Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:21, 13 February 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Australian head of state dispute article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Australian head of state dispute article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Australia: Law / Politics C‑class Mid‑importance [REDACTED]

Australian head of state dispute is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Mid-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. [REDACTED] The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Larissa Behrendt

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

Encyclopaedia definition regarding Australia's 'Head of State'

Head of State

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monarchist POV article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crown land?

Looking at this edit, I'm not seeing the relevance here. Crown land in Australia is land held by the public or the state, not land owned by the monarch whether as a person or an office. It is an error to imagine that "the Crown" is equivalent to "the monarch". --Pete (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The relevance is self-evident to persons knowledgable of the facts. The constitutional position of the monarch as sovereign and "head of state" in Australia has a more than ceremonial significance, given that: first, "most public lands in Australia are held by the Crown in the right of each State, while the only crown land held by the Commonwealth consists of land in the Northern Territory (surrendered by South Australia), the Australian Capital Territory, and small areas acquired for airports, defence and other government purposes"; secondly, the juridical importance of this in connection with, among other things, the common law doctrine of Aboriginal title (referred to as native title); thirdly, the influence that may have upon public opinion and populist politics, openly or covertly. Qexigator (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any dispute over the facts of crown land. If you are arguing that the term has caused confusion, well, I tend to agree, but I think a source is needed. --Pete (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Would that be confusion before the legislation and judicial rulings of recent decades? Perhaps you are aware of some confusion about questions of land tenure, the Crown and common law, and the laws of nationality and citizenship and allegiance, from the first discoveries of the land now called Australia to the formation of the CoA, the institution of the office of governor-general, and on to the present day. Qexigator (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. Do you have a source linking crown land to the dispute on which this article is focused? --Pete (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Someone with the sort of input you have made could be expected to know about all that. Qexigator (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm not seeing any source for the argument you are putting. Find one, please. --Pete (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

See edit. Discuss if you wish but do not idly block or bluster a perfectly acceptable clarifying edit. Qexigator (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Neither of those sources make any argument about the identity of the head of state. I'm struggling to find any relevance, even if I accept the argument you posit above. It is an argument made by you on a talk page, not by any reliable source. --Pete (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Undisputed

Can it be that this is too well-known to be mentioned among statesmen, scholars and Dame Edna's country(wo)men, and at the same time taboo in polite and political society, and thus treated as unmentionable in the article? See also:

• Footprints in the Sand;

and, for menagerie:

• in popular wisdom, Kangaroo and the oral tradition, (one Just-so story among others, and Elephant in the room;
• and naturally or heraldically, Red kangaroo (dexter), Emu (sinister), Australian Piping Shrike, Black swan (naiant to the sinister);
• and naturally or emblematically koala, possum, num- and wom- bat, et al..

More seriously, anyone with an open mind and npov can peruse the legislation and court rulings of recent decades and see the states and Commonwealth, like other countries around the globe, attempting to reconcile colonial history with current affairs. It is self-evident that, in the lands and islands now denominated Australia, the continuity of the Crown, in the person of the reigning monarch of the states and the Commonwealth, from the first British settlements to the present day and the 20c. (and current) constitution, is inextricably and unavoidably connected with title to any part of the land. This remains unaffected by the "head of state" dispute, and while it may be well enough known among Australians, that is no good reason to keep the information from other readers, at least by footnote if not the main text. Qexigator (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

+ Pete, for the avoidance of doubt, these links citing the Proclamation of Governor Bourke may be helpful to others who see this discussion, but are less knowledgeable about the Crown and root of title In Australia. This link] to an official NSW publication (2013) helps to explain the concept. Crown land is mentioned on page 5: A proclamation by Governor Bourke declared that the British Crown owned the entire land mass of Australia and that only the Crown could sell or distribute land. For the proclamation (1835) see, , . , . Students will not need to be reminded that traditional use of "crown" as a variant for the king or monarch (or the joint monarchs William and Mary) was confirmed and furthered by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769).

Qexigator (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not seeing the words "head of state" anywhere in those sources. Perhaps you could helpfully guide my attention? --Pete (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Have you not yet noticed that the "head of state dispute" was not considered to have been an issue in connection with Aboriginal land rights and the sovereignty assumed for the Crown in respect of all or any part of Australia, and present day Crown lands administered by the governments of the states or Commonwealth.

"51. By attributing to the Crown a radical title to all land within a territory over which the Crown has assumed sovereignty, the common law enabled the Crown, in exercise of its sovereign power, to grant an interest in land to be held of the Crown or to acquire land for the Crown's demesne. The notion of radical title enabled the Crown to become Paramount Lord of all who hold a tenure granted by the Crown and to become absolute beneficial owner of unalienated land required for the Crown's purposes. But it is not a corollary of the Crown's acquisition of a radical title to land in an occupied territory that the Crown acquired absolute beneficial ownership of that land to the exclusion of the indigenous inhabitants. If the land were desert and uninhabited, truly a terra nullius, the Crown would take an absolute beneficial title (an allodial title) to the land...: there would be no other proprietor. But if the land were occupied by the indigenous inhabitants and their rights and interests in the land are recognized by the common law, the radical title which is acquired with the acquisition of sovereignty cannot itself be taken to confer an absolute beneficial title to the occupied land."

The monarch, as Queen of Australia, remains "Lord paramount" etc., and in that respect is not even "represented" by the governor-general, or by a state governor. This may suggest to some that the "head of state dispute" is little more than contrived to the point of the near trivial, but that is not sufficient reason to exclude the information from the article, nor, in my view, to support the deletion of the artticle as a whole. Qexigator (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Mabo. It was a good call by the HC. However, I'm still not seeing the words "head of state" in the quote above. You are trying to equate "Crown" (as in "crown land") with "Australian Head of State", it appears, and this is a very long bow to draw. You need someone else to make that connection in respect of Mabo (or any similar case), otherwise it is just a confected argument and thereby OR. --Pete (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning what is undisputed supports the existing content in the lead and Background. Given that

Section 61 of the constitution states that "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." Section 2 provides that a governor-general shall represent the Queen in Australia. The governor-general is appointed by the monarch on the advice of the prime minister of Australia. ...The question of whether the Queen or the governor-general is Australia's head of state became a political one in the years prior to the Australian republic referendum in 1999 and remains one within the continuing debate around an Australian republic...(as in existing version),

it is pertinent to mention that the dispute does not extend to the issue in connection with native title in Australia and the sovereignty assumed for the Crown as "Lord paramount" in respect of all or any part of Australia, as determined in the "Mabo case". You (Pete) have shown your pov (attributing "sweet and romantic" and "cringing adoration" (17:39, 16 November 2015). The reality is, nonetheless, that, while the "head of state dispute" may have been a talking point among some academics and politicians for decades, it has had practically no impact on the federal constitution of Australia, or the practical conduct of government or parliamentary business, before or after the passing of the Australia Act 1986; but meantime, by contrast, the events leading up to and following the Mabo case (1992),, and the passing of the Native Title Act 1993, have had an important and lasting effect on the administration of Crown lands held in right of the Queen in every part of Australia. Please bear in mind that a purpose of an article such as this is to communicate not only to those who are locally familiar with such matters but to others, including those who have little or no prior knowledge of the state of things in Australia but are looking for npov information. Qexigator (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source making a connection between crown land and the dispute? Otherwise I intend to remove the original research. --Pete (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Supports and clarifies existing content, unoriginal, and should not be removed as "original": The position of the monarch, the present Queen of Australia and its states, as "Lord Paramount" in respect of the system of land tenure in Australia, including public land held in "right of the Crown", has not been part of the "head of state" dispute. Qexigator (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Two points:

1. If this has not been part of the "head of state" dispute, then why include it in this article? It seems contradictory. If we were to include everything that has not been part of the dispute in this article, then we would have all of Misplaced Pages in one article, and we would need a great many more section headings.
2. The cite you give in Mabo notes that the notion of direct ownership by the Sovereign is a fiction, and that in Australia "the Crown" is "Lord Paramount". Equating "the Crown" with the office or person of the monarch is a questionable opinion. --Pete (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

"continuing debate" ?

From the start in 2011 this article has been making vague use of the word "debate". In the current version, where is the source for "...and remains one within the continuing debate around an Australian republic"? Is it an ongoing, intermittent debate in parliament and/or where else (outside Misplaced Pages)? The various "Official" sources cited do not amount to "debate" of any kind. Which of the "Scholarly" or "Political" or "Media" sources are supposed to be participating in continuing debate? Qexigator (talk) 10:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You are completely right. Travelmite (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

+ Given that "the point of this article is to document the fact that there is a disagreement in whom Australians see as head of state" (per Pete (23:22, 24 January 2011), the opening sentence will be improved if rectified to read:

The dispute over who is Australia's head of state Australian head of state dispute is a disagreement among Australians centres centred on...

Qexigator (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

+ The article will also be improved by inserting after the sentence which begins "The question of whether the Queen or the governor-general is Australia's head of state became a political one in the years prior to the Australian republic referendum in 1999..." as the next sentence:

Among arguments advanced in that campaign some were for retaining the office of governor-general as the monarch's (nominal) representative, and others were for a popularly elected head of state.

Qexigator (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a continuing debate. Every Australia Day and every Queen's Birthday there's the regular statements and media appearances from the Australian Republican Movement, monarchists, political leaders and a flurry on talkback radio and letters to the editor.

Every year this carries on. I guess we could source the continuing nature of the debate with a selection of the current crop and update the sources every few months? --Pete (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC) (Restored by Travelmite (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC))

That seems to say that the question continues to be mentioned with partisan comment in the media from year to year. When was there a "debate" after, say, 1999? Qexigator (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I had a look at these references. The first one is David Smith, the person listed in the bibliography of this article, with no comment taking it seriously. The only source of "debate" in the past simply depends on whether anyone is paying attention to Smith, who happened to work for the Governor-General and was famous on one day in 1975. None of the other references are not debating anything about the Head of State - at best just examples of inconsistent usage of the term. Smith is possibly still out there promoting his book, because that's all about his life, and his own view of his importance. How was he given the title "Sir", operating the links between the Queen and government, when when hundreds of more senior public servants did not? That's a question of public interest. Travelmite (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

About DS and his book: "Because of his reading of the Proclamation dissolving the Parliament from the steps of old Parliament House - with Gough Whitlam standing behind him ready for his memorable outburst - Sir David will forever be associated in people's minds with that event....One of the great services that Sir David provides - and there are many - is an understanding that November 11 was the culmination of a political and not a constitutional crisis." Qexigator (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, this article is basically an extention of David Smith's PoV. At the very least, the article appears to promote doubt about the monarch being head of state. Anyways, I'll leave that for others to decide. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I think some of my contribution above has been misplaced, Qex. (Fixed Travelmite (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC))

Sir David Smith gained his knighthood - a British one - for personal service to the Queen. After his days as Official Secretary here were over, he went to the UK where he had some role in the royal household. I have met him a few times, and I would not characterise him as being one to give any importance to himself or his work. Indeed the first words I ever heard him speak, back in 1994, were self-deprecating.

One of the characteristics of his book, and of every public contribution he has made, has been the depth of research. He has made excellent use of some of the specialised libraries here in Canberra. I would not feel confident holding a position in opposition without having a matching base of research. I suggest that very few here, myself included, have as solid a backing as Smith.

The word "dispute" or "debate" is something we could improve upon. There is the occasional public debate, but more often the discussion is more in the abstract, through the various public contributions in the media. I have mentioned one above, describing a charity sleepout:

It was an interesting exercise, and really worthwhile – if uncomfortable. Most impressive was the G-G. The whole "only in Australia" thing can be overdone, I grant you, but there can be few countries in the world where the head of state would choose to sleep rough, just two kilometres from his usual luxurious digs.

The fact that journalists refer to the Governor-General as the head of state without any self-consciousness is proof enough that this is not an academic discussion.

It is a question more than a debate or a dispute, I think. --Pete (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It's in his interest to write a book which minimises the power of the Queen. Maybe that's how he got the extra job in the UK? I'm not sure what special libraries exist that can't be posted here, but how can you be swayed by the fact he's charming? He probably charmed everyone like a politician. Travelmite (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Smith's opinions and attitude are neither here nor there. If you want to make your argument an attack on a person, that's your option, but it detracts from your argument in that I know that you also speak out of ignorance. When you say he is "still out there promoting his book, because that's all about his life, and his own view of his importance", it is quite clear that you have not read the book! He is charming, thoughtful, self-effacing, and kind in a way that few politicians are. I've met a few, and most are driven by personal ambition and a loose relationship with truthfulness. The libraries Smith uses include the library at Government House and the ANU law school. as well as others that are neither online nor open to the public. I would imagine that if he wanted to browse through the Queen's personal library, he would be welcome there as well.

Smith's contribution is not that he is pushing his views, but that he provides the historical background to the roles of the Governor-General and the monarchy. Turnbull is very good at this in his books as well, and we should be grateful for their scholarship and research. Of course, Turnbull is a politician, and his ambition has been front page news for decades, so perhaps some of us here wish to discount his opinions on that basis.

What I find interesting is that some here are convinced of the rightness of their opinions, even when there is no sound basis for them. The simple fact is that the position of Head of State is not mentioned at all in either the Constitution nor in any Australian legislation. The common law, as discovered by the High Court, is inconclusive and contradictory. The most distinguished High Court bench we ever had referred to the Governor-General as the "Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth" and there has been nothing as forthright from that direction ever since. It would be fabulous if the question were put now, but lacking that gravitas, where can we possibly find a definitive answer?

The Research Paper from the Parliamentary Library summarises the position very well. One thing that has changed since then is that the Governor-General now issues and receives diplomatic credentials in his own right, rather than as the Queen's representative. That has been described as the sine qua non role of a head of state. --Pete (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

How to you justify, yet alone feel is relevant your words "The common law, as discovered by the High Court, is inconclusive and contradictory". I have no problems with the words "Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth". The research paper begins with the idea that it's assumed the Queen is Head of State. How do you know David Smith went to Government House Library or ANU Library? Travelmite (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Because he says so in his book. I recommend it to all interested in the subject. My observation above – "The common law, as discovered by the High Court, is inconclusive and contradictory" – refers to the fact that the High Court, the ultimate source of interpretation of Australia's constitutional law, has given no definitive answer to the question. The 1907 decision, describing the Governor-General as the "Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth" is as close as they get. --Pete (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyedits

In the body of the article "debate" occurs once, in "Background" with a citation to a Research Note of August 1995, which mentions neither "debate" nor "republic". It appears from the article Republicanism in Australia, linked in the lead, that the lead is referring, opaquely, to the debate at the Australian Constitutional Convention 1998 about "four republican models". A little copyediting would clarify.

• (the lead)The Australian head of state dispute is a disagreement among Australians centred on the question of whether the monarch or the governor-general is the country's head of state; the term head of state does not appear in the Australian constitution. The disagreement has involved viceroys, politicians, legal scholars, and the media. The question was debated with reference to four republican models at the Australian Constitutional Convention 1998, and has recurrently been discussed in publications since then.
• (Background, 4th para.: rewrite first two sentences) The question of whether the Queen or the governor-general is Australia's head of state became a political one in the years prior to the Australian republic referendum in 1999. (per Ireland's Note as cited) Among arguments advanced in that campaign some were for retaining the office of governor-general as the monarch's (nominal) representative, and others were for a popularly elected head of state. Republicans included in their campaign the idea that the Queen is head of state and not Australian and, as such, should be replaced with an Australian citizen; this was summed up in their slogan "a mate for head of state".<ref...> Opponents of the move...

Qexigator (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The actual title of the article may be the problem. If we're looking for a formal debate event, there is none. The proceedings at Old Parliament House in 1998 on the four models had very little to do with the identity of the head of state. I was there in the Press Gallery and it was almost entirely political. Most of the real discussion was carried out away from the chamber as delegate votes were canvassed and stitched up, especially by Malcolm Turnbull, who assembled a group of votes in support of his preferred model which was later put to the people at referendum.

The ongoing discussion continues as it always has, through the media and at community level, rather than any formal proceedings. This article documents the various views put forward from time to time. It is rare that a peaceful, stable nation is unsure or divided in its view on the identity of its own head of state, and that is the notability of the article. --Pete (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The issue was raised in the course of the referendum campaign. The monarchist Michael Kirby commented: "Critics certainly raised many false issues... A similar distraction, in my view, was the argument that the Governor-General was actually the Head of State of Australia" ("The Australian Referendum on a Republic - Ten Lessons" - cited in Blackshield and Williams Australian Constitutional Law and Theory, p 1351). I don't think there's much of an ongoing dispute. Rather as I said above, various people erroneously call the GG the head of state, just as people call Sydney the capital of Australia, or Indonesia Australia's nearest neighbour. However, who argues the point (apart from here)?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

We have a long list of varying opinions in the article, Jack. We can easily find definitive sources for the capital of Australia, or our nearest neighbour. But we cannot for the head of state. You say one thing, others say another. Respected though he is, Michael Kirby's view is just one of many. a pity, when on the High Court, he was not asked to provide a ruling on the matter. --Pete (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

David's Smith view is just one view, against everyone with knowledge of the subject. Kirby is not just saying he has an opinion. Even as a monarchist, he called it a false issue. This is what we are dealing with here:- a "false issue". We can find definitive sources, because a King or Queen regnant of a country is always a Head of State. Travelmite (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Just one view? His is one of many, all taken from reliable sources. As is Kirby's. Your confected argument that the monarch is always head of state is unsourced, let alone traced to anything definitive. You are welcome to your own personal opinion, but it has no place as a basis for our encyclopedia. --Pete (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

"A monarch is the sovereign head of state" according to Misplaced Pages, supported by the Oxford dictionary and most other dictionaries, in every language. It's not WP:NOP, it's not WP:SYNTH and it's not my personal opinion. It is part of this encyclopedia and a part of language. Your personal opinion, your WP:NOP and your WP:SYNTH is what we are discussing. Travelmite (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages cannot be used as a source. That's basic. See here:

Misplaced Pages articles (or Misplaced Pages mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose. (It's boldfaced in the text, so we regard it as an important statement.)

A dictionary, even one as well-regarded as the OED, is a tertiary source. Incidentally, I'm not seeing any sort of unequivocal definition in the OED. The online versions leave a fair bit of room for interpretation. Be that as it may, dictionaries do not have the power to determine a nation's head of state. There is only one authority competent to make that determination, and it is the nation itself. For example, there is no dispute in New Zealand, because that nation's Constitution Act states it as fundamental law:

The Sovereign in right of New Zealand is the head of State of New Zealand, and shall be known by the royal style and titles proclaimed from time to time.

There is no corresponding statement in Australian law. If there were, there would be no diversity of opinion, such as this article documents. --Pete (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

How this article is used

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AfD?

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

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

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

1. ("Mabo case") HCA 3, Brennan J. para.51
2. ("Mabo case") HCA 3, Brennan J. para.51
3. Native Title Act 1993,

• C-Class Australia articles
• Mid-importance Australia articles
• C-Class Australian law articles
• Mid-importance Australian law articles
• WikiProject Australian law articles
• C-Class Australian politics articles
• Mid-importance Australian politics articles
• WikiProject Australian politics articles
• WikiProject Australia articles