Skyring writes:
Ummm, that merely gives the definition of republic you've already quoted. I wasn't disputing that. What''s your definitive source for saying the Queen is the head of state?
Well, as a committed republican I am actually interested in this debate. So I put "Australia constitution" in Google, and went to the Parliament of Australia's web-page, where I found something called "Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act." Now I am no expert on Australia so if this thing -- I mean Parliament or the Act -- have no official standing, please tell me!
Anyway, I learned that the Act was itself enacted by HRH
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:--
I then went to chapter 1, which is about the legistlative branch, and read this:
- The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal
Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called "The Parliament," or "The Parliament of the Commonwealth. " 2. A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.
I then went to chapter 2 which is about the Executive branch and it starts like this:
- The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is
exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.
I also learned that there is a republican movement in Australia (which suggests to me that at least some Australians do not think they live in a republic, yet). Well, this movement has a web-page that has a FAQ section. The answer to the question, "Who is Australia's Head of State" is:
Elizabeth II, the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is Australia's Head of State because: The Constitution of Australia defines the Parliament as "the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives" and vests the Federal legislative (law-making) power in the Parliament (section 1, Constitution). The executive power (the governing and administrative power) of the Commonwealth of Australia is vested in the Queen (section 61, Constitution). The Queen has the power to disallow any law within one year of it being made even after the Governor-General has given his assent (section 59, Constitution). The Governor-General only holds office "during the Queen's pleasure" which means that the he can be dismissed by the Queen at any time (section 2, Constitution). Lastly, but probably most importantly in a symbolic sense, is the Schedule to the Constitution that requires all Federal Parliamentarians to swear an oath or declare an affirmation of allegiance to the Queen. This oath of allegiance can only be changed by alteration of the Constitution unlike the Citizenship Oath, which can be changed by an Act of Parliament, or the Ministerial Oath which can be changed by Proclamation.
The "Australian Monarchist League" (motto: protecting Australia's constitution) also seems to think Australia is not a republic. Their web-page has an article by Sir David Smith (I'm not exactly sure what "Sir" means in this context since I happen to live in a republic -- is this "sir" like "Sir Lancelot?"), which begins:
Under our Constitution we have two Heads of State - a symbolic Head of State in the Sovereign, and a constitutional Head of State in the Governor-General.
So look, I am not a constitutional lawyer. But these few quotes give me the impression that the Queen has some role in that polity called Australia. I am not sure that the Queen is head of state, maybe the Governor-General is the head of state -- but it seems pretty clear that s/he derives this status from the Queen.
Soooo ... can someone explain to me why there seems to be some controversy over this matter?
Curiously yours, Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
steven l. rubenstein wrote:
So look, I am not a constitutional lawyer. But these few quotes give me the impression that the Queen has some role in that polity called Australia. I am not sure that the Queen is head of state, maybe the Governor-General is the head of state -- but it seems pretty clear that s/he derives this status from the Queen.
Soooo ... can someone explain to me why there seems to be some controversy over this matter?
Curiously yours, Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
We're not a republic, and have never been one. The fact that we needed to have a debate over whether we should become a republic would tend to indicate that we are NOT a republic.
If you submitted a Wikipedia article to the Age, in Melbourne, with an assertion that we are a republic, we would never be quoted in that publication again.
If you submitted a Wikipedia article to the Australia, with an assertion that we are a republic, we would never be quoted in that publication again.
If you submitted a Wikipedia article to the Daily Telegraph, in New South Wales, with an assertion that we are a republic, we would never be quoted in that publication again.
If you submitted a Wikipedia article to the Sydney Morning Herald, in Sydney e, with an assertion that we are a republic, we would never be quoted in that publication again.
The controversy has come about because Skyring insists that our head of state is not the monarchy, therefore we fall inside the definition of what is a republic. This is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I have read some of his sources, and none of them state what he thinks they say.
There is only one person of all the Australians on Wikipedia who states we are a republic. One! And we have a locked [[Government of Australia]] page to prove it because of the revert war that was ongoing.
Gah!
TBSDY
csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
The controversy has come about because Skyring insists that our head of state is not the monarchy, therefore we fall inside the definition of what is a republic. This is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I have read some of his sources, and none of them state what he thinks they say.
Before something can be Original research it must first be research. Please learn the difference between research and wishful thinking.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
The controversy has come about because Skyring insists that our head of state is not the monarchy, therefore we fall inside the definition of what is a republic. This is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I have read some of his sources, and none of them state what he thinks they say.
Before something can be Original research it must first be research. Please learn the difference between research and wishful thinking.
Ec
Ouch!
TBSDY
From: "csherlock@ljh.com.au" csherlock@ljh.com.au
The controversy has come about because Skyring insists that our head of state is not the monarchy, therefore we fall inside the definition of what is a republic. This is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I have read some of his sources, and none of them state what he thinks they say.
Nah, it's just "simple deductive reasoning". I can't believe you're using your POV and extremist interpretation of the No original research rule to try to disallow simple deductive reasoning from Wikipedia articles; you might as well be issuing the commandement "Thou shalt not think."
Jay.
JAY JG wrote:
From: "csherlock@ljh.com.au" csherlock@ljh.com.au
The controversy has come about because Skyring insists that our head of state is not the monarchy, therefore we fall inside the definition of what is a republic. This is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I have read some of his sources, and none of them state what he thinks they say.
Nah, it's just "simple deductive reasoning". I can't believe you're using your POV and extremist interpretation of the No original research rule to try to disallow simple deductive reasoning from Wikipedia articles; you might as well be issuing the commandement "Thou shalt not think."
Jay.
Er... my sarcasm detection mechanism must be on the blink today... is this a serious comment?
TBSDY
From: "csherlock@ljh.com.au" csherlock@ljh.com.au JAY JG wrote:
From: "csherlock@ljh.com.au" csherlock@ljh.com.au
The controversy has come about because Skyring insists that our head of state is not the monarchy, therefore we fall inside the definition of what is a republic. This is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I have read some of his sources, and none of them state what he thinks they say.
Nah, it's just "simple deductive reasoning". I can't believe you're using your POV and extremist interpretation of the No original research rule to try to disallow simple deductive reasoning from Wikipedia articles; you might as well be issuing the commandement "Thou shalt not think."
Jay.
Er... my sarcasm detection mechanism must be on the blink today... is this a serious comment?
No, it was sarcasm.
Jay.
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:21:22 +1100, csherlock@ljh.com.au csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
The controversy has come about because Skyring insists that our head of state is not the monarchy, therefore we fall inside the definition of what is a republic. This is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I have read some of his sources, and none of them state what he thinks they say.
This is simply not true, and I welcome the opportunity to spit out the words you cram into my mouth. Far from insisting anything, I merely pass on the opinions of constitutional scholars. The view that we have but one head of state is a minority position amongst these folk, and if there is any consensus it is that we have two heads of state, usually expressed as a formal or symbolic head of state in the Queen and an effective or defacto head of state in the Governor-General.
TBSDY's interpretation of a source that states that we have two heads of state as meaning that we have but one is one that he really should explain further.
For example, Professor George Winterton, one of the scholars I cite, says: "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." http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=927
By Australia, Winterton means the Commonwealth and the six State governments, each of which have their own constitution and Governor. Naturally, the Governor-General has no role in the government of a State.
Professor Winterton says we have how many heads of state?
A. None B. One C. Two
Could you please leave this incredibly tedious discussion on the technical interpretation of Australia's constitution to the appropriate talk page? Anyone who cares enough one way or the other can be trusted to go there.
I know I've been guilty of posting to this thread, simply because I didn't consider the issue controversial. But for whatever reason, it continues to go on. It shouldn't, not here.
Steve