Talk:Australian Government/Archive 7

Overview (archive change)
There has been an ungoing dispute here between one wikipedian, Skyring and everyone else on this page over whether Australia has one or two heads of state. Everyone else says one and has produced evidence. Skyring insists two and demands more evidence for what he maintains is a POV for which no evidence has been produced and insists on his right to put his version of events (for which he has produced scant evidence, most of it misquoted, out of context, or demonstrably wrong) in the article. Read the evidence below, much of which has already been pointed out to him, and see what you think.


 * That's just plain wrong. I don't insist that there are two heads of state. Please be so very good as to point out where I have said this, either here or in the article.


 * What I have done is to point out that there are three different views on the matter, and have quoted sources such as the Prime Minister demonstrating this. If you want to debate the issue, send your material to them. Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

'De-jure head of state' and 'de-facto head of state'
Various writers correctly distinguish between the legal definition of a head of state, which is quite clear, as a head of state is a legal office, and the ability of others to function as de facto head of state,ie, they are not the head of state themselves but they may carry out some or all of the powers, functions and duties of the head of state, if that head of state is unavailable - eg, abroad, ill, or unable or unwilling to carry out the functions of the role. Some states in addition may grant to the person fulfilling the role of head of state, but without the legal status of being head of state, additional head of state functions, but these are exercised either directly in the name of the head of state or are vested in the acting head of state in their representative role as acting for the head of state, not in their own personal capacity.

Examples of 'de facto heads of state' worldwide

 * Presidential Commission (Ireland) - the collective vice-presidency of Ireland, which acts as president, but whose members don't become president, if the President is unavailable or unwilling to carry out any or all or their powers, functions and duties;
 * The Vice-President of the United States, who can on occasion be called on to assume the powers, functions and duties of the presidency, but again is not regarded as being a head of state in those moments;
 * Counsellors of State in the UK - senior royals who act in loco reginae where the Queen is unavailable due to illness or travel. (As the Queen is currently in Canada, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of York and the Princess Royal, as far as I know, are current acting as CoS. However no-one on the planet right now regards Charles, Andrew and Anne as being heads of state, merely acting as a head of state.
 * A regent - they may act as a head of state if the monarch is underage or is in longterm medical care and so unable to act as head of state. Again no regent is ever regarded as being the head of state, merely the de facto head of state during the regency. An example was the regency of George, Prince of Wales (later George IV) during the 'madness' of his father, King George III.
 * The President of Ireland from 1937 to 1949. Though the office was constitutionally created in 1937, and filled in 1938, legal advice to the Government (revealed by then Taoiseach John A. Costello in 1948) was that the President was not head of state legally until the coming into force of the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948 in April 1949. The advice was that while the President possessed many of the powers, functions and duties of a head of state, they did not make him a head of state because non-heads of state (eg, colonial governors, regional governors, etc) could also exercise the same powers, such as appointing governments, signing laws, etc. Legally the key power that only heads of state possess, and which if one has it unambiguously shows one to be head of state, is the diplomatic role.

Until 1949 that continued to be vested in the King of Ireland, meaning that it was King George VI who appointed signed and sent Letters of Credence, signed treaties and carried out the diplomatic role as in effect 'Mr. Ireland' on the world diplomatic and protocol stage. The Republic of Ireland Act took these powers from the King and gave them unambiguously to the President, making him, from 1 April 1949 the Irish head of state. Costello explained to parliament that making the President the head of state was a major consideration in changing the law. They were also annoyed when the Governor General of Canada proposed a toast during an official visit by Costello to Canada to "the King" not the President. That brought home to them the fact that the President was not head of state.


 * Interesting, but irrelevant. The Australian Governor-General exercises his major powers in his own right. He is not assigned the powers of the monarch in the same way that a viceroy or regent is given a blanket assignment of prerogative powers. He is given his constitutional powers directly by we the people and nobody else but we the people can take them from him, certainly not the Queen. See s128 for more on this. Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The 'two heads of state' argument
The main author of the idea that the Queen of Australia and the Governor-General of Australia are both heads of state was Sir David Smith, a former secretary to the Governor-General. It was seized on my some monarchists during the 1999 referendum who argued that, if the governor-general was already an Australian head of state, why bother with a republic to create a new Australian head of state.


 * In point of fact, the monarchists, with Sir David Smith as one of several prominent spokesmen, don't hold the "two heads of state" view. They see the Governor-General as sole head of state and the Queen is described as "the Sovereign" rather than head of state. Smith initially held the "two heads of state" view as his public statements from 1995-1999 show, but switched during the republic referendum campaign. It is now a hallmark of the monarchist position, a not insignificant minority within the general population. Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

However few if any senior legal or constitutional experts gave it any credence, with many openly rubblishing it as absurd and illinformed.


 * Considering that the view was expressed during the republic referendum when many constitutional commentators were openly advocating a vote of YES or NO to the question of whether Australian should remove the Queen, it is hardly surprising that some commentators took a contrary position on a political question. It should, however, be noted that the population voted against the proposal. Sir David's side won that vote, albeit with the support of the direct-elect republicans. You are in the position of relying on the pre-election statements of the losing side, and it is misleading to claim that statements such as these should be treated with especial reverence. Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

It was however picked up by some campaigners and by some elements of the media though most of their comments suggested that they didn't understand what a head of state legally is. Some seized on the carefully worded comments of Howard and Winterton (quoted above) as evidence that they agreed with him, except that they were very careful to say that at most the Governor-General acts like a head of state, which does not, and is not the same as, is a head of state. But their subtle but crucial distinction was completely lost in the media coverage. Other than Smith, it is very hard to find anyone at any senior level who states categorically that the Governor-General is the Australian head of state.


 * The leaders of the monarchists within Australia, a not insignificant minority, make this very claim. Perhaps it is difficult for you personally to find them, but I have quoted them previously, and I take the opportunity to quote them again. Please not that I am not endorsing their views, merely quoting them:


 * David Flint: "The republican argument that we did not have an Australian Head of State was undermined completely by the fact that the Governor-General is treated internationally as our Head of State. The Keating government had formally declared him to be precisely that. In other words we already have a resident Australian Head of State."[] "Hence the Governor-General from 1926 exercises the functions of and is therefore the Head of State."


 * Kerry Jones: "So, in a crisis, such as in 1975 when the Governor-General dismissed the Prime Minister, it would no longer be clear who would be the more powerful! It would depend on who moved first. And we might not be able to work that out if each claimed they sacked the other first. We would be sacrificing our non-political Australian Head of State - the Governor-General - as an umpire above politics, for an apparently very powerful political President in formal terms, but one with no security of tenure."


 * Sophie Panopoulos: "Clearly, the Governor-General is our Australian Head of State. "


 * Tony Abbott (as mentioned by Kerry O'Brien):"Take the media eruption of calling the governor-general head of state, pursued in the papers, the ABC and commercial media. Simon Crean now refers to the office as the head of state. So what is going on? It has been a long-range monarchist strategy, championed by Tony Abbott among others, to argue the governor-general is the head of state as a way of killing the republican debate."


 * Malcolm Mackerras: "I have always taught my students that the Queen is the sovereign and the governor-general is the Australian head of State."


 * I note that one of the above is a senior Government Minister, another is a member of Parliament, a third a senior academic and so on. Sir David Smith, whom you dismiss as "a retired public servant" is actually a member of the Faculty of Law at the Australian National University. Perhaps your ignorance of Australian affairs may be a point in your defence, but that is neither here nor there within this discussion except to demonstrate your ignorance. You see Sir David as being a senior figure, but I think I would rate him as the most junior of those I have quoted above. Pete 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the Governors-General who had worked with Smith all universally rejected him claim with Sir Zelwan Cohen saying it was "wrong".


 * That's not true. Bill Hayden made no such rejection, nor did Sir John Kerr or Paul Hasluck, all of them Governors-General for whom Smith served as Private Secretary. Feel free to produce quotes to back up your "all universally rejected" statement, however. Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

In Professor Winterton's words Indeed, the principal defense of the present system has been to deny the Queen's role and to assert that the governor-general is the real Australian head of state. But the constitutional description of the governor-general is "Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth." If the Queen is not Australia's head of state, why on earth is the person who is Queen of the United Kingdom appointing the Australian head of state? 

Professor George Winterton's views
''An objective assessment can lead to only one conclusion: Australia's legal or formal head of state is the Queen. The Governor-General is the effective or de facto head of state of the Commonwealth, but not of Australia.''

Winterton here makes an interesting threefold distinction. He makes it clear that
 * legally the Queen is head of state, which is the whole point of the argument here


 * In point of fact, he does not say that the Queen is the head of state. He says the Queen is the "legal or formal head of state". This distinction may seem slight, but it is that qualification which separates those who hold the "Queen as sole head of state" view from those who hold other views. Let me put it another way so that you may see the point I am making.


 * Winterton makes it clear that effectively the Governor-General is the head of state, which is the whole point of the argument here.


 * This is using your form of language, but I suggest that you would reject this interpretation. Please don't twist what people actually say. Let us rely on their actual words. Pete 01:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * the Governor-General fulfils the role of acting de facto as head of state without being the legal head of state, and thirdly that even that de facto status is purely within the Commonwealth of Australia, not of Australia itself as a legal diplomatic state entity.


 * It's been pointed out to you that Australia is a federation. Winterton himself notes that the Governor-General has no constitutional role within the States, and of course the States don't do foreign affairs - that's an exclusive function of the Commonwealth under s51(xxix). As a "legal diplomatic state entity" the Commonwealth is Australia.


 * As to your interpretation of Winterton's views, he's clearly of the "two heads of state" school, because he identifies and names two heads of state, and doesn't use the term "head of state" without qualifying it in some way. Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

1988 Constitutional Commission report
''The Governor-General is in no sense a delegate of the Queen. The independence of the office is highlighted by changes which have been made in recent years to the Royal instruments relating to it".

The Commission correctly highlighted one notable change in the evolution of the governor-generalship. In 1900 a governor-general or governor was seen as possessing three roles; delegate of the monarch, representative of the monarch, and representative of the British government. The third of these roles was legally abolished by the Statutes of Westminster enacted in 1931, which implemented the decision of the 1926 Commonwealth Conference. As new powers, functions and duties were given to governors-general, not just in Australia but throughout Commonwealth Realms since 1931, the Governor-General's delegatory role, as merely a stand-in for the monarch, disappeared, with many roles given to the Governor-General himself or herself. However under Commonwealth of Nations theory, governors-general have continued with the respresentative role mentioned in Commonwealth Realm constitutions. So while such powers belong to the Governor-General, they do so by virtue of their representational role for the head of state, given that they are appointed by the head of state in all cases, can be dismissed at will by the head of state in all cases, take an oath of allegiance to the head of state and so must in their actions in exercising these functions not break that oath they have taken to the head of state, and have their ability to exercise these functions conferred on them by the act of appointment of the head of state.


 * In point of actual fact, that is quite wrong. You will find, if you go hunting for examples to back up your claims above, that the term "head of state" is not used. That's something you made up and put in as if it were somehow factual. For example, the oath or affirmation used in the Australian Constitution does not say "head of state". It says "Queen Victoria", with a note stating "The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time." You will not find the term "head of state" mentioned in the Australian Constitution at all. Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Legal textbooks & legal experts

 * By Australian law, the Queen is currently accorded the title 'Queen of Australia and her other realms and territories'. The holder of that title is head of state of the Commonwealth and of each of the Australian States, although represented in each of the polities by a different vice-regal officer".' Constitutional Law in Australia Second Edition (1996), Peter Hanks. p. 158.

See also -
 * Suri Ratnapala's Australian Consitutional Law:Foundations and Theory (2002),
 * Which bit, specifically? Pete 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Professor Brian Galligan
 * Again, I ask for a quote, but may I point out that Galligan doesn't hold the "Queen as sole head of state" position. See Brian Galligan, A Federal Republic: Australia's Constitutional System of Government, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995, pp 21-2 and 245-7. Pete 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Professor George Winterton.
 * Winterton is firmly of the "two heads of state" view.


 * Internationally renouned academic on constitutional law Vernon Bognanor, who is quoted worldwide on such matters, states that the Australian Governor-General "does not have the status of a head of state" in The Monarchy and the Constitution (Clarendon Press, 1995).
 * That's all very nice, but contrary to the reality. In point of fact the Governor-General, when travelling abroad, has the status of a head of state, as noted by Sir Zelman Cowen. Pete 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Professor George Williams, a constitutional expert at the University of NSW - the Australian constitution states simply that the British monarch is the Australian head of state.
 * Perhaps you would be so very good as to point out precisely where in the Australian constitution this statement is made? As no such statement exists in the Constitution, I await your inevitable evasion. Pete 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Head of state is the Queen - Foundation Dean and Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Australia
 * I love Professor Greg Craven dearly, but may I point out that he has changed his position on this several times and was prominent amongst those campaigning for a YES vote in the referendum? Pete 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Academic and legal papers
Maintaining Our Democracy in Monarchy or Republic by Richard E. McGarvie, AC
 * And what, precisely, is the cite? A reading of the entire document shows that the late McGarvie was of the "two heads of state view". Pete 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Hon. Michael Kirby, Justice of the High Court of Australia
''There are rational arguments for the system of government which constitutional monarchy establishes - barring ex-politicians (or for that matter ex-judges) from the position of Head of State. In some ways the very absence of the Head of State from Australia creates a system which appeals to some Australians. At the least the system, as such, has overwhelmingly performed as duty - not personal ambition or self-interest - required. We may change it. But we should make ourselves aware of its paradoxical strengths before we do.'' The Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG, Justice of the High Court of Australia. President of the International Commission of Jurists [http://www.hcourt.gov.au/speeches/kirbyj/kirbyj_niniansp.htm "The Constitutional Centenary and the Counting of Blessings". Fifth Sir Ninian Stephen Lecture. 1997. ]

Sir Anthony Mason, former Chief Justice
Interview: ABC TV, 1997

LJ: Many monarchists say that we do already have an Australian Head of State, Sir William Deane. He is our Head of State. He is Australian.

AM: Well, those people haven't read Section 2 of the Constitution where the Governor-General is clearly described as Her Majesty's representative in Australia. It is nonsense to say that Sir William Deane is the Australian Head of State - much as I would like him to be our Australian Head of State - he just isn't our Head of State.

What about the view that we have two Heads of State — one the Queen and one Australian, Sir William Deane?

That's equal nonsense, arrant nonsense.


 * Sir David Smith tears Sir Anthony's opinions to shreds in a paper rebutting those views, demonstrating that many of Mason's statements are falsehood. Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Letters Patent

 * page one of 2003 amended Letters Patent signed by Elizabeth R as Queen of Australia
 * Nobody is disputing that the Queen is Queen of Australia. Perhaps you could remove motherhood arguments and save everyone time? Pete 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * page two
 * page three, signed by Prime Minister, John Howard
 * (full text

The constitution of Australia
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 as amended in 1993
 * Not a document in dispute. I should point out that it does not say that the Queen is head of state, contrary to the claim you quoted above. Pete 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Diplomatic usage by the Commonwealth - advice to diplomats
2.6.1 Form of address of Head of State (section heading used)

Letters of Credence and Letters of Recall should be addressed to the Queen of Australia. In accordance with the Royal Style and Titles Act of 1973, the correct style and title for this purpose is:

"Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth."

Protocol Guidelines: Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for diplomats.


 * While there has been no formal reassignment of powers of legation, the actual situation for many years has been that all Australian diplomatic functions are carried out by Australians. The Queen merely asks to be kept informed and plays no other role. Your quote can be seen as supporting both the "Queen as sole head of state" view or the "two heads of state" view in which the Queen is often described as the formal or ceremonial head of state. Pete 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Views of the Australian Attorney-General's dept on who is head of state

Gough Whitlam in 1973 on the Queen of Australia's role with Letters of Credence
''However, the Letters of Credence which Australian Heads of Mission present to the Head of State of the country to which they are being accredited, and also the Letters of Recall of their predecessors, will continue to be signed by Her Majesty as the Australian Head of State. Her role in this regard will, however, be made much clearer by the proposed amendment of the Royal Style and Titles, whereby the only country named is Australia.''

Similarly, Letters of Credence and Letters of Recall from foreign countries, being communications between Heads of State, will continue to be addressed to Her Majesty though they will, of course, be accepted by the Governor-General on the Queen's behalf.

John Howard, the Prime Minister
"The Queen is Queen of Australia. However, under our present constitution, the Governor-General is effectively Australia's head of state."

Clearly Sir William Deane under the Constitution of Australia effectively discharges the role of Head of State. John Howard, ABC TV interview, November 1999.


 * Both clear statements of the "two heads of state view". Pete 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Malcolm Frazer, former prime minister
We’re told also that the Governor General is effectively our Head of State. Well he isn’t and I hope the Prime Minister will forgive me if I say that he also has told us that he is not. Because if he were he would be opening the Olympic Games. John Howard is a traditionalist, he would not want to break the tradition of the Games over many long years, he would want our Head of State to open the Games. The fact that Bill Deane is not opening the Games indicates quite clearly that in the Prime Minister’s mind he is not our Head of State, which of course is accurate.


 * In actual fact, the then Governor-General, Sir William Deane, opened the Sydney Olympic Games. Perhaps you and Malcolm Fraser can wipe egg off each other's faces?

Peter Costello, Treasurer of Australia and respected lawyer
Comment No. 1 Press conference: October 1999

JOURNALIST: Can I just ask you to comment on the statement that the Governor-General is effectively the Head, of State? TREASURER: Well I think the key word there is effectively isn't it? Once you see a word like effectively interposed, what it tells you is he is not the Head of State and that is true. Now I've been out at Government House and I was out there recently with the Korean President and our Governor-General gave a toast to the Korean President, the Korean President gave a toast to the Queen of Australia and somebody who was sitting next to me said, oh the Governor-General's the Head of State and I said, oh good heavens, the Korean President should be informed, he made the wrong toast. And what's more the Governor-General has advised him to make the wrong toast and the poor Governor-General was sitting there all the time being the Head of State but not knowing it. Now the truth of the matter is that the Head of State is the Queen and we shouldn't shy away from that and a "No" vote means keeping it that way.

Comment No. 2

Public opinion has changed. I do not think the public would regard it right for the Queen to open the 2000 Olympics. But the Queen is our Head of State. Peter Costello, MP Treasurer of Australia, 1999

Gough Whitlam, former prime minister
"He holds a great office; he represents the Head of State of our nation.'' Whitlam on Sir Paul Hasluck, then Governor-General.

View of Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia
Source: Royal website

''A Commonwealth realm is a country where The Queen is the Head of State. The Queen is Queen not only of Britain and its dependent territories, but also of the following realms: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St Christopher and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.''

Comparison with the Governor General of Canada
''Since Canada is a consitutional monarchy, the Sovereign (King or Queen) is our Head of State. But since the Sovereign is also the Head of State of 15 other countries*, it is impossible for him or her to be a part of everyday government functions. The Governor General, then, is the Sovereign's representative in Canada but is the ultimate authority in government for the nation. Ever since the Letters Patent of 1947, the Governor General has assumed all of the powers of the Sovereign. Even the presence of the Sovereign in the country does not superceed the authority of the Governor General and therefore the Governor General is 1st on the Canadian Order of Precedence.''

Diplomatic usage
International protocol is quite strict on the categorisation of who is a head of state. Only heads of state can fulfil certain functions:
 * Treaties are signed either by them or by the government on their behalf.
 * Letters of Credence and Letters of Recall, which legally give someone diplomatic status (including diplomatic immunity) can only be signed by a head of state, issued on the name of a head of state, and received by or in the name of a head of state.

To symbolise their status, a head of state is honoured by having a toast proposed in their honour at state dinners and banquets. Non-head of state do not receive this honour.

Australian protocol rules on toasts
''While we are flexible on the order of proceedings our preferred approach is for the Head of Mission to invite the Chief of Protocol to propose a toast. The Chief of Protocol then proposes a toast to the Head of State, followed by the national anthem of the country. The Head of Mission then proposes a toast to "the Queen and people of Australia", followed by the Australian anthem.'' Australian Government Protocol guidelines

Some examples of diplomatic reference to heads of state

 * Governor-General Sir William Deane toasts the President of Ireland at a state dinner
 * Toast from the Governor General of Canada to the President of Ireland at a state dinner
 * Examples of toasts to and by US presidents

Toasts to the Queen of Australia as head of state, not to the Governor-General

 * Speech by HRH Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark at state dinner hosted by the Governor-General of Australia
 * President of Israel's toast at state dinner hosted by the Governor-General of Australia
 * President George Bush senior toasts the 'Queen of Australia' while Prime Minister Bob Hawke toasts the US president


 * We have your views on toast. Nevertheless, it is up to we the Australian people to say who is our head of state, and the demonstrable fact is that there is a difference of opinion within Australia. Would you change your opinion if we changed our protocol? Would you change your mind if we passed a Head of State Act declaring the Governor-General to be the head of state? Pete 00:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

International views

 * UN reference to the Head of state of Australia the 'Queen of Australia


 * chief of state: Queen of Australia ELIZABETH II (since 6 February 1952), represented by Governor General Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Michael JEFFERY (since 11 August 2003) head of government: Prime Minister John Winston HOWARD (since 11 March 1996); Deputy Prime Minister John ANDERSON (since 20 July 1999) CIA World factbook (it calls all heads of state 'Chief of state')


 * "Queen Elizabeth II is head of state" Intergovernmental Fiscal Arrangements: Background Papaer for the international symposium on Fiscal Imbalance, Quebec, September 2001


 * 117.	In the Commonwealth of Australia, the head of State is, and always has been, the person who, for the time being, is also the King or Queen of the United Kingdom though since 1953 that person has been separately styled and titled Queen of Australia. The Constitution does not refer to the Queen as the head of State. It is nevertheless proper to regard her as head of State because of the role in government the Constitution assigns her. Section 61 of the Constitution vests the executive power in the Queen and declares that it is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative. UN International Human Rights Instruments HRI/CORE/1/Add.44


 * Again, this is all very interesting, but it doesn't detract from the demonstrable fact that there are three distinct opinions on who is seen as the Australian head of state. You may present as many opinions as you want for one of the three views, but you cannnot alter the fact that there are other views. In the end, it is we Australians who get to say who our head of state is, and Australian opinion is divided.


 * I also note that you refer to many sources without quoting from them, and that some of these sources are used by people who are directly opposed to your opinion. Perhaps you do not see this as a problem. Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Republic referendum
The underlying principle of the entire republican debate is the recognition that the Governor-General is not the legal head of state, but merely acts as the head of state.


 * While I disagree with that statement, don't you see the fact that the republican referendum was decisively rejected by the Australian people as a bit of a slap in the face for your "underlying principle"? Perhaps you think the Australian people voted the wrong way, and it therefore doesn't count. Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The principle change proposed was intended to upgrade the Governor-General (probably under a new office name) from merely fulfilling many of the technical functions of a head to state to become the full de jure head of state, with the powers, functions and duties of head of state vested in the Queen of Australia vested instead directly in the new renamed governor-general, so he would cease to be, as Winterton above implied, the Representative of the Queen of Australia and would become the Representative of Australia.


 * In point of fact, the question didn't ask whether the Governor-General was to be "upgraded". Here is the wording: "To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament." It would probably help your credibility if you didn't constantly try to reinterpret things away from what was actually stated. Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The Governor-General at present is merely the representative of some other head of state, and the representative of Australia internally to itself. A change would see all of the remaining powers, functions and duties denied to him as merely someone acting as head of state, given to him as of right, not as someone else's representative. That fact would be shown in a changed method of selection, whereby the new office holder would be selected by Australia alone, by whatever methodology, and would not require appointment by an external head of state elsewhere. External appointments by a superior legal office-holder are incompatible with head of state status, as one cannot be head of a state if one is formally appointed to office, and exists in office at the 'pleasure of', another legally superior office holder. In republics, there are no superior office holders, as all other offices, eg prime minister, cabinet, etc are below one in constitutional status, with one quite literally being the head of the state.


 * This is all merely your opinion. In point of fact, regardless of what you dictate to us, it is we Australians who say who our head of state is, and opinion within Australia is divided.


 * The Governor-General is not selected by the Queen. He is selected by the Australian Prime Minister, who tells the Queen who to appoint. The monarch has no discretion in the matter, and I refer you to the appointment of Sir Isaac Isaacs by King George V against the wishes of the King. Using your logic, wouldn't the fact that the Prime Minister tells the Queen what to do make him and not her the head of state? Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The section directly below was added in before by Mark and is worth reading again.

Queen of Australia v British Monarch
As Skyring points out, section 2 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) says: "The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom." However, this merely highlights that the Commonwealth Constitution was enacted by the British Parliament, and was intended to make the Federation of Australia binding on the British monarchs. In the Commonwealth Constitution, there is only reference made to "the Queen".

In the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953 (Cth), the Commonwealth Parliament declared that the monarch in relation to Australia is to be referred to as "Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories": cf. s 2. As far as I have been taught, "the Queen" in Australia is a distinct legal entity from "the Queen" in the United Kingdom. The succession rules to the Crown are the same as they are in the United Kingdom, being set out by the Act of Settlement 1701 (UK) s 1, and received at the time of European settlement. However, due to the Australia Acts 1986 (UK & Cth) s1, any changes by the UK Parliament to the law of succession to the throne will not take effect in Australia. Thus, it is legally possible to have different monarchs in Australia and the United Kingdom. In this respect, the current Australian monarch might currently be the same as the United Kingdom monarch, but they should (and are) treated as distinct entities.

I refer you to: P Hanks, P Keyzer & J Clarke Australian Constitutional Law: materials and commentary 7th edn (Sydney: Butterworths, 2004) pp. 464-465.

One user on this page, Skyring, has consistently maintained that
 * stating that the Queen is Australian head of state is merely expressing a POV.


 * I reject this. I say that stating that the Queen is the sole Australian head of state is a POV, as there are three different views on the question. Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * it is a view expressed only by those who don't know what they are talking about and are illinformed.


 * I reject this also. Many of those who make the claim are experts in the specific area of constitutional history, theory and law. What I do say is to point out that the majority of the Australian population see the Queen as sole head of state, and they are generally poorly informed on constitutional practice. Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Those who disagree him have no credible sources to back up their opinions.


 * I have never stated this. Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Many people agree with him that the Governor-General is Australian head of state.


 * I am not saying that the Governor-General is the head of state. I point out that this is the view - out of three different views - of many commentators. Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No credible evidence has been produced by those 'claiming' the Queen is the head of state and the Governor-General isn't.


 * I likewise reject this. Much of the evidence provided by those making this claim is well-sourced and credible. It is a widely-held view, after all. It is, however, just one of three different views. Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

As all the above show, in reality
 * the argument that the Queen alone is head of state is not an isolated one, but one shared by the vast majority of people across the political, legal and constitutional spectrum;
 * given the range of people expressing such views, from the Queen of Australia herself, to successive Governors-General, prime ministers, legal people including former Chief Justices, etc they can not be dismissed as people who don't know what they are talking about;
 * Primary documents support their views;
 * the view that the Governor-General is a head of state is, in the words of one former Chief Justice, "arrant nonsense".
 * Even those that talk about a de facto head of state do not mean that there are two heads of state. They mean that there is a head of state who is, and someone who acts as head of state on a day to day basis but isn't actually the head of state.
 * Much of the evidence above has been repeated to him ad nausaum over 5 archives on this page. More has now been added. In contrast he has failed to offer one credible source to back up his claims. Instead he quoted Smith (whose views were repudiated by the governors-general he served), a couple of magazine articles, comments by a minor league barrister, mispresentations of what Howard, Winterton and others have written, and quotes that actually don't say what he claims they say.


 * You're the one who claimed that me spelling "defacto" instead of "de facto" was "yet another fundamental error" in my contributions. You've spelt ad nauseam incorrectly twice over. Perhaps you wish to underscore hyperbole with hypocrosy?


 * The Wikipedian flaws in your position are that you fail to recognise the validity of any view other than your own, you consistently abuse and denigrate those who disagree with you, you inject your own interpration and opinion into just about every cite, and you fail to acknowledge error. You aren't any sort of neutral editor, you are a fundamentalist zealot. Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Dealing with Skyring's behaviour on wikipedia
It is a pity to have to waste so much time disproving Skyring's patently inaccurate claims.


 * One gets the impression from the comments you make to other editors on their talk pages that you don't see your contributions to this discussion as "a pity" or "a waste of time", but rather as entertainment, a piece of theatre to be enjoyed.


 * Nor have you disproven my claims. I claim that there are three positions on the question of Australia's head of state, and I merely quote from the statements of those who hold those different opinions. Perhaps you think that when I point out an error on your part I am making a "patently inaccurate claim" because you are incapable of error? Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Most wikipedians, when they realise that they have been wrong, and have been demonstrated to be wrong by every person on the page, stop forcing their views as gospel.


 * May I make the comment, after wiping my screen clear of coffee, that you should look into the mirror and try to say that with a straight face. I don't say that everything you claim is wrong, but a lot of it is! Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

In view of Skyring's patently obvious failure to offer any credible evidence to back up his personal theories, I think we should just move on, and simply revert any more rubbish edits on the point of the supposed headship of state of the Governor-General. If he continues to insist without any evidence that he is right and try to overrule everyone else and force his opinions on the article, we should treat him as a vandal, and request that he be banned from wikipedia. Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you seriously trying to claim that I am stating either here or in the article that the Governor-General is the sole Australian head of state? It seems to me that you are, and I reject your claim entirely. I suggest that you are operating under a delusion. Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration discussion and vote
As the earlier page, plus the new stuff, went well over 32K I have moved the arbitation and vote stuff to an archive page. It is linked below. Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * While I thank you for that, may I point out that the 32K limit is somewhat outmoded nowadays, and Adam has been doing a bloody good job of archiving this page so far. Two of your archive links point to the same empty page, for example, and while I am sure that you can fix that in time, at least when Adam links to something you may be sure of getting there. Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yet another bit of Pete fiction. The 32K limit is there because many browsers still have difficulty editing articles over that size.


 * Many outmoded browsers. Pete 00:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Browsers still in use by millions of net users worldwide. Fear ÉIREANN[[Image:Flag of Ireland.svg|25px]] (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * SHRUG - the 32K limit doesn't seem to be much of a problem for anyone but you. Nowadays it seems to be more of an aid to keeping articles to a reasonable size than anything else, going by the discussion on WikiEN-l. But that's by the by. You really should leave it to Adam to do the archiving for this page. He knows what he's doing. Burying an ongoing vote on an archive page just so you could keep up a debate you say you are weary of seems to be a bit foolish. Pete 04:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * But then, when you have spent 6 archives making ludicrous claims it would be a bit much to expect you to understand the rules of wikipedia when you don't even understand your own constitution. Fear ÉIREANN[[Image:Flag of Ireland.svg|25px]] (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Arbitation issues and vote

Factual Errors
I could have put more effort into this, but everyone here has heard most of the arguments already, and I suspect that most of the contributors to this page (as opposed to those merely lurking) have made up their minds already. Pete 22:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * They have made them up on the evidence, and concluded, universally, that you don't know what you are talking about.


 * Do tell? You've asked everyone lurking here? Or perhaps that "universally" is a bit of hyperbole intended to impress people who can't think. Pete 04:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * But then you have showed that consistently over 6 archives. But we are all still waiting for your supposed evidence. But if it is anything like your half baked, illinformed, constitutionally nonsensical contributions in the past, it probably won't be worth getting anyway. Fear ÉIREANN[[Image:Flag of Ireland.svg|25px]] (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Supposed evidence for what, precisely? I've demonstrated that there are three different positions on the head of state question. Nobody seems to have disputed this.


 * But more to the point, I've shown numerous errors in fact and logic in your own material, both fresh and recycled - see above. You don't seem to want to respond to this, except with abuse and evasion. To take one example from many, you say "It is worth noting that the Governors-General who had worked with Smith all universally rejected him claim" (sic). Sir David Smith worked with five Governors-General, and I challenge you to find any such statement from the first two, who died years before 1999 when Smith first expressed his "Governor-General as sole head of state" view. I find it hard to believe that they could comment from beyond the grave, but you say that they "all universally rejected his claim" and I'm intrigued to see how you can justify this. Pete 04:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Jtdirl, I want to personally thank you for top-notch scholarly work here. Some of us are reading. El_C 23:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Top-notch scholarly work that makes claims impossible to justify? Your standards seem to be well below those required in an editor. Pete 04:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Pete Skyring, your insinuations notwithstanding, the fact is that the metaphysical webs you weave offer these as claims impossible to justify, but these are limited to your own mind, they do not correspond to reality. Epistemological peculiarities on your part resulting in you misattributing your own notions to various constitutional scholars, and patahologically, even when faced with the inability to varify, you continue on, driven by your idée fixe, eliptically and aimelessly. That's all I'm going to say at this point. El_C 09:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * LOL! jtdirl's claim that two Governors-General were able to comment on events after their death is pretty hard to swallow, brother! You call that "top-notch scholarship", do you? I call it glutinous tripe. Pete 10:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Judging by Cyberjunkie's comments on my talk page a few minutes after the above, it looks like I scored a point there. Can anyone tell me how Sir John Kerr can die in 1991, Sir Paul Hasluck in 1993. and yet both are apparently able to comment on statements made by Sir David Smith in 1999? Is it too much to ask that debate proceed on grounds of logic and fact, rather than abuse and bullying? Pete 21:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The claim was first made in a newspaper article in 1988. Kerr's words were "that's absurd." Hasluck said "I don't comment on nonsense." Fear ÉIREANN[[Image:Flag of Ireland.svg|25px]] (talk)


 * Which article was this, precisely? Was that the one where Prince Charles said he loved his wife? Or does your "top-notch scholarship" prevent you from providing a checkable reference?


 * In fact, now that I look back, you haven't actually provided any cites for your statement: "It is worth noting that the Governors-General who had worked with Smith all universally rejected him claim" (sic). The simple fact is that Sir David Smith didn't make any claim that the Governor-General was the sole head of state until 1999, several years after both Hasluck and Kerr were dead, so they couldn't possibly have rejected his specific claim. Perhaps you are now saying instead that the view that the Governor-General was the sole head of state was expressed in 1988 by a person of such authority that two former Governors-General felt moved to express a contrary opinion in the mass media?


 * And may I ask for your "top-notch scholarship" cite for the supposed rejection by Bill Hayden, the fifth and final Governor-General for whom Smith worked? Hayden saw the office of Governor-General as being that of the head of state, as noted above, so it seems odd that he should deny his earlier comments. In 1998, at the Constitutional Convention in Canberra, Lloyd Waddy, the leader of Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy, making his opening address, said "As to the furphy of the head of state red herring on which so many republicans rest their cases, I hope that soon this Convention will hear from the Hon. Bill Hayden, distinguished former Governor-General, who claims he was then our head of state and will say so." Pete 22:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it dosen't look like the threshold for Arbitrators voting to accept the case will be met. El_C 23:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks ro Jtdirl for his efforts, but I for one no longer have the time, energy or patience to read or write any more of this stuff. I will wait and see what the ArbCom does. If they ban Skyring from editing this and similar articles, well and good. If they don't, I will remove them from my watchlist. I'm not prepared to get myself banned through endless revert wars. If Wikipedia is incapable of defending itself against crackpots like Skyring it doesn't deserve to succeed. Adam 23:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

A couple of requests

 * I'd like Cyberjunkie's comments on his hamfisted attempt to send me a rude and anonymous message. As can be plainly seen, he was editing Wikipedians/Australia and New Zealandwhen he decided to log out and send me a piece of ASCII art. Unable to get the line breaks right, he sent a new version. He then forgot that he had logged out and went back to editing the same article!


 * I'd like jtdirtl (or anyone, really) to comment on this page out of the Australian Commonwealth Government Directory for March 1997. This is the Commonwealth Government, in its own directory, saying that the Governor-General is the Head of State, without qualification. I am not saying that I support the opinion, merely demonstrating that there are different opinions.Pete 05:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

There are two points to make about that. The first is that whoever wrote that is wrong, and I am about to send them an email telling them so in fairly basic Anglo-Saxon terminology. It's pretty scandalous that such ignorance should prevail in a semi-official publication.


 * A "semi official" publication? You're having a laugh! How much more official can you possibly get than the Commonwealth Government's own official directory? And you are going to tell the Commonwealth that they are wrong! Perhaps you should stick a pin in yourself and let out a bit of the puff. Pete 08:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The second, and much more important point, is that I have never objected to this article containing a reference to the fact that some people disagree with the view that the Queen of Australia is Australia's head of state, or to quoting them. What I have objected to is your repeated edits to this and other articles stating, as a matter of fact, that Australia is a republic, that the Governor-General is the head of state, that Australia has two or more heads of state, and that the Queen in the Constitution is the Queen of Great Britain. Adam 08:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Pray confine yourself to the facts, brother. Australia has a republican form of government, as Malcolm Turnbull pointed out in the 1993 Report of the Republic Advisory Committee. Volume 1, Page 1, second paragraph beginning "Australia is a state in which sovereignty derives from the people." Perhaps you think that Turnbull is not a good commentator on republican matters and you will send him a scholarly Anglo-Saxon note pointing out his supposed error?

The Queen in the Constitution is the Queen (meaning Queen Victoria) of the UK, and her heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. As the document itself states. Until we the people change the Constitution to say otherwise, that remains the fact, because ordinary legislation may not override the Constitution. The Queen may be the Queen of Australia in every other aspect of Australian government, but in the Constitution itself, she is the Queen of the UK, and I suggest you accept that there are higher authorities than your Anglo-Saxon self.

As for repeated edits to this and other articles stating as fact that the Governor-General is the sole head of state, or that we have two heads of state, where, precisely, have I ever said this?

When I ask you to come up with the goods and back up your untruthful claims, you wimp out on me. Please have the common courtesy to admit your error and apologise. Pete 08:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. Adam 09:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

You lied, you have been found out, and you have wimped out on apologising. Pete 10:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Naughty me. Adam 10:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Ignore Skyring from now on
I think Skyring has given ample evidence that he has
 * an extremely superficial understanding of constitutional theory;
 * a laughably weak understanding of constitutional terminology;
 * an inability to understand, or an unwillingness to understand, the comments of others;
 * the support in pushing his wacky theories of just one user, himself;
 * a determination, in the face of all the evidence, to force his ignorance of constitutional theory and terminology on articles relating to Australia.

In view of this, I think the best route is to
 * ignore and not answer all his attempts to justify his demonstrably inaccurate views by provoking rows;
 * revert all attempts by him to force his wacky theories on all articles;
 * keep all comment for the arbitation committee, who can deal with his outrageous behaviour.

Serious credible users have wasted enough time treating this gentleman as if he was a credible but simply misinformed user in need of information. His behaviour has shown that he is not a credible and serious contributor on this issue, but little short of a vandal. I for one am not going to waste any more time on this gentleman. I recommend everyone else adopt this course. Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I realised that about a week ago. This will get no-where. Xtra 00:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I deliberately created the page of evidence with that in mind. I wanted to see if at last he might stop producing garbage and actually offer credible sources. In fact he has done nothing but repeat his poorly researched half-baked theories. The evidence on the page stands to allow everyone (visitors to the page, arbitrators, independent-minded people, etc) a chance to see the solid reasoning behind everyone's disagreement with him. It has exposed his ideas for what they are - poorly researched and preposterous. So now we can move on, and leave it to the arbitation team to analyse the evidence of his behaviour and issue a ruling. Ultimately he has no-one but himself to blame for getting himself into the mess he is in. I've given him tons of evidence. He has flailed around and produced dodgy mispresentations. So we can now move on without him. He had his chance. He blew it. Issue closed. Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

You don't think that after I pointed out the holes in your arguments and you responded with "abuse and evade" tactics that you might not have much credibility left? Pete 01:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

No he doesn't think that, and nor does anyone else. Your cedibility, on the other hand, is somewhere below absolute zero. Adam 01:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I see. So when I point out that you have made repeated requests to everyone else here to ignore me, and yet you don't take your own advice, that "credibility" might not be your own strong point? All I need do is point out the facts. I don't need to interpret them. Anyone with any common sense can see for themselves. Pete 02:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

This is your own doing. I used to think (and I actually said so somewhere) that despite your trolling habits you were an intelligent editor and that you deserved to be dealt with seriously. Since the "Queen of Great Britain" episode, however, I have revised that opinion, and now think you are a fool as well as a pest. Adam 01:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

So take your own advice and ignore me, Adam. It's not much good complaining about neverending discussions at great length if you are part of the problem. That's just plain common sense. Pete 02:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom
The ArbCom case has been accepted, the page for evidence is here Requests for arbitration/Skyring/Evidence--nixie 13:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)