, there is the position of Monarch and the position of GG and they both do something HoSish. Perhaps in the American or European context HoS is clearly invested in one singular body, but maybe Australia is one of the countries that HoS really means nothing because there are two positions each fulfilling certain parts of a nominal position of HoS? Besides, does it matter - what was the original question again :-) ?? Shot info (talk) 06:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep. The Constitution says the executive is both the Sovereign and the Parliament. Is the executive a head of state? Who knows? Perhaps we just don't have one. Originally we were arguing the phrase that occurs in the second? paragraph: 'there is a debate about whether the Queen or the Governor-General is head of state'. We seem to have talked ourselves to the idea that this is a valid statement. The question now I think should be how to reference that, if, indeed, we need to.--Gazzster (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, the problem with this question is that there is no universal definition of "head of state". Since people use different definitions, there are always going to different opinions about who the head of state is. As for the history, the ACM did promote the idea that the GG is head of state in response to the republican argument that the head of state should be Australian. However, the notion that Australia was already effectively a republic was advanced by republicans years earlier to suggest that change would not be dramatic. (I am not sure whether anyone explicitly described the GG as (effective) head of state in this context, but the arguments are clearly related. We should be able to find references for the existence of the debate from the 1999 campaign. JPD (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Americans will always see head of state as pinnacle of executive power as they have a different system to the rest of us, where Parliament and the Prime Minister yields the executive power. The Queen and thus through the Governor General and Governor Council only assent to laws and bills started in Parliament and Royal powers to do so had been severely curtailed since Chucky lost his head and some Acts were passed in 1688 & 1701 in the UK. IE: There is no equivalent to the President, nor his secretaries, and they can not be viewed in any similar light to a Prime Minister and the Ministry. The Queen is head of state but not in the USA sense of head of state.petedavo (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm acknowledge there has been debate here about head-of-state, as the article says. However, I believe it is a minority opinion, and that the article should put it into perspective. The Queen is generally considered Australia's head-of-state, though the ACM holds the view that this title belongs to the Governor General.Lester 20:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You may be right. But even so, the problem is, as said before, that the position of head of state has never been defined. Comparisons to US and UK models don't really help. --Gazzster (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't take the liberty of defining it here. However, we should have an article listing the arguments for and above. As Lester demonstrates many hold a dogmatic position, apparently based on intuition and supported by selective reference, that only the Queen is the head of state. The term was unknown at Federation and our arrangements have been evolving ever since, so it is difficult to make a definitive statement. Except to say that views are mixed. --Pete (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather than arguing about it here....why don't we take the unconventional approach of reporting what the reliable sources say? If the RS' say Queen = HoS, then we say so, if they don't, then put a fact tag on it and move on? Shot info (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a 'reliable source', whatever that may be, go ahead. But as this is an ongoing debate, there will be conflicting 'reliable' sources. Pete, the idea about a new article is good. I'm in.--Gazzster (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat interesting viewpoints, but it would seem that everyone is basing opinion upon the Australian Constitution and Australian Statute Law and maybe forgetting that various Acts of the UK Parliament are in effect also Governing Australia, let alone, Common Law, and Case Law. Although an Australian can not go to the Privy Council any more, that is only because we passed a Statute to remove the right. There is a hierarchy of Law in the Legal Profession which starts somewhere with the Royal prerogative, then Common Law (or vice versa) then Case Law, such and such down to Federal Law, then State Law, then Local Government, then Associations Rules etc, all of which can be dealt with in tribunal, various courts, governor in council, unless the right has been specifically removed or defined in a statute. Unless the Queen has been specifically Statute barred from being head of state then the absence of the said statute means she is (legally: as the Australia Act of the UK says so).petedavo (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I gotta admit it, I've yet to see any Constitutional proof that Elizabeth II is not Head of State & the Governor General is. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's because "head of state" is not a constitutionally defined position; at least, not in Australia. It's more a term invented for use in external affairs, and is actually inapplicable to monarchies as, in a monarchy, the sovereign is seen as the personification of the state, and therefore it's redundant to say he or she is head of him or herself. The common way of applying the term indiscriminately obviously has it's issues; the example of viceroys is but one area where it's use becomes hazy; another I wonder about is Switzerland, where the country is actually headed by a council, not an individual. And what about Andorra, which has two equal Co-Princes?

Given this, it seems a separate article might be one worthy of creation, though I think the topic is already covered, at least in part, at Head of state. --G2bambino (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we're discovering that the Constitution is silent on the subject. --Gazzster (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

But as 'petedavo' stated above (in a very interesting post), by looking for an answer in the Constitution you may be looking in the wrong place. The 'hierarchy of law' that petedavo mentions is also relevant. Lester 04:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read that, and it shows he's looking at the issue as broadly as he can. However, UK law, which he mentioned, do not govern Australia. Many of our laws are the same or similar to laws in the UK, but juridically they are Australian laws, not UK laws. This is because they derive their authority from the Queen of Australia and the Parliament of Australia, not the Queen of the United Kingdom and the Parliament of the UK. The same is true for our Constitution. At least from the Australia Act 1986, it has its force from the Queen of Australia in the Parliament (and hence, the People) of Australia. The appeal to statute law, which petedavo mentions also, doesn't help, because statute law is inferior to the Constitution, the highest law of the land. In any case, what Australian statute says the Queen is head of state? Petedavo says if there is no statute saying that the Queen is not head of state we must assume she is. I respectfully suggest that is a bit like saying that since no-one says my dog is not pink, he must be pink. So we return always to this problem: the question of Australia's head of state is not definitively settled. The Australia Act that he also mentions (which no longer derives it force from the UK legislature, as I've mentioned ) does not say the Sovereign is the head of state. The closest it comes is to say that the Sovereign and Parliament constitute the executive.--Gazzster (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC) --Gazzster (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Gazzster, maybe I'm missing something and this has nothing to do with the head of state issue, but where does the Australia Act say that the Sovereign and the Parliament constitute the executive? It doesn't mention the executive, as far as I can tell. In a later section, you say that the constitution states this as well, but the constitution says "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative". Of course, it is spelt out that much of this power is exercised by the GG-in-Council, just as it is by the Queen-in-Council in the UK, but neither the Exectutive Council nor the "Queen's Ministers of State" are the same thing as the Parliament. The legislative powers are vested in the Parliament, which includes the Queen. It is this that corresponds to the Queen and Parliament in the UK. While we are looking at this section of the article, may I also ask whether anyone can confirm that the text about "Her Majesty's Government in Australia", which was virutally copied from the Canadian article, is actually true?

On the head of state issue, you are completely correct. There is no defined notion of "head of state" in the tradition of British/Australian law, so it doesn't matter whether we are looking in the constitution or not - everything depends on how each commentator chooses to define "head of state". JPD (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

'61. Executive power.The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exerciseable 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.'

You are quite right.I've confused the executive and legislative power. My point is, I suppose, is that the supreme power in the land is the Queen and the Parliament.--Gazzster (talk) 12:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not in Australia. Executive power derives from the Constitution - and here I note that the UK has no single constitutional document, but rather a clooection dating from the Magna Carta onwards - and the Constitution was drawn up and approved by the people of the Australian colonies before it became law. It may not be changed without the specific approval of the people. All the powers listed and defined therein derive from the people and only the people may change them. For example, if we wish to remove s59, which describes the power of the Queen to disallow Australian legislation, we can do it. Where would be the power of the Queen then, I ask? She can't write it back in. --Pete (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what we're discussing. In essence I'm agreeing with you (I think?): the Constitution is the highest law of the land. It's force comes from the consent of the People. The People vest the legislative authority with the Queen and Parliament and the executive with the Queen and Governor-General. What are you disputing?--Gazzster (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

True. But the Constitution gives the supreme authority to the Queen and Parliament. Ultimately, of course, it belongs to the People.--Gazzster (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There are some UK laws that are still in force in Australia. S15 of the Australia Act specifically mentions that we can change UK laws that apply in Australia. And also try the obvious one...common law. Does Australia have a Statute to determine succession of the throne after HM QE2? I think the law that says HM QE2 is the Queen of Australia, doesn't, (unlike Canada), so therefore the Acts of Settlement and Bill of Rights of the UK that determine succession of the throne in the UK govern Australia by default. Some have said they are incorporated into Australian Law. This is the correct interpretation of 'by default' and doesn't mean that the Law is suddenly frozen as of 1901 or 1788 or some other date and duplicated into Australian Statute Law. Interestingly everything including our constitution and protocol in regards the limitations of the Queens Powers more or less emanate from the Glorious Revolution, but does any Australian Statute Law prevent the Queen doing what King James did to cause the Glorious Revolution. Therefore, I think we are reliant upon UK laws and conventions to prevent any abuse of power. If we passed a succession Act determining a different Monarch to replace HM QE2 upon her death or abdication, to whoever the succeeds her in the UK then do we lose those protections?petedavo (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The Act of Settlement has been made part of Australian constitutional law, and so is Australian. Likewise, Common Law in Australia is the Common Law of Australia, not of the United Kingdom.To claim that the UK governs Australia 'by default' is a pretty radical statement. By default of what? I'm not sure what you're saying. We don't need any statute to prevent arbitrary rule (as James II did). We have the Constitution that limits the Sovereign's powers. That Constitution is (now anyway) specifically Australian, not British. If in the bizarre event that we unilaterally amended the succession, our Constitution would still remain in force.--Gazzster (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the Act of Settlement has been made part of Australian constitutional law; I believe Petedavo is right in that Australia defers to the UK to outline the succession. Though, one could almost say the Act of Settlement in the UK isn't really solely the UK's law; the British parliament cannot alter the Act of Settlement without the express permission of Australia (and the other realms) first. --G2bambino (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe there is anything preventing any Country that currently has passed Acts to make HM QE2 the Quuen in their respective countries from, individually paasing any Acts that chose a different succession. It has been debated previously of 'what if' Canada chose Prince Andrew, Australia chose Prince Harry and Britain was the only country left with Prince Charles? But could a country go contra the Settlement Act and Bill of Rights and enable a catholic? or even the Bavarain claimant to the Jacobite cause, or someone not already able to prove a claim, an outsider for instance? And back to the original point why have S15 of the Australia Act if there are not Laws in existence that are in use in Australia? I'd have to consult someone and get back to the point of clarifying the articles contentions later. Must workpetedavo (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you being a little medieval? A popish monarch? Jacobites? Section 15 refers to the filling of casual Senate vacancies.--Gazzster (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm no longer certain what this discussion is about or where it's leading to. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Me neither.--Gazzster (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

By longstanding convention, QEII is the monarch, QE2 the ship. --Pete (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Or an album by Mike Oldfield :-) Shot info (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's cleared that up then. Australia's head of state is not a ship, but it may be Mike Oldfield? (lol)--Gazzster (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

According to ACM the High Court has ruled that the Governor-General is the 'Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth'. I'm trying to track down the judgement to verify, but any help would be appreciated. DirectEdge (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Already mentioned here in this thread. The High Court says the Governor-General is the head of state. That's a precedent of a century's standing, by the way. --Pete (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't get away from the fact that it's debateable. We've proved that by supplying credible sources for both opinions. We can't get around that.--Gazzster (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There are good sources for several views. What we don't want are the zealots who make it a religious fight to have their preferred view prevail. --Pete (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Queen Head Of State (continued)

There's a debate, but the question is the weight given to each opinion. The Government websites that are aimed for public consumption say the Queen is head of state. This is the majority view. I note the High Court document cited by Skyring as an opposing view does not say outright anything about the Governor General being head-of-state. Therefore, this recent edit to the article does not represent the majority / widespread view. My fear is that the Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy group are pushing the debate, as they have since 1997. Therefore, the opposing view (Queen is not H.O.State) can be mentioned, but it should be stated clearly that this is the view of the A.C.M. Even under Howard's era, government websites (for consumption by the general public) stated that the Queen is Australia's head of state. We need to put it in perspective as to where each side of the debate comes from. Lester 04:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Back in the days when the Commonwealth produced a printed Directory - a list of all senior officers with their contact details in a bound volume available from the Commonwealth Government Bookshop - the Governor-General was listed as head of state. I can scan a copy if you want. It is commonplace for newspapers to refer to the G-G as HoS, as I noted above with an example from the Canberra Times. The fact is that opinion is divided, even from Government sources. The roles of Queen and Governor-General continue to evolve, and I must wonder about anyone who tries to pretend that we are still stuck at the time of Queen Victoria, when the Governor-General was the representative of the British Government and Victoria ruled the Empire. --Pete (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I remember when everyone believed the GG was the Queen's representative. Anyway, back to that edit (mentioned before), I think it represents the A.C.M accepted view, but not the generally accepted view. I don't think there's yet consensus for something like that. Regards, Lester 15:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misrepresenting that edit in your comment by saying it represents a view on whether the Queen is head of state. The edit did not directly refer to this issue, but removed the claim that diplomats are received on the Queen's behalf. It seems reasonable to leave that claim out unless they are explicitly received in the name of the Queen. This would be in contrast to the next sentence, which points out that passports do explicitly mention the Queen. From my point of view, the validity of the edit has nothing to do with any consensus that may or may not have been reached in this discussion, but depends simply on being able to verify whether or not the GG refers to the Queen in accrediting and receiving diplomats. JPD (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless the text of recent passports has changed, they are issued in the name of the Governor-General, though it is noted that he is the representative of the Queen. Perhaps some here erroneously think that "representative" limits and defines the functions of the Governor-General to being an agent or servant of the Queen. In fact the Queen may not issue instructions to him, and most of his role is defined and performed without reference to the Queen. I also think we need to be careful of "generally accepted" views. The 1994 Civics Expert Group found widespread ignorance, especially amongst teenagers. Widely held views are not necessarily correct, and even if most Australians believe we have a national bill of rights, the fact is that we don't. --Pete (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say that a document from "[the GG], as the representative of [QEII]" is in the name of the monarch, whatever "representative" means in practice, but that is a probably matter of semantics. My point was that there is some justification for mentioning the Queen in the contexts of passports as she is mentioned, but unless the monarch is similarly explictly mentioned in the context of diplomats, there is very little reason to include "on behalf of the Queen" no matter how we understand the situation. That part of the article is simply describing the role of the Crown and the precise roles of the GG and Queen should be described accurately, but without any extra analysis or emphasis. JPD (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The passport is in the "voice" of the G-G, not that of the Queen. --Pete (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Holy moly, at the rate we're going, we'll soon be deleting this article. The Queen's not the Australian Head of State? The Passport is issued in the GG's name? What's next? GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What is so surprising about those positions? "Head of state" can mean whatever you want it to mean, and passports mention both the GG and his relationship to the Queen. The only ridiculous positions are those that say our system is simple and clear-cut. JPD (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just grumping, that's all. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

At least she is still on the back of the loose change in my pocket.Petedavo ^{talk contributions} 00:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Cripes, those must be rare coins indeed! Most of our coins have animals or other designs on the reverse. The monarch is the traditional image on the obverse of coinage. It is rare for any other head of state (such as a president) to appear. At least while they are alive. --Pete (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The recent edit referred to by Lester does not touch on the head of state issue at all. I do not think it can be claimed, as he has done, that the Queen is head of state (let's invent a word for it? what about Reginacapitism? Yeah- like that) is a majority view. How can we know that? What represents a majority? Has anyone taken a poll with the People on the subject? Does the opinion of government agencies, if, indeed, it is their opinion, outweigh the opinion of the populace and influential individuals? I'm not saying it's one way or the other. I'm just repeating, we can't know. If Australians can't work it out, Wikipedianss should certainly not presume to decide for them.--Gazzster (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly right. It's not our place to make definitive statements when the facts are unclear. We can certainly report polls and differing opinions, clearly labelled as such. --Pete (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Article has serious problems: The majority view can be determined by authoritative and credible references from major sources. With something as fundamental as this topic, these need to be very major sources. At the moment, the view that Queen is not head-of-state, is being pushed by the ACM group in this article, without references. Here lies the serious problems of this entire article. It has no references for definitions which a vested interest group (ACM) wants to portray as fact. As Wikipedia guidelines point out, majority views carry many major references. As editors delete mention that the GG acts on behalf of the Queen, a new definition is shaped that does not carry the references to support it. Lester 00:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not just ACM pushing the view, Lester. It's major newspapers, government sources, constitutional scholars, politicians and a large chunk of the people. Can't you see that by talking down one view and talking up another you are acting as if you don't accept NPOV? The bottom line is that the position of Australian head of state is not defined in any constitutional documents, so it's all interpretation, it's all opinion, and while I'm against slanting the article your way, I'm also dead against slanting it any other way. We stick with the facts. --Pete (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How might a 'majority view' be 'determined' by an authoritative source? But even if it could, it has been demonstrated that there differing 'credible' and 'authoritative' sources. Therein lies the difficulty. Who are members of the ACM group? I'd be careful about that claim, mate. Avout unreferenced definitions- what are they? Point them out, they need to be referenced, by all means. I don't know that anyone seriously wants to 'delete mention that the GG acts on behalf of the Queen'. In fact the Constitution is pretty clear that she does. The question is how does he (or she) represent her? Does he represent the Sovereign as if she reigned over Australia in the same way as she reigns over the UK? Or does he represent a Sovereign who is a symbol. In other words, does the GG exercise the functions of a head of state? That is the question, which has noteworthy supporters on both sides. Nobody's suggesting that the Queen has no constitutionaln role. Some are suggesting that that constitutional role may not be head of state.--Gazzster (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Found this bit in Royal Insight

The Queen's recent engagements in Australia and Singapore in March 2006 were announced some 10 months before the departure of Her Majesty to these countries. When travelling as the United Kingdom's Head of State, The Queen will have taken formal advice from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to undertake these engagements, and when Her Majesty is travelling to a country where she is Head of State (Australia and Canada for example) the invitation will have been extended by that country.

note the reference to where she is head of state.Petedavo ^{talk contributions} 02:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll admit that a pretty interesting source. It's from an official website, even though it not any form of official statement. I'll give you that, but it still doesn't negate other credible sources that suggest that the GG is head of state.--Gazzster (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is purporting that the Queen is not Australia's head of state; all we seem to have agreed on is that there exist differing opinions on who is Australia's head of state, given both the nature of the title and Australia's constitutional structure. I believe this should be mentioned here, and covered in more detail in the section of the article "Head of state" that focuses on this subject. --G2bambino (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an article in The Age (>>LINK<<) where one of Australia's most conservative commentators, Gerard Henderson, says the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy group asked the Royal website to remove its many references to the Queen being Australia's head of state, so I'm surprised that one has been found recently. Henderson said:

QUOTE: "In spite of what many constitutional monarchists Down Under argue, the monarch is Australia's head of state. As recently as 1997, the Buckingham Palace website stated this, declaring: "A Commonwealth realm is a country where the Queen is the head of state. The Queen is Queen not only of Britain and its dependent territories but also of the following realms." Included in the list was Australia. The monarchists in Australia objected to the Queen's very own job description and the statement was removed by Buckingham Palace - intent, as ever, on avoiding political controversy."

The ACM group seems to have been formed around 1992, but gained momentum in around 1997 and started pushing the argument that the Queen is not head of state. Prior to this, every school kid was taught that the Queen is Australia's head-of-state, and the GG is her representative. This article should say what I have said here, that the ACM began presenting the alternate argument in 1997 in the lead up to the referendum.Lester 20:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That might be fine if we had more evidence that ACM was the first to put forward this notion. --G2bambino (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If the Queen is not Australia's Head of State (IMHO, she is Aussie HoS)? Then what's her role in Australia? GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The only role she definitively has: monarch. --G2bambino (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

1 hiccup I can see in this arguement is this statement:

The Executive Power includes such Prerogative Powers of the Crown as existed in 1900—which included the War Power and the Power to Deploy the Crown's Forces—which have not been superseded by legislation. Australia's constitutional arrangements are, thus, much like those in the United Kingdom for, although they have a constitutional base, that base assumes the continued existence of prerogative powers in the same terms as those for the United Kingdom

taken from House of Lords Select Committee on Constitution Fifteenth Report Petedavo ^{talk contributions} 01:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Good researching. A couple of problems with that source though. Firstly and most importantly, it is the interpretation of the House of Lords, a foreign body that no longer has any authority to interpret the Constitution Act for Australia. It's findings then have no weight.Secondly, even if it still did, the scope is rather narrow. The Lords are treating of the powers of the executive to deploy Crown troops in the context of the ongoing war. It doesn't treat of the head of state question.--Gazzster (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that comment was intended for the next section, about the "Queen's powers". The House of Lords has no power to interpret the constitution, but this is not a legal ruling. As an academic description, it is as good a source as any academic writing on the subject. However, as Gazzster says, it deals with how the power to deploy troops is used, and doesn't add anything at all about whose powers they are, let alone how that would affect the Head of State question. JPD (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Constitution places the Governor-General firmly at the head of the armed forces, though of course the Government makes all the decisions, as his webpage explains for those who see him as ordering the tanks in to crush the knavish Prime Minister of the day. The Queen doesn't get much of a look in on defence issues. --Pete (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

When HM was asked by the Speaker of the House of Representatives (on behalf of the Australian Labor Party) to overrule the 1975 dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975 by Governor-Geneneral Sir John Kerr Buck Palace responded by saying the Queen was not 'competent' to intervene. The powers of the Governor-General, it said, were conferred by the Australian Constitution, and the Queen could not interfere. To be devil's advocate for a moment, I'd say that is a pretty strong suggestion that ol' Liz is not the Australian head of state. But as I've said, the position is not clear.--Gazzster (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It may be an obsolete part of the Constitution, but the Queen can remove the Royal Assent given by the GG within a year. There have been some laws given Royal Assent by the Queen personally, which the GG cannot override. I'd like to consider two situations. In both cases the Parliament has approved a bill and the Queen is in Australia. First case: the bill is given Royal Assent by the GG but is repugnant to the Queen. The Queen can bring the law to an end. The GG is powerless to do anything else. Second case: the GG finds the bill repugnant and refuses to give it Royal Assent. The Queen has no issue signing the bill, so she gives it Royal Assent. The GG can't override the Queen. In both cases the Queen has more power than the GG. Wouldn't that make her Australia's HoS?Jleonau (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct in noting that this power of disallowance is obsolete (though more correct to say moribund), but even if the Queen has a power that the Governor-General does not, this does not make her head of state. I note that the U.S. senate may reject nominees of the President (eg. to the Supreme Court) - this power does not make the Senate the Head of State. --Pete (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've read the article and all of the discussion and there seems to be an awful lot of hot air here. The debate is in need of some clarification. Before we can answer the question of who is Australia's "head of state" we need to do at least two things: (a) define what we mean by "head of state" and (b) recognise the limitations inherent to the concept of "head of state". Simply put, the answer to the question of "who is Australia's Head of State?" is "it depends -- and why are you asking the question anyway?". There is no straightforward unqualified answer to this question. At best we could give an answer along the lines of "for the purposes of X, Australia's head of state is Y" or possibly "assuming we we define Head of State as X then Australia's HOS is Y".

There are several problems in answering this question which I'll deal with in turn. (1) There is the general problem of fitting the language of "Head of State" to monarchies (which has largely been overcome in the case of modern constitutional monarchies such as Australia); (2) there is the specific problem that some states -- whether constitutional monarchies or republics -- do not easily fit the "one size fits all" approach of a "head of state"; and in any event (3) to talk of a "head of state" is primarily to talk politics and international relations rather than constitutional law, so we shouldn't be surprised if the Australian constitution (in its broadest sense) doesn't give a definitive answer to the question of who is Australia's "head of state".

(1) The concept of a "head of state" is not automatically applicable to monarchies. It presupposes a pre-defined "state" to which one of its citizens can be its titular "head". But, traditionally at least, monarchies inverted this relationship. In a traditional monarchy the existence of a "state" (a "realm" or "kingdom") presupposes the existence of a King (or Queen etc). In a traditional monarchy it is not the state which defines the head (eg the president of a republic) but the monarch who defines the state (his realm or the sphere of his influence). So we could say that in a traditional monarchy the King is not "the head of the state" but that the state is "the state of the head". However, two things need to be said in response to this. First, modern constitutional monarchies defy many of the characteristics of a traditional monarchy and have much in common with modern republics and it is possible without too much of an effort in mental gymnastics meaningfully to apply the language of "head of state" to them. Furthermore, in practice this language has been widely applied to constitutional monarchies and has stuck. See Head_of_state#Selection_and_various_types_and_styles_of_Heads_of_State.

(2) The language of "head of state" is necessarily a "one size fits all" approach and the reality is that some states -- whether constitutional monarchies or republics -- don't easily fit a "one size fits all" approach. The Commonwealth realms (of which Australia is one) are all examples of constitutional monarchies to which it is difficult to apply the concept of "head of state". Switzerland is an example of a republic to which it is difficult to apply the concept of "head of state". In dealing with the Commonwealth Realms there are two problems when trying to identify their "head of state". First, in all of them (including the UK) there is the problem of one person simultaneously reigning over more than one state. QE II reigns by way of personal union over 16 separate and independent nation-states. In an international system based on distinct nation-states many have difficulty accepting the idea that one person could simultaneously be the "head" of more than one independent nation-state with differing interests on the international plane. Secondly, in all Commonwealth realms except the UK there is the added problem of a single state (such as Australia) possibly having more than one person as its "head". In 15 of her 16 realms (all except the UK) QE II "reigns", but she *exercises her constitutional power* through a representative known as a Governor-General. In Australia there are very few powers that the Queen can exercise personally; most have these have been irrevocably delegated to the GG and although exercised in the name of the Queen cannot be exercised by the Queen in person; but then the GG is appointed by the Queen "at Her Majesty's pleasure" and exercises all constitutional power *in her name*. So on this view it's difficult to say that either the Queen alone or the GG alone is Australia's "head of state". But again many have difficulty accepting the idea that a single state could simultaneously have more than one person as its "head" (but neither of whom alone could accurately be described as "head").

In short, the system of having a Queen who reigns but who exercises her constitutional powers through a Governor-General (and who for the most part is legally incapable of exercising her powers!) does not easily fit the one-size-fits-all approach of "head of state".

(3) The language of "head of state" is largely the language of politics and international relations so we ought not to expect Australian constitutional law to give an answer to a question that is simply outside of its province. The Australian constitutional system defines the respective roles of the Queen and the GG (but even here some things are uncodified and left to custom and there is still some room for evolution in their respective constitutional roles) and from my own point of view as a constitutional lawyer the question as to who is Australia's "Head of State" is fairly meaningless. Admittedly it may be important to political scientists and people involved in International Relations; but they can come up with their own answers to their own questions. We shouldn't expect Australian constitutional law to answer every single question you throw at it. From the point of view of the constitution and the legal system, the question of who is Australia's "head of state" is largely anachronistic, not to mention being outside of the category of constitutional law.

Ultimately the answer will depend on how you define "Head of State", and as I said, this is a somewhat foreign concept in law (municipal law at least -- international lawyers may also be interested in the question of a country's "Head of State" but the answer they give would also only be "for the purposes of international law" and not a general definition for all situations and in all circumstances). If you want to force an answer to a question that the Australian Constitution doesn't really address then the best answer to the question of who is Australia's "Head of State" is probably "the Queen of Australia in the exercise of her constitutional powers through the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia". So neither the Queen alone nor the GG alone but both. But again that would have to be qualified by something along the lines of "for the purposes of Australian constitutional law" and some knowledge of the relative de facto positions of the Queen and the GG. For the purposes of international relations you may want to give a different answer. Although the Queen doesn't cease *to be* Queen of Australia when she is abroad, she almost never *acts as* Queen of Australia outside of Australia. (There are a few exceptions to this but they are fairly insignificant for present purposes). As a matter of fact it is the GG and not the Queen who would personally make a state visit on behalf of Australia. But even then he can't escape the fact that he is still travelling as the constitutional representative of the Queen of Australia. This just goes to show my point that the category of "head of state" does not easily apply to Australia and that assuming there is an answer to the question it has to be nuanced. You need to define what you mean by HoS and be clear about the end to which you're asking the question. Perhaps not an entirely satisfying answer. But that's because the category of "Head of State" is quite foreign to the politico-legal system of the Australian constitutional monarchy, the executive power of which is legally vested in one person but for the most part exclusively exercisable on her behalf by another.Apodeictic (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

References

Interesting interview.

'GT – Governor-General, we’re just about out of time. I thank you for your time. But help me out with this one just before you go. Are you in fact our Head of State or in fact a representative of our Head of State?

MJ – (chuckles) Well, The Queen is the Monarch and I represent her, and I carry out all the functions of Head of State. '

I notice Jeffrey's reply is deliberately ambiguous. Just as an apolitical head of state should reply (lol)!--Gazzster (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Queen's powers x 2

The article says, "Most of the Queen's powers in Australia are exercised by the Governor-General,". Which powers would these be? --Pete (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The power to summon, dismiss or prorogue Parliament; to appoint ministers, to dismiss ministers (debateable), to issue writs for elections, etc. (reserve powers)It's a matter of discussion how many of the lesser reserve powers the GG could actually exercise, since they haven't been put to the test constitutionally. The dismiossal thing of course has been: boy, has it been.--Gazzster (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, as I've read recently, 1975 was a interesting time. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Gazzster, None of the powers you list above belong to the Queen. In fact they are given directly to the Governor-General and the Queen may NOT exercise them. See the Constitution:

• • 5. The Governor-General may appoint such times for holding the sessions of the Parliament as he thinks fit, and may also from time to time, by Proclamation or otherwise, prorogue the Parliament, and may in like manner dissolve the House of Representatives.
  • 64. The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish. Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.

Similar powers are held and exercised by the Queen in the UK, but not in Australia. --Pete (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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'. When the Queen is present in Australia, she may exercise the GG's powers herself. In fact, she has done so.--Gazzster (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific as to the Queen's powers, please? And what constitutional powers of the G-G's has the Queen exercised? Can you give an example? --Pete (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, she's certainly given Royal Assent in Australia to acts that the G-G reserved for her personal signature, eg. the Flags Act 1953. And she's officiated at the State Opening of Parliament. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, she has the power to appoint (and presumably dismiss) the G-G, the power to assent to legislation and the power to disallow legislation. That's it. Opening Parliament isn't a constitutional power. That falls under statutory powers (i.e. powers conferred by Parliament to various officers), if anything. --Pete (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But on reflection I take the point. Do we say GG's powers come from the Constitution or the Queen. Or a fiddly combination of both. That fits in very well with the discussion about the head of state, doesn't it?--Gazzster (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The Governor-General's powers come from the people. The Queen cannot give him more constitutional powers, nor amend or withdraw the ones he has. Only we the people may alter the text of the Constitution. See s128, where the process of constitutional amendment is described. --Pete (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth II can remove the Governor General from office if she wants to (though that would be disasterious). GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good point. The consent of the majority of the people is required to amend the GG's powers. The sovereign is bound by her own constitution, of course. And yes, GoodDay. She can also annul the GGs assent for up to two years after Parliament passes an act.--Gazzster (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Pete, I'm not so sure the Queen can't vary the G-G's powers. S.2 says "A Governor-General appointed by the Queen ... 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". Once she's assigned those powers, what's to stop her increasing, reducing or varying them, as long as it's not otherwise unconstitutional? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The Queen doesn't have any mechanism to amend the Australian Constitution. It's a nonsense to say that the Governor-General only has those powers she sees fit to give him. If there was any bestowing of powers, it occurred a century ago at Federation and cannot now be revoked. The Governor-General doesn't exercise the Queens's powers (of appointment and disallowal), but is directly given his own. --Pete (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Not so, infact - the Queen could fire Kevin Rudd & appoint John Howard PM again. GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about amending the Australian Constitution. We might be talking about upsetting historical precedent, a rather different matter, but in a way that is not prevented by the constitution. The GG certainly may dissallow a bill; but even if he assents to it, the queen can still disallow it within 12 months. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The Queen can do no such thing. The only person who could do this (and yes, it is possible) is the Governor-General. --Pete (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you read s.59 of the Constitution? (I readily acknowledge it's never happened and will almost certainly never happen; but we're discussing the queen's theoretical powers here). -- JackofOz (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Obsolete at Federation, moribund now. Never used, never likely to. The only way it could be used is if the PM were to advise the Queen to disallow Australian legislation, which is not likely. If this section were put up for deletion at a referendum, I think it would be deleted with near unanimous approval. --Pete (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But for the time being it's still there in the constitution, and it serves to demonstrate that the queen has a power - however unlikely it may ever be used - the GG does not have and never will have. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. It's one of the Queen's powers I mentioned earlier, along with appointment. The only person who has the power to appoint a Governor-General is the Queen. Of course, she only does this on the advice of the PM. --Pete (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that we can discuss it with various interesting and seemingly contrary points shows that the constitutional role of both the Queen and the GG need to be clarified by the Australian People. It's fun to talk about here but we can't solve the question.--Gazzster (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll go along with that. GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmm, but the article's wording needs to be changed. --Pete (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Skyring's change (the Queen's powers -> royal powers) seems quite appropriate to me. JPD (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's alright, since it's the exact same thing. Afterall, the Governor General isn't royal. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No it's not the exact same thing. Saying "the Queen's powers" implies that those powers still reside in the Queen, which is debated above. The "royal powers" version leaves that question open, or at least uses wording in line with the constitution, making the less disputable claim that powers which in the British system traditionally reside in the monarch are given to the GG. JPD (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act very clearly states that the Act comes into effect only with the Queen's (then Victoria) authority, it therefore follows that all the powers delegated to the Governor-General in the Act are indeed the Queen's. --G2bambino (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There's that point of view. But then there's also the view that the Constitution was approved by the People, and the Governor-General has no power except as the Constitution allows him (or her- somebody, hopefully). It is still the case that the Constitution cannot be amended except by the consent of the People. So are the viceregal powers exercised by the consent of the People? The Queen is on record as declaring that the future of the monarchy is in the People's hands. That is as good as saying she reigns by consent of the People. I think it's safe to say the whole thing is ambiguous at best. --Gazzster (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The constitutional powers of the G-G are given to him directly, in a form which permits no addition, modification or revocation by the giver. We can't even say that they once were the Queen's, because they only came into existence at the same instant as the Commonwealth itself, although Queen Victoria had exercised (and continued to exercise) similar powers in respect of other colonies and dominions and indeed the UK itself.

The Queen confirmed that she had (for example) no power to appoint ministers when directly requested in 1975. Unless someone can find a reliable source - eg. a constitutional textbook rather than a blog or newspaper column or their own opinion - stating that the Queen still holds the specific powers of the G-G, then we cannot describe them as the Queen's powers. We can describe them as royal powers because they are powers traditionally held and exercised by monarchs. Likewise we could describe them as presidential powers, though our readers might find this confusing. --Pete (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting, isn't it? The GG is the sovereign's representative and so one could suppose that all of the GG's powers are hers. On the other hand, one could argue that the Constitution gives power to the Governor-general alone. The monarch becomes a symbol then, saving the power to annul Acts of Parliament which the Constitution gives her. One could also argue that from 1901- 1986 the Sovereign (and GG) presided over Australia by virtue of a power accorded by the UK Parliament. After 1986, they preside by virtue of a power conferred by the Australian Parliament. Perhaps the truth of the matter is that neither the Queen nor Governor-General are heads of state, but the Australian Parliament. This is all speculation of course. As I've said before, it's fun to discuss, but these questions really need to be tested by the Parliament and courts. --Gazzster (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's evident that the constitution is the Queen's law. Yes, it was put to the people for approval, and future major changes must go through the same process, but only because her law says so. When it comes to her relationship with the Governor General, she, in essence, limits herself from performing certain duties; leaving them instead to her viceroy.

The truth is, in some countries sovereignty is recognised as being vested in The People, but in countries like Australia, the UK and Canada, sovereignty has been placed in a person - the sovereign. As long as that is the case, then the authority behind every law stems directly from the monarch; even those that limit the monarch's personal actions.

I've no particular issue with "royal powers." It's a bit vague, but not so much so as to be confusing. I'm just clarifying that we shouldn't lose sight of the Queen's position in relation to her realm of Australia. --G2bambino (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In the UK, sovereignty derives from Parliament, not the monarch. The example of Charles I is before us. In Australia, sovereignty resides in the people, because only the people may change the Constitution, as has been demonstrated many times when changes sought by the executive were rejected by the people.

The Queen does not limit herself in the area of Australian constitutional powers - she can only do what the Constitution allows her to do. Here's the good word from Buckingham Palace: "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. The only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and The Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution."[2]

The truth is that the monarch is an increasingly distant part of Australian government. Her role is gradually being whittled away. Attempting to inflate her role to the extent that she somehow has ultimate power over Australian affairs is quite ridiculous. I always laugh when people seize upon s58 and claim that the Queen could revoke our laws. Sure she could, on paper, but in reality this power has about the same level of existence as does the Inter-State Commission of s101. "Dead letter law" is an apt description of both. --Pete (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you're right on the parliament bit; though, the Queen is a very integral part of parliament.

As for laws, however, the Queen's ability to act independently is the very crux of the constitutional system. In the most severe constitutional crisis, it is her powers that are meant to save the day, so to speak. Certainly conventions and clauses are well established and make the Queen appear powerless, but ultimately the authority is all hers. There's not much getting around it. --G2bambino (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly Syring/Pete, the Australian Constitution is semi-republic? GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It was noted during the Constitutional Conventions of the 1890s that the Constitution essentially made us a republic by putting the ultimate power in the hands of the people. One may talk about the authority and power of the Queen, but it's hard to see what powers remain to her. Maybe a few things about medals and decorations. People talk about the Governor-General being merely the Queen's representative, but the Queen cannot issue orders to him. What the "representative" part really means is that the Governor-General is the representative of Her Majesty's Government, and so he was for the first thirty years of Federation. After the Statute of Westminster, he no longer filled that role and a British High Commissioner was appointed. The BHC realistically represents the Queen on a practical basis, but the G-G represents her in Australian matters, which amount to sod-all. We just haven't bothered to change our constitution, which is full of old junk. We aren't really ruled out of Buckingham Palace. --Pete (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair comment. Australia is an evolving nation. It's still a new country and we can't expect it to have the constitutional stability of, say, the United Kingdom or the United States.--Gazzster (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Australia is a new country???? Give over. We're one of the oldest nations in the world. The UK and the U.S. are part of the bare handful of older nations. --Pete (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good term! I like 'republic with a queen' as well!--Gazzster (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

But hang on, G2. You've conceded that in the UK power comes from Parliament, and the Sovereign is a 'very integral part' of Parliament. Well, in Australia, the same situation exists. Australia is a parliamentary democracy modelled on Westminster. And the Constitution says that the executive is the Sovereign (rep. by a GG) and the Houses of Parliament. Same situation as in the UK. How can the Queen powers be more absolute (in the sense that they are hers alone) in Australia than in the UK?--Gazzster (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

When the Queen visits her realms, the G-G usually adopts a very back-seat role, and is almost invisible. What would happen if the Queen were on a 10-day visit to Australia, and 2 days in, the Prime Minister dropped dead? Would the G-G emerge from the shadows to commission a new government, and would the Queen leave so as not to give the perception that she'd just become irrelevant? Or would the Queen commission the government herself? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The Queen has precedence (in a ceremonial sense) over everyone else. She's also a far better story than the Governor-General. That's why she dominates the TV news when she's here. I also make the point that the Governor-General is almost invisible when the Queen is not here. The Queen cannot commission a new government. She doesn't have the power to do so. About the only thing she can do is rubber-stamp the Prime Minister's nomination of Governor-General. --Pete (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's only at the federal level. The Australia Act specifically states that the Queen may exercise her powers as sovereign when present in the state; otherwise the Governor acts on her behalf. --G2bambino (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, but we were talking about commissioning a new PM, and the Governor-General taking a back seat. The Queen's position in regard to the States is a different matter. --Pete (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a non issue really. In that hypothetical scenario (or a similar one), the Queen would obviously have the sense to step back and let the institutions in place do their jobs as normal. Liz has good practical sense in that area. The Queen has publicly told the people, more than once, that she is content to have no practical role, even if that means a republic.--Gazzster (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think its speculative to say what the Queen would do in a hypothetical situation; if we don't know the exact circumstances, how can we even start to guess her actions? I also don't know of any point where she said she was happy to be useless; what she said about the republic debate was that it was up to Australians to decide, as the constitution states.

Regardless, I was just pointing out that the Queen is empowered to act in state affairs, so she actually isn't powerless in regards to Australia. --G2bambino (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of the Queen's sensibilities. She cannot commission a new Prime Minister, even if she wanted to. Simple as that. --Pete (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I do think it is questionable. This theoretical prerogative of the Crown has never been tested.--Gazzster (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since there has never been an occasion to call on the Queen to appoint an Australian Prime Minister; how can anybody say she can't appoint one. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

We're now retreading old ground. I quote from above:

The Queen does not limit herself in the area of Australian constitutional powers - she can only do what the Constitution allows her to do. Here's the good word from Buckingham Palace: "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. The only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and The Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution."[3] --Pete (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, there ya go.--Gazzster (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's good enough for Buckingham P, it's good enough for me. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

So, to return to the statement in question: 'Most of the Queen's powers in Australia are exercised by the Governor-General': Could we replace that with

The royal power is exercised by a Governor-General is accordance with the Constitution of the Commonealth of Australia. The Sovereign may not exercise these powers in person (ref to Buck House). The Monarch may however perform certain ceremonial functions in person, such as the Opening of Parliament. In the States, the Monarch may perform the Governors' functions in person. (ref. Australia Act 1986).--Gazzster (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That looks good to me. It includes the States, which I tend to forget about, but vwhich are obviously important. --Pete (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool.--Gazzster (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made the edit. It occurs to me that 'Constitutional Role' would need to be edited heavily too. It emphasises the royal prerogative, but, from what weve been discussing, Australia is not governed by royal prerogative. Also, according to the Constitution, executive power is not vested in the Sovereign, as the text says, but in the Sovereign and the Legislature (as in the UK).--Gazzster (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I continue to maintain that the constitution is still the Queen's law, and therefore the powers set out in it to the Governor-General are hers, but the conventions of constitutional monarchy state that she must abide by these rules she's laid out and not do that which she has specifically delegated to the G-G. Anyway, let's not forget that it is the Queen's power alone to appoint her Governor-General, and she may also grant Royal Assent to bills and issue royal proclamations. --G2bambino (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The Queen in the Constitution is Victoria. The assignment of powers was made in 1901. There is no way that the Queen can change the Governor-General's constitutional powers and there is no way that she can execute them. She has some powers that were given to her, as you note above, but any residual powers are trivia such as pardons and decorations, which have over the years been assigned as per the Letters Patent and other instruments. --Pete (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The Crown carries on indefinitely, so laws issued first by Victoria are laws still issued today by Elizabeth II. As no law, or alteration to any existing law, can come to pass without the assent of the Queen or her viceroy, the Queen could indeed change the Governor-General's constitutional powers; you're only right in that she cannot execute such a move as she must abide by the conventions of constitutional monarchy, otherwise risking the collapse of the entire system. --G2bambino (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The point of noting that the Queen of the Constitution is Victoria is to highlight the fact that the assignment of powers has been made already. The monarch cannot initiate a change to the Constitution. Only the House of Representatives may do that (of course, the Constitution states that either House may do so, but in practise, the Governor-General may only be advised on this by the Prime Minister), and the change may only be made with the express permission of the people. In theory the Queen or G-G has the same power (to assent or disallow), but in practise, they may only act on advice. --Pete (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting questions. Where's a constitutional lawyer when we want one? Here's some more thoughts. The Constitution was originally promulgated by Queen Victoria and the UK Parliament. So it was not the Sovereign's act alone, but the act of the Sovereign in Parliament. The Australia Act 1901 was enacted in the same way as any UK act, by the authority of the Sovereign and the legislature. So, before 1986, the powers of the Australian Governor-general were conferred by the Sovereign and the UK Parliament. After the Australia Act 1986 the Constitution derives its authority from the Queen of Australia in the Parliament of Australia. Very different situation. The Parliament of Australia does not abdicate its authority to the Queen of Australia but expects her to exercise it with Parliament; just as in the UK, where the Parliament governs with and not under the Queen of the United Kingdom. So, in short, the Constitution is not the Queen's law alone, but the law of the Queen of Australia and the Parliament of Australia acting as one. And this is what the Constitution itself states: the executive power is exercised by the Sovereign and the Houses of Parliament. Jeez, after that, I need another coffee (just woken up here!). --Gazzster (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Try this one. The Queens can still issue Letters Patent to raise any Australian she wishes to the peerage, and has done so and in the case of one Australian who was to get a dual Australian UK title, due to the objections of the Australian Government, she removed the Australian Territorial reference.petedavo (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sir Robert May (born 1936), Chief Scientific Adviser to HM Government, President of the Royal Society, and a Professor at Sydney, Princeton, Oxford, and Imperial College London, was made a life peer in 2001. After his initial preference for "Baron May of Woollahra" failed an objection from the Protocol Office of the Australian Prime Minister's Department, he chose the title "Baron May of Oxford, of Oxford in the County of Oxfordshire". (taken from Australian Peers

petedavo (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not a case of exercising constitutional authority. She can of course raise any Australian to the UK privilege if she wishes (Australia no longer has a peerage). She does so of course, with a different crown on.--Gazzster (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Some have argued that there never was an Australian Peerage on the Australian Peers talk page, but beside, the other point I forgot to mention was even when Australia has reccommended an appointment of GG, the Crown has decided to appoint another, even if it was just because the UK Prime Minister reccommended thus be done. vis Bruce/Issacs.petedavo (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

George V objected to Isaacs, but nevertheless appointed him on his PM's advice, as convention bound him. But the hypothetical case of a Sovereign refusing to appoint a GG on the PM's recommendation is irrelevant now. Since the the Statute of Westminster 1931 and the Australia Act 1986 the UK government may not advise the Queen of Australia on any affair concerning Australia.--Gazzster (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)