Talk:Australian head of state dispute/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

George Winterton

Pete has been citing George Winterton, so I thought perhaps I should quote what George Winterton said on the issue (George Winterton, "Who is our head of state?", Quadrant, September 2004, p 60):

The Constitution contains many such provisions, which make it clear that, constitutionally, the Queen is head of state and the governor-general her "representative", the term used to describe the governor-general in sections 2, 61 and 68 of the Constitution... [Winterton then cites sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 57, 58, 59, 61, 64, 66, 68, 74, 128.]

The "executive power of the Commonwealth" is "vested in the Queen" (section 61). It is said to be "exercisable by the governor-general" but this is expressly stated to be "as the Queen's representative"...

A person who is another's "representative" cannot properly be described as occupying an office at the apex of the state. If the representative fulfils head-of-state functions, the representative can be described as de facto or effective head of state, while the officer represented is de jure or formal head of state...

This conclusion is supported by the great preponderance of informed commentary. Thus, the early authority Harrison Moore, writing in The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia (1910), described the governor-general's "character" as "essentially representative": "he is the delegate of the King to exercise certain powers of the Crown". He noted that the governor-general was not a "viceroy", merely "vice-regal", with the same constitutional status as state governors--a point considered further below...

An objective assessment can lead to only one conclusion: Australia's legal or formal head of state is the Queen. The governor-general is the effective or de facto head of state of the Commonwealth [of Australia], but not of Australia [i.e., not of the States].

So (1) Winterton says the Queen is the head of state, and (2) Winterton endorses the view of Harrison Moore that the GG's character is "essentially representative". Therefore, the quote from Winterton that Pete has been using is expressing the public's view, not Winterton's. It is, as other have said, a red herring.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

My revision citing Winterton[1] was made after noting that a "citation needed" tag was added (03:16, 31 October[2]) and that the words tagged had been in the article from its start in January 2011 "with text lifted from Government of Australia"[3]. In the second paragraph was The Australian Constitution...does not use the term "head of state". In practice, the role of head of state of Australia is divided between two people, the Queen of Australia and the Governor-General of Australia. The initial comment at the Talk page was: "This is a topic which has long deserved its own article, given the tendency of the topic to impact on other articles."[4] Qexigator (talk) 09:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I have cited Winterton's article quoted above in Scholarly Sources. I think citing that an isolated argument from that article under Background is potentially confusing and pre-empts the debate.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, understood, but what revision is proposed? Given that the second and third sentences of "Background" need to be read together, if a version were adapted for the lead, it would not need citation, but would rely on expansion and citation later. My proposal for the lead and opening of "Background", removing the Winterton citation:

The dispute over who is Australia's head of state centres on the question of whether the monarch or the governor-general is the country's head of state. ; the term Australian head of state, or any variation thereof, does not appear in either Australian or international law.[citation needed] Arguably, the role of head of state in Australia is divided between two people: the monarch, as the legal or formal head of state, and the governor-general who is appointed to serve as the monarch's representative in the Commonwealth of Australia but not as head of the states of Australia. The disagreement has continued for decades, usually, though not always, within the debate over an Australian republic, and involved viceroys, politicians, legal scholars, and the media.

Background

The Australian constitution dates from 1901, when the Dominions of the British Empire were not sovereign states, and does not use the term head of state, which regularly denotes the person who holds the highest rank in government. In practice, the role of head of state in Australia is divided between two people: the monarch, who is the legal or formal head of state, and the governor-general who is appointed as her representative in the Commonwealth of Australia and before assuming office formally undertakes to serve her. A governor-general is not head of the states of Australia, but arguably as the Queen's representative acts as head of state of the Commonwealth of Australia.

What would then be put, here or later, citing Winterton?  :Qexigator (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it is better to avoid contentious statements in the Lead and the Background, including anything that prejudges who is the head of state, or which confuses the issue. So something like:

Lead':"The dispute over who is Australia's head of state centres on the question of whether the monarch or the governor-general is the country's head of state. The term "head of state" does not appear in in the Australian Constitution. The disagreement has continued for decades, usually, though not always, within the debate over an Australian republic, and involved viceroys, politicians, legal scholars, and the media."

Background:"The Australian constitution dates from 1901, when the Dominions of the British Empire were not sovereign states, and does not use the term head of state, which regularly denotes the person who holds the highest rank in government. The monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II, is also the sovereign of fifteen other countries..." etc.

The Background could really be improved with more clarity and less unnecessary historical and international details. But that's another issue. Winterton's argument about the States is really a powerful argument that I haven't heard before. Perhaps it should be added in the Scholarly Sources section. His argument is essentially: Australia has a federal system. The GG has nothing to do with the State governments. The vice-regal role is carried out by governors. Therefore the GG can't possibly be Australia's head of state.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems, then, the first step would be for you to compose and add a paragraph based on Winterton in "Scholarly sources", followed by consequential revision of Lead and Background as you propose. As I understand it, Winterton's opinion was that the governor-general is appointed to serve as the monarch's representative in the Commonwealth of Australia but not as head of the states of Australia. If Winterton's opinion depended upon denying that the Commonwealth of Australia is a monarchy and that the monarch is the present queen and her successors, whom a governor-general solemnly undertakes to serve in the execution of the duties of that office, it will be important for the relevant passage to be quoted, for all to see. But, given that a governor-general of the Commonwealth of Australia is undeniably appointed and undertakes to serve the Queen of Australia, can it be credibly said that the governor-general's duties do not include representing the Queen of Australia as the head of the federal state, as when opening parliament, appointing the prime minister and assenting to bills? What could be the value of a scholarly opinion straying that far from the Constitution and letters patent? There is nothing shown that would support it. Qexigator (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't follow your argument.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Re-statement:

1_Was it Winterton's opinion that the governor-general is appointed to serve as the monarch's representative in the Commonwealth of Australia but not as head of the states of Australia?

2_If yes, did his opinion depend upon accepting that the monarch is head of state in the several states of the federal Commowealth, but not head of state of the federal state? If so, let the passage of his work stating that opinion be quoted. It must then be surmised that an incoming governor-general's undertaking (oath/affirmation of office) is made subject to a mental reservation on the part of (1) the governor-general, (2) the prime minister, (3) those in whose presence the undertaking is given, and (4) the general public of the federal state, that on assuming office the governor-general will be head of the federal state, not the Queen. Could such a mental reservation have any significance in public or private law? Is there anything to support that surmise?

3_Or, if yes to 1 and no to 2 above, does Winterton's opinion agree with the spirit and letter of the written Constitution, and the letters patent, that a governor-general of the Commonwealth of Australia is appointed and undertakes to serve the Queen of Australia , free from any such mental reservation? The consequence then being that s/he is duty bound to be acting as the representative of the Queen when appointing the prime minister and assenting to bills. In which case, there is no wriggle room: the position of the monarch as head of state remains intact, officially, formally, juridically, practically, politically, publically, and technically, in the manner customary in a parliamentary system of a constitutional monarchy on the Westminster model, while at the same time it remains open to the people of Australia to opt for a change, as other members of the Commonwealth of Nations have done. There would be this difference from the UK, evidently intended by those who proposed the Constitution and those who enacted it: in the event of the monarch being present in Canberra at the same time as a governor-general, it would remain the duty of the governor-general to appoint the prime minister and assent to bills, and, as the monarch's representative in such matters, to cope with any political crisis. Qexigator (talk) 06:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

As quoted above, Winteron says, "the Queen is head of state and the governor-general her 'representative'". I don't understand the complication.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It seemed to me you were introducing a complication, but, given that there is none, why not go ahead and compose what you consider should be in the text of the article, citing Winterton's opinion that "the Queen is head of state and the governor-general her representative". Would this mention Winterton's "really powerful" argument about the States? Qexigator (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Winterton's views are as valid - certainly better informed than most – as any other's. However he does not give us any definitive answer to the question. None exists at present, though this may change sooner rather than later. --Pete (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

At least you could stop citing him in support of your argument.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Not following. Please explain. --Pete (talk) 03:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

"Please try to follow the thread of the argument. It will be less painful for all of us."--Jack Upland (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course. You speak above of my argument, as if Winterton somehow contradicts it. That makes no sense. Could you explain why you think Winterton and I are opposed in any way, please? --Pete (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You have been putting forward a perverse synthesis which implies that Winterton and Turnbull agree that the Queen is not head of state.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not the case. Winterton's position is that the Queen is head of state and he has expressed this for many years. I have no problem accepting that this is his firmly and repeatedly expressed view. Turnbull's comments are more nuanced, but I don't think anybody would put him in the "Governor-General is head of state" camp. Certainly not I. So I'm not sure that you yet understand the discussion here. --Pete (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Governors-general of yore

Turnbull's lesson on the history of the governor-general doesn't have any connection to the subject of this article: a contemporary debate on who Australia's head of state is. At least, it doesn't seem to; yes, the governor-general both acted on the advice of the Australian privy council and represented the government in Westminster, but... Well, but what? What's the bearing of that already well known historical fact on the current situation? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The debate has been ongoing since Federation. Turnbull's 1991 comments explore the then mood of the people. He will continue to express his views on the situation, especially now that he has reached head of government status. --Pete (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The words you inserted in the article--"In his 1993 book The Reluctant Republic, Turnbull explained that, at Federation, the 'Governor-General acted partly as head of state and partly as the local representative of the British Government', the latter being the Queen in her Privy Council of the United Kingdom"--does not say anything about an ongoing debate or the "then mood of the people". It is simply a statement of fact; one that was disconnected from the subject of the article. Do you have a way to connect it? Was something missing? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

That material has been part of the article since 2011. What has changed since then? This article is not just about current affairs, it is about the debate which has been ongoing since Federation, as Turnbull and others note. Turnbull, as Prime Minister, is now in a position to influence public opinion and introduce practical, legal and constitutional reforms - his views are more relevant than ever. --Pete (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

As cited above, Turnbull makes it clear that the Queen is the head of state. His comments on other issues are beside the point.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary. Turnbull's comments on the history of the position and his view of public opinion are extremely pertinent, especially given his long and prominent history in this area and his current leadership role. His leadership of the Republic Advisory Committee and Australian Republican Movement dating from 1993, underscore his involvement in this area. He would probably be seen as the most visible supporter of an Australian republic, and I feel you fail to do him justice by ignoring his solid views on this topic. --Pete (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Colin Howard

The article currently says, 'In 1985, however, Professor Colin Howard stated that, as the constitution makes executive power exercisable only by the governor-general, and not the Queen, it is the governor-general who is, "as a matter of law", the head of state.' The reference is to p 111 of Australian Federal Constitutional Law. But here is what Howard actually says (my emphasis):

[p 110] Hence it can be argued that, since the formal position of the Queen in the United Kingdom as an independent component of [p 111] Parliament and as the pinnacle of the executive power is exactly paralleled in the Australian constitution, the constitution intention is that if reference needs to be made to a head of state, the Queen is that person. In some ceremonial and official courtesy situations this is no doubt true, but the matter has practical importance also.

[new para]As the constitution makes abundantly clear, for working purposes the operative head of state in Australia is not the Queen but the Governor-General. He is described in s. 2 as the Queen's 'representative in the Commonwealth'. By the same section he is appointed by the Queen, retains office during her pleasure and exercises, with the significant reservation 'subject to this Constitution', such of her own powers and functions as she assigns to him. The assignment power has never been prominent because the real content of the Governor-General's authority derives from his status as the Queen's representative. The practical questions turn on the extent to which, behind the facade of formal ceremony and courtesies, the Governor-General is as a matter of law the head of state in Australia in the sense that he has powers which are not exerciseable by the Queen but only by him...

[p 112]:It seems therefore that practice and law now coincide to support the proposition that, certain matters of ceremony and courtesy apart, the head of state in Australia is not the Queen but the Governor-General.

This is not a definitive statement that the Governor-General is the head of state. The only definitive statement is that in "some ceremonial and official courtesy situations" the Queen is "no doubt" head of state. Ceremony and official courtesy play a large role in the office of head of state, especially when the head of state is separate from the head of government, so this is an important point.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The article adds: "Howard went so far as to say that Australia is not even a monarchy, but a 'governor-generalship'" (in Constitution, Power and Politics). It's true that he said that "the system which we have is not a monarchy but a governor-generalship" (p 67) but he also says the "monarch" is the "theoretical head of state" (p 68) and "as long as we retain the connection with the monarchy, we retain the governor-generalship" (p 78). Once again, the quotation is misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Jack, if I could just ask you to refrain from selectively quoting sources to make it appear that they support your own personal opinion? This is a complex matter and it doesn't help if you try to reduce it to black and white. --Pete (talk) 06:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It was the previous text of the article that was quoting selectively.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion, but NPOV requires that we give due weight to all views. Just because you personally disagree with someone's published statements doesn't mean we ignore them. Let's imagine for a moment that all Greens-leaning editors suddenly left Wikipedia to (oh, I dunno) go clean up beaches of plastic litter on remote islands with no internet. Would we then ignore the Greens involvement in Australian politics? Or would we follow policy and report on an even-handed basis? Surely you must see that Wikipedia must reflect reality, not some personal opinions, no matter ho strongly held. --Pete (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Owen Hughes

The article currently says: 'Professor Owen E. Hughes of Monash University stated that the governor-general is the head of state as "the position is one of great formal power, both legal and political"'. Hughes does indeed say: "The Governor-General is the head of state and performs important ceremonial duties, but it is a mistake to see the role purely in those terms. The position is one of great formal power, both legal and political."(pp 170-171 of Australian Politics). However, Hughes is inconsistent, later describing the GG as the "representative of the head of state" (p 209), and repeatedly describing the Queen as "head of state" (pp 204, 212, 249, 250, 251). He refers to the "current ambiguity" about whether GG is head of state (p 205). On the Dismissal, he says: "The Governor-General acted by himself, but did so in his capacity as representing the Queen" (p 207 - see also p 310). I'm not sure if Hughes is worth quoting, as he is inconsistent on this point.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Jack, there's no problem with inconsistency. It's part of the problem. There's no simple answer, so just about every source we have makes different statements at different times, often contradicting themselves. This is an excellent example of WP:NPOV at work - we quote well-sourced views. Would it be correct to say that you personally have an opinion on the matter, and you think your opinion is better than those who have a different view? --Pete (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm citing what the source actually says. Hughes describes the GG as head of state once and the Queen as head of state multiple times.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You think it's like an election, where we can count votes? --Pete (talk) 11:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It's selective quoting to quote the one time that he says the GG is the HoS.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, why not quote both views? That's what this article is about - the division of opinion. We show Rudd as variously identifying the Governor-General and the Queen as head of state, so there should be no problem with adding similar examples. Do you have a problem with this, given Rudd's example? --Pete (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I have a problem with the example of Rudd etc. Inconsistency on the part of one person is not a "dispute".--Jack Upland (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Dispute?

This article is supposed to be about a dispute over "whether the monarch or the governor-general is the country's head of state". It is not supposed to be a record of misstatements, confusion, inconsistency, or ambiguity. It is not supposed to be a discussion of the governor-general's powers. On examination of the sources, it appears that only two sources unequivocally claim the governor-general, and not the Queen, is the head of state: that is the monarchists, David Flint and David Smith. Therefore I would agree with the editors in the earlier discussion who disputed the existence of the dispute.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I would support an AfD of this article. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, whether you wish to call it a dispute or a disagreement, you already note yourself there's no consistency in opinion. I agree this is not the place to get into the governor-general's powers. But, I don't see what's wrong with outlining the different opinions. Whether that requires a whole article of just a section of one (like at Monarchy of Canada#Head of state) is another matter. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The dispute is widespread and public. The media routinely refers to the Governor-General as Australia's head of state. As do man other public figures. The fact that it's the monarchists who are upholding the G-G rather than HM, is pretty significant. There are two reasons why the G-G is viewed as HoS:

1. S/he is an Australian. They represent the nation to itself and overseas in a way that the monarch cannot. They act like a head of state, and as the monarchy is becoming increasingly irrelevant in Australian affairs, they will be seen as HoS, simply because of the genuine community feeling that we need an Australian in the top job. Whether this happens through a formal mechanism such as a referendum and constitutional change, or simply through customary usage, it is unstoppable. I think the next big catalyst will be when Charles steps up, whether through succession or as a stand-in for his increasingly frail mother.
2. The powers are relevant. Sovereignty in Australia comes from the people. The Queen cannot change a word of the Constitution, nor can Parliament alone. Only the people can do this. The various officers named in the Constitution - including the monarch - draw their powers from the people. The important powers are directly given to the Governor-General, and the monarch is all but irrelevant. S/he has no real say in Australian affairs. Scullin demonstrated in 1931 that his nomination for Governor-General over-rode the King's personal views. In 1975, the Queen had no say in Kerr's decision. Australian affairs are handled by Australians

It's kind of sweet and romantic that some view Australia as being ruled by the Queen, who considers Australian affairs and makes decisions which are loyally acted upon by the government and obedient masses, but it's not a position that has any basis in reality. Wikipedia reflects reality, not the cringing adoration of people like Menzies, nor the antique longings of Abbott. The fact that Abbott's reinstatement of Knights and Dames - since speedily reverted - was seen as a national embarrassment, speaks volumes about how Australia actually views the monarchy. --Pete (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Didn't you just admonish Jack Upland for selectively picking out sources to support a personal opinion? I believe you did. And yet, now there you are giving us your personal opinion, deeming it "reality", and stating Wikipedia needs to reflect it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

What we discuss here, and what we insert into the article are two different things - thank goodness! Mies, you have this touching idea that the Queen rules Australia. It is one widely held, but it is simply untrue. The 1931 and 1975 examples demonstrate this. If you can find an example of the monarch exercising power within Australia - apart from doing what she's told when appointing the Governor-General - please share. If you had been in Australia over the past year, you would have been aware of the community outrage over Abbott's monarchist views. If he hadn't made Prince Phillip a Knight in the Order of Australia, very likely he'd still be Prime Minister. But the Liberal Party decided that they couldn't continue with a leader so out of touch with the voters. The monarchy is on the way out here, and accepting reality is generally seen as a useful strategy. --Pete (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I hope Jack Upland finds your, er, shall we say inconsistency? equally amusing. Worthy of a knowing smirk, at least. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes it seems like a parody.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Paul Kelly's book (mentioned above) includes facsimiles of the documents relevant to the 1975 dismissal of Gough Whitlam. It is worth noting that Kerr's instrument of dismissal, his statement of reasons, and his proclamation under s57 (as read out by David Smith on the steps of Old Parliament House) contain no reference to the Queen. Nothing. Kerr does not identify as the Queen's representative, nor does he say he used the Queen's powers. Nothing whatsoever. Whitlam was not dismissed in the Queen's name. Whitlam, however, seemed to share your view that the Queen could do something, for he and his Speaker wrote to the Queen multiple times. And the Queen replied that she was unable to do anything. That's the reality. --Pete (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

"... no reference to the Queen. Nothing.", Pete? - well, there were the final words of the proclamation read out by David Smith: "God Save the Queen", which caused Whitlam to utter probably the most famous statement of his whole life: "Well may we say God save the Queen, because nothing will save the Governor-General". But yes, apart from that, there was nothing in Kerr's documents that say he was acting in the Queen's name. And I think it's very curious that Kelly and Bramston chose The Dismissal: In the Queen's Name as the title of their new book. I've just finished reading it, and nowhere does it say that Kerr was doing the Queen's bidding or acting as he believed she would have, or anything remotely like that. The opposite was undoubtedly true. Kerr definitely had the constitutional power to do what he did; the Queen most certainly did not; and even if she had, it's most unlikely she would ever, ever have chosen Kerr's solution. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I wondered who would bite. That's the only mention of the Queen, and it seems to be a formulaic utterance to mark the close of an official proclamation, rather than having any actual significance. Odd that it should be remembered as the defining moment of the drama. A similar proclamation had been read out by the same person in the same place with the same wording prior to the 1974 double dissolution election, and nowt gave a bugger. Whitlam said "Nothing will save the Governor-General," and he was wrong there. The Governor-General continued in office, Whitlam never climbed back into the big chair, and in due course, Sir Zelman Cowan succeeded Sir John Kerr. The ALP looks to have had the wrong end of the stick all the way through.

The really interesting part is described in Appendix A, concerning Kerr's correspondence with the Queen, apparently sealed until 2027, and only to be released with special approval. Paul Kelly is likely counting his remaining years and wondering if he will ever get to see these documents and write yet another book on the thing. --Pete (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The Queen would have certainly acted differently if she had had the power to intervene. She would have warned Whitlam of her intention, if she had formed one. Kerr was hamstrung by the near certainty that if Whitlam had gotten wind of his intention, he would have advised the Queen to sack Kerr. She would have delayed, but would ultimately have complied. Not that this would have resolved the political crisis, of course. --Pete (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Whitlam would probably have had Kerr sacked had he known his thinking. But so what? Kerr's overriding concern should have been ensuring the continuance of stable government, NOT whether or not he personally would keep his job in the washup. He always advanced the latter as the most important consideration in deciding to consult with Barwick, Mason, Fraser but not Whitlam. How statesmanlike and un-self serving of him. Not. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. Kerr, I think, was justified in formulating a way to resolve the crisis facing the nation. Supply had already run out in some votes, and it appeared that the only sure way through was to hold a fresh election – which was exactly what Fraser wanted – and of course there were various timetables in play. I also think that he could have waited a bit longer here. If the crisis was so extraordinary, then holidays such as Christmas should not have influenced timings for possible elections. Where Kerr erred most was in not informing Whitlam, who after all was running the government, and should have been kept informed so as to be able to do his job effectively. Whitlam was ambushed. Maybe he should have been more cautious; ex-cop Bill Hayden tried to warn him that Kerr was up to something, but Whitlam didn't listen.

I think Whitlam would have attempted to have Kerr dismissed. This would have brought the Queen into play, which is where we return to relevance. She would have delayed, according to the protocol arranged beforehand, and insisted on written advice, which would have taken some time to arrive in London. Kerr would have been informed and have had a day or two while she considered the request, and in that time he could have openly consulted with all parties.

If we ask, who had the ultimate power here, it is hard to answer. It is a round-robin. Kerr could dismiss Whitlam, but couldn't do anything about the Queen. The Queen could dismiss Kerr, but couldn't do anything about Whitlam. Whitlam could insist the Queen dismiss Kerr, but he couldn't do anything about the Queen. It seems clear that Whitlam and the ALP considered the Queen had the ultimate authority, whereas Fraser identified Kerr as the only one who could act, and his view turned out to be correct; the Queen wasn't going to intervene. This is where the powers question is important in identifying the dispute about which this article centres. Some think the Queen had the power to intervene directly, others do not. --Pete (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Jack, if you want to nominate this article for deletion? no probs with me. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a nomination would be successful.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Larissa Behrendt

I wonder whether the quote from Behrendt serves any purpose. The article states, "For republicans, the issue has a symbolic element" and quotes Behrendt: "the symbolism would be more powerful if that position of head of state was not the Queen of England's [sic] representative but the president of Australia". She's implying that the GG as the head of state. This could just be sloppy phrasing, like "Queen of England". But, in any case, the issue of symbolic importance for her is the GG as the Queen's representative, not as head of state (which she apparently agrees with).--Jack Upland (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia definition regarding Australia's 'Head of State'

Head of State

According to the Modern Reference Encyclopaedia Illustrated, published by the Melbourne Herald (1939s?): 'Governor General and Governors', p.1126.,

The titular head of the State is the Governor generally nominated by the Government of Great Britain, but once chosen in the case of Queensland within the State by the State Government. The head of the Commonwealth [of Australia] and the chief channel of communication with the imperial authorities is the Governor-General, whose chief official residence is at Canberra, the Federal Capital.

The head-of-state of each Australian State is the State Governor, and the head-of-state of Australia if the Governor-General.

Australia presently has numerous 'head-of-states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.96.187 (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If this is the same book http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/9904444?selectedversion=NBD10095641 it was published in 1939 (here published by the Adelaide Advertiser) and would appear to be a good source to use.Gazzster (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This information is obviously out of date. And if I understand the quotation correctly, it does not use the term "head of state". The "head of the State" is different. What does the encyclopaedia say about the King? The crux of this dispute is that some say that it is the GG, not the monarch, who is "head of state". Any use of this source must address this if it is relevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"Out of date"? Is there an expiry date for information on Wikipedia? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If someone could find the article, the reference sources for it would be useful.Gazzster (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be a valid source to describe the situation in 1939. But I object to it being taken out of context, misquoted, and used in a contemporary debate.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It could be used to illustrate the history of the debate perhaps, and this entry certainly covers that. And who says anyone is going to misquote it?Gazzster (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It's already being misquoted: "head of the State" (i.e., Queensland etc) is different from "head of state" in the terms of this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Monarchist POV article

I have checked the history of this article, and it is written by two monarchists non-Australians. It's based on one book by David Smith monarchist writing during the republican debate. It was seen as advantageous for monarchists, because the Republicans slogan was an "Australian as Head of State". As far as the Australian government, the Governor-General and the Queen, whenever they are asked: the Queen is Head of State. It's only because it's rather unimportant that some officials get confused about it. It's clear this article is original research. It's an attempt to extend the laundry list of unimportant things outlined in the David Smith's book. "Divided Community" in particular a nonsense heading. Travelmite (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The official government position is carefully whitewashed, because of unintended wording in an Electoral Commission of Australia and New Zealand factsheet about different election systems. I will write to them tomorrow to fix it. I am having a great deal of trouble editing this article, because it's full of POV material. The second paragraph says "The disagreement has continued for decades, usually, though not always ... ". This is just trying to edit nonsense. Travelmite (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

User Skyring has reverted these edits, claiming that I have not discussed them on the talk page. My concerns are reflected in the following previous discussion. Note that Skyring may appear as "Pete" in the discussion: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Government_of_Australia/Archive_6#Vote_on_contents_of_Government_of_Australia It seems that there no point in continuing to edit here. That Government of Australia page now says "the role of head of state of Australia is divided between two people", despite the objections of every other knowledgeable editor. Travelmite (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Bold, Revert, Discuss applies here. Your edit was bold, which is not in itself a bad thing, but considering the amount of contentious attention this article has had over many years, making such large changes is going to be disruptive, and it's best to discuss these issues here before deciding on any fresh consensus. The article itself is not a monarchist/republican issue, it is about the varying identifications of the Australian head of state over the years. It is not a matter with a simple answer, although different editors may be convinced of their own definitive opinion . --Pete (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll let others decide on whether there's a monarchist PoV slant to this article. Personally, I'd rather the article deleted & Elizabeth II shown as Australia's head of state (undisputed) throughout Wikipedia. But, it's not up to me. What is or will be? is out of my hands. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I feel for you. Your name comes up in the histories repeatedly fighting for what's right for years. How many thousands of hours they've wasted of your life. You're a hero! Travelmite (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, Travelmite, the top of this page mentions that the article is rated C Class, so that Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems. per Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment, but which two editors do you claim are "monarchist non-Australians" who have written it? I do not see, from a practical editing and encyclopedic npov that, in the context,--

the role of head of state of Australia is divided between two people, the Queen of Australia and the Governor-General of Australia, who is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia. Though in many respects the Governor-General is the Queen's representative, and exercises various constitutional powers in her name, they are also independently vested with many important powers by the Constitution

--is other than an acceptable way of describing the factual position for readers. If you have more uptodate information or better sources, please discuss here. One thing is certain: "It is not a matter with a simple answer", as Pete remarks. Qexigator (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia system is allowing pet beliefs to get through. None of the sources support this notion of a dispute except for some minor monarchist-republican debate in the late 1990's. If it was just that, no problem. But the government position is clear. The Queen's position is clear. The academic position is clear, in that they reasonably distinguish between de jure and de facto roles. But the summaries makes a mountain out of few loosely worded statements. "Erratic" Kevin Rudd never made a definitive statement that the GG was Head of State, as his spokesperson made clear later. But our PM's are written up as "erratic", because they disagree with Skyring. The history shows past editors argued until Skyring was banned from Wikipedia. After the bad was lifted, he started this article. So I'm saying, that it does not matter. In putting this article together, there is defiance of the Wikipedia community. Readers should not have faith that this article can be corrected. What I can do is call the ECANZ to fix their factsheet. Travelmite (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, perhaps you could park your own opinions at the door? If you think that any position is clear, you are misinformed. Perhaps you could read back through the archives of this talk page, and perhaps you could remind yourself that we are reliant on sources. You may believe something strongly, but you cannot state your belief here. You must find someone else who stated it in a reliable source. Perhaps the article's title is confusing you? "Dispute" may be implying more conflict than is actually the case. But, as somebody who has met, listened to, and read the works of many of the various academics, historians, politicians and so on since the mid-90s, I can assure you that there are various positions, strongly and widely held. --Pete (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree this article was written with a bias towards saying the Governor-General is the head of state. Legal experts are nearly unanimous in saying the Queen is the head of state, but this was ignored by the article until I edited it recently. Colin Howard, Owen Hughes, and Malcolm Turnbull were quoted selectively in order to support this distortion.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, Jack. This article doesn't attempt to find an answer to the question. It documents the positions, and it is clear that there is a diversity of opinion. You might like to rewrite the Religion article to downplay diversity and lean towards the one true god(s) as you see it. Let us know how you get on there, will ya? --Pete (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the only "god" round here is Pete Skyring. There isn't a diversity of opinion. As George Winterton said (quoted previously), "the great preponderance of informed commentary" says that the Queen is head of state.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, thanks, Jack. You should tell my wife that. George Winterton's opinion is one of many diverse examples, all well sourced here. At least until people come along and remove the sources they don't like. --Pete (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I was mistaken about two non-Australians. One is likely an Australian. Apologies for making that assumption. Travelmite (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Jack, those edits improved the article. Qexigator (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

AfD?

I suspect an AfD wouldn't succeed, but having that debate seems to be a logical conclusion to many debates on this page. There doesn't seem any point in continuing endless arguments that draw into question the entire basis of this article. If it was deleted, any relevant, well-sourced opinions on the issue could be merged to articles about the republic referendum, the governor-general, or the monarchy of Australia. I'm prepared to start one, but what do other people think?--Jack Upland (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

As remarked above, "the point of this article" (per Pete (23:22, 24 January 2011)[5]) is to document the fact that there is a disagreement in whom Australians see as head of state". Is the editing consistent with that? Qexigator (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a fringe theory, and this article puts the case for that theory. The evidence is alleged inconsistencies, plus reinterpreting the many powers given to the GG. David Smith assembles the theory in his book, and it became a minor-talking point for some monarchists during the 1998 republic debate. Outside that context, nobody took up the theory, and the government clarified it's position after the referendum was lost. It also fails to meet notability guidelines, as it was at best of short-term interest, a insignificant angle in one political event. Based on the history, Skyring will continue to advocate Smith's position indefinitely, long after we are frustrated to tears by it. Travelmite (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not advocate Smith's position. Indeed, I disagree with many of his opinions. He is a staunch monarchist, after all, and I think it is high time we removed the monarch from our affairs. Nor am I of the opinion that the Governor-General is the head of state. What is clear is that Smith's view that the Governor-General is the head of state is one shared by many prominent Australians, and that there is thereby a diversity of opinion within the community. If major national and metropolitan news outlets such as the ABC, the Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian routinely describe the Governor-General as head of state (and also routinely describe the Queen likewise) then the dispute is hardly "fringe theory". It is mainstream. It is notable. --Pete (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, you cannot take the odd off-the-cuff phrase and contort that into an opinion or government policy - especially when if later asked about it they clarified back to the usual position. Only Smith says outright that GG is HoS. If you're not advocating Smith's position, then this article is original research. Travelmite (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. You seem not to have understood the article or read many of the sources, and your concluding statement is just plain bizarre. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I've been opposed to the existance of this article, ever since it was created. So, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, that I would support this article's deletion. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Your participation in previous efforts along those lines noted. I refer you to the information boxes heading this talk page. Based on the level of interest amongst the community of editors interested in Australian politics, I think is an AfD is unlikely to succeed, and that we'd be wasting time better spent on other endeavours. --Pete (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It's best we allow others to decide, if they wish to hold an AfD or not. As I mentioned earlier, the fate of the article isn't up to me. It's up to the entire Wiki-community. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I must point out that above, Skyring presents GG Zelman Cowen talking of "his five years as Australia’s head of state" [6], but I've discovered it was a journalist who wrote that in a biographical piece. He presented it to us as the "Governor-General's view" yet within that article, Cowen is never even quoted saying "Head of State". Check for yourself. Upgrading a minor journalist's wordage to a governor-general's view is an unacceptable misrepresentation of source material. Another source error is "72. Canberra Times Editorial 1977" which actually points to a David Smith online article. How many other sources misrepresent in this fashion? Travelmite (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you are wandering from the point at hand, but let me respond, please. The quote is: Asked about his personal highlight from the past 90 years, Sir Zelman told The AJN it was undoubtedly his five years as Australia’s head of state. I think we may safely assume that when a journalist says "Z told Y A" or "Z said B", he is reporting the statements of Z, not Y or any other person. Link 72 does indeed point to a paper by David Smith, but the reference is to the Canberra Times editorial of 8 December 1977, as per footnote 5 in that speech. Would you feel happier if we just used a newspaper cite to the print edition? I am sure that the paper in question is stored on microfiche in the National Library and may be checked as per any other print source. The benefit of pointing to the paper is that several quotes are gathered in one place from various media outlets. --Pete (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. This answer can be used as argument for proceeding with a deletion Travelmite (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

At the moment, I am for deleting the article, but not all the reasons have been explored. Not sure yet what parts could be salvaged. Travelmite (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I would let the version now current (13:06, 13 February) [7] stand, while open to further improvement in the ususal way Qexigator (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It's up to you folks, as to whether or not the article remains or gets deleted. Furthermore, it's (I assume) up to you all 'collectively', as to what gets put in or taken out of the article. As long as no single editor has the final say, on any of these concerns? then that's cool :) GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

We work together, and as we see in this great enterprise, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Discussion has a way of uncovering the truth, if approached with good will and an open mind. --Pete (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Be sure that none of you fall into WP:OWN territory. Such a pitfall can happen to those with the best of intentions. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

How this article is used

Essentially, this article is used as a wedge in every article touching the Head of State issue. The repeated words throughout wikipedia are: "There is an ongoing debate in Australia and, to a lesser extent, in Canada as to which officeholder—the monarch, the governor-general, or both—can be considered the head of state". This article exists to justify a campaign across Wikipedia to treat Australia as an exception, and the only source is one controversial book from someone who stands to benefit from that. Yet, there is no ongoing debate and it has nothing to do with republicans vs monarchists - even monarchist.org.au says the Queen is Head of State. It's a false issue. Travelmite (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Broadly agree: ...no ongoing debate and it has nothing to do with republicans vs monarchists...a false issue" (per Kirby and D.Smith). As shown above and in discussion from Archive 1 onward, recurring attempts to rectify, in one way or another, have been deflected (eg, the "title of the article may be the problem... I was there in the Press Gallery ...rare that a peaceful, stable nation is unsure or divided in its view on the identity of its own head of state, and that is the notability of the article". Qexigator (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Travelmite , I'm puzzled as to why you think that the only source is one book. There are 83 sources listed in addition to the book. They show that various members of the community from the Prime Minister down have all stated that the Governor-General is the head of state, as well as many upholding the more conventional view. The discussion is indeed ongoing, and I supplied sources in discussion above, dating to this month. Perhaps you could read the article, and check the sources, rather than doggedly maintain they don't exist? --Pete (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

There are not 83 sources showing a debate or dispute. Most of the sources have no bearing on it. A few sources clearly state the Queen is Head of State. Then there are some quotes out-of-context, that refer to the Governor-General (as the Queen's representative) doing Head of State stuff, because the Governor-General is the Queen's representative. Travelmite (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. You said above that the only source is one controversial book, and I thought maybe you had missed the 83 other sources. So we can agree that the article is well-sourced. Many of the sources are of prominent Australians expressing their opinion. Prime Ministers, a Governor-General, academics and political figures, countless journalists. Incidentally, that Governor-General's view is worth repeating here:

Asked about his personal highlight from the past 90 years, Sir Zelman told The AJN it was undoubtedly his five years as Australia’s head of state.

Some of the sources, as you say, support the view that the Queen is the head of state, and others support the view that the Governor-General is the head of state. Two things are crystal clear: (a) there is a diversity of opinion and (b) there is no definitive statement to be found. We include among our sources several summarising the diverse views, such as the Research Paper titled Who is the Australian Head of State? from the Parliamentary Library, which gives equal space to both views. If there were any sort of irrefutable definition of Australia's head of state, then there would be no dispute. --Pete (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The research Paper makes no mention of a dispute, and says the opposite:- that people think the Queen is Head of State. Zelman is not discussing a dispute either. Travelmite (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The research paper dates from 1995 and refers to the "current republic debate". I think it is undeniable that the issue was raised (as a "distraction" in Kirby's words) in the republic debate. To my mind, it is valid to mention this issue in the Australian republic referendum, 1999 article. As pointed out below (in AfD), the description of the GG has head of state was made by the journalist, not by Cowen. Cowen's considered view is that the Queen is head of state, expressed in the 2015 journal article by Donald Markwell, as documented here under "Scholarly Sources". This has been an ongoing issue with the article: tendentious editing and cherry-picking sources. Previously, Pete was continuously citing George Winterton to support his views. However, when I checked, I found that Winterton was clearly of the view that the Queen is head of state. Similarly, as documented in the archives, when I checked the citations of Malcolm Turnbull, Owen Hughes, and Colin Howard against the sources, I found that they were being selectively quoted to bolster the argument that the GG was head of state. Much of this article has been constructed by trawling through sources to find instances which support, or seem to support, this fringe theory, and ignoring the abundance of legal scholars and other reliable, authoritative sources which say the opposite. As pointed out several times, a lot of these instances are cases of sloppy phrasing, slips of the tongue, inconsistencies, or comments that in context are not very relevant to this issue. The only sustained arguments to support this issue have been put by David Smith and David Flint of Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy. They have been rejected by leading monarchist and former High Court judge, Michael Kirby, and by the Monarchist League.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hardly. The republic debate of the 1990s stemmed from Paul Keating's speech in Parliament on 7 June 1995. He made much use of the phrase "Australia’s Head of State should be an Australian". Then Opposition Leader John Howard made a speech in reply the following night when in relation to the matter of head of state, he described the careers of four Australian Governors-General. Sir David Smith's speech in the Senate Occasional Lecture series[8] was given in November 1995, where he responded to Keating's speech and pointed out the errors in Keating's argument, by highlighting the Governor-General's head of state role. Keating gained some notoriety by claiming that the Australian Constitution was drafted in and imposed on Australia by the British Foreign Office[9], so his constitutional knowledge was worthy of correction from time to time. Malcolm Turnbull's leadership of the "Yes" campaign in the subsequent referendum was centred around the slogan of "A Mate for Head of State", and the official Yes case contained sentences such as "As it stands today, no Australian, no matter how talented they are or how hard they work will ever be Australia’s Head of State." and "Becoming a Republic simply means having an Australian as Head of State instead of the Queen. It’s time to have our own Head of State."[10]

Far from being a fringe distraction, the identity of the head of state was a central issue of the campaign!

Re "cherry-picking". Jack, I am sorry if you confuse Professor George Winterton's views on the executive power with his views on the Queen. Both are pertinent. --Pete (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

On the Zelman Cowen interview mentioned, in which the journalist quoted him, saying, "Asked about his personal highlight from the past 90 years, Sir Zelman told The AJN it was undoubtedly his five years as Australia’s head of state." The tone of the interview is overwhelmingly positive, if not fawning. It is beyond belief that the interviewer, knowing that not only Cowen but many of his friends and relatives would read the story, would deliberately and grossly misquote her highly-regarded subject. What possible advantage could be gained, compared to the downside of a devastating impact on one's journalistic career? --Pete (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed Travelmite, eventually this article will be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Pete, your paragraph about Keating etc, just confirms my point. This issue arose in the lead-up to 1999 referendum. Thanks for documenting that. The republicans made much of the issue of an Australian being able to be head of state, including the infamous "Give an Australian the head job". David Smith and some other monarchists countered with the line that the GG was the head of state. This should be included in referendum article because as you said it was a central issue of the campaign. The republicans appeal to nationalism was derailed, in part, by this "distraction" (to quote the monarchist Kirby) that some monarchists raised.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

This article was originally part of another one, but was seen as a distraction from that. You want to reverse the process, perhaps?

So you see this dispute as an important part of the defeat of the republic referendum. Well, that's okay then. --Pete (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I think Kirby summed it up well in the extract I quoted. The republicans were divided about the model, and the monarchists brought up a number of "false issues", including this "distraction". Clearly, if there was a pre-existing intellectual dispute, the republicans were unaware of it. As you demonstrated, the republican campaign from Keating onwards took it for granted the Queen was head of state. Turnbull also in The Reluctant Republic put the same argument. Smith and Flint then counteracted. According to Kirby, Howard eventually admitted the Queen was head of state. I would say that this could be dealt with in a paragraph on the referendum page (which seems rather undeveloped). The problem with this page is that it generalises from that argument, and amalgmates it with instances where people have simply mistakenly said the GG is head of state.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Confirmation bias

This article has been stable for some years, despite a great deal of attention from various editors, some of whom might be regarded (by others, of course) as having fairly strong opinions. The subject and the sources were discussed at length, compromises were reached and while nobody got exactly what they wanted, wikiproces was followed and the article emerged as a useful resource of an interesting aspect of Australian political culture.

What I'm seeing over the past few days is a lot of talking, but not a great deal of communication, it seems. I'm putting this down to the phenomenon of confirmation bias, where a person is inclined to see evidence favouring their opinion in a favourable light and evidence opposing it in a negative fashion. This is manifest by descriptions of sources supporting one of the two views here as being "cases of sloppy phrasing, slips of the tongue, inconsistencies, or comments that in context are not very relevant to this issue". Of course the same person characterises sources supporting his own views as being definitive, irrefutable, unquestionable.

This is blinkered thinking. If a person makes a statement in a reliable source, it should be accepted as being accurate, unless there is some good reason to doubt it. Not liking what the person has to say is not a good reason.

The simple fact of the matter is that Australian law does not define the identity of the head of state. It is therefore a matter of opinion, and one may have solid reasons for believing the Queen is the head of state, and another might have equally good reasons for believing that the Governor-General is the head of state. The Parliamentary Library Research note referred to earlier puts the position in an even-handed fashion, and nothing much has changed in the twenty odd years since then.

If a public figure expresses an opinion, who are we to say that they are wrong? If there is no definitive answer, and trust me, the years of discussion over this issue here and in other articles would surely have uncovered a definitive source, then it is folly to say that one view or the other must be correct. It is like arguing over the best icecream flavour (Cherry Garcia, by the way). Personal opinions of editors have no part in a good encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you raise the issue of bias, looking through the archive history, I noticed that you made a comment about having duties at the GG's House in Canberra. You specifically said "I've been out there a few times as part of my official duties" on 03:13, 22 January 2011 [11]. When asked about those duties, it seems you overlooked the question. As you have raised the issue of bias, perhaps it is appropriate that you could you answer that question: what were your duties and for whom did you undertake them? Travelmite (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Glad you asked! My duties involved transport, and I performed them for the local taxi company. Cheers! --Pete (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. That's certainly not a problem. I have one question, which I am sure you can clear up just as easily, but I want to check first that I am asking as politely and respectfully as possible before I ask it, and I need to go out now. Travelmite (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a legal question, and I think an article on the topic is a law journal is a more reliable source for Zelman Cowen's views than a profile in the Australian Jewish News. I think taking the contrary view is bias.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

This article isn't about making a judgement. It is about providing information on the dispute. The fact that an ex-Governor-General referred to himself as having been head of state is not any definitive judgement on the question. It is evidence that there is a question and that various answers have been given. Some editors would probably like to turn the Religion article into one where a winner is proclaimed: theirs. I suggest editors treat all reliable sources as such, rather than attempt to bias the article to one side or another. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't quite put my finger on it. But, over the years, I've found (through observation) that every time an edit was introduced to this article (by anyone), which directly or indirectly pointed towards the monarch being head of state? that edit would meet resistance. Now, am I paranoid? or is this situation constantly re-occurring on this article. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

As we can see, about half the article is people saying the Queen is head of state. --Pete (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm seeing growing frustration from a few editors here, concerning this article's direction and purpose.GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

AfD continued and ArbCom

Original arbcom ruling: [12]

A summary of the AfD is that Jack Upland, GoodDay and myself support it being proposed for deletion. Pete and Qexigator support continuing the article, with Qex making some improvements in recent days. Arguments for it's retention are that:

1. the term Head of State is continues to be used variously across media
2. a dispute must exist because, there are alternative cases written
3. written law does hold a definitive answer
4. there is useful information and references in the article
5. people have personal opinions/bias
6. it has existed for a while

Arguments for it's removal (sofar) include:

1. low notability
2. the government has a clear position on this issue
3. in most cases, it seems to be some confusion rather than dispute
4. it's an extension of one author's POV - David Smith
5. elements of original research
6. incorrect use of source material
7. the article is linked and summarised in other articles in a misleading fashion
8. it's a fringe theory Travelmite (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems that there are Wikipedia Arbitration Rulings from 2005 [13] which specifically deal with Skyring and his Head of State "dispute". If I understand correctly, after months and months of discussion, the Arbitration committee made unanimous decisions about how to proceed. This article is Wikipedia:Content_forking as Skyring began "the article with text lifted from Government of Australia" and in apparent violation of those rulings. I can't find anything to suggest that those lengthy deliberations on consensus are not still valid. I hope Skyring can explain. Also, I want to get some help on this. Travelmite (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: As said above, I would let the version current at 13:06, 13 February stand, while looking forward to further acceptable edits by others such as Travelmite and Jack Upland. Please do not suppose that I concur with points listed 1 to 6 as arguments for retention. I do not see points 1 to 8 as arguments for removal, unless supported by explicit, good and sufficient reasoning. Qexigator (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

OK and thanks. You are right that would need to be done. But am looking at the arbitration ruling. Not only has that work been extensively done, the ruling they made sets a precedent for us to follow. Travelmite (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Travelmite, are you in a position to explain how you see forking this article off from Government of Australia in 2011 violates a one year ArbCom ban imposed in 2005?

I urge all editors here to contemplate my dismal behaviour over a decade ago - which I heartily regret - and regard it as an example of how not to proceed now. I especially raise the issue of wikistalking, and WP:OUTING, Travelmite. --Pete (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

FWIW - Your RL identity hasn't been revealed, therefore there's no case for outing. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I dunno. His interest in my employment in the section above is a concern. His extensive trawling through my contributions likewise. I feel uncomfortable with a stranger sniffing through my dirty laundry of ten years ago, looking for dirt. --Pete (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

My own Arbcom past, has been brought up 3 or 4 times in the last 12 months alone. You, myself & other such editors, will always face more scrutiny then others. It's a burden we must carry. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see the comment about an Arbitration Ruling above. Firstly, can we get an independent person to check the ruling and what it means? If it is applicable, then how do we proceed OR do I just pass it to an admin? Within that ruling it seems to agree with "Adam Carr's position is that the Queen (of Australia) is head of state, despite most duties and power having been delegated to the Governor-General" Travelmite (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Travelmite. The ruling was in 2005. A one year ban was imposed, so commencing this article in 2011 is no breach. Adam Carr (who is no longer with us, alas) does not make decisions on who is a head of state. That is worked out at a higher level than Wikipedia. --Pete (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

At this stage, I'd rather get independent advice. Travelmite (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see much of a relevance of the ArbCom ruling (which does not reflect on content anyway) to this article, except to caution all editors that we should stick to what reliable sources report. Huon (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Travelmite's summary of pros and cons seems useful to me. I don't see the point of regurgitating arguments over and over. Most of those points have been made at great length, in great detail. If the cons are not arguments for deletion, they at least represent long-standing problems with the article that have been amply demonstrated. I would suggest that most of these problems are inherent in the article, and can't be eradicated by editing.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Huon for looking into this and I'll explain the relevance. I am asking about the ArbCom ruling [14] where it is reflecting on content, noting the 2.1 Preliminary Decision was about "persistent original research injection". It has a major section called "4. Final Decision" which has 4 Parts: Principles, Findings of Fact, Remedies and Enforcement. Remedies and Enforcement is past. Specifically, I am asking about "4.2 Findings of Fact", and the notion of a consensus. Within "Finding of Fact", there is section 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.2.9 on the excessive extent of debate, and section 4.2.2.7 which says "Adam Carr's position is that the Queen (of Australia) is head of state, despite most duties and power having been delegated to the Governor-General. Passed 6-0." This "finding of fact" is disputed by this article, and it has been removed from the original article on Government of Australia. Furthermore, there is a guideline called Wikipedia:Content_forking, specifically a POV fork, which seems to say an editor should not create a new article due to a consensus elsewhere that the subject is a POV. The consensus prior to the ArbCom ruling is on the talk page [15]. I am not asking for a summary decision, but to understand the meaning and currency of it; or at least to avoid a lengthy repeat of a dispute, which appears to have been decided to some extent. Perhaps I need to ask the people who arbitrated too. Travelmite (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I have asked 3 previous arbitrators to comment. Perhaps those of us involved should step back a few days. For the record, everyone has been civil here, so that's not an issue. Travelmite (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, this article disputes the finding of fact on Adam Carr's position? Somehow I doubt that the article discusses what Adam Carr thinks on the head of state. ArbCom did not decide that Adam Carr was right, and it does not adjudicate content disputes. Huon (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I am asking for help to understanding an ArbCom decision. Your answer begins with a question, as concludes as though I am presenting a theory, which you are being asked to make a decision about. The help I am asking for says "I am not asking for a summary decision, but to understand the meaning and currency of it" At this point, you're saying the "Finding of fact" section has no meaning, because Adam Carr is mentioned, as if saying US Roe vs Wade case affected only Roe. If you are not sure, that's okay. Travelmite (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The ArbCom decision describes both Adam Carr's and Skyring's (see 4.2.2.5) positions in the content dispute. It does not endorse either. As I said, ArbCom does not adjudicate content disputes, and you cannot conclude from an ArbCom decision which side in a content dispute is right or wrong. Huon (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again. Your answer focuses on what you think I am concluding, and that is a trial-and-error method of working out what happened. I agree that it describes all positions, but only Skyring had restrictions, with four distinct reasons given: 1) general ban on governance articles - 12 months 2) bad faith - 2 months 3) personal attacks - 1 months 6) uncivil - warning. All your saying that Arbcom banned Skyring from editing governance articles, had nothing to do with his position and desire of other editors to reach and implement a consensus. Why would AbCom restrict someone for their equally-valid understanding of an subject? How is that just? Please try to avoid saying what it's not. Try to say what it is. Travelmite (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I've asked at Village Pump an open ended question, which concerns this article. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I support what you are doing. There must be some civil way of avoiding a repeating cycle of attacks and bans. That would be madness. Travelmite (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Australian "independence"

I amended the claim of "full independence" to read: "Australia achieved almost full independence from the UK with the Australia Act 1986. However, Australia still does not choose its monarch: the monarch of Australia remains whoever is the monarch of the UK." and there was a reference to Australian Constitution covering clause 2.

This was immediately reverted by Pete/Skyring as "unsourced rubbish". If I were to revert the revert, I expect that this too would be reverted, so I'll talk.

My amendment wasn't unsourced: I provided a correct reference to Constitution covering clause 2, which is how Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) s 2 is known in Australia. If a reference to the Act as such would be preferred, though, I'd be happy with that.

Nor it is "rubbish" (civility - please). The effect of covering clause 2 is precisely as I said. Its most important effect is that Elizabeth Windsor is Queen of Australia - the "Queen" mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution - simply, owing to clause 2, because she is monarch of the UK. Australia had no voice in that, nor will it have a voice when (most likely) Charles becomes king of Australia upon becoming king of the UK.

It is surely wrong to say that a country has "full" independence if another country chooses the person who will be its head of state - or, on the other view, chooses the person who appoints its head of state.

Maybe the article doesn't need to refer to "independence" - I'd be content with that. But, of course, if the article doesn't survive, that won't matter. Wikiain (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I called it rubbish, because that's what it is. Those who've known me for a while will also know that I once shared your view and argued it here and elsewhere. The black letter law of the Constitution is quite clear and cannot be misunderstood.

However, it can be misinterpreted, and the High Court is quite clear that the clause now refers to the Queen of Australia, her heirs and successors according to law. That's Australian law, and there is no appeal from the High Court.

The High Court also said in Sue v Hill that Australia is an independent country. So it is.

Let me put it clearly. Wikipedia editors can make whatever interpretation they like about the Constitution. That doesn't make it the law. The High Court, on the other hand, they have the final say. --Pete (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikiain please excuse Pete's forceful (albeit ironic) revert. Yes, we are discussing the future of this article. Let's getting away from adversarial discussions, and just focus on how to achieve a lasting consensus. You're welcome to participate in the discussions. Travelmite (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Pete is very ironic. A paranoid person would think it was ironic. A sane person doesn't know what to think.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Edsum uncivil, perhaps, but revert not off the mark. Qexigator (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I maintain that covering clause 2 means exactly what I said it means: its letters refer, as blackly as can be, to "the sovereignty of the United Kingdom". The expression "Queen of Australia" does not occur in Sue v Hill and the later cases on who is a "subject of the Queen", at least up to Shaw (2003), leave a position of serious uncertainty about what McHugh J referred to in Patterson (2001) as a "mystical process" of "evolution".

I don't think that what Sue v Hill decided about independence is at all clear, either as to any particular view or as to whether any such view had a majority. There was a majority about "foreign power", but it was less clear whether "independence" was a necessary corollary and, if it was, what it amounted to. The best writing on this area is surely Anne Twomey, The Chameleon Crown (2006) - she argues that it is next to impossible to be definite about any aspect of the Australian Crown.

Anyway, I'll stop stirring in a broken teacup. Wikiain (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikiain, I once held the same view on the Queen of the UK in the Constitution. But I was persuaded otherwise here. It's a dead horse. The divisibility of the crown means that the UK no longer has any power over Australian affairs. The fact that the same person is monarch of both countries has no legal significance. The Australian Queen is advised by the Australian government on Australian affairs, and the British Queen is advised by the British QueenGovernment on British affairs. End of story. You are invited to search on "independent" and "independence" in the HC decision on "Sue v Hill". There is no room for doubt. --Pete (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The British Queen is advised by the British Queen? ;) GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It's been a long reign. She plays things close to her chest. --Pete (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle :) GoodDay (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikiain: OK, given that it is next to impossible to be definite about any aspect of the Australian Crown, it may be felt needlessly incivil to call part of the regal jewels a "broken teacup". Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, Quex - I hear that the beefeaters are on their way!

Pete, you are missing my point. I agree that the Queen of the UK is advised by British ministers and the Queen of Australia by Australian ministers. My point was that, owing to covering clause 2, Australia has no voice in who will be the Queen/King of Australia. Wikiain (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

No, you're missing my point. The High Court said the Queen of the Constitution is now the Queen of Australia and her heirs and successors according to law are determined by Australian law. For example, the bill to establish a republic (as defeated at the 1999 referendum) did not alter the covering clauses, including cc2. Because there was no need to. If we wanted to replace the Queen with Dame Edna, we could. We'd just need to pass a law, and Dame Edna would be the Queen's heir and successor according to law. --Pete (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Succession to the crown of England, Britain, UK has been a parliamentary title at least from the time of William and Mary, extending to the colonial period and after, and, as Pete remarks, this is so in Australia today. Qexigator (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Australia's independence is only an issue for the Republicanism page. Broadly speaking, Australia is able manage it's links with the Queen and the world. For all practical and legal purposes, Australia is independent, in the usual understanding of that word. It would be great to focus on the reality of our current situation. Travelmite (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Like Travelmite pointed out. It's likely best to close/end this discussion & get back to the Rfc etc. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)