text:
Talk:Governor-General of Australia/Archive 1

Literal text
I have changed "According to the literal text of the constitution, the Governor-General is the representative of the Queen of Australia." to refer to Queen Victoria instead. I did this to make a point and that point is that the literal text of the Constitution cannot be taken as an unfailingly reliable guide to either practice or law.

Read the Constitution and you will find no mention of the Prime Minister, who is undeniably the head of government, even if one might imagine that this position is occupied by the Governor-General from a cursory reading of the Constitution. The Constitution declares that there shall be an Inter-State Commission, but the truth is that this body does not exist.

Please, if you refer to the literal text of the Constitution, either stick to the literal text and refrain from inserting material that does not belong - you will search in vain for the title "Queen of Australia", for example - or qualify it by referring to documents and events such as the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953 where the title "Queen of Australia" was introduced. Skyring 23:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Skyring - It is interesting how your own comments can be used to demonstrate how you add your own point of view - "I did this to make a point!". A point about "literal" text is make by using the adjective "literal". Your point belongs elsewhere.

 * Anyway, the literal text does not mention "Queen Victoria" it mentions the "Queen". It further states that the "Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time". This is what I has done. Maybe, there is a more accurate way of making this subtitution, but "Queen Victoria"! That's wrong, wrong, wrong!

 * Is it? Have you checked the original? I think that you will find that instead of checking, you jumped in with some more untruths. Please think instead of responding when I press your buttons. Skyring 21:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I notice you haven't responded to this. Have you checked the original? This is in Parliament House, and is on public didplay. Skyring 00:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes I have checked: www.foundingdocs.gov.au

 * "Not found The page you requested is not available at this address." I suggest you check the original. I have. Skyring 00:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Rather than just jump in and make changes after 15 seconds thought, go back have a think for serveral days before you start adding stuff like this!. It just wastes time. Also, when you say "Please!", "Read the constitution", you are showing contempt for others.

--Dlatimer 01:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * When someone makes an obvious mistake like saying the literal text of the Constitution refers to the Queen of Australia, then I am quite justified in asking that person to read it. Skyring 21:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you refer to the "literal text" of the Constitution you will have to concede that it contains no reference to a "Queen of Australia," and that is because the thought of Australia as a state separate from the British Empire would have been quite foreign to the men who wrote the Constitution. Adam 01:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I explained the substitution logic above and applied it. Then skyring put in "Queen Victoria" !!! So I reduced it to just just "Queen" (ie no substiution.) I have no problem either way. --Dlatimer 11:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Let's stick with the Queen, shall we? That's probably the best bet. Skyring 21:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I thought the point about literal text had been made, but I see that it has not been appreciated. The Constitution does not state that the Governor-General is the representative of the Queen. If you want to quote the literal text of the Constition, then by all means do so, but don't go making stuff up that you think might or should or could be in there, when it clearly isn't. Skyring 23:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nowhere in the literal text of the Constitution will you find the statement "the Governor-General is the representative of the Queen". Nowhere. s2 states "A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative". That is a clear statement of intention. I noted s101 previously, which states: "There shall be an Inter-State Commission". There is not an Inter-State Commission, so clearly it is incorrect to say that the literal text of s2 means that the Governor-General is now the Queen's representative, given the example of s101. Skyring 05:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

DLatimer says that: Sections 2, 61 and 68 of the constitution state that the Governor-General acts as the representative of the Queen In neither of the three cases is this correct. IT would help if he actually read the Constitution before supposedly quoting from it.

 * Evidence:
 * s2. "shall be Her Majesty's representative"
 * s61. "as the Queen's representative"
 * s68. "as the Queen's representative"
 * Re-construction of these phrases, does not change stated meaning. Objection to s2's inclusion is pedantic and only lengthens the article and comprehension by the reader more difficult.--Dlatimer 03:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * s2 does not say that the Governor-General acts as the Queen's representative. I have dealt with this above. s61 and s68 both refer to the limited exercise of power only, there is no general statement of representation and the text does not say that the Governor-General "acts as the Queen's representative". Skyring 05:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

He goes on to say: When exercising constitutional powers, the Governor-General rarely consults with the Queen and is under no obligation to do so. I ask him to please give a current example of the Governor-General consulting with the Queen on the exercise of his constitutional powers. Skyring 00:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Evidence:
 * Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953, was reserved for the Queen's pleasure under s.60

 * Evidence of consultation, please? As discussed earlier, Bills involving the constitutional relationship between Australia and the UK (or the Queen) are routinely reserved for the Queen's pleasure. Skyring A: Rebutal insufficient.

 * "Between 1961 and 1993, Parliament was prorogued only four times, twice for the purpose of allowing openings by the Queen during her visits to Australia in 1974 and 1977." Must have involved consultation between the GG and the Queen.

 * Evidence, please? Skyring A: Evidence provided

 * Hansard Monday, 8 March 1999, The PRESIDENT of the Senate:— "The Governor-General indicated that he would be pleased to convey the address [to parliament] to Her Majesty the Queen."

 * And what constitutional power of the Governor-General was he supposedly consulting the Queen about? Skyring  A:The summoning of parliament (s.5)

 * Richard McGarvie in Democracy, quoting interview with William McKell 'Well, the sensible thing would have been to warn the palace first what you intended to do. That would have alerted the Queen not to take any call from Gough if he had tried to involve her.'

 * Speculation. Sir John Kerr denies this explicitly: ""I did not tell the Queen in advance that I intended to exercise these powers on 11 November. I did not ask her approval. The decisions I took were without the Queen's advance knowledge. The reason for this was that I believed, if dismissal action were to be taken, that it could be taken only by me and that it must be done on my sole responsibility. My view was that to inform Her Majesty in advance of what I intended to do, and when, would be to risk involving her in an Australian political and constitutional crisis in relation to which she had no legal powers; and I must not take such a risk." (Sir John Kerr, Matters for Judgement, p330) The Queen has not spoken of the matter in public. Skyring

A: McKell is talking about himself, not Kerr. Anyway, note that Kerr does not say "to inform Her Majesty would be a break in convention or constitutional arrangements". He contemplated it and formed a view on the particular situtation he faced.

--Dlatimer 03:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that the GG never consults with the Queen - who would presume such a thing? Anyway, I've shown it to be wrong.

 * You have done no such thing. You have speculated that it is so, but your wishful thinking is not the evidence I ask for. I ask again that you provide evidence of recent consultation with the Queen by the Governor-General on the exercise of his constitutional powers. Skyring 05:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The evidence is fine.

 * As demonstrated above, no. The Governor-General can and does consult with the Queen on the exercise of her prerogative powers, and (through the Royal Powers Act 1953) on his statutory powers, but there is no evidence that he consults with the Queen on the use of his constitutional powers, which, as I never grow tired of pointing out, are given to him in his own right and not to the Queen. Yet you somehow seem to think he asks the Queen what to do about using powers that she does not possess. Skyring 06:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * You've just said that the GG consults with the Queen. My original text was consults with the Queen - it does not specify what. You agree with me. Thanks for stopping the page from being updated. What a waste of time that was. --Dlatimer 08:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The text I corrected was "When exercising constitutional powers, the Governor-General rarely consults with the Queen". You haven't provided any evidence that he consults with her on the exercise of his constitutional powers. Please stop pussy-footing and hand-waving around, trying to pull the wool over my eyes. It won't work, but I can certainly be persuaded with solid evidence. It only takes one example of consultation for me to drop any objection to that "rarely consults". Skyring 08:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Solid evidence will not satisfy you. Now, I see that you can somehow seperate preogative and constitutional powers into seperate elements - A fantastic trick which involves a completely new and unverified way of looking at constitutional (shall I say super-constitutional) arrangements. In fact, it is s.61 that vests these powers onto the executive, so prerogative powers are constitutional powers in the Australian context . It is not me who is trying to trick you. David Smith has been succesful a while ago.--Dlatimer 11:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * "The Governor-General's powers are derived from three sources: those vested in him by the Constitution, those deriving from the common law which are commonly described as prerogative powers (and which may be regulated by Royal Commission and Letters Patent), and those derived from statute." (R D Lumb, The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Annotated Fourth Edition, Butterworths, Sydney 1986, p37) It is no great trick to separate constitutional from prerogative powers. All one needs to do is read the document. The Governor-General's constitutional powers are given therein, and they are given to the Governor-General alone. What in the United Kingdom (and indeed in other Commonwealth realms such as Canada and New Zealand) is left the undefined property of the monarch is in Australia explicitly given to the Governor-General. Those powers are his constitutional powers and the Queen may not touch them in any way.

 * I realise that I said above that the Governor-General consults with the Queen on the exercise of her prerogative powers, and I welcome the opportunity to clarify my statement by noting that consultation only occurs on those prerogative powers which are not given to the Governor-General by the Constitution and are therefore delegated in accordance with s2. These residual powers are of minor significance and need not trouble us, but if you wish to make a case that matters of administrative trivia handled by staff members mean that the Queen supervises the Governor-General in the exercise of his significant functions, then by all means do so. I doubt that many will be convinced.

 * I understand your argument that the prerogative powers of the Queen are given to the Governor-General in s61, and are therefore constitutional powers, and that it is difficult to determine the limits of the prerogative, but you are either confused (and who can blame you) or attempting to muddy the waters here. We may be guided by the fact that the Queen's Instructions to the Governor-General were withdrawn in 1984 and that "The Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution" (Letter from the Queen's Private Secretary to the Speaker, 17 November 1975). The Queen plays no part in the exercise of the Governor-General's constitutional powers, and that is the current situation.

 * Actual decisions are the province of the GG. That is not in dispute, that's why the quote is very useful to include in the article.

 * I note your attempt above to describe the letter of 17 November 1975 as consultation when the letter itself rules that out and I put it to you that this is indicative of a confusion of mind.

 * I made no attempt. Letter was from Scholes, not from GG. I don't believe the dimissal involved any consutation with the Queen, it's just that McKell suggestion that Kerr should have called the palace, and Kerr's explanation implies he could have, but chose not to.

 * Ok. It appears I was confused. Sorry. It was in 1975 that the first moves to have the Queen's Instructions to the Governor-General withdrawn were made, but of course Whitlam was gone before it could happen and Fraser didn't see fit to pursue the matter so they were not withdrawn until Hawke took power. I think Kerr was addressing the public perception, one apparently shared by Gordon Scholes, that the Queen had some power to intervene or direct the Governor-General in the exercise of his constitutional duties. This perception still lingers and is in fact widely held. It is encouraged by those who seek change and will use any means to that end including pushing the notion that the Governor-General is only a sort of agent holding powers delegated by the all-powerful Queen.

 * I'm all for removing the Queen from Australian affairs, but I'm not going to stand by and see untruths promoted as facts, especially if the objective is to weaken our constitutional arrangements, such as by adopting the deeply flawed republican model put to the people in 1999. Skyring 02:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * You state that I have been tricked by Sir David Smith, but that is not the case. I am happy to use the fruits of his research, but I reject the central core of his arguments, namely that we must retain the monarch in our Australian affairs. As I see it, the only remaining significant role of the Queen is to appoint the Australian Governor-General, and I think that this is something we Australians can do for ourselves, just as soon as we can agree on a way of doing it. Skyring 19:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * It was unkind of me to imply you were 'tricked'.

 * I listened to him give a Senate Occasional Lecture in 1994 and though I certainly didn't buy into all his arguments, I discovered that I was deeply ignorant of our constitutional affairs. An ignorance shared by most Australians, I might add. I took the trouble to inform myself about our constitutional history, the story of Federation, the early republican movement of the late 1800s and so on. I bought books on these subjects by the dozen, attended lectures, conferences and hung over the railing of the Press Gallery every day during the Constitutional Convention in 1998. Although Sir David is hardly an unbiased commentator, his research and scholarship is exemplary and it is that example that has given me a keen interest in our constitutional affairs, if for no other reason than to gain a rich supply of arcane knowledge that can be used in debating in such forums as this one. It is rather pathetic of me to be such a constitutional nerd and to derive so much pleasure from exposing falsehood and myth, but there it is. Skyring 02:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * It is for matters of "administrative trivial" that led me to write "rarely consults" and in particular I was thinking about royal tours, where the GG prorogues paraliament for the Queen to open. When you read, "rarely consults", perhaps it indicated a constitutional crisis, i.e. when all else fails and you don't think you can handle it yourself, then get some advice from the Queen. Hence, I would agree with the statement that "the Governor General on significant constitutional matters does not consult" and perhaps you would agree that the "Governor General occasionally consults on minor administrative matters". Whereas for you, the important point is to make clear the indpendence of the GG, whereas for me I am trying to explain that the relationship between the Queen and GG is co-operative, so that certain ceremonial events can take place and some problems of protocol can be resolved - for me these part our constitutional arangements and effect the day-to-day function of the GG, which is not newsworthy but still important. Quite seperate from this my understanding is that, the GG is open to get advice from the Queen, but has never done so and for good reason has not done so. For you the GG is either not open, or it is improper. I propose that the writing a replacement sentence, which explains the occasional co-operation on some minor matters, but affirms the ultimate independance of the GG in relation to the Queen, especially in a constitutional crisis or significant matter. It matters little whether the minor matters are defined as constitutional, but they should not be defined as outside the constitution. Furthermore, can it be written so the reader does not need to understand prerogatives (which is complex) to get the general sense of the relationship. --dlatimer 00:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * "The Governor-General acts as the representative of the Queen in exercising her personal prerogative powers under delegation, such as the appointment of ambassadors, the awarding of honours and other minor functions. When exercising his constitutional powers, the Governor-General does not consult with the Queen and is under no obligation to do so." Something along those lines would be fine by me. I think that the matter of the Governor-General's powers and the extent to which he represents the Queen is crucial in understanding his modern role. I will not sit still for any unqualified statement that he is her representative. The literal text of the Constitution does not say that he is, and even if it was intended that he act in that way at Federation, Australia has grown apart from the United Kingdom over the past century or so to the extent that any representation is minimal. I particularly detest the untruthful way that some participants in the republican debate ignore or downplay the many and important changes in our constitutional history such as the Statute of Westminster and the Australia Act. The High Court found in Sue vs Hill that the United Kingdom is now a foreign power, alythough it was not so at Federation and the Constitution has not been changed to reflect this. The High Court understands that change has occurred, but to hear some people talk one might imagine that we are ruled out of Buckingham Palace with the Governor-General firmly under the Queen's thumb, and her finger firmly on the trigger of s59. Skyring 02:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dramatic language for a political point
"in an extremely limited sense". This phrase is dramatic and not appropriate for the opening section of the article. The limitations of the represenatation need to be explained showing the full range of opinion on this issue --129.78.228.114 02:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps you should register and explain the full range of opinions in the article. Use sources. Skyring 21:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"virtually untrammeled power". This is very dramatic writing and not constistant with the literal content of the constitution, either in 1901 or today. --129.78.228.114 02:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * In fact it is consistent with the black letter law of the Constitution. I urge you to read it. But the thrust of the statement is that the Governor-General's powers are not exercised to the extent one might imagine. Mind you, Gough Whitlam underestimated his man. Skyring 21:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sir David Smith attempts to make a political point in the republican debate. Much of his evidence is not written in good faith. Shame on you for being taken in by it. You have confused interpretation with fact - again. --Dlatimer 01:13, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I rather doubt it, but if you could provide an example, we can discuss it. Can you do this, please? Or apologise. Skyring 09:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * An example? Sure, why not? Smith says this "... scholarly commentators such as Richard McGarvie, ...; and Professor George Winterton, ..., referred to the governor-general as head of state." Winterton says this in response "Sir David cites ... newspaper reports, and 'scholarly commentators' such as former Victorian Governor Richard McGarvie and the present writer. ... However, the cited newspaper articles do not support Sir David; McGarvie twice described the governor-general as "operative head of state", while I used the term "effective head of state". In his major work, ... Richard McGarvie stated that 'the Queen is head of state ...' ... I wrote that '[t]he Constitution makes it clear that the formal Head of State of the Commonwealth is the Queen, not the Governor-General'. Evidence enough that Smith does not write in good faith. Furthermore, he said in a rebutal "on pages 60 and 61 of my article I listed 'constitutional', 'de facto', 'virtual' and 'effective' as examples". His actual words were "albeit on occasions prefixed by an adjective such as 'constitutional' or 'de facto'" and later "without the customary adjectives such as 'de facto'" Evidence of habitual lying and twisting of the truth? What's to discuss! BTW, black letter is a type of legal interpretation/approach to law. Any first-year knows that... I don't have the time to connect the dots for you any more than that. --Dlatimer 13:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * You haven't made your case. If you think you have then I suggest that your interpretation of "habitual lying and twisting of the truth" sets the bar so low that nobody is exempt. Certainly you would trip yourself up if the standards you demand of others are applied to yourself. I'm asking you again to provide a single example of a case where I have confused interpretation with fact. Can you do this? And yes, you had best connect the dots, if you have both dots and connections. Skyring 20:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * What a poor sport you are! Do you really think anyone is surprised by your response? I for one am not. Waste someone else's time. End of discussion. --Dlatimer 23:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sir David Smith? Hardly a NPOV source
"The Governor-General is the representative of the Queen only in his ability to..." This has been added recently and based upon the arguments of Sir David Smith. It is a theory used to argue that the Republican Movement is dishonest. Therefore not neutral. --129.78.228.114 02:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think you understand what NPOV means. Feel free to register and provide the ARM's POV if you think balance is needed. I would be interested to see if we could determine the precise limits of the extent of the representation, but given the way that so many of the traditional prerogative powers of the British monarch were explicitly given to the Governor-General in the Constitution I can't see how what remains amounts to very much at all. The quote from the Constitutional Commission is hardly Sir David's invention. Skyring 21:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe he/she does understand and you don't. If you think adding the ARM POV will make the article balanced, then you are wrong. If you think wikipedea is the place to define the nature of representation, then you are naive.
 * --Dlatimer 12:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * From NPOV: "The neutral point of view policy states that articles should be written without bias, representing all views fairly." To my mind, the ARM is a significant player in the public debate on our constitutional affairs. As a member, I realise that they don't have much of an ongoing role at the moment, but presumably this will escalate when there is opportunity to do more than stir the pot.

 * The limits of representation are important, because otherwise a reader might gain the erroneous view that the Governor-General is merely the Queen's deputy or agent, and the last thing we want is to spread untruths. You do recognise this point, I trust? Skyring 19:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * It is not our job to determine what is true or not true.

 * Please correct me if I am in error, but your response to my question leads me to the conclusion that you don't mind if you insert untruths into Wikipedia. I do hope that I am mistaken. Skyring 09:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * You have led yourself to the wrong conclusion. Yes, you are mistaken.

 * In that case I am very glad of it. I wish I had your sangfroid - if I had had untruths publicly pointed out and yanked out of Wikipedia like you have, I would be full of apology. You conceal your feelings well. Skyring 20:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I added the text about who consults with who and the Queen's reply to Schole, which should paint a reasonable picture of the relationship without stating an overall conclusion. --Dlatimer 01:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"The 1988 Constitutional Commission, of which ... " it is not appropriate to launch into the republican debate in the opening paragraph. This is copied from a Quadrant articles by Sir David Smith, and are his interpretation. --129.78.228.114 02:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Sir David Smith used the quote, which is entirely appropriate. He didn't invent it. I searched for the text of the Commission's report on the web, but couldn't find it. Maybe I have a physical copy tucked away somewhere, but I doubt that the quote is incorrect or taken out of context. The simple fact is that the Queen doesn't have much power remaining that can be delegated. Legation, honours and s126. Big deal. Skyring 21:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Skyring - You are the source of the non-neutral material. If somebody can identify the similarity between your additions and a magazine article which is clearly designed as an argument against republicanism - then its not neutral. Anyway, its not the quote which is the problem but the text around it.

--Dlatimer 12:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I can't see the problem. I went looking for an good source on the extent of representation and that's what I found. Again, I don't think you understand the nature of NPOV. Skyring 19:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I know you can't see the problem. To be kind, you are confusing neutral with balanced. Even your statement "I don't think you understand NPOV" shows you value your own opinion above others. --Dlatimer 01:25, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I suggest that you read Wikipedia's definition of NPOV instead of making one up for yourself. Skyring 21:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Do you mean read it again? - They say one should not "assert a particular point of view." I believe that's how the quote was originally presented. Maybe, 129.78.228.114 had a problem with the trustworthiness of the quote too. Even as it stands, we are using a quote indirectly, which is always a risk, but adding the reference will help. --Dlatimer 01:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is GG Head of State?
The governor-general is *not* the head of state. In theory, they are the Queen's representative in Australia. While, in practice, the gg acts without reference to the Queen, go check the CIA World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/as.html#Govt, the Monarchy's website http://www.royal.gov.uk/today/realms.htm, or, more to the point, the Australian constitution itself: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/chapter1.htm

Some monarchists as part of the "no" campaign in the 1999 referendum made the claim that the gg was Australia's head of state, but virtually nobody agreed with them.

Some reference to this belief might be appropriate on the main page, but any claim that this represents popular or expert majority opinion is utterly false. -- Robert Merkel

The Constitution states that the Governor-General is the Queen's representative, but this is woefully obsolete. He does not act as such in any significant manner, certainly not in the sense of an agent or deputy. His constitutional powers are given to him in his own right, and he is not subject to instruction from the Queen. This was pointed out by Quick and Garran and belatedly rectified.

Relying on the CIA as an authoritative source as to who our head of state might be is ludicrous. The Constitution is silent on the matter, as is the High Court. References to the Governor-General as head of state abound, excluding those from monarchist sources. I am surprised that the republican position on this is so Anglocentric - it seems ridiculous to inflate the role of the Queen and diminish that of the Governor-General, who is an Australian. Perhaps this is done to create a sense of need and urgency for change. That worked well, didn't it? Skyring

I have removed the ludicrous claim that the GG is de facto head of state and said that though not a head of state, he fulfills most of head of state functions, which is the accurate situation.

I also removed the nutty claim that the GG is appointed by the Queen as head of the Commonwealth. He is appointed by the Queen of Australia. The head of the Commonweath has no powers whatsoever and is purely symbolic. STÓD/ÉÍRE 17:55 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

There is nothing ludicrous about the claim that the GG is de facto head of state. This explanation has been used The word de facto just means that he or she is, "in practice" the Head of State. In the GGs own speeches and reports the words "effective Head of State "are used. --Dlatimer 12:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Appropriate Protocol in listing GGs
I'm unsure as to if the block pertaining to the incorrect use of the term Major-General after retirement is correct. From my memory the correct protocol is to refer to someone as Major (or General or Major General for that matter) after they have left the services, and therefore this is the correct title. Does anyone else have any thoughts?

If we're going to list Administrators here as well, is anyone going to scream if I list Guy Green, because he took over between Hollingworth and Jeffery? Ambivalenthysteria 14:04, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re: Administrators Although I have not quite completed my (piecemeal) updates, I for one have no objection to additions.

--JohnArmagh 15:11, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Criticisms of list
I have to say I find the list of Governors General and Administrators extremely fussy, to the point sometimes of being inaccurate.

 * First of all, a reader who comes to this page wants a simple list of Governors General. The title of the page being "Governor General of Australia", it is too much to put every person who was Administrator of the Government of the Commonwealth for one day or one month.

 * The form "Joe Bloggs, the eighth Viscount Townsville" sounds strange and is particularly needless: what is wrong with "Joe Bloggs, 8th Viscount Townsville", which is the standard Wikipedia format for hereditary peers, and links straight to the article?

 * The idea that any of this reflects the person's "Official Name and Style" is pure fantasy: "His Excellency The Duke of Gloucester, His Royal Highness Prince Henry William Frederick Albert, Earl of Ulster and Baron Culloden, KG, KT, KP, GCB, GCMG, GCVO, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia" was never known as such, officially or otherwise. The idea of a royal prince being addressed as His Excellency is particularly bizarre. You might as well add in "His Grace", since he was also a duke, and "The Right Honourable", since he was an earl and baron. Why does one title come before his name and the rest after?

 * I have never seen Dr Hollingworth called "The Honourable", but if he is in some way entitled to it it would come after "The Right Reverend", not before.

 * Why place "Governor General of the Commonwealth of Australia" at the end of every person's name in a list of Governors General of the Commonwealth of Australia? Why not "Governor General and Commander in Chief in and over the Commonwealth of Australia"?

 * Lord Linlithgow would have been "The Most Honourable", being a marquess.

 * British Commonwealth usage is not to put commas after "His Excellency", "His Royal Highness" etc.

 * Why are all the Administrators denied the style "His Excellency"? Seeing as the Administrators are appointed from the state Governors by seniority, they would all already be Excellencies.

I have moved the more detailed list to a separate page, List of persons administering the Government of Australia

Andrew Yong 12:10, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew's criticisms, which I was reluctant to make since I wrote the previous list. The current list is over-pedantic and over-deferential to all these archaic British usages, which were never paid much attention in Australia. Adam 12:46, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

-- You raise a number of points on both substance and style which I will need to investigate (and some of which I had already begun looking into).

I started updating the list in full knowledge that is not possible to create any list which is not open to criticism in some way - either it contains an excess of data or too little, or the data is inaccurate - or partial - or that it is in a style not esthetically pleasing to the reader.

I had been researching the details to fill in the gaps.

Of those points which I can answer quickly (not in any particular order):-

 * This is probably a lame excuse, but the omission of the qualification 'Excellency' from Administrators was an interim measure - I did not want to put the label carte-blanche until I had established that they were all due it at the time they were in office.

 * I have no more right than anyone else to say whether there should be a list purely of GGs and a separate list of all those invested with the powers, so I cannot therefore dispute your right to create a separate list as you have done - and I can only support your decision so to do.

 * On the individual instances you quote, you will appreciate that sources of information may not be accurate, however I had initially to use that information rather than rely upon my own speculation.

 * Only non-Royal Dukes have the qualification 'His Grace', Royal Dukes are HRH.

 * Whilst the styles appear 'fantasy' they are (errors aside) merely the agglomeration of the formal titles to which the individual was due at the time they were in office.

Most of all though is that the information I present is not set in stone and I would of course, in the spirit of the Wikipedia be open for any contribution from those seeking to make the list more accurate (either correcting) and I am grateful to you for the points you raise which I can check out and include on the list which you have moved.

By the way I am a republican, although a pedantic one!

--JohnArmagh 12:59, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Head of State. State of Play
We need to remove the reference to delegated powers. The powers of the Governor-General are threefold. First are his constitutional powers, which are given to him alone and are not able to be exercised or influenced by the Queen - only the Australian people may add to, modify or withdraw these powers by virtue of s128.

Second are his prerogative powers, those deriving from common law, mostly those of the British monarch, exercisable by virtue of the Governor-General "representing" the Queen. These are powers such as recognising diplomatic representatives, giving pardons, conferring honours and so on, now much diminished by legislation, but still subject to Royal Letters-Patent. The power to appoint deputies mentioned in s126 is a special case of a directly delegated power.

Third are his statutory powers, those given to the Governor-General by Act of Parliament. An interesting point is that the Royal Powers Act 1953 gives the Queen the power to exercise the statutory powers of the Governor-General when personally present in Australia, which makes her a delegate of the Governor-General.

Almost all of the Governor-General's powers are routine, non-contentious. Even most of the constitutional powers are exercised under advice. However, some of his constitutional powers, as Gough Whitlam discovered in 1975, may be exercised without advice. These are the reserve powers, and they belong to the Governor-General alone. They are not "the reserve powers of the Crown", as some try to present them, implying that they belong to the Queen or the State, because the constitution does not give these powers to the monarch or the "Crown" meaning the Commonwealth, but to the Governor-General alone.

So it is quite incorrect to say that the Governor-General is merely a ceremonial head of state. He alone holds the ultimate executive power. 1975 proves this point. Sir John Kerr did not act with the authority, the advice or the approval of the Queen. He acted alone, using his own powers, and he demonstrated his authority over the Prime Minister. Previous Governors-General have also refused advice by Prime Ministers.

The title of "head of state" is nowhere defined in the Constitution, so we must choose another authorative source. I reject sources as the CIA website, which essentially leaves us with only three potential sources. The High Court could provide an answer, but has not yet been asked this question. My opinion, following Sue v Hill, is that the High Court would say that the Governor-General is now the head of state, using the same reasoning that they used to find that the UK is now a foreign power, but was not in 1901, despite the Constitution not having been changed to reflect this.

A second source is the body of constitutional experts, including judges, academics, Governors-General and others. This is probably our best bet, but the sad fact is that opinion is quite divided. I note with some amusement that some Governors-General such as Bill Hayden referred to themselves as the head of state, whilst others such as Michael Jeffery have named the Queen in that position.

Thirdly, there is the opinion of the Australian people. However, the Australian people are notoriously ignorant of constitutional theory and it is hard to accept their opinion as an informed one. Furthermore, if the Australian people alone determine who is and who is not the head of state, then all that is required for us to have an unequivocally Australian Head of State is to change popular opinion.

I stress again that there is no official definition of who (if anybody) occupies the position of head of state. Until we can come up with an agreed definition, I intend to remove all reference in Wikipedia to an Australian head of state.

And please, no hand-waving. I really don't care how much you personally believe one person or another is the head of state, if you don't provide a bloody good source using that precise term, don't bother posting. Let's have a bit of scholarship, please! Skyring 21:16, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have made some changes. The only reference to head of state retained is that of being treated as one, making and receiving overseas visits with head of state honours. In theory he has had this role since 1930, when the Dominion Governors-General were accepted as standing in the same role to their Dominion Government as did the King to the British Government, but it is only in recent decades that Australian Governors-General have travelled overseas while in office.

I have tidied up references to "the Crown" and "the British Crown", which were being used to refer to the monarch, instead of the government(s). I have also clarified the source of the reserve powers, which are explicitly given to the Governor-General in the Constitution rather than being derived through tradition and convention from the Sovereign. Of course, the latter is the ultimate source, but the Constitution made explicit what is implicit in British constitutional theory.

The Sovereign remains at the top of the Australian Constitutional tree, at least in the literal text (unless you count God, who gets a guernsey in the covering Act), but her theoretical powers are now merely ciphers, exercised under Australian advice, and her sole remaining role in Australian government remains the formal appointment of the Governor-General. I think this is something we Australians can do for ourselves, but until we change the Constitution, the Queen is the only person given the power to appoint the Governor-General, even if it is just a rubber-stamp. Skyring 01:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Current discussion
Adam, I'm going to revert your changes unless you can back them up with sources, as I warned here three days ago.

You say "the reserve powers are not in the Constitution"

Indeed they are. I refer you to s64 of the Constitution:

 * 64. The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.

 * Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.

 * After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

That is the power used by Sir John Kerr to dismiss Gough Whitlam's government on 11 November 1975. It is explicitly given to the Governor-General and may be exercised without advice. The formula "Governor-General in Council" refers to the departments, not the appointment of ministers.

 * Firstly, you said the reserve powers were explicitly in the Constitution, which they are not. Secondly, s64 assigns certain function to the GG, as do many other sections, but modern practice is that these functions are exercised only on the advice of ministers. The "reserve powers" means the right of the GG to act without advice in certain circumstances, as Kerr did in 1975. s64 of course does not deal with that. If the reserve powers were set out in the Constitution, they wouldn't be reserve powers, now would they? Adam 03:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Kerr used the power given to him in s64 to dismiss Whitlam. He does not get his power to appoint and dismiss Ministers from any other source. This power is not qualified by the "Governor-General in Council" phrasing, for an explanation of which which see s63. It is, therefore, a reserve power. There are conventions on the usage of these powers, but this power does not derive from convention, it is explicitly stated in the Constitution.

 * You appear to be confusing British practice where the reserve powers of the monarch are not explicitly stated, with Australian practice where the reserve powers of the Governor-General are, save for whatever residual prerogative powers may remain. In any case, the power of the Governor-General to appoint and dismiss ministers is explicitly given to him in the Constitution and therefore over-rides any common law or other legislation.

 * It is not modern practice alone that the powers of the Governor-General are generally exercised on advice, unless you extend "modern" to include the entire period since Federation. Acting on advice is one of the cornerstones of responsible government. The practice is that even the reserve powers are generally exercised on advice, as shown by the relevant Minister countersigning a proclamation or gazette notice, but where the Governor-General acts alone, there is no such countersignature. By way of example, notifications of Ministerial appointments or dismissals are generally countersigned by the Prime Minister, but in the case of the termination of Whitlam's appointment (and those of his Ministers) there was no such Prime Ministerial approval. Skyring 05:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You say in British affairs" is meaningless

The context is the paragraph
 * As a result of decisions made at the Imperial Conference of 1926, the Governor-General ceased to be the diplomatic representative of the British Government (this role being taken over by a High Commissioner), and the British right of supervision over Australian affairs was abolished. This left the representation of the Sovereign as the sole official role of the Governor-General.

This last sentence is ridiculous. The official role of the Governor-General post 1926 was very much concerned with matters other than representing the Sovereign, namely his participation in the processes of government, such as calling elections, appointing ministers and so on.

The 1926 and 1930 changes to the role of Governor-General affected only his role in British affairs, not Australian.

 * I have read this paragraph again: "As a result of decisions made at the Imperial Conference of 1926, the Governor-General ceased to be the diplomatic representative of the British Government (this role being taken over by a High Commissioner), and the British right of supervision over Australian affairs was abolished. This left the representation of the Sovereign as the sole official role of the Governor-General in British affairs." and I still have no idea what "in British affairs" is supposed to mean. At first I thought you meant to type "in Australian affairs," which would make some sense. What role does or did the Australian Governor-General play in British affairs? Adam 03:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I took exception to the phrase "sole official role". Of course the Governor-General's official role extends well beyond personal representation of the monarch. I should have thought that this was obvious.

 * The Governor-General was the diplomatic representative of the British Government at Federation, and it is in this sense that he was the representative of the monarch and her or his Government from Federation to 1926. The monarch does not act without advice in British practice and therefore any direction or instructions coming from the monarch to the Governor-General as the British diplomatic representative may be presumed to have come, prior to 1926, from the relevant British Minister, normally the Colonial Secretary.

 * After 1926, the Governor-General no longer represented the British Government in any sense, leaving the personal representation of the monarch as his sole official role in the British-Australian relationship. This representation is in the nature of legation, awarding of honours and so on - essentially ceremonial matters of limited importance in Australian affairs. Skyring 05:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You say: there is no "constitutional relationship between Australia and the United Kingdom"

I must ask you to explain this rather suprising assertion. The legislation reserved for the Queen's signature is precisely that affecting our constitutional relationship, such as the Australia Act. If the 1999 referendum had passed, then the legislation effecting those changes would likewise have been sent to the Queen for Royal Assent as a matter of courtesy.

 * The Australia Acts ended the constitutional relationship between Australia and the UK. The only connection now is that our head of state, for historical reasons, happens to be the same person as the UK's head of state and happens to live there. But that is not a constitutional relationship. Adam 03:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I refer you to s2 of the covering clauses, noting that references within the Constitution to the Queen (Victoria) extend to the heirs and successors of the Queen in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. That is a constitutional relationship right there. Granted, we are gradually whittling away at the relationship, but it is certainly not history, as you seem to think. Skyring 05:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You say it must be stated that the GG is the Queen's representative (Constitution s2)

Why?

 * Because that is the GG's principal constitutional function, as is stated in s2. Adam 03:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * It was his function at Federation to represent the British Government but that is no longer the case. It is hardly his principal function, unless you somehow have the risible notion that the Queen is secretly and personally directing the Governor-General in the exercise of his functions. Skyring 05:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As pointed out above, the Governor-General was indeed the representative of the British Government at Federation, but this is no longer the case. You seem to be implying, by insisting that the Governor-General is the representative of the Queen, that he acts as some sort of agent or deputy in the exercise of his powers, when this is clearly not the case except in the rather minor case of his prerogative powers.

Any usage of the term "representative" should be and will be so qualified, and I suggest that it is simpler to avoid it entirely.

 * You are confusing the function of representing the British government (which was never a formal function of the office sanctioned by the Constitution, and was always much objected to by ministers) with that of representing the Queen, which is in s2. Adam 03:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I am doing no such thing. The representation I refer to is that of the British Government, and "the Queen" is merely a cipher for that representation, as I have already stated. How do you imagine that the Governor-General served as a representative of the monarch personally in any meaningful sense? As some sort of agent or deputy, accepting instruction and reporting back to him or her? It was pointed out at Federation that the duties of the Governor-General were laid down in the Constitution and were not subject to instruction and indeed the current situation is that the Queen's Instructions to the Governor-General were withdrawn during the Hawke years.

 * Once again I point out that the constitutional powers of the Governor-General are explicitly given to him alone. Kerr did not seek the advice or approval of the Queen because it was not necessary. The Queen's response after his action, quoted in Paul Kelly's book November 1975, pretty much says it all, namely that the powers are in the hands of the Governor-General and not subject to intervention from Buckingham Palace.

 * I would be interested in your interpretation of the phrase "the Queen's representative" as it applies to the Governor-General, and if you have any source for this interpretation beyond your own point of view.

I also note that you have reintroduced the misleading term "Crown". See discussion above.

 * I'm not aware of having done so. If I have, feel free to amend it. Adam 03:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

May I ask that you hold back on continued instant use of the revert button until you have thought about the points raised above. Again I ask that if you cannot provide sources for your opinions, then don't include your unsubstantiated views in an article where facts alone should determine the content. Skyring 02:22, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I have responded to your points above in what I hope is a reasonable way. However, as I have said before, I find your tone of patronising superiority most objectionable, and if you persist with it I won't bother debating with you. Adam 03:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * You have not provided the sources I have repeatedly asked for. If you think it is patronising of me to ask for facts rather than personal opinion, then I really must question your whole approach to Wikipedia. I have been honest and open about my intentions. I have given due warning, and I have welcomed input. I intend to remove unsubstantiated opinion from this article. Do you have a problem with this? Skyring 05:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Part of your problem arises from the meaning of the word "representative" in s2. It does not mean "stand in" or "personal representative." It does not mean that the Queen rings up the GG and says "Michael, please represent me today at the Wagga flower show." It means "one who carries out the functions of." The GG is a Viceroy, he plays the constitutional role of the Monarch in Australia. That is why the GG does not consult the Queen in carrying out his constitutional functions, because in a constitutional sense he is the Queen.

 * This is not the case. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the Constitution places many important executive powers directly into the hands of the Governor-General. Quick and Garran (p406) refer to these powers as having been "detached from the prerogative; and they can, therefore, without any constitutional impropriety, be declared to be vested in the Governor-General-in-Council."

 * Furthermore, the Governor-General cannot be regarded as a Viceroy because a complete assignment of all the powers of the monarch is not possible. The monarch's powers in regard to the States cannot be given or delegated to the Governor-General, for example. It is quite clear that monarch and Governor-General have two different sets of powers, and that the Governor-General's powers supersede those of the Queen in many important areas, as discovered by Gough Whitlam in 1975, who had also subscribed to the Viceroy theory.

 * My problem with the word "representative" stems from its use in a partisan manner by attempting to inflate the role of the Queen and diminish that of the Governor-General, as in "the Governor-General is only the representative of the Queen", thereby implying that the Queen holds all the powers and merely delegates them to the Governor-General. This is not the case. As I have noted previously, the Governor-General stands in the same relationship to the Australian Government as the monarch does in relation to the British Government, and should be regarded as a representative only in this rather limited sense. Skyring 09:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree, and that is what I said. Adam 10:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would have thought this was obvious to you, but you seem to prefer to make it a subject for your usual cheap sarcasm. I actually agree with some of the points you make in relation to other matters above, but given the unpleasantness of any discussion with you I am disinclined to discuss them further. Adam 07:36, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I am sorry if you thought I was being unpleasant or sarcastic, but I must press you for any sources for your opinions, because without them, I can see no alternative to reversing your reverts. Our discussion seems to follow a predictable pattern. I lay out my reasoning and point out the areas I regard as incorrect or unsubstantiated opinion. You respond by disagreeing with me. I point out your errors and ask you for sources to back up your opinions. You then turn to personal abuse and say that you are withdrawing from the discussion. This sort of "debate" is hardly satisfactory. Skyring 09:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with that also. I have not turned to personal abuse, I have objected to your sarcastic tone. Adam 10:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * More personal comments, no sources for opinions. I take it you're done with discussion here? Skyring 10:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Invention is not approprate
"envisaged as one of the great offices of the British Empire, on par with the Viceroy of India. But the office never attracted candidates of the seniority originally envisaged, and Australian public opinion never accepted the idea of the Governor-General as an imperial pro-consul" This is nonsense! --Dlatimer 02:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Your source is interesting, but hardly impressive. Skyring 21:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I've checked my sources and cannot find any support for this. In particular - who envisaged this? what seniority was envisaged? how can the GG be compared with a pro-consul? This is from the convention debates 12FEB1890 -- "Sir Henry Parkes ... unquestionably referred to the Dominion of Canada, he did so only in these words:- "The scheme of Federal Government, it is assumed, would necessarily follow Close upon the type of the Dominion Government of Canada. It would provide for the appointment of a Governor-General, for the creation of an Australian Privy Council, and a Parliament consisting of a Senate and a House of Commons." " --Dlatimer 01:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The Henry Parkes quote seems to be the more relevant --Dlatimer 14:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Misleading pattern
" Labor governments generally appointed Australians, and conservative governments appointed British Governors-General". This suggests a pattern which did not exist. Apart from Isaacs, once Australians GG's were appointed, no British were thereafter appointed.

 * You don't consider William McKell as Australian? Please explain. Skyring 21:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Hasluck was appointed by a conservative government. The pattern is false.

 * You don't consider William McKell as Australian? Please explain.Skyring 19:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * You don't consider that Paul Hasluck was appointed by a conservative government? Please explain. --Dlatimer 01:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) (I can be sarcastic too.)

The unthinkable is thinkable
"a non-Australian appointment, although technically still possible, would now be unthinkable in practical terms. Suggestions that the Prince of Wales become the Governor-General have come to nothing, and this possibility seems increasingly remote." If its unthinkable, then why are people thinking about it. This section is a contradition! --Dlatimer 02:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * In practical terms the reality is that any Australian Prime Minister who advised the Queen to appoint a British Governor-General would probably not survive the next election. People may think it and there is no constitutional difficulty, but the practical effect is one that you don't seem to have thought about. As noted, the appointment of the Prince of Wales was once a possibility, when he was still reasonably popular. We are talking decades ago, here. However, the constitutional difficulties of having as Governor-General someone who could also simultaneously and unexpectedly be the monarch if the Queen were to be run over by the proverbial bus don't bear thinking about. Skyring 21:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * All you have to do is state what happened and what is happening. You are writing according to your opinion as to what is possible or unlikely.--Dlatimer 12:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think that there is much of an argument to be made for the counter case - that it would be practical to have a British Governor-General appointed. I think any Prime Minister who did this would be seen as being out of touch with public opinion. Perhaps you disagree. Perhaps JackOfOz was imprecise in his use of language when he inserted the sentence. Easily fixed. Skyring 19:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fortune-telling and the Dismissal
"... a situation unforeseen by any constitutional scholar." What does this mean? How does the writer know that the situation was never previously considered? Why is this comment important to make at all? Is the writer suggesting it was foreseen by others? --Dlatimer 02:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I used the preface of Christopher Cuneen's King's Men as my guide, first checking Crisp. Presumably Cuneen, in writing a book about Governors-General which was well received and often quoted since then, had done his homework. If you (or anybody else) can find a pre-1975 source that seriously suggests anything approaching Sir John Kerr's actions, I would be grateful if you can quote it. The simple fact is that until 1975 the Governor-General's office was seen as an increasingly quaint constitutional backwater. Skyring 21:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Someone who uses a metaphor to explain a fact! Every time you write, you show your inability to present material in a neutral manner. Quite clearly, like you, Cuneen is not in any position to visit the thoughts of all the constitutional scholars.

 * How do you work that out? Constitutional scholars are thin on the ground in Australia. Always have been. It is not difficult to visit all of the published works on the topic of the Governor-General prior to 1975 and presumably Cuneen, in writing what is recognised as the definitive text on the early Governors-General, made himself familiar with as much of the published material as possible, judging by his extensive bibliography, freely used as source material in the main text. I notice that you cannot provide any example of a pre-1975 constitutional scholar seriously suggesting actions along the lines of Kerr's. Instead you resort to personal attack. Skyring 19:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * But for wikipedia it's a silly thing to say. It should be dealing with established facts. Where an opinion of someone is worth quoting, then mention the source. Personally, I think its an irrelevant point in an article about the Governor-General. --Dlatimer 12:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * It's a bit hard to mention the source when the point is that there aren't any sources. Be reasonable. The fact is that Kerr's actions in the most serious and famous episode in the entire history of the office were quite unforeseen. Certainly Whitlam didn't believe that he would be dismissed, and there is no doubt that he was and is a constitutional scholar. But you don't see this as relevant. You dispute the facts without providing any source for your opinion. Skyring 19:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia. I don't need to provide counter evidence.

 * You should provide a source, when asked, for a statement of yours when it is challenged. Skyring 21:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The statement cannot be proven. It may be even a good or likely claim, but it is beyond determination. One should be safe. My suggestion would be something like this: "The dismisal was an example of the use of discretionary power by the Governor-General to resolve a constitutional crisis where there was not a singular convention or past precident to provide guidance."

 * Lang and Game was a prededent, although at a State level. My point is that by 1975, no constitutional scholar would have said that Kerr's actions were to be expected. The trend was away from any use of the reserve powers at all. As for what is said in the press, well, youget lots of stuff in the press. You get people saying in today's paper that Prince Charles will be King of England one day, and that's just plain wrong. Skyring 21:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think given the precedent of Game dismissing Lang in 1932 it is wrong to say that the possibility of Kerr dismissing Whitlam was totally unforeseen. It was not expected but the possibility was foreseen. My recollection is that the possibility was canvassed in the press, although I can't give a source. My recollection also is that Ellicott referred to it in his circulars to the Shadow Cabinet. Ellicott was a former Solicitor-General but I don't know if he counts as a "scholar." Adam 12:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The fundamental problem on this issue and many others is that wikipedia is not the place to make points. Skyring, you may know many things, but you overlay what I assume are your views and perspectives above what can be reasonably established.

Such as...? Do you have a concrete example, or are you just making noises? Skyring 08:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Stop asking everyone to prove you wrong and just tone down your additions, so they don't stand out as questionable. --Dlatimer 02:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I suggest once again that you inform yourself. You haven't proven me wrong yet, but the reverse is not true. On that basis, if you think an edit of mine is questionable, then it probably means that you don't know as much as you think you do.

 * As for being proven wrong, I am more than happy to have my errors corrected, especially if they had the effect of introducing error into an article page rather than a talk page. I'm not perfect. Adam Carr caught me out on a beauty a few weeks ago, and I thank him for it. Now, may I suggest that instead of sniping at one another, we get back to discussing content? Skyring 08:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry? Are you saying I cannot question your content?

 * Hardly. In fact I urge you to do so. Use sources. Skyring 20:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Lets put it this way: Alfred Deakin on 13-Apr-1897 discussing the blocking of supply and Henry Dobson in response saying the "Governor-General will call to his Council six or seven gentlemen whom he thinks capable of being the first Ministers in the Commonwealth... and there will be no mandate of the people about it." --Dlatimer 13:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you. However, using a pre-Federation example merely underscores my statements about the perceived decline in the role of the Governor-General. Cunneen quotes Crisp as saying: 'The history of the Governor-Generalship of Australia...has been the history of sure and steady erosion of the small initial deposit of personal initiative and discretion vested in the holders of the office. (On checking my 1962 copy of Crisp I find that the wording is slightly different to that quoted and I also notice that Crisp equates the office with that of head of state.) Cunneen goes on to say The theory of sure and steady erosion was to colour my research until 1975. I urge you to read both Crisp and Cunneen. Skyring 20:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * What? There's no time limit on unforseen. How pathetic am I to spent hours on finding an answer, only to have it shoved back in my face? I am not making the same mistake twice. END OF DISCUSSION --Dlatimer 23:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Again I thank you for your research. It is gratifying that you should wade through proceedings of the Constitutional Conventions of the 1890s (or at least through texts referring to those momentous days), but I was perhaps not explicit enough. The quote from Cunneen talked of declining powers and I referred to this when I mentioned a constitutional backwater, which you chose to ignore in the sense I intended it. Of course Kerr's actions were foreseen in a general way a long time ago, but the point I was making was that they were not foreseen in the decades leading up to 1975 because the constitutional scholars of the time all considered that the role of the Governor-General was steadily eroding.

 * You have said a couple of times now that you have reached an end of discussion. I urge you to reconsider. If I ask for evidence rather than speculation, I am not doing it to annoy you. It is because I consider that your opinions are baseless and that the search for a source can only demonstrate this to you in a way that I cannot. I feel that we are making progress and that a rigid insistence on fact and verifiable sources can only help in removing error and unmarked opinion from this article. Skyring 05:53, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Misc
I don't want to get involved in further controversies at this article, but this quote from the current GG, showing his understanding of his representative role, probably merits inclusion: "Her Majesty is Australia's head of state but I am her representative and to all intents and purposes I carry out the full role." Adam 02:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for that, Adam! I think it should be included too. Mind you, the perception of whether they are the head of state seems to differ according to the incumbent. Bill Hayden described himself as such and I suspect that Peter Hollingworth might have put himself higher still.

 * That's twice I've seen you do that archive trick. How is it done? Skyring 03:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is there a quote in which Hayden described himself as being the head of state? I'd believe anything of Hayden, but it seems an odd thing for a monarchist to say.

 * Bill Hayden, "Hayden: An Autobiography", Angus & Robertson 1996, pp515, 519 and elsewhere. Indirect references, but unmistakable. Hayden states that he is not a fawning royalist, and indeed his style had the effect of scaring Sir David Smith, who could be so described, out of his job as Official Secretary. Skyring 04:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Archiving: I went control-A, control-X to pick up all the text, then typed Talk:Governor-General of Australia/Archive1 on the blank page, then saved the page. I then opened the new page (Talk:Governor-General of Australia/Archive1) thus created, and went control-V to dump the old text into the new page, which I then saved. Adam 03:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks! Skyring

 * I think Adam's quote is good. dlatimer

I propose[d] the the writing a replacement sentence, which explains the occasional co-operation on some minor matters, but affirms the ultimate independance of the GG in relation to the Queen, especially in a constitutional crisis or significant matter. --dlatimer 00:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Skyring: "The Governor-General acts as the representative of the Queen in exercising her personal prerogative powers under delegation, such as the appointment of ambassadors, the awarding of honours and other minor functions. When exercising his constitutional powers, the Governor-General does not consult with the Queen and is under no obligation to do so."

I think skyring on archive1 has simply re-proposed his own conclusions on the matter. I don't think its useful to the average reader, because it implies that prerogatives are seperate to the constitution, whereas I have read repeatedly that the GG relies on s61. The distinction made between preprogatives and other executive powers is useless, because the implication is that the GG's independence is subject to this distinction, which we all agree is not the case. Anyway, there is clearly no firm agreement on this. Secondly, how will an ordinary reader, especially a younger or O/S student make sense of it. The downplay argument is lost on me - Sure, assert the GG's independence by all means. But know this, the present arrangement has been arrived at through mutual co-operation with the Queen, albeit on Australian advice. It is pointless to pin down the nature of the representation. "does not consult" is too strong, given the evidence which I provided. Skyring is somehow convinced of this, but how? The GG does correspond with the Queen, so how can he be sure consultation does not take place. I am satisfied that for the Queen to open parliament requires consultation and use of s60 is consultation, if necessary replace "consult" with something weaker, such as "corresponds", where there is no doubt.

A point on protocol and politeness: Usually, I quite enjoy an interesting discussion, because I like to learn and practice being respectful to the views of others (I do need the practice). At first, I thought skyring was a smart teenager. Now, I don't know what to think. An open-source project like this depends on the adoption of certain epistemological understandings. Who shall say, who is right and who has acted rightly? But I now am arguing over nothing and hating it. That's it. --Dlatimer 06:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * At first, I thought skyring was a smart teenager. My initial perception of Adam!

 * My objection to the use of "consult" in relation to the exercise of the Governor-General's constitutional powers is that it makes him appear to be the agent of the Queen in this respect, when this is not the case. I use the term constitutional powers to mean those powers explicitly given to the Governor-General in the Constitution, rather than the prerogative powers, the extent of which depends on interpretation of the term "executive power" in s61.

 * Saying that the Governor-General consults with the Queen on the rare use of ss58&60 is not a given. The Queen doesn't tell the Governor-General that she wants to sign a Bill into law. The Prime Minister would see such a Bill through Parliament and advise both the Governor-General and the Queen that it is to be reserved for the Queen's pleasure and both would act on advice. On looking into this, I see that the Australia Act 1986 was not reserved for the Queen's pleasure, but rather the Queen signed a proclamation brining all eight Acts into effect - the UK, Australian and six State Acts. To the best of my knowledge the last Act reserved for the Queen's pleasure was the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973. I presume that a Constitution Amendment Act to formally remove the Queen from our affairs would be reserved as a matter of courtesy, but I do not know.

 * I don't want the GG to be seen at the agent of the Queen either. Rather than discuss the merits of my argument, let's look at your statement "reserved as a matter of courtesy". This is exactly the thing which I see as excluded in your text. In effect, my idea of consultation is really the observation of certain courtesies between the GG and the Queen. McGarvie also talks about the dangers of using the word prerogative in the Australian context.

 * So we could say: "Although the Governor-General and the Queen occasionally observe certain formalites, the Governor-General carries out his constitutional responsibilities with complete independence." From there add the 2 quotes (QPrivSec, Hayden) supportive of this independence. Then next paragraph, explain the nature of "representative" in terms of constitutional detail, as you do, but McGarvie says the prerogative is converted by s.61 to statutary law, so I hope you could consider that.

 * I like your wording, but would add " from the Queen." to remove confusion, because he usually acts under advice. I'm also thinking that s126 is a function he doesn't exercise independently because this is delegated from the Queen by the Letters-Patent. Do you have the McGarvie quote?

 * Yes, add that. As far as I am aware s.126 is considered dead, because we don't and never had deputy GG's and the reason for its existance, poor communications, is no longer an issue. McGarvie doesn't refer to it.

 * Actually, I am wrong. s126 is used so that the vice-president of the exectuive council can temporarily preside during an absence of the GG. --Dlatimer 09:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I have (or rather had) a lot of time for McGarvie. I shared a lot of Professor Craven's annoyance with the monarchists at the Constitutional Convention because if they had voted strategically they could have ensured that McGarvie's model was put to the people rather than the clumsy ARM thing. Even better, McGarvie would have been a less abrasive spokesman than Turnbull, who got right up the noses of the people whose votes he most needed. A bit like me, I guess. I'll delete this para soon.

 * Following Craven's suggestion would have alienated their base. The monarchist strategy worked out anyway.

 * Now, about the literal text thing. My problem is that the literal text of the constitution doesn't say that he is the Queen's representative. It says "shall be Her Majesty's representative". Furthermore, the example of s101 is before us, where the literal text says there "shall be an Inter-State Commission", which there plainly isn't. I think if we are talking literal text then we need to be very careful and nit-picky. Skyring 20:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Comparing s101 and s2 may not be applicable. I've found very little info on s101, but I think (and need to double-check) that the excuse for its abandonment is that no powers were given to it. Maybe, one day, a clever lawyer will try to get a company out of hot water with ASIC by referring to s101, but on the other hand if that were practicable, it should have happened by now.

 * If "shall" really means "may be", but it happens, then it "is". You're saying that literal truth cannot incorporate this logic. If so, the best option is to quote s2 directly, as it done on the GG website: ... constitution provides that "A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth..." So maybe "The literal text of the constitution states the Governor-General "shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth". Then add "the GG and the Queen take advice from the PM" --dlatimer 22:08, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Flag
I have uploaded an image of the flag of the Governor General. Can someone add it to the page when the protection ends. [] Astrotrain 20:46, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Republican Proposals
I have moved the Hayden quote to the Republican Proposals section where it works very well. It was improper to make this quote and then state Hayden believed he was the Head of State. Let the reader assume this themselves if they want. In my opinion, its a statement about the transition to a republic and nothing more. The debate about Head of State is described in context of opposition to republicanism. --dlatimer 04:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Adam, I am interested in your view on this? ... for the record. --Dlatimer 07:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Spring Clean 2005 new organisation
I have opened up a can of worms for myself, trying to get my head around this article, but I think I have made some progress. Essentially, I broke down the main parts of the article into Tenue, Constitutional Role, Ceremonial Role and History.

The existing paragraphs were moved under these main headings and where possible new sub-headings were created. It became obvious that under Tenue there was lots of missing information and inconsistancies. Where possible there is an explanation and a historical example.

Historical information was repeated over and over again. How many times did we read about 1926. Now all of that is put into the one history section. OK, its still mentioned under "method of appointment" but that too will be streamlined.

The section on Constitutional Role remains totally unwieldy. Slabs of constitutional sections copied verbously! This needs to be cleaned out. More info on the ceremonial role including what happens on overseas trips.

Please review what I have done and we'll see what fixes come out of it. --User:dlatimer 20:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I have made further changes and believe I have fixed up the Constitutional Role, taking out the slabs of constitutional sections and replacing it with hopefully reasonable explanation. Still more to do on the ceremonial role. --dlatimer 04:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I have repaired much of the recent damage done to this article. Please note that the Australian Constitution is not the same thing as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, an act of the UK Parliament which is no longer law in Australia. Adam 05:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Adam, Big Thanks for helping with this clean up.

My concern with the new opening section that I'd like to raise is the repeated use of the words 'head of state' in the opening section. While I strongly agree with the idea that the Queen is head of state, are the sentances "which in other countries are carried out by the head of state" and "role of a ceremonial head of state" necessary? Head of state is to some extent illdefined in this context. Additionally is it true he "carries out his functions in the name of the Queen"? For example section 5 and section 61. The words of section 58 "in the name of the Queen" are presented under Role in Parliament.

There is also some gender assignment.

You have taken out the words "encouraging, articulating and representing those things that unite Australians as a nation" which is a leading phrase to describe the GG and on the GG website and Royal website

Looking up Prince Charles, I found 1982 was a key year. Source B Source A

Regarding 1975 why take out "most famous and controversial"? What about "most notable" rather than "recent substantial"? --Dlatimer 07:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

In reply: Adam 08:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with the opening paragraph, but I suppose you could delete "Although he is not a head of state" without causing any loss of meaning if you think the phrase "head of state" appears too often.
 * The GG is the Queen's representative in Australia (s2), but the Queen is head of state, and the GG therefore carries out all his functions in her name. I don't see anything at ss5 or 61 which contradicts that.
 * All GGs to date have been men. If you want to change "he" to "he or she" throughout, feel free.
 * "Encouraging, articulating and representing those things that unite Australians as a nation" is someone's opinion about what the GG's job is. It is not one of his functions set out in the Constitution. I also think it is a fatuous cliche.
 * My memory of the 70s and 80s is fading as senility overtakes me. Change the Charles reference if you wish.
 * "Famous" and "controversial" are the two most pestilential cliches at Wikipedia, and I usually delete them on sight.

 * Head of state - Could we consider "ceremonial head of state". This is not explained clearly anywhere in wikipedia that I can see. For "in other countries are carried out by the head of state, I suggest "carried out by the Queen in the United Kingdom" i.e. more specific.
 * While ss5 or s61 does not contradict, GG does not refer to Queen for all things. A good example is making regulations. Should we not err on the side of caution?
 * Gender - OK, I'll do that
 * Since its the GG saying it, perhaps it could be mentioned under Ceremonial?
 * OK - thanks
 * Perhaps we could say "the most pestilential use of the reserve powers..." ;) Substantial is overused too. Do you like "notable"?

Pls see also Republican Proposals above. Thanks --Dlatimer 09:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Adam 10:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No objection
 * The GG does not refer to the Queen about anything. That doesn't alter the fact that he is acting in her name when he performs any official act.
 * I didn't realise it was a quote from the GG. But it's still only an opinion. The description of the GG's functions should be closely linked to the Constitution.
 * No objection to notable
 * I don't think the republic debate should be explored at this article, except to say that the referendum proposal entailed the abolition of the GG, but was rejected by the people.

Thanks for that! I've implemented what was discussed plus one or two minor changes and hope you find it mutually agreeable. I didn't return anything about the republic. --Dlatimer 14:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Peers, the Privy Council and the Rt Hon
Adam, I think it's the reverse of your edit. Peers are styled the Rt Hon, and have PC after their name if they are members of the Privy Council. Non-peers who are appointed to the Privy Council are styled the Rt Hon, but do not have PC, because the style is sufficient indication of their membership. It's only peers who have both, because they get the Rt Hon by virtue of their peerage, and need a further indicator where they are also members of the Council. JackofOz 06:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Adam 06:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I had forgotten that peers are Rt Hons by virtue of their peerages, not only if they are PCs.
 * "Non-peers who are appointed to the Privy Council are styled the Rt Hon, but do not have PC" That is correct and I have removed the PCs accordingly.

 * Cheers. JackofOz 07:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Where the Queen lives
Come on guys. Stop reverting and discuss it please. Xtra 02:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What is there to discuss? Gambino's edits are factually wrong and must be reverted. Adam 03:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * His edits may be wrong, but if everyone took the above attitude, no progress would ever be made.  JackofOz 04:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, smartypantses, I will leave it to u 2 to deal with. Adam 04:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Gbambino to discuss it if he wants to keep going. --Scott Davis Talk 06:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The Queen lives in the UK. Gambino is confusing (1) to live somewhere, with (2) to be somewhere. Dlatimer 13:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)]]

 * It's a fine line, which is why I'm surprised "lives predominantly in the UK" is so objected to. As she spends so much time out of the UK every year, I'd wager my wording is acceptable.  And how does one explain her own words, on various occasions, describing Canada as "home"? --gbambino 23:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Perhaps we need to come to slightly more formalised wording, such as "whose principal residence is in the UK". That way, we're talking about where her house is, and where her address is if you wrote to her, which is sufficient to pin her down for this purpose.  When she's visiting Canada or NZ or OZ or Timbuktoo, she's obviously still living, and she is obviously provided with a temporary abode whenever she's away from her usual British abode, but that's not what we're talking about.  JackofOz 02:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

the Queen and recent edits
Ok folks, you know more about this than I do. Is Xtra or Pnatt right? I don't know much about Australia or its monarchy, so you have to help me out. I urge those involved to mind 3RR. Thank you. --F a ng Aili 說嗎? 23:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Pnatt is completely wrong. A review of his edits suggests that he is simply a vandal. He has been repeatedly blocked, then come back and vandalised more articles. He has picked up a host of final warnings. In view of his repeated blocks and final warnings, given the fact that he vandalised the page straight after yet another final warning, I have imposed a one week block. Given that shorter blocks failed to get through to the numbskull, maybe this might get through to him. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 23:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

 * That was my general feeling as well, and I'm glad someone else backed me up. Thanks. --F a ng Aili 說嗎? 23:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Jewish
Is it at all important that two governors-general were Jewish? We don't mention which ones were Catholic, Anglican (apart from Hollingworth), Lutheran, agnostic or atheist. --Scott Davis Talk 15:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

 * It is notable in the sense that they are the only minority group to be represented with governors general. Xtra 23:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

 * All of the other groups I mentioned are minorities in Australia, too. Is being Jewish any more special than them? --Scott Davis Talk 10:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

 * It seems to me that the context in the article is that of ethnicity, not religion. JPD (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with Scott and think the whole paragraph is bizarre. It is not a summary of the backgrounds of Governor-General and has no practical relevance to the role or how it is perceived. --Dlatimer 03:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia's "no original research" policy forbids the introduction of novel narratives and syntheses. If there exists a reputable reference that states that two G-Gs were Jewish, kindly cite it. If no such reputable reference exists, then this is original research. Snottygobble 05:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

 * How is it original research? It is historical fact that two were. Xtra 06:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Xtra: I'm not sure if it's OR, but it's POV to include just one race/religion/denomination and not the others. JPD, if it's about ethnicity, perhaps instead of " Sir Isaac Isaacs, the first Australian-born Governor-General, and Sir Zelman Cowen were Jewish." It should be extended to " Sir Isaac Isaacs, the first Australian-born Governor-General, and Sir Zelman Cowen were Jewish, all others were Aryan." Do we think it would survive vandalism for long? --Scott Davis Talk 09:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

 * It is deffinitely not OR. but, on the point of POV, I personally do believe it relevant that a group that makes up only about .1% of the population has provided 2 GG's. Xtra 11:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

 * "Historical fact" and "original research" aren't mutually exclusive, else all history theses would be flights of fancy. WP:NOR is clear on this: it is not Wikipedia's job to draw the facts together in novel ways. If some reputable resource has thought it worthy of note that two of Australia's Governors General were Jewish, then let's cite that source. If no reputable resource has ever mentioned that two of Australia's Governors General were Jewish, then Wikipedia should not either.
 * I realise that the published fact that Cowan was Jewish can be put together with the published fact that Isaacs was Jewish, to form the synthesis that two of Australia's Governors-General were Jewish. Such a synthesis, as obvious as it may seem, is OR if not previously published. I highly recommend you thoroughly re-read WP:NOR before replying. Snottygobble 12:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so bloody ridiculous. Adam 12:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Adam - don't get personal. I see you've reverted removal of the sentence from the article, else I couldn't tell who you meant by this comment. Xtra: you underestimated the Jewish population in Australia - it's more like 0.5%. ,
 * I'd be more interested to find how the proportion of GGs with convict heritage compares to the general population, and whether the Australian-born ones typically are of foreign-born parents, or are they 4th and 5th generation Australians. And I still think it's not NPOV to identify one group/minority/whatever (ethnic, religious, sexuality or whatever) without doing the same for the rest. If the issue is comparing this group's representation as GGs to its representation in the population, then that overall statistic must also be presented. Both archbishops and star-ranking military officers are also over-represented as GGs I suspect. --Scott Davis Talk 15:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I have no opinion on whether their Jewishness should be mentioned, but it seems to me that well worded or otherwise, the original general intent of the paragraph was to say something along the lines of "They've all been white Anglo-Celtic males, apart from two Jewish GGs." That may be borderline OR, but it shouldn't be hard to find a reference for it somewhere, if it is considered relevant. The only NPOV is thge assumption that it is obvious what ethnicity the others were. The archbishops and military officers are mentioned in the paragraph before. Whether the Jewish comment goes or stays, I think a mention of Isaacs as the first Aus-born GG should stay somewhere in the article. JPD (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

 * It's just not relevant. If this was an article about Germany, then yes, it would be relevant. GG's have all been male - that is relevant. Anyway, a person can be both Anglo-Celtic and Jewish, can't they? --Dlatimer 07:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Er, at the risk of oversimplifying, not really. Consider this: where did the parents of all the other GG's come from? Slac speak up! 09:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Facts do not need cites. PMA 18:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that a fact? --Dlatimer 07:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "Governor-General"
Eyer and Surtsicna have taken me to task on my personal Talk page and, as I have notified there, I am copying this discussion to here so that others can have a say. I do NOT want to continue an edit war here, NOR to reopen the discussion that I have been referred to. My editorial view is that "Governor-General" should be capitalised in the first sentence but not thereafter—not very logical, but it works and I think can attract consensus.

Copied over:
 * Information orange.svg Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Governor-General of Australia. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. — Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add   to your message. 01:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That was my interpretation of MOS:JOBTITLES, as I explained. You can take your different interpretation to Talk on that page. Errantius (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This matter was discussed for nearly four months at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2020_archive. The consensus is to use lower case in that instance. Surtsicna (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus, either for the original RfC or for its continuation. There was a dreadful debate and it got exactly nowhere.
 * The original RfC was closed by a non-admin who adjudged:
 * Consensus was reached to keep consistency in style between the first sentence and the remainder of the article. A fresh and more precise RFC about other issues that were raised during this discussion is recommendable. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk)
 * Well, I can't see any consensus on anything—especially because "consistency in style between the first sentence and the remainder of the article" can mean always capitals or always non-capitals.
 * The continuation went on after that attempted closure and it ended:
 * If you ask me, my opinion given this information would be that the entire MOS:JOBTITLES section needs to go, and something needs to be rewritten and agreed upon before it gets put back. There should be no Manual of Style guideline if there is no "generally agreed guideline". (cf. Blueboar, The Drover's Wife) · • SUM1 • · (talk) 8:54 am, 3 March 2020, Tuesday (11 months, 1 day ago) (UTC+11)
 * I think the last three months of discussions have gone a considerable way to clarifying where opinions lie on the matter broadly, but what we still don't have is a solution that can find an acceptable consensus in an RfC. The Drover's Wife (talk) 9:24 am, 3 March 2020, Tuesday (11 months, 1 day ago) (UTC+11)
 * @The Drover's Wife: I think that means there's only one course of action left to take. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 5:46 am, 7 March 2020, Saturday (10 months, 27 days ago) (UTC+11)
 * That "one course of action", I suppose, is to go with one's own interpretation of MOS:JOBTITLES. Accordingly, I will revert you again in that article and in Prime Minister of Australia.
 * I am copying this to Talk in Governor-General of Australia so that others can have a say.
 * I'll add two policy points: that on a question of linguistic usage preference should ordinarily be given to opinions:
 * of native speakers;
 * when usage in a particular country is concerned, of users in that country.
 * BTW, I am a native speaker of English and I live in Australia.
 * Please just leave this sleeping dog where it is now lying. Errantius (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You both can figure it out. It's a hill, I'm no longer willing to die on. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No. You do not get to reject the results of an RfC just because you do not like them. RfCs can be closed by non-administrators, and that closing editor's decision was not overturned. Therefore, a consensus exists. MOS:JOBTITLES says what it says. The onus is on you to achieve a consensus overriding the existing one. Until then, the existing consensus is valid and the constructive thing to do is to respect it. Surtsicna (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

though I'm in agreement with lower-casing the intro. I shudder to think what's likely next. An RM of the article's name to Governor-general of Australia? GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That would contravene MOS:JOBTITLES. Surtsicna (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See Deputy prime minister of Canada, as an example of what 'can' happen. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @Surtsicna: you do not get to impose your own interpretation of a closure (which was ignored) or a policy.  I am following as best I can MOS:JOBTITLES:
 * "When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description". Errantius (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Aren't we talking about the bold-faced text in the lede? The one that's modified by a definite aricle? — Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add   to your message. 22:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that is a "modifier". Then MOS:JOBTITLES is wrong for this case: since "Governor-General" is how the title is spelt where the office is established, the Constitution of Australia, writing it without capitals at the beginning of the lede looks plain ignorant. Errantius (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has its own style guide. Barring that, most style guides would lowercase "The governor-general of Australia." — Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add   to your message. 23:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Orthography is not dictated by any country's constitution. If you think it is wrong, start yet another discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography. Surtsicna (talk) 09:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: We're using upper-case in the intros of these governors-general bios. A partial reversion has occurred as well, at the bios of the latter Canadian governors general. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

may have an interest here. The governors-general, prime ministers & related bio articles, are under the lower-casing lamp now. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

My observation is that the actual guideline at MOS:JOBTITLES does not specify whether titles should be capitalized or not; it specifies the conditions under which they may or may not be capitalized. So the actual form of the article depends on local consensus, since the MOS is permissive (among a certain set of options). Newimpartial (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * MOS:JOBTITLES is exceedingly clear: "When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description." — Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add   to your message. 00:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup. Under those conditions, the title is capitalized. Newimpartial (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Right... In "The governor-general", "governor-general" is preceded by a modifier, which means that "governor-general" isn't capitalized. — Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add   to your message. 01:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that. So for a WP article to present the title with upper-case elements and be JOBTITLES-compatible, it needs to be presented without an article or other modifier (and in the singular). That is, until such a time as JOBTITLES takes a more rational form.Newimpartial (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes... and be referring to the title or position in and of itself... If we're talking about the office, it's lowercase. So "Governor-General of Australia is the title given to the representative of the monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II, in Australia." would be a good lead sentence that's MOS compliant. But then, I'd expect the article to be about the title... and not the office. This article talks about the office, so the existing lead sentence should remain. — Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add   to your message. 01:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A more rational form as in lower case whenever not preceding a name, as in all academic writing? Surtsicna (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

New advice from the Governor-General
Looking at the Governor-General's website, I see a few sentences concerning their role. Perhaps we could incorporate this into our article here? --Pete (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What exactly? GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad you asked. In the "Constitutional role and functions" section, we talk about the discussion as to who is the Australian head of state, especially during the republic referendum campaign. David Hurley claimed he was the NSW head of state when he was NSW governor - a claim now made by of the six state governors, as you are no doubt aware - and he is no claiming on the Governor-General website that he is, in practice, the Australian head of state:"The Governor-General of Australia is the Queen’s representative. In practice, they are Australia’s Head of State and have a range of constitutional and ceremonial duties."
 * I think we could usefully add this bold claim to this article in the paragraph mentioned above. We should take care not to say in Wikivoice that he is the head of state - that is a matter of dispute - merely that he claims to be, using his precise wording. Do you have any thoughts on this? --Pete (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No good enough, as claiming to be the head of state, doesn't make you the head of state. We already settled this at this RFC with a resounding consensus of the the Monarch is the head of state. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Governor-General got the message. Perhaps you want to send the Wikisquad around to sort him out? --Pete (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Wanna do something worth your while? Head over to WP:AN. Unless you prefer to see the infobox of governors-general bios read as #th governor-general of Australia, rather then #th Governor-General of Australia. GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

h
a 202.4.28.1 (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Anthony Albanese swearing-in May 2022.jpg