Talk:Constitution of Australia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Queen of Australia

Memo to the recent Anon user: You are are not the first to assert that the title Queen of Australia was created in 1953. But this is incorrect. The Queen's Australian style and title from 1953 to 1973 was:

"Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Australia and her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith."

Since 1973 it has been:

"Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth."

Thus you can see that the expression "Queen of Australia" only appears in 1973. Of course she was Queen of Australia from 1952 to 1973, but only in the sense that she was Queen of a wider constitutional entity which included Australia - the British Empire (which was gradually turning into the Commonwealth). There was no intention in 1953 to separate the Crowns of the United Kingdom and Australia - Menzies would rather have cut off his hand than sign something that severed the constitutional link between Australia and Britain. Adam 12:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Not so sure about that. Divisibility of the crown came about as a result of a meeting of commonwealth Prime Ministers in 1952 following the death of King George VI. In the UK, some MP's opposed the new Royal Styles and Titles act on the grounds that it constituted divisibility of the crown. Menzies was probably opposed to it as well, and that would explain Australia's choice to ignore it until 1973. David Tombe (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Making each realm responsible for the royal style it used is different from the issue of division of the crowns. Pinning down the moment when the Crown in Right of Australia became the Crown of Australia, rather than an aspect of the Crown of the United Kingdom, is hard to do. You could argue it was Federation, adopting the Statute of Westminster, or even the point where ministers in Westminster decided they shouldn't interfere in Australia's internal affairs, which may have been in between. In any event, we need something far better than the Royal Titles Act as evidence of "creation" of the title of Queen of Australia. -Rrius (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Another point entirely

This section is for discussing improvements to the article, not a place to try and contact the Commissioner of Taxation. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

As you are no doubt aware, Queen Victoria died on the 22nd of January 1901. Upon her death, Letters Patent issued under her name, ceased to hold effect. You are obviously not aware of this and a number of other points I shall bring to your immediate attention. A Letters Patent is a written Command from The Sovereign to a British Subject to carry out this Royal Command by the means set out within the Letters Patent. A "Governor-General" or State "Governor" must hold valid Letters Patent to carry out his or her duties with proper authority. A "Commission", signed by a "Prime Minister", State "Premier" or foreign Monarch is not a competent document and does not substitute for Letters Patent. The authority of the Letters Patent ceases immediately upon any of the following events occurring. 1. The death of The Sovereign, 2. The cancellation of the Letters Patent by The Sovereign, 3. The requirements of the Letters Patent having been fulfilled, or, 4. The recipient of the Letters Patent ceasing to be a British Subject. Quite apart from the obvious difficulty arising from the above singular barriers to any authority emanating from the position of "Governor-General" of Australia, the following will be of interest to you. In a chronological sense of events, we begin with the death of Queen Victoria. On June 28th 1919, Prime Minister Hughes signed the treaty of Versailles and Australia gained independence from Great Britain by that signing. On January 10th 1920, Australia joined the League of Nations as a founding member. The prerequisite for becoming a member was sovereignty. Under International Law Australia was a sovereign nation. Upon attaining Membership of the League of Nations, Australia was guaranteed sovereignty and Article X of the Covenant of the League so provides. On December 17th 1920, the League of Nations confirmed Australia's mandates over ex-German Pacific Territories and Australia administered the whole of Papua New Guinea plus Nauru from that time forward until independent satisfaction was achieved. Australia gave independence to Papua New Guinea in 1975, whereupon Papua New Guinea embraced a new Constitution and laws. As you are no doubt aware it is a legal impossibility for a nation to award independence to another nation unless the administering nation is sovereign in itself. Australia's first treaty with a foreign nation was signed in February 1922, and that was the Washington Naval Treaty. You will no doubt understand that the cognisance of a treaty making power is a prerequisite to recognition as a sovereign nation. In 1926 the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee issued a declaration on absolute equality of the Dominions with the United Kingdom. On June 26th 1945, Australia signed the United Nations Charter as a foundation Member State. The League of Nations was terminated in 1946. Australia's sovereign nation status is guaranteed by the United Nations Charter, Article 2 paragraphs 1 and 4 plus various resolutions. In 1973, the "Federal Parliament" purported to alter the "Colony of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)" (Full title) to substitute the title "Queen of Australia" for the British Monarch. Any casual observer of the constitutional process would recognise that the "Colony of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)" is an Act of the Imperial British Parliament, of which our "constitution" is but part. You will also reason that as Queen Elizabeth 11 is not an Australian citizen, and the Australian people have never given informed consent to the appointment of a foreign Head of State, and most certainly not to an hereditary Monarch, Queen Elizabeth 11 has no authority in Australia. She cannot, as the Queen of England, wield any kind of authority in Australia and as "Queen of Australia" she has no authority over British legislation from which all Australian legislation "draws" its authority. Queen Elizabeth II of England acknowledges that she has no power over or in Australia. The British legislation, namely Federal and State Constitutions and the "Australia Act 1986" may well have authority embodied by the British Parliament, however these documents are entirely mute and have no significance in Australia. I would imagine by now you have a picture of the point made. You have no authority above that of any other Australian citizen. In fact, in the absence of any other authority, indigenous law is the repository from which we must derive authority. As an aboriginal Australian, I request that you produce irrefutable evidence of the following; in order to maintain your position as "Federal Taxation Commissioner" of Australia. a) The formal authority of the "Governor-General" and State "Governors", in Australia, following the death of Queen Victoria, Queen of England, in 1901, b) the informed formal consent of the sovereign people of Australia for the use of British law in Australia post January 22nd 1901, c) the informed formal consent of the sovereign people of Australia for the use of British law, in Australia, post June 28th 1919, d) the informed formal consent of the sovereign people of Australia for the use of British law, in Australia post January 10th 1920, e) the informed formal consent of the sovereign people of Australia for the appointment of a foreign Head of State, f) the informed formal consent of the British people for the use of British law, in Australia, post January 22nd 1901, g) the informed formal consent of the British people for the use of British law, in Australia, post June 28th 1919, h) the informed formal consent of the British people for the use of British law, in Australia, post January 10th 1920, i) the Treaty between Australia and the United Kingdom allowing the use of British law in Australia and the certified registration of such Treaty with the League of Nations and the United Nations, (this would, if in existence, produce the approval of the United Nations for the use of such law.) j) Letters Patent signed by a lawful Australian Monarch appointing a "Governor-General" and State "Governors", and k) the informed formal consent of the sovereign people of Australia allowing government by an hereditary Monarch, So, you see, we have a problem of immense proportions. We have had no valid law in Australia since January 22nd 1901. The pretense has been kept alive in political circles for over the fifty odd years that the problem has been known about by the political establishment. I require you to take notice that I demand all taxes paid by me, to any government in Australia, for any reason during my life time, to be returned to me post haste. I require you to remove my name and details from any and all "government" files, both hard, electronic and otherwise. I require you to remove any and all "FILE" numbers, e.g. "Tax File Number", from any and all files held by your "department", destroyed, and not passed to any other person or place therefore leaving no copies. I require you to provide me with a formal letter, under your name, addressed to "Whom it May Concern", advising all and sundry that I, and any entity associated with myself and my name, to be free of the requirement to produce a "Tax File Number" or any other invalid requirement of the 30,000 invalid taxation laws, to any person involved in the "finance" industry, government or otherwise or, whosoever should "demand" such authority. Failing your ability to produce the required evidence regarding the authority of the position of "Federal Taxation Commissioner", and with the above requirements not fulfilled, by January 22nd 1999, the 98th anniversary year since valid rule, I have initiated steps to be taken through the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, to conclude satisfaction for the people of Australia. A failure on your part to fulfill these requirements will be taken as a personal guarantee on your part, to indemnify me for all costs, extending from all taxes paid to date, to all invalid imposts laid upon me from this day forward plus costs and expenses incurred in collecting same. Put simply, we, the people of sovereign Australia require documented evidence for the continued use of foreign law against our sovereign citizens. Please be advised that under International and British law it is an offence to use British law in Australia. The United Nations Charter guarantees the people of Australia their sovereignty. The people of Australia are sovereign, not the politicians, not the parliaments, not the political parties, not the bureaucrats, not the appointed "authorities", not the "Governor-General", not the various State "Governors", not the land, the soil, or the stones, but the people. Without the people there is no nation, there is no sovereignty, there are no elections, there is no law and no money. I suggest to you that any reliance upon a decision handed down by Hayne "J" on December 21st 1998 is fraught with peril and fragile in the extreme. You are now in the middle of a legal minefield and I cannot even begin to indicate the location of the outer perimeter of the field. Hayne provided a "relief' for his "friends" in Victoria who asked him to make such a decision to "keep the lower 'courts' moving" in that State. We have much to thank him for now, as we have somebody to "hang-out-to-dry", as the saying goes, as he ruled that the use of "The Colony of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)" is alive and well in Australia, in direct contrast to the historical evidence, and points of law regarding the Articles of the League of Nations, the Charter of the United Nations and British law. If there is a need for me to elaborate upon the obvious please feel free to contact me. There is an almost endless stream of material available to show clearly the parlous state of Australia's legal and political system. Please do not insult me by the forwarding of one of the "department's" standard reply letters which are not worth time, trouble or the paper they are written upon. It may well be of interest to you to note that in the preamble to "The Colony of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)", in para. 3, it states clearly that the name of the Federal Commonwealth shall be "the Commonwealth of Australia". Were you to be operating under the false premise that this document had validity, you would, of course, recognise that all the legislation in use today, plus the currency issued and in circulation, has only the word "Australia" on it and is therefore null and void in any legal sense. A document pertaining to a non-existent country can never have competent validity and is a legal absurdity. You may care to take note that the Parliament of the United Kingdom has not made an amendment to the Constitution Act to allow a name change. Thank you for your time. 113.61.69.32 (talk) And thank you for yours. However, I think you are mistaken in your views. For one thing, nobody has held the title of "Queen of England" for three centuries. The rest of your argument, although it may seem to hold logically, is one with the many that I have seen attacking the foundations of Western liberal democracies. Some technicality unravels the whole machinery of state and the scoundrels illegitimately holding stolen power refuse to give it up. The way forward is always clear, but rarely taken: pursue your case through the courts until it is rejected by the High Court and then take it to the UN. Mere assertion is not good enough to force the knobs to give up their jobs. On that point, Wikipedia is not much help. We are restricted to reporting on reliable sources, according to due weight. Start a movement, go viral, get some media coverage, have a support base of a few hundred thousand, we'll be all over you. Until that day, not so much. --Pete (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Some folks refuse to recognize that Australia is a monarchy & that Elizabeth II is its monarch. Some folks refuse to accept that Elizabeth II is Australia's head of state. What those folks want & what is, are seperate things. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC) And some folk think that they know what "is", based on nothing more than the strength of their faith. Fair enough. --Pete (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC) I was responding to the IP, not you. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Your letter seems to be intended for the attention of the "Federal Taxation Commissioner". This is Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to. You may wish to redirect your letter to the correct address, presumably somewhere in Canberra. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Nooooo! That just means some functionary has got to spend time printing and posting a canned response, and adding the original to a (probably bulging) file. Time and effort that could be spent on more productive things, however defined. I take exception with the notion that Letters-Patent cease to have effect on the death of the signatory. If that were the case, then what of legislation such as the Constitution? Signed into law by Victoria R., why did it not likewise cease to have effect at the same instant. Laws, Letters-Patent, regulations and the like do not cease to have force when the office of the person responsible is vacated for whatever reason. They continue on until superseded. What might be important is the reverse case, where a law, authority or regulation was signed by someone not properly authorised to do so. If Prince Charles signed legislation or regulations without being the monarch or regent, then one might well argue that they held no power. --Pete (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC) A person could take exception to the use of caps for "letters patent", or "letters close", or is this an instance of Australian exceptionalism or claiming equality of exceptionalist status? Qexigator (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Not unless we include "not caring a real lot". Bloody confusing word. --Pete (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Pointless in taking matter to high courts 2 of the first 3 judges were not qualified to be on that bench and it has no enabling statute.In short it has never been lawfully created.113.61.69.32 (talk) Kindly read High Court of Australia, which refers to Judiciary Act 1903. Wikiain (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Oath or affirmation of office

I see no mention in the article, nor in the linked Australian constitutional law, of the oath (affirmation) of office prescribed by the Constitution to be taken by members of parliament, nor any mention of variations permitted by a governor-general, as in the case of Gillard and may be others, on being appointed prime minister, nor of the oath (affirmation) of office prescribed for a governor-general appointed under the Queen of Australia's letters patent. Can the article be complete without this? Qexigator (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If there's such a prescribed oath (affirmation), then I see no reason not to include. GoodDay (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If....?: look at the Constitution and the letters patent: what do you see? Qexigator (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, I wasn't questioning there was. By all means, include. GoodDay (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

So I had supposed: have you looked at the Constitution and the letters patent, and what do you think about that? Qexigator (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I lookd at the Australian Constitution. Indeed, the Oath/Afirmaton text, should be included in the article. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Diligent archive-hounds may be able to scent something of what is here being discussed in the records now bot-removed to the depositary: as of 01:40, 24 October 2015 (Archiving 18 discussion(s) to Talk:Constitution of Australia/Archive 2) (bot)[1], but this section was started as a result of a current discussion elsewhere, "Governor-general and PM's oath of office". [2] Qexigator (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Now see revision[3] Qexigator (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Head of state section

Fellow editors, The addition of the "Head of state" section appears to place undue emphasis on a fringe theory / common misunderstanding of the Constitution of Australia. It seems undue to include details of what the constitution does not include. The constitution does not omit to mention the "Head of state" it simply uses the perfectly good word "Sovereign" instead. I am removing the section pending the results of various RfCs elsewhere, and discussion here. (See also: [4][5] - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I had the same temptation, but I think that this section should stay until those discussions are resolved. So I'll revert your change - we can and should come back to the section. BTW "sovereign" is not in the Constitution itself and is used to refer only to the UK. Wikiain (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected. The Constitution uses "the Queen" (originally Queen Victoria; later amended to include her heirs & successors). I remain of the mind that the section should be removed, pending the outcome of the discussions; per WP:BRD. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The statement: 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",[17][18] is no longer in question. is based on a confected argument based on personal interpretation of primary sources. We cannot make a statement in Wikivoice if nobody actually said it in a reliable source. --Pete (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm removing the discussion of "Lord Paramount". In Mabo Brennan J says (paras 48 onward) that it is just a fiction, logically required by the notion of "radical title of the Crown" in the doctrine of tenures. Thus it is not actually connected with the head of state, only with "the Crown" as an abstraction. It is not mentioned in the Native Title Act. Wikiain (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not for Wikipedia to dismiss the ratio decidendi of the High Court as confection. The distinction in law between crown property and the personal property of the Queen is long-standing and well-enough known not to be worth mentioning, but Crown land continues to held, administered and managed under the reigning monarch as "Lord Paramount", whether open to the public or in some other way for public purposes such as mining leases or airports, and in the manner prescribed by enactments of the state and Commonwealth legislatures. That is not affected by the different issues concerning the use of "crown" (more of a fiction, as it happens, than "lord paramount"), in present-day jurisprudence such as discussed by Cheryl Saunders in "The Concept of the Crown" [2015] MelbULawRw 3. [6], where she opines: "Australia has by no means replaced the concept of the Crown in its application to executive government with a developed theory of the state, although it has begun to move down that path. ...The divergence of Commonwealth legal systems in relation even to matters once held firmly in common, of which the concept of the Crown is an example, does not deny the relevance of transnational Commonwealth constitutional experience". Qexigator (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

All respect, but the problem here isn't whether you are right or wrong, Qex. It is that we need a reliable source. That is, someone stating what you want the article to read. If all we have is you making an argument from a few unconnected facts, then it's synthesis and original research. If your view is correct, please find someone who says so, and we can use them as a source. Otherwise, we are using personal opinions of primary sources, and that's not something encouraged. --Pete (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps Pete, or anyone else, is unable to see that the ratio of Mabo, and other sources, speak for themselves, if read by a reasonably informed person unblinkered by a particular pov. Qexigator (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about a particular point of view. I'm happy to accept a High Court judge, for example, making a plain statement. But I can't see this in any of the sources you have provided so far. For example, the words "head of state" do not appear in either Mabo or the Native Title Act. So your edits making statements about the head of state are synthesis and therefore original research. My opinion don't enter into it. --Pete (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It may be difficult, but please take care not to attribute to me what is not mine. Qexigator (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm seeing personal interpretation of primary sources, and I'm seeing insertion of irrelevant material. If you can find a reliable source that links the head of state, native title, and the Constitution in the manner you have done here, then that's fine. But I just can't see it. --Pete (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

As you well know that is not from the article, any more than any other comment on this page. Qexigator (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Neither can I. And my own POV is it doesn't matter who the head of state might be, because the Constitution is unique. The question has no great significance. But I don't see the direct connection between Lord Paramount and Head of State, though I have tried to. And it strikes me that any connection that might be made is so obscure as to be relevant.Gazzster (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Gazzster, noted that you have at least tried. Let's leave it there. Qexigator (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Qexigator, when you say "It is not for Wikipedia to dismiss the ratio decidendi of the High Court as confection." of course you are correct, but I'm not sure what you are referring to. My reference point is Sue v Hill at paras 83-94, distinguishing five meanings of "the Crown" in Australian law. What Saunders calls "the concept of the Crown in its application to executive government" is the third of these, "the Crown" as the executive power, or perhaps the third plus the fourth, "the Crown" as formerly prerogative power (in effect, the fourth meaning is the same as third, stated in a historical perspective). Saunders does not discuss "Lord Paramount". In terms of the Sue v Hill list, I would locate the role of Lord Paramount somehow within the combined scope of the third and fourth meanings. That role is, as Brennan says in Mabo, fictional; it looks like we would agree that your phrase "under the reigning monarch as 'Lord Paramount'" concerns a fiction. At any rate, surely neither the third Sue v Hill meaning nor the fourth includes, today, the monarch acting as head of state. Gazzster, I expect you meant "irrelevant" and I agree. Wikiain (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Wikiain, thank you for the explanatory and intelligible response, noted, and I have no quarrel with that. If we were at a seminar or socratic symposium, and some time remained before parting, we could discuss this further and deeper. But as it is, I feel enough has now been said here, by way of rebuttal, rejoinder and demurrer, for and against letting my proposed words stand in the article. As with some cases reported in the Year Books, we are given an account of the argument before the bench, but may not know the result when the case is referred "to the country" for a verdict on the facts. Meantime there are other issues in contention. Always remembering that Australia's culture is among the oldest and youngest on the face of the globe, Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Executive power

I have removed the section "Powers of the Governor-General":

According to a legal opinion given in 1975 by the then Commonwealth Solicitor-General, with reference to sections 2 and 61, the Constitutional prescription is that executive power is exercisable by the governor-general although vested in the Queen. The opinion stated: "What is exercisable is original executive power: that is, the very thing vested in the Queen by section 61. And it is exercisable by the Queen’s representative, not her delegate or agent." The opinion is currently taken to mean that the Constitution "does not describe the governor-general’s power, it prescribes it".[7]

With respect, Qexigator, this is drivel. It says nothing about the nature of the executive power. And no, it has very little to do with Executive government. Let's get a source that says something about the peculiar nature of the executive power. Alternatively, if you can find a reliable source that equates it with Executive government, we can use that. But, well, lots of luck.

It may prove useful to contemplate the scope of the executive power. Does it encompass all powers given under the constitution? Or is it limited to some smaller set of powers? If so, which? And what sources do we have?

One thing is for sure. The executive power is not that which is implied by the text I've removed. It is not some arbitrary, all-encompassing power for the Governor-General to do anything in the name of the Queen.

Over to you - or anyone else who wants to provide a good source. --Pete (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Noted Pete/Skyring's self-opinionated remark about referring to the S-G's opinion as drivel, though currently quoted on the official website, which is to be regarded as more RS than P/S's personal notions about the constitution or executive power, which certainly we cannot accept as valid for the content of the article. I suggest anyone who wishes to discuss that further with P/S do so at his talk page, not here. Qexigator (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Australia Act

I note that Abunyip made an edit to include the theoretical possibility that the Commonwealth could attempt to alter the constitution by way of an amendment to the Australia Act. This was similar to his previous edit however on this occasion it was supported by a reference. The edit was reverted by Sagaciouseight with the comment that "The proposition argued for in the 1989 article cited has never been accepted by any court (and is plainly wrong)." I thought the issue was one that warranted discussion.

In my view there are a few difficulties with the where the comment was placed and the way it was expressed - it is inappropriate to place a theoretical & contentious proposition in the lead section which is meant to be a concise overview of the article's topic. It is also expressed as if it was a verifiable fact, when it is a theory that has not and may never be legally or politically tested & where different views have been expressed. S 15 of the Australia Act is still a remarkable provision & worthy of comment in the context of the constitution, even if for the underlying basis of our legal system as founded on English law or popular sovereignty (see for example "An Express Constitutional Right to Vote?". (2014) 36(2) Sydney Law Review 205: 227. & "Popular Sovereignty and Constitutional Continuity". (1998) 26(1) Federal Law Review 1. Find bruce (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreeing that this "theoretical and contentious" argument should not be in the lead, which in any case should not contain material that is not in the body of the article, should it be mentioned in the body? I think not.

1. The argument is 'far out' and probably impracticable (as the author admits) and it has not become a central element of Australian constitutional debate—and I think that central elements are all that the present article can cover. The proposal to ask the British to use their own version of the Australia Act would surely, at least today, have the British government ROTFL (a welcome or unwelcome thought, as you may please).
2. The argument is admittedly and I think irreducibly tortuous. It is discussed in Blackshield & Williams, Australian Constitutional Law and Theory (6th edn, 123-4) as "superficially plausible" and I don't find their reasons for rejecting it to be immediately convincing. The key problem, however, is that they don't summarise clearly what the argument is—and I can't imagine a way to do that so briefly as to be accommodated in the present article. Perhaps it should have a place in the article on the Australia Acts, but that would still be very difficult.
3. The argument was published in 1989 and what it assumes about Australian independence is weakened and perhaps wholly superseded by the High Court's decision in Sue v Hill in 1999. Wikiain (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Wikian's points and that it doesn't merit a mention in the article (and certainly not in the introduction). I would throw in the following:

• Doctrinally, as a matter of precedent it has never been argued or accepted.
• Practically, the notion, now, that the Australia Act could be used to amend the Constitution, would be laughed out of any Australian court, and may have serious public opposition.
• Logically, a failing with the argument is, I think, that once the Constitution was adopted, the authority for its validity ceased to be English law but rather popular sovereignty—and once the Constitution came into force, it became the new grundnorm, superseding all positive bases (in English law) that came before it. There might be some debate about whether that was at 1901 (I would say yes) or at some later time, but it certainly has occurred by now.
• Academically, I don't think it has ever found support beyond this one article. I'm sure academic arguments not yet accepted are in some cases worth mentioning, but I don't think this is one of them. As Wikian says, it is pretty "far out".- Sagaciouseight (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikiain and Sagaciouseight you have me convinced. While I think Gilbert is wrong, the reasons why are not easily or concisely articulated. That academic questions about the effect of s 15 of the Australia Act is to my mind a lower priority than the question of the evolution of sovereignty. On reflection, even the the evolution of sovereignty would be better placed elsewhere, probably in Constitutional history of Australia Find bruce (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Constitution of Australia ≠ Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901

Hi all,
This article says, and in Wikipedia's voice, "The most important is the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, which is referred to as the "Constitution" in the remainder of this article".
In my opinion - and of many experts on Australian Constitutional law that I will add here as required - the "Constitution of Australia" is the aggregation of legislation (The Constitution itself, Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, Australia Act 1986 and so on) a the High Court of Australia decisions in Australian Constitutional law. The Wikipedia:Requests for comment guidelines suggest that this should be discussed on the article in question's talk page. Which is here.
So: Constitution of Australia ≠ Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. What do you think about this?
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

You are referring to three things: the Constitution Act, the Constitution (defined in the Act as sections 1 to 128 of the Act) and "the Constitution" in a broad sense synonymous with "constitutional law" (your "aggregate"). Both of the leading textbooks (Blackshield & Williams 6th edn 2014 p 2 and Winterton/Gerangelos 3rd edn 2013 p 4), speak primarily of "constitutional law" and, within that, of the Constitution Act and of then of "the Constitution" as defined in the Act. I would prefer that the article followed that usage. But let's not make things more difficult by calling the Constitution Act alone "the Constitution". Wikiain (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)K

Better late than never and so on. Yep. You were right and I was wrong. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constitution of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130603055610/http://www.mq.edu.au/about_us/faculties_and_departments/faculty_of_arts/mhpir/politics_and_international_relations/staff/john_kilcullen/a_first_reading_of_the_australian_constitution/ to http://www.mq.edu.au/about_us/faculties_and_departments/faculty_of_arts/mhpir/politics_and_international_relations/staff/john_kilcullen/a_first_reading_of_the_australian_constitution/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC on terms: "monarch" or "head of state"?

There is an open Request for Comment at Talk:Monarchy_of_Australia#Request_for_comment_on_terms on whether Queen Elizabeth II should be described as the monarch or the head of state. One term is undisputed, the other not so much. --Pete (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The option of having both terms in the intro is being discussed, as well. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

That's the problem right there. Nobody disputes that the monarch is the monarch. On the other hand, anybody who took part in the republic referendum some time ago would be aware that there was and has been considerable debate over the term "head of state", and there are consequent NPOV factors. --Pete (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox: Constitution Australian text

The infobox gives the text of the Constitution as enacted in 1900, as still technically in force in the UK. But we need to include and give priority to the text as amended in Australia and currently in force in Australia. I don't know how to put that into the infobox. The appropriate source is the Federal Register of Legislation, at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013Q00005. Errantius (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the lead and the infobox, but the infobox still needs to refer primarily to fhe Australian text. Errantius (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's any way to do this using {{Infobox UK Legislation}}. What about using {{Infobox constitution}} instead? It's geared more towards constitutional texts with additional details about the constitutional text proper. I've just updated the article to use this new infobox. It doesn't exactly fix this issue, but it's important to know which infobox we'll have to jerry rig! ItsPugle (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Nice work! Though I've changed "Writer(s)" from Sir Samuel Griffith to "Constitutional Conventions, 1890-91", both because many hands contributed in and around the Conventions and because, if leading writers have to be picked out, Inglis Clark is also a contender. Errantius (talk) 11:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Consolidated & edited for clarity

A significant amount of this article was repetitious, and lacked clarity. The article was also not organised, leading to repetition of facts across multiple sections.

I hope with my changes the article is more organised and readable to the typical reader. I have not deleted any content. Jack4576 (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted all your changes, which did involve deletion of content. A few changes were useful, but others definitely were not—especially substituting a Cth government Infosheet for the Constitution Act of 1900. You misunderstood the effect of altering s 127. You also seemed not to understand "in obiter" and so misrepresented the view of the High Court. It did not seem possible to sort the wheat from the chaff. Where one editor had made a good change amid yours, I have restored that change. Reorganisation of an article is best proposed in Talk, to seek the benefit of collective reflection. Errantius (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)  

I'm not opposed to mass changes / tidy-ups per se, but it's difficult to evaluate when they're all done in a single or a few large edits with a generic edit summary... maybe you could work through section by section so it's easier to tell what's being changed or removed. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay I will re-do it section by section. talk your comments about s127 and the High Court's in obiter comments are incorrect. My edits were correct. Please do not just 'revert' every single change, please adjust the changes gradually like the infobox issue you pointed out. Thanks Jack4576 (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually Errantius, you are right. I was mistaken about s127. Nevertheless, please address that change specifically rather than just reverting the entire article back. Please note Wikipedia:Reverting#When_to_revert Jack4576 (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I have re-made the changes, except for those pertaining to the infobox. Please do not just revert them all as they are good-faith edits. If you have an issue with any of them in particular, please address them with your own edits, or discuss them here first. Jack4576 (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

One final note, I have not deleted any content. All content that was removed was either not really relevant to the main article, and I made sure to check it was already included in a 'main article' link to ensure it wouldn't be deleted off wikipedia. The main changes where I did that were in the text section; which was unnecessarily split by Heading 1 style chapters. Other changes restate the original content but for conciseness reasons. Jack4576 (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I have reinstated some of an earlier lead text, which specifies that "the Constitution" of Australia is s. 9 of the 1900 Act. You seemed to have returned to assuming a general, yet unstated, concept of "constitution". To use a general concept is an arguable approach, but the argument has to be put and accepted. I removed the ref to Cheryl Saunder's book because it had no page citation and I couldn't find such a page; if you can, please reinstate that ref. I haven't yet looked at your new changes to the main text. Errantius (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The lead text for this article is now unnecessarily verbose, as it repeats facts that appear later on in the article. I'm not sure what you mean by me having assumed a 'general yet unstated concept of constitution'. Jack4576 (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

On the Australian federal register of legislation, the documents name is 'Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act', not 'Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1900)'. The name of the document as contained within the federal register should be preferred. Jack4576 (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed some of the verbosity in the content you have added to the opening section, is due to that content being repeated in the History and other sections of the article. Please check to see if the content already exists later in a more appropriate place within the article, before adding it to the already lengthy opening section. I am trying to raise this article from C-Class status, and a verbose opening section filled with somewhat tangential trivia, I think is affecting the quality of what could be a featured article. Jack4576 (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

1. The purpose of a lead is to summarise what is stated later ...
2. On "general yet unstated concept of constitution" see the discussion in "Several documents" above.
3. You have removed the mention of section 9, so that it is no longer evident what text is "the Constitution"—the 1900 Act states that it is what is in section 9. I'll put section 9 back if you don't.
4. The second sentence of the lead is now ungrammatical and obscure.
5. "Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900" is the correct title of the document. The Federal Register's unofficial shortening is ok for the infobox, but the full and correct title must be given in the text.
6. The Australia Acts didn't end "Australian recognition", whatever that might mean.
7. "Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900" is the correct title of the document. The Federal Register's unofficial shortening is ok for the infobox, but the full and correct title must be given in the text.
8. You have introduced some errors in the main text, but I'll get to them when you may seem to have finished. Errantius (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed the purpose of a lead is to provide an overall summation. Therefore it is important to cut out unnecessary expository details, which I did; while retaining important summary information, which I have done. Regarding the 'general yet unstated concept of constitution', I see what you mean now. But I don't know why you are paying so much attention to that point. Nation states have constitutions, and in Australia's case the constitution is partly written, partly unwritten. This is uncontroversial. Look up common law constitutionalism. The 'Constitution of Australia' is a term that can refer both to the formal written document, and the constitution as a legal concept. It would be dumb to separate these into separate wikipedia articles, so it is best to merge them within the same article here.

Regarding the second sentence of the lead, I have now fixed up its incorrect grammar thank you for pointing that out. "Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900" is the correct title of the document" you claim that, but whats your authority for claiming that? (do you have a source more authoritative than the federal register?)

The Australia Act in the UK bound the parliament from amending the constitution act. In Australia, it formally ended the Australian legal system's ability to recognize an ability of the British parliament as having any legal authority over the Australian constitution. That is what is meant by 'recognition'.

You may as well bring up the errors in the main text now for discussion, as I'm unlikely to be finished with this article anytime soon. Jack4576 (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I have re-read the above discussion with User:Find bruce, I agree with his assessment; its quite nonsensical to talk about the Australian constitution as a document abstracted from the Australian constitutional system. Neither is it helpful to separate it into 'the constitution' and 'constitutional law'. Constitutional law refers to constitutional jurisprudence, rather than an abstract 'constitution' of a nation state, which in turn again is a separate thing to a written constitution as a document. There should not be an issue with this article being able to accommodate both the Australian constitution as a document, and the 'Australian constitution' as a concept (especially given that the two concepts nearly totally overlap with each other, and would not justify separate articles). 17:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 31 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Constitution of Australia → Australian Constitution – All Australian Government documentation appears to refer to the Constitution as the Australian Constitution, including: the Parliamentary Education Office, the National Archives of Australia, and the Parliament of Australia. It's also legally called the Australian Constitution, as demonstrated in how its mentioned in federal legislation: Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Eligibility) Regulation 2018. ItsPugle (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. It is not "legally called" the "Australian Constitution". The regulation cited has that phrase not in a clause but in a candidate nomination form—using familiar language as in the other places that you refer to.

An official name is surely to be sought in the original document, prominent on the same website: the Commonwealth of Australian Constitution Act 1901 (Imp). There it is referred to as the "Constitution of the Commonwealth" (in covering clauses 4 and 9), which being spelt out is "Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia". Afterwards it is just "the Constitution". But "Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia" doesn't seem appropriate for a WP article title.

However, a better case for saying "the Australian Constitution" is its use in the "Overview" by the Australian Government Solicitor in the government edition of the Constitution and related texts: The Constitution. So I think you have a case.

Nonetheless, this case does not seem to me to be strong enough to require departing from the usual WP formula, as can be found by searching WP for "Constitution of". Errantius (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I mean, it's cited elsewhere in other legislation (Appropriations Act (No. 1) 2017-18, Anti‑Money Laundering and Counter‑Terrorism Financing Bill 2006, Public Service Bill 1999), so maybe not the best example of legislation to use - my mistake! In terms of breaking with that "Constitution of xyz" form, WP:NCGAL outlines that we should use the most common and officially recognised name, which would be Australian Constitution and WP:LEGALMOS#In Australia says to use the Australian Guide to Legal Citation which says:

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia may be cited as the Australian Constitution, the Commonwealth Constitution or simply the Constitution if there is no ambiguity as to which constitution is being cited.

There also doesn't seem to be any existing policy or documented community consensus about Constitution articles, so I don't think that should be an issue. Any thoughts? ItsPugle (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

In that Appropriations Act, "Australian Constitution" is used only in a minor heading; and I couldn't find it at all in the two Bills. The AGLC is permissive, but not I think very persuasive. There does seem to be a consensual practice in WP. Well, I've had a say on this. Errantius (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose you can make a legitimate case for either & they are used interchangeably. For Wikipedia however consistency of naming is important as it helps people find articles & currently. There may not be any policy (WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY), however there is overwhelming community consensus to use "Constitution of ...", eg Constitution of the United States; Constitution of the United Kingdom; Constitution of India; Constitution of the People's Republic of China; Constitution of New Zealand; Constitution of South Africa; Constitution of Sri Lanka. I could keep listing but I am sure you get the point. Similarly articles on parts of the Constitution of Australia are called "Chapter __ of the Constitution of Australia" or "section __ of the Constitution of Australia". --Find bruce (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The broad consensus is supported by the guideline in WP:NC-CST that In general, country-specific articles should be named using the form: "(item) of (country)". --Find bruce (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - The proposed title is not consistent with other countries. Interstellarity (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think it makes far more sense to call it the 'Australian Constitution', as this is the conventionally used nomenclature within Australia; and this is an Australian English article. Issues with inconsistent naming with other articles across the world can be resolved with a simple redirect, but Australian English styling should be preferred. Jack4576 (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion is closed. Errantius (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, and I didn't modify it. This is a new comment on a previously discussed topic. I can read, thanks Jack4576 (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

"The discussion above is closed" Jack4576 (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggested separate, additional topic page

Hello all. What do people think about having a separate page "Constitutional framework of Australia" or even bolstering the content of the "Constitutional history of Australia". I just think that pages such as this one (which is brilliant would benefit from a separate (in addition to, not in the place of) coordinating document that better sets out the framework, particularly the States vis the Cth. I think these pages are perfect, I'm just wondering if more context would assist readers newer to the topic. 5.151.179.133 (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

"Several documents"

I can't say I've picked up a constitutional law textbook lately, but is it really standard practice to define the constitution as including multiple documents, as this article does very prominently? In common parlance I've never heard "the Australian constitution" mean anything other than, well, the Australian constitution. Possibly other items might be considered "constitutional documents" or be considered subjects of constitutional law or constitutional history, but I don't recall ever hearing them referred to as part of the constitution. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

A constitution is a system of rules that determine how a country is governed - it doesn't have to be written down in a document, eg United Kingdom and New Zealand. In Australia at Federation, despite the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901, the Australian parliament could not validly make laws that were repugnant to laws made by the UK parliament & applied to Australia - see Union Steamship Company of New Zealand Ltd v Commonwealth (1925) 36 CLR 130. Similarly there are things not in the written document, such as who advises the Queen to appoint the Governor-General. The adoption of the Statute of Westminster was a major change - hence why the consistitution as a system of rules is broader than just the document. --Find bruce (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That certainly applies to the UK and New Zealand, but neither of them have a single codified document that is titled and commonly referred to as the constitution. I guess the terminology is debatable but I'm just not seeing any sourcing that counts other documents as part of the constitution. See for instance this guide to the constitution from 2012 prepared by the Australian Government Solicitor. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I can offer the following options:

• the Constitution: a single document, whether so named (e.g. Constitution of the United States of America) or an equivalent by another name (e.g. German Grundgesetz (Basic Law)).
• constitutional law: the set of rules that determine how a country is governed. This will include:

• such a document if there is one
• a foundational treaty (e.g. UK's Treaties of Union, in Germany the Two Plus Four Treaty)
• other documents containing such rules or principles (e.g. in the USA the Declaration of Independence; in France the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, considered to belong with the Constitution as a bloc constitutionnel)
• statutes containing such rules (e.g. the Australia Acts, in the UK the Devolution Acts)
• judicial interpretations of such documents
• constitutional conventions, at least in Westminster systems

• the Constitution, meaning constitutional law (a usage common in the UK, e.g. Bagehot's The English Constitution).

I'd be happy to cast articles in terms of the Constitution (document) and constitutional law. This would be to agree with Ivar the Boneful and say that what Find bruce is referring to is constitutional law. However, that would be a personal preference. Errantius (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

There having been no further discussion, I've made changes that I hope will meet with approval. The facts just are convoluted. Errantius (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I realise I am jumping into this discussion late, but it is nonsensical to split the concepts into 'the constitution' and 'constitutional law' as is proposed. Constitutional law refers to jurisprudence surrounding the constitution; hence the 'law' part. The Australian constitution is partly written, partly unwritten. Ivar the Boneful's argument that the UK and New Zealand are different to Australia isn't a strong one. In the UK, the constitution is nearly totally unwritten. In the USA, the constitution is nearly entirely written. Australia is in the middle, and the minimalist Australian document was drafted partly with an intention to ensure that unwritten UK constitutional ideas would remain in place. Saying 'I've never heard "the Australian constitution" mean anything other than, well, the Australian constitution' is misleading. Sure, laypeople may be referring only to the document when they say 'Australian constitution', but the term Australian constitution also refers to unwritten rules and other documents, as Find bruce aptly points out. Jack4576 (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, where have you found the idea that "Constitutional law refers to jurisprudence surrounding the constitution"? Errantius (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Executive government

Our article states

Chapter II: The Executive Government sets up the executive branch. Executive powers are stated to be exercised by the Governor-General on the advice of the Federal Executive Council. The Governor-General is stated to be the commander in chief, with power to appoint and dismiss persons within the executive, as well as the power to dissolve parliament. These powers of the governor general are often referred to as reserve powers, and by constitutional convention are only exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister in cabinet.

This is not correct. The power to dissolve parliament is given in s5, which is found within Chapter I. The command of the defence force is not a reserve power; the notion that the Governor-General might issue orders to the military off his own bat is an alarming one. --Pete (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

But in practice, doesn't the governor-general give orders on the advice from the prime minister? Basically, the prime minister give an order & it's rubber-stamped by the governor-general? GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Your recent edit & 'edit summary' seem to contradict each other. But, I'll let somebody else figure that out. You edit that it's not a reserve power & then say it's a power that's rarely used. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Errantius: & @NebY:; perhaps you can make sense of this. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I've made some changes, as below, but the section on ChII needs more work:

Chapter II: The Executive Government sets up the executive branch. Executive powers are stated to be exercised by the Governor-General on the advice of the Federal Executive Council. The Governor-General is stated to be the commander in chief, with power to appoint and dismiss persons within the executive, as well as the power to dissolve parliament. These powers of the governor general are by constitutional convention usually exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister in cabinet. Some powers of the governor-general may be exercised without advice when it would be inappropriate to require it, for example if a Prime Minister loses the confidence of the Lower House and advises an election but another party leader could command confidence instead. Australia's military is also provisioned for within this chapter, with section 68 stating that command of Australia's naval and military forces is to be vested in the Governor-General.

This document may be of some use in considering the powers of the Governor-General. It is taken from House of Representatives Practice, the handbook for Members.

• "Executive powers". There is the executive power laid out in s61. That is a specific, though diverse, power which encompasses three broad functions. In order they are: 1. the remnant of the royal prerogative not otherwise allocated, such as honours, pardons, treaties and similar. 2. maintaining the Commonwealth, which covers all the activities associated with being a nation not otherwise covered, such as celebrating the Bicentenary. 3. The legislative heads of power as laid out in s51 and elsewhere. This power does not cover or include specific powers such as the power to convene and prorogue parliament (s5), the power to issue election writs (s32), the power to dissolve both houses and convene joint sittings (s57), the power to appoint or remove ministers (s64), the power to submit constitutional amendment bills tom the voters (s128), and others.
• "Federal Executive Council". Not all of the Governor-General's powers need be exercised on advice. The powers that are, are indicated by the phrase "the Governor-General in Council". In s64 we find that the Governor-General in Council may establish departments of government, but that the appointing of ministers to head these departments is "during his pleasure". Notably Gough Whitlam did not advise his own dismissal and removal from the Federal Executive Council.
• "Commander-in-chief". The phrase "command in chief" refers exclusively to the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth, as per s68. It does not cover commanding the FEC or appointing ministers.
• "Reserve powers". ChII does not list what these are, though commonly they are those powers of the Governor-General which do not include the "Governor-General in Council" formula. They are usually exercised on advice but occasionally by the Governor-General alone. It is a nonsense to say that powers are exercised on advice of the FEC and then turn around and say that they are reserve powers, and (even more risibly) that they have only been exercised once in dismissing Whitlam. Lord Northcote exercised his power against advice three times between 1904 and 1909 when no one party held a majority in the House and Deakin, Reid, and Watson each required the support of amother party beyond their own. It is a complex subject which may perhaps be avoided entirely in a short summary. These powers are not exclusively found within ChII. For example s32 has been exercised without advice - to refuse elections advised by a PM - and despite what s128 might imply, the Governor-General does not take advice from the Senate in approving referendums.

We really need to thrash out wording here which is both short and accurate. --Pete (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

"About Parliament" (itself a primary source) makes reference to (among others) Quick and Garran; G. Moens and J. Trone,Lumb, Moens and Trone, The Constitution of Australia annotate d, 9th edn, LexisNexis Butterworths, Sydney, 2016; W. Anstey Wynes, Legislative, executive and judicial powers in Australia, 5th edn, Law Book Co., Sydney, 1976; and P. Hanks, Hanks Australian constitutional law: materials and commentary, 9th edn, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2013. Those look like appropriate WP:RS. We (Wikipedia editors in general) should not be attempting to interpret the constitution ourselves, let alone dispute its meaning. That which we cannot say with confidence backed by WP:RS should not be said. NebY (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Spot on. We are fortunate that Quick and Garran's definitive masterwork is out of copyright and may be perused and downloaded freely without the need to pay a hundred bucks or so for an excellent doorstop. Trove contains some images and transcriptions and we may read some appropriate sections here. The long-winded Quick and the more direct Garran - in his superb and lyrical "Prosper the Commonwealth" Robert Garran describes eliding large chunks of Quick's commentary from their joint manuscript without anyone noticing or any harm to the resulting work - drew heavily on prior practice and commentaries of the British Empire and the USA. Those of us with an especial interest in Canadian practice will relish the words of Lord Dufferin, the Canadian Goveror-General in 1873, trenchantly describing the impartiality of the Crown:

As a reasonable being he cannot help having convictions on the merits of different policies, but these considerations are abstract and speculative and devoid of practical effect in his official relations. As the head of a constitutional State, engaged in the administration of Parliamentary government, the Governor-General has no political friends still less can he have political enemies.

— Quick and Garran p 746

Gough Whitlam might have his own commentary on that topic!

We should not have too much trouble finding sources. I know that I have a battered copy of Lumb somewhere, and these are all fairly common and standard texts, possibly available on Library Genesis. Let us ensure that each and every word here be backed by reliable sourcing. I shall apply a "citation needed" template forthwith because there are some passages in our own text which are, as noted, problematical. --Pete (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I have thoroughly revised the Ch II section. Since this is only a brief summary, I have provided references only for the element that is notoriously controversial, the "reserve powers". My references are to the two principal current textbooks/treatises on Australian constitutional law—for "Winterton", the current edition 2017; for "Blackshield", the current edition 2018, but, since I don't have that edition and libraries are closed owing to Covid-19, the previous edition is silently cited for someone to update. Other elements should find references in more detailed articles that are linked to. Errantius (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

You say, without a source, "By convention, almost all executive authority is exercised by a prime minister and a cabinet." What, precisely, is "executive authority"? It doesn't seem to be found in ChII. It cannot be any constitutional power, because neither PM nor Cabinet are mentioned in the Constitution. If we are summarising ChII, we should restrict ourselves to that. --Pete (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

This section doesn't only summarise Ch II, which would give a wildly misleading picture of the reality. "Authority" is a vague term but may be appropriate in the corrective part of the section. The public service do what the PM and Cabinet tell them to do. Errantius (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

That's as may be, but what does it have to do with the Constitution, and where is your source? --Pete (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

It is explained by the links to the prime minister and the cabinet. It has to do with how the Constitution actually operates, as any LLB course in Australian constitutional law would be likely to stress. I have already said that this brief summary need not be sourced in detail. Errantius (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The public service has nothing to do with Chapter II of the Constitution. Nor have you provided a source that states what you claim. We are not providing a reference for people who already know how government works, we are describing the Constitution. We sketch it out in a few lines - like a Phil May drawing, every word carefully considered - and point them to resources where they can learn more. --Pete (talk) 07:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

You have no idea of what you are talking about. Errantius (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that the reverse is true. Robert Garran - of Quick and Garran, also the first solicitor-general of the Commonwealth - used that precise image to describe the model for legislation in the text I mentioned earlier. It is well worth reading as a description of our nation's founding from the constitutional conventions of the 1890s through to the building up of the national capital, written by a thoughtful, witty, and articulate lawyer with a fondness for multilingual wordplay. But rather than describe personalities, perhaps we might take a different tack.

Let us seek agreement on what to include in a summary of Chapter II. We do not need to include every word, or indeed, every section. A sketch in a few lines rather than a vast and detailed canvas.

• The executive power vesting in the Queen is described and assigned to the Governor-General.
• Responsible government is outlined through the Federal Executive Council made up of Ministers who are members of parliament.
• The Governor-General is the nominal head of the defence force

We might include short discussions on the reserve powers, although they are not all located within ChII. We might explain why command of the defence force does not mean that the Governor-General issues orders. (The latter is a perennial favourite of conspiracy theorists who imagine that at some point the Governor-General might call out the troops to turf out the scroundrels in parliament because it's right there in thuh Constitution, innit? This document gives a rather good run-down of why the G-G can't rule with the aid of the military, if you should need one.)

An apology is in order. I note that the Constitution does in fact mention the public service in Chapter II. S67 talks about "all other officers of the Executive Government of the Commonwealth". My apologies. I was wrong when I contradicted you earlier. I was in fact one of those so described some decades ago. I had quite forgotten due to my advancing years - I am now in the second year of my eighth decade - that I once occupied a toehold in our nation's fundamental document. I don't think we need mention this in our summary here.

Anything else we need to include in a summary of Chapter II? --Pete (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The apology is readily accepted. The current text can no doubt be improved, but I do not see any way in which your suggestions do so. Garran is classic, of course, but our first port of call must be to current commentary, which I think means going first (and often, for encyclopedia purposes, last) to the leading textbooks/treatises "Blackshield" and "Winterton" in their current editions. You link to an article in the website of the Constitution Education Fund: those articles, written for public education, are not adequate sources but can be good explainers (I have sometimes used them in teaching) and thus useful to cite. Errantius (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm just dealing with topics for now. I have three heads and two possibles. What is your preference? --Pete (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Good-oh. I'll rewrite the paragraph to cover just those three topics. The other stuff can go somewhere else. I don't think the sparse mention of civil servants is worth mentioning. --Pete (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

If your "Good-oh" assumes my silent agreement, you are mistaken. I've tried to spell out to you that, these days, to say what the Constitution is includes a lot more than summarising its text—an exercise that would conflict wildly with reality. You can leave your old copy of Lumb in its box and, if you can't do better than that, please just stay away. Errantius (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's not terribly helpful. Do you have any comments on the points raised? We have a whole article to expand on points that need expanding. The reserve powers, for example. But they are spread out across the Constitution, and trying to shoe-horn a discussion on all of them into a short summary of any one chapter is hardly going to be useful. We can put them - here's a thought - into a section called "Reserve Powers" where we can put information on the reserve powers and those of our readers who are looking for information about the reserve powers can access it immediately, without having to dig through the chapter summarys like a lucky dip. We are writing an encyclopaedia, and we should think about presenting information in a useful and efficient manner. --Pete (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The section looks ok to me as it is. Errantius (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Do tell? I've moved mention of the Governor-General's powers over proroguing, royal assent etc. to our Chapter I section, where they actually belong. God forbid someone looking for information about Chapter I would actually find it in the Chapter I summary! --Pete (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I've removed duplicated material about the CinC role. The reserve powers don't need to be described here at length. We can put them in a section about interpretation and practice, rather than in a summary of what the document actually contains, and "reserve powers" is not a phrase one might find in the Constitution. A summary doesn't involve actually adding in stuff from outside! --Pete (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC) (ETA) I've parked that guff in the "Unwritten conventions" section. --Pete (talk) 07:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, some of the changes were just made at the Governor-General of Australia article. GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Providing for the Queen

I have removed a section about Chapter I "providing" for the Queen in the summary. The mentions of the Queen in that chapter are sparse. The Governor-General represents the Queen (which in practical terms in those days of Imperial government meant Her Majesty's Government) and her biggest mention comes in section 58 (Royal Assent, where the Governor-General signs bills into law in the name of the Queen, or withholds them for her pleasure where they impact the monarch or the British government directly) section 59 (Disallowance, where the Queen may disallow Australian legislation; never used, moribund at Federation, a very dead letter now), and section 60 (Bills reserved for the Queen's pleasuring having no force.)

While we should have some full explanation of the changing constitutional role of the monarch, a summary of Chapter I is not the place for that discussion. --Pete (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I have restored it with amendment. Errantius (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I chortled at the idea of "bills reserved for the Queen's pleasuring". I thought she was a bit too old for that sort of stuff, but hey, who knows what goes on behind palace doors. Particularly with a guy named Bill. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

His surname is Posters and he's still running. ::) Errantius (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Wait until the UK has a king. I was taught in school that every ruler has twelve inches. --Pete (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the relevant wording. That's good. The other material doesn't belong here and while I appreciate the sourcing, perhaps it can be stuck somewhere else? (ETA - I have placed it under "Interpretation" for now.) --Pete (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

At the rate of changes being made to this article. It's gonna end up looking like a republican Constitution. GoodDay (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)