text:
Governor-General of Australia

The governor-general of Australia is the representative of the monarch of Australia, currently King Charles III. They have many constitutional and ceremonial roles in the Australian political system, in which they act independently, not as monarch's delegate or agent. They also have a significant community role, through recognising meritorious individuals and groups, and representing the nation as a whole. The current governor-general is Sam Mostyn.

Significant functions of the governor-general include giving royal assent to bills passed by the houses of parliament, issuing writs for elections, exercising executive power on the advice of the Federal Executive Council, formally appointing government officials (including the prime minister, other ministers, judges and ambassadors), acting as commander-in-chief of the Australian Defence Force, and bestowing Australian honours. However, in almost all instances the governor-general only exercises de jure power in accordance with the principles of the Westminster system and responsible government. This requires them to remain politically neutral and to only act in accordance with Parliament (such as when selecting the prime minister and providing royal assent) or on the advice of ministers (when performing executive actions). However, in certain limited circumstances, the governor-general can act independently without or against formal advice by exercising reserve powers, most notably during the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. These situations are often controversial and the use of and continued existence of these powers remains highly debated.

In their ceremonial and community roles, the governor-general represents the nation as a whole. Domestically, this role entails attending services and commemorations, sponsoring community organisations and hosting events at one of the two official residences (Government House in Canberra and Admiralty House in Sydney). Internationally, the governor-general represents Australia by travelling to significant events and by performing and receiving state visits. The governor-general is supported by a staff (of 80 in 2018 ) headed by the official secretary to the governor-general of Australia.

The governor-general is selected by the prime minister, but formally appointed by the monarch of Australia on the prime minister's advice. Their term is not fixed, but they typically serve for five years. From Federation in 1901 until 1965, 11 out of the 15 governors-general were British aristocrats; they included six barons, two viscounts, two earls, and one prince. Since then, all governors-general have been Australian citizens. Two women have held the position of governor-general; Dame Quentin Bryce (2008–2014) and the incumbent Samantha Mostyn. None has been an Indigenous Australian.

Appointment

The governor-general is formally appointed by the monarch of Australia with a commission made under the authority of section 2 of the Constitution and regulated by letters patent issued by the monarch. When a new governor-general is to be appointed, the current prime minister recommends a name to the monarch, who by convention accepts that recommendation. Prior to the 1940s, the recommendation was made and decided by the Cabinet as a whole. The monarch then permits the recommendation to be publicly announced, usually several months before the end of the existing governor-general's term. After receiving their commission, the new governor-general takes an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the monarch and an oath or affirmation of office. These oaths are administered by the chief justice of Australia or another justice of the High Court. Traditionally, the ceremony takes place in the Senate chamber.

Tenure
The Constitution does not set a term of office, so a governor-general may continue to hold office for any agreed length of time. In recent decades the typical term of office has been five years. Some early governors-general were appointed to terms of just one year (Lord Tennyson) or two years (Lord Forster; later extended). At the end of this initial term, a commission may be extended for a short time, usually to avoid conflict with an election or during political difficulties.

Three governors-general have resigned their commission. The first governor-general, Lord Hopetoun, asked to be recalled to Britain in 1903 over a dispute about funding for the post. Sir John Kerr resigned in 1977, with his official reason being his decision to accept the position of Australian ambassador to UNESCO in Paris, a post which ultimately he did not take up, but the resignation also being motivated by the 1975 constitutional controversy. In 2003, ex-archbishop Peter Hollingworth voluntarily stood aside while controversial allegations against him were managed, and the letters patent of the office were amended to take account of this circumstance. He later stepped down over the church's handling of allegations of sexual abuse of boys, for which he apologised before the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2016. In 1961, Lord Dunrossil became the first and, to date, only governor-general to die while holding office.

A vacancy occurs on the resignation, death, or incapacity of the governor-general. A temporary vacancy occurs when the governor-general is overseas on official business representing Australia. A temporary vacancy also occurred in 2003 when Peter Hollingworth stood aside.

Section 4 of the Constitution allows the monarch to appoint an administrator to carry out the role of governor-general when there is a vacancy. By convention, the longest-serving state governor holds a dormant commission, allowing an assumption of office to commence whenever a vacancy occurs. In 1975, Labor prime minister Gough Whitlam advised the Queen that Sir Colin Hannah, then governor of Queensland, should have his dormant commission revoked for having made public and partisan anti-Whitlam government political statements, in violation of the convention that state governors and federal governors-general remain neutral and above politics.

Dismissal
A governor-general may be recalled or dismissed by the monarch before their term is complete. By convention, this may only be upon advice from the prime minister, who retains responsibility for selecting an immediate replacement or letting the vacancy provisions take effect. The constitutional crisis of 1975 raised the possibility of the prime minister and the governor-general attempting to dismiss each other at the same time. According to William McMahon, Harold Holt considered having Lord Casey dismissed from the governor-generalship, and went as far as to have the necessary documents drawn up. Casey had twice called McMahon into Yarralumla to give him a "dressing down" over his poor relationship with deputy prime minister John McEwen, which he believed was affecting the government. Holt believed that this was an improper use of his authority, but no further action was taken.

Constitutional role
The governor-general has a key role in performing constitutional duties in all branches of government.

Role in the Australian Parliament
The Constitution defines the Parliament of the Commonwealth as consisting of the monarch, the Senate and the House of Representatives. However, the monarch's role is no more than titular, with the governor-general responsible under the Constitution for most of the functions undertaken by the monarch in regard to the UK parliament. These include the power to summon, dissolve and prorogue the Parliament, to issue writs for lower house elections, to convene a joint sitting, as well as the power to give royal assent to bills in the monarch's name.

The governor-general also has a ceremonial role in swearing in and accepting the resignations of members of Parliament. All members must make an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the King in the presence of the governor-general or someone appointed by them before they take their seats. On the day parliament opens, the governor-general makes a speech in the Senate (similar to the King's Speech in the UK), entirely written by the government, explaining the government's proposed legislative program.

One of the most significant powers of the governor-general is the power to grant royal assent in the King's name. This assent gives bills that have been passed by the houses of parliament the force of law, with effect either 28 days after being signed, on a date to be fixed later by proclamation or otherwise as provided in the act. The government does not formally advise the governor-general to grant assent, but it is expected that they will act in accordance with the democratically elected houses of Parliament and assent has never been refused.

Apart from assenting to a bill, the governor-general can also reserve a bill for the King's pleasure, that is allow the monarch to give royal assent personally to a proposed bill. When the governor-general acted as a representative of the British government, this provision allowed for the governor-general to refer a bill back to the British government for review, which would then advise the monarch whether or not to grant assent. The British government could also advise the monarch to disallow a law passed within the last two years, which would annul the law on the governor-general's proclamation or message to the houses. However, since the assumption of full sovereignty and the emergence of an independent Crown of Australia, the British government no longer has these powers and the reservation power has only occasionally been used for bills that affect the monarch personally, such as the Royal Styles and Titles Act (1953 and 1973) and other bills of national significance such as the Flags Act 1953 and the Australia Act 1986.

Finally, the governor-general can refer a bill back to the houses with suggested changes. This has only happened when once passed, the government has realised a bill requires further amendment and requests the governor-general return the bill to the house.

Role in executive government

Under the Constitution, the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the monarch, but is exercisable by the governor-general. However, such power is only exercised on the advice of ministers in accordance with the principles of responsible government. This occurs formally through the Federal Executive Council, a body of all current (and technically former) ministers that advises the governor-general. Such advice is generally the result of decisions already made in Cabinet, the de facto highest executive body in Australia. While some provisions in the Constitution refer the "Governor-General" and others to the "Governor-General in Council", this does not mean that there is in element of discretion in the former; this distinction merely indicates that that the former powers were those that were historically classified as belonging to the prerogative of the monarch alone.

Many executive powers are also bestowed on the governor-general by statute. This allows the government of the day (acting through the governor-general) to perform certain acts that would otherwise require legislation. Such provision are often made where legislating may be too slow, as for the declaration of emergencies. An example this was the declaration on the advice of the health minister of a human biosecurity emergency under the Biosecurity Act 2015 in March 2020, due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Reserve powers

The reserve powers are those powers that the governor-general may exercise independently, that is in the absence of or against ministerial advice. While most of these powers are listed in the Constitution, the circumstances in which they can be used with discretion is not prescribed and is a matter of convention.

The reserve powers that are generally accepted are:
 * the discretion to select a prime minister if an election results in a parliament in which no party or coalition has a clear majority
 * the power to dismiss a prime minister that has lost the support of the House of Representatives
 * the power to refuse to dissolve the House of Representatives

The reserve powers that are the subject of greater debate are:

 * the power to refuse a double-dissolution
 * the discretion to select a prime minister following the dismissal of a prime minister that has lost the support of the House of Representatives
 * the power to dismiss a prime minister who is unable to obtain supply and refuses to resign or advise a dissolution
 * the power to dismiss a prime minister that has broken the law
 * the power to refuse royal assent

The most prominent use of the reserve powers occurred in the course of the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, in which governor-general Sir John Kerr dismissed the government of Gough Whitlam and appointed opposition leader Malcolm Fraser as a caretaker prime minister while an election was held. Kerr acted following the blocking of supply by the opposition controlled Senate, arguing that this gave him both the right and duty to dismiss the government when they did not resign or advise an election. The event remains one of the most highly debated and controversial in Australian political history.

Ceremonial role
In addition to the formal constitutional role, the governor-general has a representative and ceremonial role, though the extent and nature of that role has depended on the expectations of the time, the individual in office at the time, the wishes of the incumbent government, and the individual's reputation in the wider community. Governors-general generally become patrons of various charitable institutions, present honours and awards, host functions for various groups of people including ambassadors to and from other countries, and travel widely throughout Australia. Sir William Deane (governor-general 1996–2001) described one of his functions as being "Chief Mourner" at prominent funerals. In Commentaries on the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, Garran noted that, since the Australian executive is national in nature (being dependent on the nationally elected House of Representatives, rather than the Senate), "the Governor-General, as the official head of the Executive, does not in the smallest degree represent any federal element; if he represents anything he is the image and embodiment of national unity and the outward and visible representation of the Imperial relationship of the Commonwealth".

That role can become controversial, however, if the governor-general becomes unpopular with sections of the community. The public role adopted by Sir John Kerr was curtailed considerably after the constitutional crisis of 1975; Sir William Deane's public statements on political issues produced some hostility towards him; and some charities disassociated themselves from Peter Hollingworth after the issue of his management of sex abuse cases during his time as Anglican archbishop of Brisbane became a matter of controversy.

Diplomatic role

The governor-general makes state visits overseas on behalf of Australia, during which an administrator of the government is appointed. The right of governors-general to make state visits was confirmed at the 1926 Imperial Conference, as it was deemed not feasible for the sovereign to pay state visits on behalf of countries other than the United Kingdom. However, an Australian governor-general did not exercise that right until 1971, when Paul Hasluck visited New Zealand. Hasluck's successor John Kerr made state visits to eight countries, but Kerr's successor Zelman Cowen made only a single state visit – to Papua New Guinea – as he wished to concentrate on travelling within Australia. All subsequent governors-general have travelled widely while in office and made multiple state visits. Occasionally governors-general have made extended tours visiting multiple countries, notably in 2009 when Quentin Bryce visited nine African countries in 19 days.

The governor-general accredits (i.e. formally validates) Australia's ambassadors through sending a formal letter of credence (and a letter of recall at the end of a tenure) to heads of state and government and similarly formally receives foreign letters during credentials ceremonies for heads of mission on their arrival in Canberra. Before 1987, ambassador and high commisioner appointments were formally made by the monarch instead.

Military role

Under section 68 of the Constitution, the command-in-chief of Australia's military forces is "vested in the Governor‑General as the Queen's representative". Views on the effect of this section vary, from merely making the governor-general "in effect no more than a glorified Patron of the Defence Forces" to alternatively making the governor-general the ultimate head of military chain of command who may influence or deny the use of the military if it is to be used for domestic political ends. Ex-governor-general Sir Ninian Stephen stated that his view of the section was that it vests command of the military in the governor-general personally, but only to the extent that the power to give orders or call out the military does not require formal advice from the Federal Executive Council but instead the direct advice of the relevant minister. Other powers exist in the Defence Force Act 1903, such as the power to appoint the chief of the Defence Force, to call out the Defence Force, and declare a time of war, exercised as ordinary executive powers on advice. Additionally, all officers are appointed by the governor-general on behalf of the monarch with a personally signed commission.

In World War II, there was some ambiguity about whether the governor-general had the power to declare war, with it initially assumed by Robert Menzies that the declaration of war by the United Kingdom automatically applied to Australia as well as a part of the British Empire. However, in 1941 opinion had shifted and the Curtin government advised the governor-general to declare war on several Axis powers. However, it was still unclear whether the governor-general had the constitutional power to declare war, so in addition to requesting the assignment of powers by the monarch to the governor-general, the government also requested King George V make similar proclamations of war on Australia's behalf. No formal declarations of war have been made since World War II, although other declarations on the start and end of time of "active service" have been made in other conflicts.

The powers of command-in-chief are vested in the governor-general rather than the "Governor-General in Council", however this does not denote an element of personal discretion in their exercise. However, in 1970 governor-general Paul Hasluck refused prime minister John Gorton's request to authorise a Pacific Islands Regiment peacekeeping mission in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, on the grounds that cabinet had not been consulted. Gorton agreed to put the matter to his ministers, and a cabinet meeting agreed that troops should only be called out if requested by the territory's administrator; this did not occur. Defence minister Malcolm Fraser, who opposed the call out, was responsible for informing Hasluck of the prime minister's lack of consultation. The incident contributed to Fraser's resignation from cabinet in 1971 and Gorton's subsequent loss of the prime ministership.

Community role
The governor-general is generally invited to become patron of various charitable and service organisations. Historically the governor-general has also served as Chief Scout of Australia. The chief scout is nominated by the Scouting Association's National Executive Committee and is invited by the president of the Scout Association to accept the appointment. Bill Hayden declined the office on the grounds of his atheism, which was incompatible with the Scout Promise. He did however serve as the association's patron during his term of office.

Relationship with the monarch

While the governor-general is the monarch's representative, as provided by section 2 of the Constitution, the powers they exercise are solely granted by the Constitution. This was not always seen to be the case however, with section 2 also providing that the governor-general may exercise other powers, subject to the Constitution, that the monarch may assign them. Additionally, the initial letters patent of Queen Victoria purported to create and empower the office of governor-general, despite their assignment already in the Constitution. This was raised as early as 1901, by Quick and Garran in their authoritative commentary of the Constitution, noting that the governor-general of Australia was distinguished from other imperial governors-general by the fact that "[t]he principal and most important of his powers and functions, legislative as well as executive, are expressly conferred on him by the terms of the Constitution itself ... not by Royal authority, but by statutory authority". This view was also held by Andrew Inglis Clark, senior judge of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, who with W. Harrison Moore (a contributor to the first draft of the constitution put before the 1897 Adelaide Convention and professor of law at the University of Melbourne), postulating that the letters patent and the royal instructions issued by Queen Victoria were unnecessary "or even of doubtful legality".

Additionally, it was also previously believed that the monarch retained certain powers, such as the power to declare war, appoint diplomatic officers and to grant charters of incorporation and as such these powers were assigned separately to the governor-general under section 2. However, the current interpretation of the Constitution is that all royal prerogatives are exercisable by the governor-general under section 61 and in recognition of this, the vesting of additional powers ended in 1987. While separate letters-patent still exist for the governor-general, these merely provide for the appointment of administrator in the case of the governor-general's absence or incapacity and requires the governor-general to make an oath or affirmation of allegiance and one of office.

Certain provisions in the Constitution provide that the governor-general, specifically as the monarch's representative, is vested with the command in chief of the military and is able to exercise the executive power of the federal government.

Australian solicitor-general Maurice Byers stated in 1974: "The constitutional prescription is that executive power is exercisable by the governor-general although vested in the Queen. What is exercisable is original executive power: that is, the very thing vested in the Queen by section 61. And it is exercisable by the Queen's representative, not her delegate or agent."

The 1988 Constitutional Commission report explained: "the governor-general is in no sense a delegate of the Queen. The independence of the office is highlighted by changes which have been made in recent years to the Royal Instruments relating to it". The changes occurred in 1984 when Queen Victoria's letters patent and instructions were revoked and replaced with new letters patent, on prime minister Bob Hawke's advice, who stated that this would clarify the governor-general's position under the constitution.

This remains the case even when the sovereign is in the country: solicitor-general Kenneth Bailey, prior to the first tour of Australia by its reigning monarch in 1954, explained the position by saying: "the Constitution expressly vests in the Governor-General the power or duty to perform a number of the Crown's functions in the Legislature and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth... The executive power of the Commonwealth, by section 61 of the Constitution, is declared to be vested in the Queen. It is also, in the same section, declared to be 'exercisable' by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative. In the face of this provision, I feel it is difficult to contend that the Queen, even though present in Australia, may exercise in person functions of executive government which are specifically assigned by the constitution to the Governor-General."The monarch did not overturn the actions of governor-general Sir John Kerr in his dismissal of the prime ministership and government of Gough Whitlam during the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, with the Queen's private secretary arguing that the power to commission the prime minister was "clearly placed within the jurisdiction of the governor-general, and The Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution". In an address to the Sydney Institute, January 2007, in connection with that event, Sir David Smith, a retired official secretary to the governor-general of Australia who had been Kerr's official secretary in 1975, described the constitution as conferring the powers and functions of Australia's head of state on the governor-general in "his own right". He stated that the governor-general was more than a representative of the sovereign, explaining: "under section 2 of the Constitution the Governor-General is the Queen's representative and exercises certain royal prerogative powers and functions; under section 61 of the Constitution the Governor-General is the holder of a quite separate and independent office created, not by the Crown, but by the Constitution, and empowered to exercise, in his own right as Governor-General... all the powers and functions of Australia's head of state".

Privileges

Governors-general are entitled to various privileges by virtue of holding the office. These include the right to live in Government House (also known as Yarralumla ), or Admiralty House, Sydney the two official residences of the office-holder. For transportation, the governor-general has access to a Rolls-Royce Phantom VI limousine for ceremonial occasions or an armoured BMW 7 Series for ordinary official business. These cars fly the flag of the governor-general of Australia and display St. Edward's Crown instead of number plates. Originally, two Phantoms were available after being purchased in the 1970s to be used for royal tours. One of these cars was sold in 1995 to a Sydney doctor, having previously carried the Queen during a royal tour and later being pelted with eggs when it carried Sir John Kerr following the Dismissal in 1975. The car was then entered into the almost 15,000 km long Peking to Paris rally, where it became known as "Lizzie’s Taxi" and secured fourth place. The car is now owned by Lindsay Fox and is often on display as a part of the Fox Classic Car Collection at Queens Warehouse, Melbourne.

Salary
The salary of the governor-general was initially set by the Constitution, which fixed an annual amount of A£10,000 until the parliament decided otherwise. The Constitution also provides that the salary of the governor-general cannot be changed during their term of office. Their pay is now set by Governor-General Act 1974, which has been amended on each new commission to set the governor-general's salary to an amount slightly higher than the average salary of the chief justice of the High Court over the next five years. Since 1995, this has been reduced to take into account any existing pension the incoming governor-general currently receives. This provision led to the salary increase of current governor-general Samantha Mostyn (of $495,000 to $709,017) being significantly greater than other new governors-general, as unlike previous governor-general David Hurley, she does not receive a military pension.

The governor-general also receive a generous pension. Until 2001, governors-general did not pay income tax on their salary; this was changed after Elizabeth II agreed to pay tax.

Official dress

Governors-general before the 1970s wore traditional court uniforms, consisting of a dark navy wool double-breasted coatee with silver oak leaf and fern embroidery on the collar and cuffs trimmed with silver buttons embossed with the Royal Arms and with bullion edged epaulettes on the shoulders, dark navy trousers with a wide band of silver oak-leaf braid down the outside seam, silver sword belt with ceremonial sword, bicorne cocked hat with plume of ostrich feathers, black patent leather Wellington boots with spurs, etc., that is worn on ceremonial occasions. There is also a tropical version made of white tropical wool cut in a typical military fashion worn with a plumed helmet. However, that custom fell into disuse during the tenure of Sir Paul Hasluck with governors-general now observing informal wear day-to-day. Tasmanian governor Sir Stanley Burbury extensively lobbied his government in an attempt to regain the right to wear a uniform, going as far to contact Sir John Kerr in desparation, hoping he could contact the Palace directly. However, it does not appear that he was successful.

Titles and honours
Governors-general have during their tenure the style His/Her Excellency the Honourable and their spouses have the style His/Her Excellency. Since May 2013, the style used by a former governor-general is the Honourable; it was at the same time retrospectively granted for life to all previous holders of the office.

From the creation of the Order of Australia in 1975, the governor-general was, ex officio, Chancellor and Principal Companion of the order, and therefore became entitled to the post-nominal AC. In 1976, the letters patent for the order were amended to introduce the rank of Knight and Dame to the order, and from that time the governor-general became, ex officio, the Chancellor and Principal Knight of the order. In 1986 the letters patent were amended again, and governors-general appointed from that time were again, ex officio, entitled to the post-nominal AC (although if they already held a knighthood in the order that superior rank was retained).

Until 1989, all governors-general were members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom and thus held the additional style The Right Honourable for life. The same individuals were also usually either peers, knights, or both (the only Australian peer to be appointed as governor-general was the Lord Casey; and Sir William McKell was knighted only in 1951, some years into his term, but he was entitled to the style The Honourable during his tenure as premier of New South Wales, an office he held until almost immediately before his appointment). In 1989, Bill Hayden, a republican, declined appointment to the British Privy Council and any imperial honours. From that time until 2014, governors-general did not receive automatic titles or honours, other than the post-nominal AC by virtue of being Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Australia. Quentin Bryce was the first governor-general to have had no prior title or pre-nominal style. She was in office when, on 19 March 2014, then prime minister Tony Abbott advised the Queen to amend the letters patent of the Order of Australia to reinstate knighthoods into the Order, with the governor-general becoming the Principal Knight or Dame of the order. However, in 2015 knighthoods were once again abolished by new prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, with all subsequent governors-general appointed as Companions.

Spouses of governors-general have no official duties but carry out the role of a vice-regal consort. They are entitled to the courtesy style Her Excellency or His Excellency during the office-holder's term of office. Most spouses of governors-general have been content to be quietly supportive. Some, however, have been notable in their own right, such as Dame Alexandra Hasluck, Lady Casey and Michael Bryce.

History

Other offices named governor-general were previously used in Australia in the mid-19th century. Sir Charles FitzRoy (governor of New South Wales from 1846 to 1855) and Sir William Denison (governor of New South Wales from 1855 to 1861) also carried the additional title of governor-general because their jurisdiction extended to other colonies in Australia.

The office of governor-general of Australia was conceived during the debates and conventions leading up to federation. The first governor-general, the Earl of Hopetoun, was a previous governor of Victoria. He was selected in July 1900, returning to Australia shortly before the inauguration of the Commonwealth of Australia on 1 January 1901. After the initial confusion of the Hopetoun Blunder, he appointed the first prime minister of Australia, Edmund Barton, to a caretaker government, with the inaugural 1901 federal election not occurring until March.

Early governors-general were British and were appointed by the queen or king on the recommendation of the Colonial Office. The Australian Government was merely asked, as a matter of courtesy, whether they approved of the choice or not. Governors-general were expected to exercise a supervisory role over the Australian Government in the manner of a colonial governor. In a very real sense, they represented the British Government. They had the right to reserve legislation passed by the Parliament of Australia: in effect, to ask the Colonial Office in London for an opinion before giving the royal assent. They exercised this power several times. The monarch, acting upon advice of the British Government, could also disallow any Australian legislation up to a year after the governor-general had given it the assent; although this power has never been used. These powers remain in section 59 of the Constitution of Australia, but today are regarded as dead letters.

The early governors-general frequently sought advice on the exercise of their powers from judges of the High Court of Australia, Sir Samuel Griffith and Sir Edmund Barton.

In 1919, prime minister Billy Hughes sent a memorandum to the Colonial Office in which he requested "a real and effective voice in the selection of the King's representative". He further proposed that the Dominions be able to nominate their own candidates and that "the field of selection should not exclude citizens of the Dominion itself". The memorandum met with strong opposition within the Colonial Office and was dismissed by Lord Milner, the Colonial Secretary; no response was given. The following year, as Ronald Munro Ferguson's term was about to expire, Hughes cabled the Colonial Office and asked that the appointment be made in accordance with the memorandum. To mollify Hughes, Milner offered him a choice between three candidates. After consulting his cabinet he chose Henry Forster, 1st Baron Forster. In 1925, under prime minister Stanley Bruce, the same practice was followed for the appointment of Forster's successor Lord Stonehaven, with the Australian government publicly stating that his name "had been submitted, with others, to the Commonwealth ministry, who had selected him".

During the 1920s, the importance of the position declined. As a result of decisions made at the 1926 Imperial Conference, the governor-general ceased to represent the British Government diplomatically, and the British right of supervision over Australian affairs was abolished. As a result of the Balfour Declaration of 1926, which declared that the UK and the Dominions to be "autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another", the declaration further stated:

"the Governor-General of a Dominion is the representative of the Crown, holding in all essential respects the same position in relation to the administration of public affairs in the Dominion as is held by His Majesty the King in Great Britain, and that he is not the representative or agent of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain or of any Department of that Government."

However, it remained unclear just whose prerogative it now became to decide who new governors-general would be. In 1930, King George V and the Australian prime minister James Scullin discussed the appointment of a new governor-general to replace Lord Stonehaven, whose term was coming to an end. The King maintained that it was now his sole prerogative to choose a governor-general, and he wanted Field-Marshal Sir William Birdwood for the Australian post. Scullin recommended the Australian jurist Sir Isaac Isaacs, and he insisted that George V act on the advice of his Australian prime minister in this matter. Scullin was partially influenced by the precedent set by the Government of the Irish Free State, which always insisted upon having an Irishman as the governor-general of the Irish Free State.

Scullin's proposed appointment of Sir Isaac Isaacs was fiercely opposed by the British government. This was not because of any lack of regard for Isaacs personally, but because the British government considered that the choice of governors-general was, since the 1926 Imperial Conference, a matter for the monarch's decision alone. (However, it became very clear in a conversation between Scullin and King George V's private secretary, Lord Stamfordham, on 11 November 1930, that this was merely the official reason for the objection, with the real reason being that an Australian, no matter how highly regarded personally, was not considered appropriate to be a governor-general.) Scullin was equally insistent that the monarch must act on the relevant prime minister's direct advice (the practice until 1926 was that Dominion prime ministers advised the monarch indirectly, through the British government, which effectively had a veto over any proposal it did not agree with). Scullin cited the precedents of the prime minister of South Africa, J. B. M. Hertzog, who had recently insisted on his choice of the Earl of Clarendon as governor-general of that country, and the selection of an Irishman as governor-general of the Irish Free State. Both of these appointments had been agreed to despite British government objections.

Despite these precedents, George V remained reluctant to accept Scullin's recommendation of Isaacs and asked him to consider Field Marshal Sir William Birdwood. However, Scullin stood firm, saying he would be prepared to fight a general election on the issue of whether an Australian should be prevented from becoming governor-general because he was Australian. On 29 November, the King agreed to Isaacs's appointment, but made it clear that he did so only because he felt he had no option. Lord Stamfordham had complained that Scullin had "put a gun to the King's head".

The usual wording of official announcements of this nature read "The King has been pleased to appoint ...", but on this occasion the announcement said merely "The King has appointed ...", and his private secretary (Lord Stamfordham) asked the Australian solicitor-general, Sir Robert Garran, to make sure that Scullin was aware of the exact wording. The opposition Nationalist Party of Australia denounced the appointment as "practically republican", but Scullin had set a precedent. The convention gradually became established throughout the British Commonwealth that the governor-general is a citizen of the country concerned, and is appointed on the advice of the government of that country.

At the same time as the appointment of Isaacs as the first Australian-born governor-general, a separate role of British Representative in Australia (as the representative of the British government) was established, with Ernest Crutchley the first appointee. 1935 saw the appointment of the first British High Commissioner to Australia, Geoffrey Whiskard (in office 1936–1941).

This right not only to advise the monarch directly, but also to expect that advice to be accepted, was soon taken up by all the other Dominion prime ministers. This, among other things, led to the Statute of Westminster 1931 and to the formal separation of the Crowns of the Dominions.

After Scullin's defeat in 1931, non-Labor governments continued to recommend British people for appointment as governor-general, but such appointments remained solely a matter between the Australian government and the monarch. In 1947, Labor appointed a second Australian governor-general, William McKell, who was in office as the Labor premier of New South Wales. The then leader of the Opposition, Robert Menzies, called McKell's appointment "shocking and humiliating".

In 1965 the Menzies conservative government appointed an Australian, Lord Casey, and thereafter only Australians have held the position. However, when the Palace Papers were released in 2020, it was revealed that the Fraser government in 1976 considered it "highly desirable" that Prince Charles become governor-general; however the Queen strongly indicated her disapproval of her son taking up the role until "such time as he has a settled married life". Additionally, in 2007 media outlets reported that Prince William might become governor-general of Australia. However, both the prime minister, John Howard, and Clarence House repudiated the suggestion.

Backgrounds of governors-general
All the governors-general until 1965 were British-born, except for Australian-born Sir Isaac Isaacs (1931–1936) and Sir William McKell (1947–1953). There have been only Australian occupants since then, although Sir Ninian Stephen (1982–1989) had been born in Britain. Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, was a senior member of the royal family. Dame Quentin Bryce (2008–2014) was the first woman to be appointed to the office. Sir Isaac Isaacs and Sir Zelman Cowen were Jewish; Bill Hayden was an avowed atheist during his term and he made an affirmation rather than swear an oath at the beginning of his commission; the remaining governors-general have been Christian.

Various governors-general had previously served as governors of an Australian state or colony: Lord Hopetoun (Victoria 1889–1895); Lord Tennyson (South Australia 1899–1902); Lord Gowrie (South Australia 1928–34; and New South Wales 1935–1936); major general Michael Jeffery (Western Australia 1993–2000); Dame Quentin Bryce (Queensland 2003–2008); general David Hurley (New South Wales 2014–2019). Sir Ronald Munro Ferguson had been offered the governorship of South Australia in 1895 and of Victoria in 1910, but refused both appointments. Lord Northcote was governor of Bombay. Lord Casey was governor of Bengal in between his periods of service to the Commonwealth Parliament.

Former leading politicians and members of the judiciary have figured prominently. Lord Dudley was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1902–1905). Lord Stonehaven (as John Baird) was minister for Transport in the cabinets of Bonar Law and Stanley Baldwin; and after his return to Britain he became chairman of the UK Conservative Party. Sir Isaac Isaacs was successively Commonwealth attorney-general, a High Court judge, and chief justice. Sir William McKell was premier of New South Wales. Lord Dunrossil (as William Morrison) was Speaker of the UK House of Commons. Lord De L'Isle was secretary of State for Air in Winston Churchill's cabinet from 1951 to 1955. More recent governors-general in this category include Lord Casey, Sir Paul Hasluck, Sir John Kerr, Sir Ninian Stephen, Bill Hayden and Sir William Deane.

Of the eleven Australians appointed governor-general since 1965, Lord Casey, Sir Paul Hasluck and Bill Hayden were former federal parliamentarians; Sir John Kerr was the chief justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales; Sir Ninian Stephen and Sir William Deane were appointed from the bench of the High Court; Sir Zelman Cowen was a vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland and constitutional lawyer; Peter Hollingworth was the Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane; and major-general Michael Jeffery was a retired military officer and former governor of Western Australia. Quentin Bryce's appointment was announced during her term as governor of Queensland; she had previously been the Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner. General David Hurley was a retired chief of Defence Force and former governor of New South Wales.

Significant post-retirement activities of earlier governors-general have included: Lord Tennyson was appointed deputy governor of the Isle of Wight; Sir Ronald Munro Ferguson (by now Lord Novar) became secretary of State for Scotland; and Lord Gowrie became chairman of the Marylebone Cricket Club (Lord Forster had also held this post, before his appointment as governor-general).

title: Governor-General of Australia


text:
Talk:Governor-General of Australia

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Anthony Albanese swearing-in May 2022.jpg

Some issues
A few of the refs in this article go straight to the constitution, which seems to me to smack a bit of 'original research'. It certainly qualifies as a primary document.

3 of the refs link to the web site of the "Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy", which does not seem to me to be likely to be an impartial source.

There are some other generally flaky bits of content here.

I've just done a couple of minor copy-edits &c, and will come back later to do further work. Dinkenfunkle 12:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Round 2 ... just one minor fix done. But then read the section headed "Constitutional role", and it tells me not one whit about the GG's constitutional role. What it does do is bang on about the relative powers of the GG and the monarch. There is a wikilink to "Australian_head_of_state_dispute" at the top of this section, so we don't need to relitigate that here, and it might be nice to get a picture of, say, the Constitutional role? Just saying. Dinkenfunkle 11:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Should we add the acronym in the vein of POTUS?
Should we add to the article the popular acronyms GOVGEN and GGAUS we use to refer to him? 203.46.132.214 (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Got a reliable source that tells us they're popular? HiLo48 (talk) 07:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Never heard of them. ITBF (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Did Elizabeth II intervene in the 1975 Constitutional crises?
I've noticed at the beginning of the last paragraph, in the Constitutional role subsection. changed some wording, which suggests that Queen Elizabeth II attempted to prevent Governor-General John Kerr from dismissing Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. Is this true? We've often gotten the story that Elizabeth II did not intervene. This kinda supposed interference, seems out of character. GoodDay (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

 * All the letters from "the Palace" are from her Private Secretary, Sir Martin Charteris (1913-99). The views in his letters are his own, not the Queen's. Nowhere that I have seen does Charteris say "the Queen thinks this" or "the Queen's opinion is" or "the Queen asks me to tell you that".
 * Secondly, so far as I have seen, all the advice that Charteris gave Kerr was both constitutionally correct and politically wise.
 * He advised him that Australian Governors-General possess the full reserve powers of the Crown, including the right to dismiss a government, which was and still is correct.
 * He advised him that such powers should be used only as an absolute last resort, which was good advice that Kerr failed to take.
 * He advised him that if Whitlam asked the Queen to withdraw Kerr's commission, she might warn against such a step (as is her constitutional right), but would act on the advice of her Prime Minister (as is her constitutional duty).
 * What the letters do display is what we already knew - that Kerr had an inflated regard for his own importance, a weakness which Fraser and Barwick exploited as they manoeuvred Kerr into dismissing Whitlam. Kerr was a frustrated politician. He had considered a political career (with Labor) in the 1950s, but had gone into law instead. He saw the Governor-Generalship as a chance to play a political role. This was not a mistake a real politician, like Hasluck or Hayden, would have made.
 * It was Kerr who failed to understand the Westminster system, not the Queen.
 * He had no right to conspire with Fraser and Barwick behind Whitlam's back.
 * He had no right to dismiss Whitlam out of fear that Whitlam might dismiss him first - Whitlam had an absolute right to advise the Queen to dismiss him, and he had no right to try to prevent that.
 * Most importantly, he had no right to interfere in the political drama unfolding in 1975. This was not a constitutional crisis until Kerr made it one. It was a political crisis, which he should have left to the politicians. The Senate had blocked Supply, and Whitlam and Fraser were engaged in a game of bluff. But Supply had not run out on 11 November: there was no "last resort" requiring Kerr's intervention. We know (because the late Senator Alan Missen told us), that if Kerr had not intervened, some of the Liberal Senators would have backed down before Supply did run out. Fraser also knew this, which is why he and Barwick conspired to persuade Kerr to act before Whitlam won what would have been a great victory.
 * 180.150.38.126 (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It was Kerr's duty to be aware of his options in the face of a crisis. The Governor-General is not the tool of the PM and there have been occasions when a G-G has refused a Prime Minister's advice.
 * Her Late Majesty certainly did not overturn any of the actions of Kerr in the Dismissal. I have inserted the word "not" to clear up an obvious error. It is difficult to see what actions she could have taken in this regard. The monarch has no power to do anything much beyond appoint and (in theory) dismiss the G-G, and that only on the advice of the Australian PM. --Pete (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I was quite surprised by the "did overturn" edit. Thanks for the correction. GoodDay (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

PS: I'm seeking input from the Australian, the Politics & the Commonwealth WikiProjects. GoodDay (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

please stop removing "not" from "did not" & join the discussion. The monarch didn't & doesn't interfere in politics. GoodDay (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

 * That was a typo, sorry. I think it readded from a new edit I did that saved my mistake. Safes007 (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I was pretty sure that it was just one of those things. Sometimes you spend a bit of time on an edit, especially if it needs a bit of research and you get an edit conflict if someone has made a change in the meantime. Naturally you don't want to lose all that work …

 * But of course it isn't lost. You have both versions right there and can fiddle around until you get everything sorted.Or simply copy and past your bit and start with a fresh edit. --Pete (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Opening sentence
The current opening reads:"The governor-general of Australia is the representative of the monarch of Australia, currently King Charles III." Some background: In the late 18th century when the Constitution was drawn up, the notion that the Governor-General represented the monarch was a polite fiction. Queen Victoria didn't personally develop, promote and enforce Imperial policy throughout the empire. That is not the job of a constitutional monarch; it was the job of Her Majesty's government, notably Cabinet led by the Prime Minister, with the Colonial Secretary handling the details.

As one notable Australian said, "… it is important to recognise that the Queen, referred to throughout our constitution and of course it is referring to Queen Victoria, and is defined as being Queen Victoria her heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. The Queen was not so much an individual, the Queen meant her Majesty’s Government in right of the United Kingdom. It meant Whitehall. It meant London. It meant the imperial power. --Malcolm Turnbull"

Turnbull goes on to mention the structural changes put in place by the Statute of Westminster. These had the effect of creating a divided Crown throughout the Empire with the Dominion governments now directly advising the monarch. The various Governors-General were no longer the representatives of the British Government and High Commissioners were appointed to fill those roles, in the same fashion as non-Empire nations appointed ambassadors to represent their interests at a high level. The British Government in Australia no longer operated out of Government house but out of the new British High Commission on Commonwealth Avenue in Canberra.

Although the role had significantly changed, the Constitution's wording did not, and could not without a referendum. Like so many of the now-obsolete provisions of the Constitution relating to state debts and tariffs and Inter-State commissions s2 remains to confuse and mislead those who think that the Constitution, now well over a century old, serves as an exact description of Australia's government structure and practice.

While the Governor-General is referred to as a vice-regal representative, it is difficult to see what he (or, occasionally she) does to personally represent the monarch. Their powers are assigned directly to him by the Constitution and may not be changed without a referendum. The monarch may not issue instructions on how to use these powers and realistically the only remaining direct role of the monarch in Australian affairs is to appoint the Governor-General. Although the wording of the Constitution makes it sound like this is the personal decision of the monarch, it is exercised on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister, regardless of the monarch's wishes, as James Scullin demonstrated when he forced King George V to appoint Sir Isaac Isaacs as the first Australian-born Governor-General.

It has been many years since the Australian Governor-General issued and accepted diplomatic letters of credence on behalf of the Queen (Elizabeth II). Nowadays, credentials are addressed directly to the Govenor-General.

There are undoubtedly some areas - medals and speeches and so on - where the Governor-General personally represents the monarch but their main role is performing the same functions of head of state as the monarch does in the UK. Signing bills into law, representing Australia overseas, issuing writs for elections, appointing and (occasionally) dismissing ministers. Again, they do these things in their own right and not as an agent of the monarch or her government, although the wording of the Constitution may mislead the casual reader, for example when contemplating that the Governor-General as commander-in-chief of the defence force has significant military capabilities and might send a few tanks in to quell unrest in Parliament House.

So why do we present some trivial aspect of the role as the lead sentence in our article? Realistically, the day to day job is presiding over meetings of the Federal Executive Council, serving as chief diplomatic officer, and (as [[Sir Zelman Cowen] put it, "representing Australia to itself and the world".

I think the most important aspect of the position of Governor-General should occupy the first sentence, rather than some obsolete and very minor part of his duties. --Pete (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

 * I think nowdays "represent" means not to act as an agent by representing the views and wishes of the monarch as an individual person, but to act as a kind of human symbol of the monarch in their public role as embodiment of the state, kind of like a human Great Seal of the United States. In that sense, it doesn't matter that the King doesn't have any influence or does anything, or that the GGs powers are granted by the Constitution, not directly by the monarch as his symbolic role is also granted directly by the Constitution.
 * In another sense, the GG represents the monarch by performing many of the same actions as he does as monarch of the UK, such as (at least theoretically) advising and warning, etc. In that sense, the GG represents the monarch in the same way as an MP represents the people, despite the fact they act as an independent agent and the people of an electorate have no legal right to vote on bills and pass legislation and can't give the MP orders or instructions.
 * Now, its valid to think that's absurd and that very few Australians view either him or the monarch he represents as an embodiment of the nation as a whole, but ultimately being ineffective at that role doesn't change the fact that that is what the position is supposed to be. As most of the sources I can see lead with something similar, I think its best to stick with it.  Another problem is identifying what the "most important aspect" of the position of GG is. In all aspects but the reserve powers he acts on advice so there's an argument that the reserve powers should be in the first sentence. Safes007 (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

 * In agreement with Safes007. In short, the last time I checked, the Australian monarchy wasn't abolished, nor the governor-general elected by Parliament or the public as 'President of Australia'. Besides, like in the UK & the other Commonwealth realms, practically speaking - the prime minister is the boss. It's been quite a long time, since a monarch or governor-general refused a prime minister's request 'or' vetoed a bill. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I reworded the intro to emphasis the domestic and independent nature of the role, hopefully to address the concerns that it previously over emphasised less relevant parts of the role or was misleading about the GGs power or independence. Safes007 (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I trimmed it a little. We must keep in mind that within the non-UK Commonwealth realms, the governors-general are of the same nature & Australia's governor-general isn't unique, from the others. That being said, a similar re-write of the other 13 governors-general pages, would be required. GoodDay (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Australia's Governor-General is in a unique position within the Commonwealth Realms. He derives his powers from the Constitution which may not be altered except by referendum. While one might imagine that s2 only gives him "such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him", there is no mechanism for the monarch to alter his constitutional powers (except in such minor details as appointing deputies, as covered by the Letters-Patent) nor may they be amended by regular legislation.
 * The powers of the office derive from the people. This is not the case in (for example) Canada. --Pete (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Canadian governor general has as much independence (for example) as the Australian governor-general. The monarch doesn't interfere in either Australian or Canadian politics, as constitutional monarchs tend to stay above politics. GoodDay (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand the point being made. The Australian Governor-General isn't the same as the Canadian Governor General, despite them having similar titles and roles. That's like saying a zebra is the same as an ass because they are both kind of horsey.
 * ETA: The Canadian Governor General exercises the monarch's powers. "The 1947 letters patent state: 'And We do hereby authorize and empower Our Governor General, with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada or of any members thereof or individually, as the case requires, to exercise all powers and authorities lawfully belonging to Us in respect of Canada.'"The Australian Governor-General exercises his own constitutional powers which the monarch may not exercise under any circumstances. Big difference. --Pete (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Myself & Safes007, have already settled on the opening. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not the point here. If you don't understand how and why the Australian Governor-General has a different situation to your Canadian version, why are you attempting to have our articles state that they are the same? Spare a thought for our readers who come here seeking information they can trust! --Pete (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "...our articles..."? GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's articles. I'm not sure that you're really helping the mission if you are pushing untruths. --Pete (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't be so hypocritical, when mentioning pushing untruths. Anyways, I'm not going to let you drag us down into personal attacks, via circularly arguments. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just acknowledge the point, please. Governor-General of Australia and Governor General of Canada: distinctly different in their roles through ownership of constitutional powers, as shown above. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Give it a rest. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This doesn't make sense to me. Whilst the most of other realms have a common historical origin for the GG (although they also had differences then as mentioned by Pete) there is no legal connection between the offices anymore. The High Court could suddenly overturn past precedent and interpret the Constitution literally and make the GG a dictator, but that would affect Canada's GG.
 * Also, I don't know of any requirement to rewrite the other pages before changing this one even if that wasn't the case. Safes007 (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The governor-general represents the monarch. We had an RFC in 2016 (closed by ) with a resounding result, as to 'who' Australia's head of state is. Australia hasn't become a republic, in these last eight years. So you see, my concern is that you're slowly (figuratively) down playing the monarch to the point that's he's the same as the Swedish monarch. I highly doubt that any of the governors-general phone the king up on a daily basis & asks for permission to do this or that. GoodDay (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The changes have nothing to do with the role of the monarch or their position as head of state. All it does is clarify that whilst the GG is the monarch's representative, that doesn't imply agency or a need to follow or advocate for the views of the monarch personally which may be implied if you don't understand how responsible government works or don't have much experience with Westminster system concepts. Safes007 (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've restored the change you made. I just wanted to point out, the governors-general of the other non-UK commonwealth realms, are of the same situation. Their governments are also under the Westminster system. GoodDay (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Governor-General of Australia


text:
Talk:Go

[Primary topic for Go: verb vs. game]
It seems the search "Go" and "GO" direct users to different entries in the encyclopedia causing confusion. I attempted to fix the problem by redirecting them together but I lack the skill. Also it seems less than consensus to have those entries refer staight to a disambugation page rather than the most common usage of the term "outside of the verb usage "to go". see entry in Village pump

I agree that articles which merely state dictionary definitions are not suitable for an encyclopedia. However, I'm also a believer in the "principle of least astonishment". In the case of articles like Go, many people who have never heard of the board game would be quite confused at the content of the article if they weren't expecting it. I think we should cater for those who are expecting "Go" to refer to the English language verb, the recent movie, and any other common meanings for the term. I also dont think putting those alternatives at the bottom of this (long, and still growing) article is terribly helpful to such people. Hence I've reverted to the previous revision, where after a brief introductory paragraph the alternate meanings for "Go" are listed. -- Bignose

- I have no objection to noting a movie also called that, but noting it is also an English verb is totally unnecessary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Human beings have no trouble handling words with multiple totally unrelated meanings, such as we have here. Unless we want to write an article on the English verb (which is unlikely), there is no need to mention it. Its existence is obvious, as is the fact that this article is dealing with a totally unrelated sense of "Go". Look at other encyclopedias: Britannica, Encarta, etc. -- do any of them begin their article on "Go" by pointing out it is also an English verb? -- no they don't, and nor should we. -- SJK

STRONGLY DISAGREE with SJK: WE DO NEED TO POINT OUT THE OBVIOUS! our purpose is to provide information, "go" as a verb is by far the most common usage, & it is standard practice on wikip to acknowledge the existence of verbs, as necessary, & then provide mini def's & redirects to the wiktionary, as proves most useful. if you look closely in other encyclopedias, they also acknowledge instances where a word has multiple meanings and/or homonyms, especially in cases where one usage is overwhelmingly more common than the others. it would also be a mistake to automatically assume that all users of en.wikip are fluent or even moderately functional in english; many people use this site as a part of learning the languageLx 121 (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

- The link to Go (album) links to a page about Vertical Horizon's album "Go", not Moby's. As far as I can tell, there is no page about Moby's album of that name. I'm changing this page to reflect that. If there is a page somewhere about Moby's album, or if someone wants to write one, then Go (album) will have to be disambiguated too, I guess.

Moving Go (board game) to Go
I propose to move Go to Go (disambiguation), and, after fixing all redirects, to move Go (board game) to Go. While many English-language users have never heard of the board game Go (I know that I myself did not hear of it until a few years ago), hundreds of millions of people in China, Korea, Japan, and other countries around the world are familiar with and play the game. Having Go as a disambiguation page is akin to having Chess as a disambiguation page–I have no doubt that consensus would rightly oppose this. In the same way, NPOV demands that we consider the usage of the term that is most meaningful for all people, not just for English speakers. NatusRoma 02:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I hardly even know where to begin.

 * One: hundreds of millions of people around the world play go, yes; but six billion people around the world go to places (e.g. by walking). If we were going to choose based on the popularity and importance of the thing being described, we would want to move Go (verb) to Go, not move Go (board game) to Go. Obviously this is absurd. The question is not what action is most popular, but what meaning the WORD is most popularly linked to. The board game is not called "go" in Chinese, Japanese, or Korean; all three use other words for it instead, though the Japanese one is related. Thus, it is NOT true that worldwide, the word "go" means "go (board game)" to the most people.

 * Two: What does the sound sequence "go" mean, to most people, worldwide? To start with we would want to check what that sound sequence means in Mandarin Chinese, Hindi, Arabic, etc. But this too is clearly a false path. Since this is the English Wikipedia, we want to know what the ENGLISH WORD "go" means to most people who speak English. Otherwise, we would need to check every article in every Wikipedia to make sure that each word does not have the same sound as some more commonly used word in another language. This is ridiculous.

 * Three: If we do ask what the English word "go" means to most people who speak English, clearly it's Go (verb) again. But that is not enough reason to replace Go with Go (verb); the board game is important enough that the current method, putting various meanings on Go with links to articles, is probably the best approach.

 * Four: The problem with the Chess analogy should be obvious: the English word 'chess' does not have more than one important meaning. I have a hard time believing that this proposal was intended seriously. DanielCristofani 10:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

After discussion on Talk:Go (board game), I have come to the position that this should remain a disambiguation page, after all. NatusRoma 18:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

shouldn't go board game be first though.. or easier to find.

Please see Talk:Go (board game) for fresh proposal and much discussion. --Richard New Forest (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Tiny detail.
Having just changed the intro to read:

 * The game is now popular throughout East Asia and on the Internet. The object of the game is to place stones so they control a larger board territory than one's opponent, while preventing them from being surrounded and captured by the opponent.

, I am wondering whether the last three words are necessary. Who else would surround and capture one's stones? Well, the thing is, in a more complicated board game I can easily imagine an NPC doing it. Is that too obscure a possibility to be worth ruling out? DanielCristofani 03:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

???
What happened to this. Isn't it supposed to be a disam. page? It nows says "Go play WoW" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.155.164 (talk • contribs).

confused disamb
this disamb page links to another disamb page, which links to this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.222.41.105 (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Somewhere other than the "see also" link? The circular "see also" links are ok, as two subjects that are related should expect to be linked to each other. If there's a condusing redirect somewhere, it might need fixing, though. --Fru1tbat 13:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Go (Monopoly)"
"Go (Monopoly)" has no obvious reasons to me to be listed on this page. I think it only suggests to play monopoly instead of the original Go. Who would search for this and then why on Wikipedia? I only can think of a situation where someone who has lost his manual to Monopoly wants to look its meaning up very quick. But then why would he look on Wikipedia? I wouldn't in this situation. I'd just type "Monopoly rules" into Google and there I'd get a list of the rules Monopoly rules very fast. The entry also links to the full article on Monopoly and not to an actual paragraph about the "Go"-field itself, where such paragraph per se doesn't make sense at all. Though, the link implies that someone intends to include such a paragraph in future article versions. How do you think about that? 77.130.107.254 (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Go (game) description
Before this turns into an edit war, please refer to the manual of style for disambiguation pages, particularly: "The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link."

The purpose of a dab page is to help a user find the correct article as quickly as possible. Excessive description is simply not necessary.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  14:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree. The current description by Lx 121 is way too long for a disambig page; the list of aliases is not useful, and the fact that the game is now played all over the world is irrelevant. I suggest reverting back to the original concise description "strategic two-player board game of ancient Chinese origin, using white and black stones" BabelStone (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to include a long list of other names for Go -- if anyone has landed on this page then they already know that the game is called Go. There are already separate redirect pages for weiqi, baduk, etc. BabelStone (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Agreed. The current reworded description is just fine, although perhaps a little more terse than I'd prefer. But the list of alternate names adds little value for the purposes disambiguating "go". older ≠ wiser 11:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"Go!(album)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Go!(album)&redirect=no Go!(album)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Go


text:
Glasnost

Glasnost (гласность, ) is a concept relating to openness and transparency. It has several general and specific meanings, including a policy of maximum openness in the activities of state institutions and freedom of information and the inadmissibility of hushing up problems. In Russian the word 'гласность' has long been used to mean "openness" and "transparency". In the mid-1980s, it was popularised by Mikhail Gorbachev as a political slogan for increased government transparency in the Soviet Union within the framework of perestroika, and the calque of the word entered into English in the latter meaning.

Historical usage
In the Russian Empire of the late-19th century, the term was used in its direct meanings of "openness" and "publicity" and applied to politics and the judicial system. Some reforms were introduced towards reforms permitting attendance of the press and the public at trials. After some liberalization under Alexander II of Russia, the openness of trials started to be restricted again. Human rights activist Lyudmila Alexeyeva writes that the word glasnost has been in the Russian language for several hundred years as a common term: "It was in the dictionaries and lawbooks as long as there had been dictionaries and lawbooks. It was an ordinary, hardworking, non-descript word that was used to refer to a process, any process of justice or governance, being conducted in the open." In the mid-1960s it acquired a revived topical importance in discourse about the necessity of changing the Cold War era internal policy of the Soviet Union.

The dissidents
On 5 December 1965 the Glasnost rally took place in Moscow, considered to be a key event in the emergence of the Soviet civil rights movement. Protesters on Pushkin Square led by Alexander Yesenin-Volpin demanded access to the closed trial of Yuly Daniel and Andrei Sinyavsky. The protestors made specific requests for "glasnost", herein referring to the specific admission of the public, independent observers and foreign journalists, to the trial that had been legislated in the then newly issued Code of Criminal Procedure. With a few specified exceptions, Article 111 of the Code stated that judicial hearings in the USSR should be held in public.

Such protests against closed trials continued throughout the post-Stalin era. Andrei Sakharov, for example, did not travel to Oslo to receive his Nobel Peace Prize due to his public protest outside a Vilnius court building demanding access to the 1976 trial of Sergei Kovalev, an editor of the Chronicle of Current Events and prominent rights activist.

Gorbachev
In 1986, Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev and his advisers adopted glasnost as a political slogan, together with the term perestroika. Alexander Yakovlev, Head of the Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, is considered to be the intellectual force behind Gorbachev's reform program.

Glasnost was taken to mean increased openness and transparency in government institutions and activities in the Soviet Union (USSR). Glasnost reflected a commitment of the Gorbachev administration to allowing Soviet citizens to discuss publicly the problems of their system and potential solutions. Gorbachev encouraged popular scrutiny and criticism of leaders, as well as a certain level of exposure by the mass media.

Some critics, especially among legal reformers and dissidents, regarded the Soviet authorities' new slogans as vague and limited alternatives to more basic liberties. Alexei Simonov, president of the Glasnost Defence Foundation, makes a critical definition of the term in suggesting it was "a tortoise crawling towards Freedom of Speech".

Various meanings
Between 1986 and 1991, during an era of reforms in the USSR, glasnost was frequently linked with other generalised concepts such as perestroika (literally: restructuring or regrouping) and demokratizatsiya (democratisation). Gorbachev often appealed to glasnost when promoting policies aimed at reducing corruption at the top of the Communist Party and the Soviet government, and moderating the abuse of administrative power in the Central Committee. The ambiguity of "glasnost" defines the distinctive five-year period (1986–1991) at the end of the USSR's existence. There was decreasing pre-publication and pre-broadcast censorship and greater freedom of information.

The "Era of Glasnost" saw greater contact between Soviet citizens and the Western world, particularly the United States: restrictions on travel were loosened for many Soviet citizens which further eased pressures on international exchange between the Soviet Union and the West.

International relations
Gorbachev's interpretation of "glasnost" can best be summarised in English as "openness". While associated with freedom of speech, the main goal of this policy was to make the country's management transparent, and circumvent the holding of near-complete control of the economy and bureaucracy of the Soviet Union by a concentrated body of officials and bureaucratic personnel.

During Glasnost, Soviet history under Stalin was re-examined; censored literature in the libraries was made more widely available; and there was a greater freedom of speech for citizens and openness in the media. It was in the late 1980s when most people in the Soviet Union began to learn about the atrocities of Stalin, and learned about previously suppressed events.

Information about the supposedly higher quality of consumer goods and quality of life in the United States and Western Europe began to be transmitted to the Soviet population, along with western popular culture.

Outside the Soviet Union
Glasnost received mixed reception in communist states, especially outside the Eastern Bloc.

Support
Glasnost had a trickle-down effect on Eastern Europe and lead to democratic reforms, namely in Poland and Czech Republic. Glasnost and similar reforms were applied in the following communist states:
 * Bulgaria
 * Czechoslovakia
 * East Germany
 * Hungary
 * Mongolia
 * Poland
 * Vietnam (see đổi mới)

Furthermore, in the socialist state of Yugoslavia, similar reforms also existed, with the first major reforms beginning in Slovenia.

Opposition
Glasnost or similar reforms were not applied in the following communist states:
 * China (had its own non-Soviet-inspired reforms)
 * Cuba
 * Laos
 * North Korea
 * Romania (opposed by Nicolae Ceaușescu)

In Russia since 1991
The outright prohibition of censorship was enshrined in Article 29 of the new 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation. This however has been the subject of ongoing controversy in contemporary Russia owing to heightened governmental interventions restricting access to information for Russian citizens, including internet censorship. There has also been pressure on government-operated media outlets to not publicize or discuss certain events or subjects in recent years. Monitoring of the infringement of media rights in the years from 2004 to 2013 found that instances of censorship were the most commonly reported type of violation.

title: Glasnost