Talk:Monarchy of Australia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Queen of Australia

If the article was really more accurate I think it should mention that a majority or Australians did in fact want a republic, just not the 1999 model. I remember Bill CLinton toasting the "Queen of Australia" when he was in australia once. The whole room went silent and it was quite an akward moment from my memory.

My point is that most Australians do not know the queen is the Queen of Austrlia and most find this absurd. I think a critique of the use of this title should be included, for at least a small paragraph. Dankru 12:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

If anything, that belongs in the article on australian republicanism. By the way, earlier this year a newspoll found that a majority of australians see no need to become a republic. And for the record, the only republic model for australia that I thought was reasonable was the one that was put to referendum. Who wants to waste money on elections for a powerless head of state? Xtra 13:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Germany, Israel, Ireland, Italy, India . . . sorry couldn't resist :). I'll stop now. Slac speak up! 04:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Of those, only the president of Ireland is directly elected. Research should precede gloating. Adam 04:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

And of the Irish presidents, the first one, the second one the second time, the fifth one, the six one twice and the eighth one the second time were elected unopposed. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 08:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Countries I can think of which have directly elected non-executive presidents are Austria, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Portugal and Singapore (but Singapore is only dubiously a democracy). One might add Croatia, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia, but it's a little unclear how "non-executive" their presidents are since their constitutions have varying divisions of power between presidents and prime ministers. Adam 09:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

In regard to the toasting of Her Majesty, it is customary for heads of state to be toasted at official events. If my memory serves me correctly, HRH The Crown Prince of Denmark also made a toast to "Her Majesty the Queen of Australia" when he was here.JSIN 09:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm a new Wikipedia user and have not learnt yet how to change pictures. In this article, the Queen is wearing the Order of Canada. Would it be possible for someone to change it to a photo taken in Australia? Jleonau 09:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

We are aware of this problem. Unfortunately that is the best recent, high-quality, public domain photo of the Queen we can find. If you can find a better one taken in Australia and in the public domain, you are free to replace the current one with it. If you don't know how, add a link to the photo and someone else will upload it. Adam 10:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better to have a picture of the Queen qua Queen of Australia. I don't really know how to upload pictures myself. I suppose I could find out but I'm loathe to change the picture. I suspect there are almost no recent photos which are strictly in the "public domain". But I suspect there are some for which it would be easy to get permission from the copyright owners . Here are a few links [1] (takes you to a slideshow of various pics from the Queen's 2006 visit). Also http://www.royal.gov.uk/files/Gallery/Insight_mar06_gallery_syd3_large.jpg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apodeictic (talk • contribs) 20:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Act of Settlement

Existing English common and statute law at the time of the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788 became the law of New South Wales, and later Australia. There's a very nice display at the High Court of Australia explaining how this goes right back to including some Roman Law within the Common Law.

The Act of Settlement 1701 was one such law in force in 1788 and therefore is a fully-fledged Australian Law, now divorced from it's original Westminster roots. Indeed, a problem raised with the British proposal to amend their version of the Act was that the changes wouldn't apply in many of the other realms which would continue with unamended acts and hence potentially end with the Crowns on different heads.

For an example of the Act of Settlement 1700 (sic) being included as Australian state and federal law, c.f. ACT Legislation Register, laws dating from 1788: http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/db_1788/default.asp

(The confusion over the year of the act is a result in the change of New Year's Day from 25 March to 1 January in 1752) 136.2.1.101 13:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I contend that the sentance is confusing and incorrect: it suggests that the Act of Settlement is in some way not Australian Law. There is no requirement for formal adoption and it would not change the situation. Furthermore, in at least the case of ACT the Act of Settlement has been formally adopted into the Terrority's law. 136.2.1.101 13:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If the Australian monarchy is a completely separate monarchy from the monarchy of the United Kingdom how does the Act of Settlement 1701 which establishes the succession to the Crown of the United Kingdom have relevance to determining who is entitled to occupy the office of the Australian Crown ? Lejon 27 Feb 06

If the situation is similar to Canada, the Act of Settlement within Australian constitutional law now outlines the succession to the Australian Throne. Australia may alter it's version of the Act, but it's a constitutional convention that the Australian line be symmetrical with the lines of the other Commonwealth Realms, and vice versa. Thus, no Realm, inculding Australia, should make any changes to the succession line without the consent of, and equal move by, the other Realms. --gbambino 06:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It would have to do more than just outline the succession to the Australian Crown it would have to be specific would'nt it ? And what it is specific about is the succession to the Crown of England ( and I think France is included ! ) . What would happen for instance if it was repealed or ammended by say a political party that was pro Republic and had enough power in both houses of the Australian Parliament to do so ?

The convention you describe is not constitutional - it was simply a ' gentlemans agreement ' in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster which of course is not justicable ( it is not a part of the Law ) . And as an agreement would be by now void I think . It was made between British Dominions within the Empire and the symmetrical line you describe was thought necessary in order to maintain the cohesivness of the Empire .

All of the parties to that agreement have long since left the Empire and are now Independant Nations - Australia now has its own 'Crown' which simply means it is a "separate body politic ' . The only connection now is in a 'personal union' which means the Australian Parliament has given its permission or assent for Queen Elizabeth to use the title - Queen of Australia . Lejon 28 Feb 06

The act of settlement was created before australia came into existence and is therefore automatically incorporated into australian law (due to it being a collection of former british colonies). The only issue of contention is what would happen if it was ammended, as the ammendment may not carry any weight in australia, and australia may not itself, be able to amend it. Xtra 02:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Section 2 of the Australian Constitution says: "The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom." I interpret that to mean that whoever is the monarch of the UK is automatically the monarch of Australia. Only the UK parliament can change UK law. I have no doubt that if any changes to the Act of Settlement were proposed that affected who could become monarch in the foreseeable future, the agreement of the Commonwealth Realms would need to be obtained first. If, through the operation of the amended Act of Settlement, Mick Jagger became King of the UK, he would also become King of Australia. JackofOz 03:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If I may say so with the greatest respect, this page suffers from a surfeit of bush lawyers. The "Section 2" you refer to is section 2 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, not section 2 of the Constitution. That Act is an Act of the UK Parliament, and is not part of Australian law. Australia is a sovereign state and its head of state is whomever its constitution says it will be. Adam 03:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it helps all that much, but a Canadian constitutional expert Dr. Richard Toporoski stated in an essay: "there is a danger that this concept of the "divisibility" of the Crown, which, given the manner in which the legislative independence of the Queen's realms in the Commonwealth has developed, I must admit is a fact, can lead to the idea that the Crown is at present "divided". This is not true, but it would immediately become true if, let us say, an alteration were to be made in the United Kingdom to the Act of Settlement 1701, providing for the succession of the Crown. It is my opinion that the domestic constitutional law of Australia or Papua New Guinea, for example, would provide for the succession in those countries of the same person who became Sovereign of the United Kingdom. But this would not be true in Canada. There is no existing provision in our law, other than the Act of Settlement 1701, that provides that the King or Queen of Canada shall be the same person as the King or Queen of the United Kingdom. If the British law were to be changed and we did not change our law, the Crown would be divided. The person provided for in the new law would become king or queen in at least some realms of the Commonwealth; Canada would continue on with the person who would have become monarch under the previous law, a situation which certainly would not be allowed to continue either by political reality or by public opinion." 1 So, according to him, Australian law does leave the selection of the Monarch up to the UK, whereas Canadian law does not. --gbambino 05:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

So should the statement in the article " This established Australia as a monarchy completely separate from the monarchy of the United Kingdom " be modified ? Lejon 0445 28 Feb 06

If I may respond with the greatest respect to Adam, this page is not about the Head of State but about the Queen of Australia. They may be the same person but they are different concepts. In any event, the Constitution is silent about the Head of State, but Section 1 does say: "The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives ..." That's where s.2 of the UK Act becomes relevant, because the term "Queen" is nowhere defined within the Constitution itself. This was one of the main arguments adduced by proponents of the YES case in the 1999 referendum. With the passage of the Australia Act 1986, Australia supposedly became totally independent of the UK; the UK Parliament cannot now even theoretically amend the Constitution Act, any changes to Australian law being entirely a matter for Australia. Yet despite that, Australia still has no say about who the Australian monarch is. The British Parliament can, however, decide who the UK monarch is (eg. it changed the law in 1999? to abolish male primogeniture). Indeed, in the case of an abdication, its approval is absolutely required, because the monarch cannot unilaterally abdicate. The UK parliament's decision about matters pertaining to the monarch will automatically apply to the monarch of Australia, and the Australian parliament under the present Constitution has no power to change that. To that extent, any description of Australia as a "constitutional monarchy" is a misnomer. At the regnal level, we're more like a puppet state. JackofOz 06:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Australia is totaly independant of the UK as a result of constitutional changes over the last 70 years . Believe it or not Australia has the power to change any part of its constitutional arrangements . It can , with the agreement of the States ammend or repeal the Australia Act, Statute of Westminster the Constitution Act and the Constitution itself (and witout even a referendum) that is what having the status of a Sovereign Independant and Federal Nation means .That is the effect of Section 15 of the Australia Act and the ' Queen of Australia ' put her assent to that Act . Australia has the power but that does not mean it has the inclination .Australia has long had the power to ammend or repeal any law of England (other than the Constitution Act or the Constitution) - check Section 2 (2) of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 .Lejon 9:30 pm 28 Feb 06

How can the Australian Constitution be changed "without even a referendum"? JackofOz 10:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You have to read S.15 of the Australia Act and S. 2 (2) of the Statute of Westminster 1931. But I will quote from page 257 of the book Democracy by Richard Mcgarvie ex Governor of the Australian State of Victoria ." Section 15(1) of each Australia Act enables an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament passed at the request or with the consent of the Parliaments of all the States to amend the Australia Act or the Statute of Westminster 1931 .The Statute of Westminster gives the Commonwealth Parliament power to amend any Act of the United Kingdom except for the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act and the Commmonwealth Constitution set out in s9 of the Act .With the power from the Australia Acts , the Commonwealth Parliament by Acts supported by the State Parliaments ,can amend the provision in the Statute that precludes it from amending the Commonwealth Constitution , the covering clauses or the preamble . " and again in Ch 1 p. 23 " 15 (1 ) ( of the Aust Act ) enables the Commonwealth Parliament at the request or with the concurrence of every State parliament to pass legislation amending or repealing any Act of the United Kingdom Parliament that applies to Australia . " ..... no referendum required ! I can get more info if you require it . Hope that helps . Lejon 12:30 am 29 Feb 06

Such is the stuff of constitutional crises. Every legal system has its crisis points and Australia's is bound up in the fact that the Constitution is legally speaking in force by way of an Act of the British Parliament. We can take it as a given that the UK Parliament would not try to amend or repeal the Australian constitution. But what if the Commonwealth Parliament itself tried to amend the Constitution except in accordance with the Constitution's own machinery for revision? Well the scenario you suggested is extremely unlikely in practice and if the Parliament ever attempted such a course of action you would have to ask whether the Courts would apply that legislation or declare it unconstitutional. I suspect the latter, but if the former then you have had a legal revolution establishing a new constitutional order. And revolutions ultimately only succeed if accepted by the people.

The legal situation with respect to a single Commonwealth Realm such as Australia (or the UK for that matter) unilaterally amending the Act of Settlement is, to say the least, a real can of worms. With respect, the Canadian author cited is not to be relied on for the legal situation in Australia. The situation is not as clear cut as he makes out. I will in time amend this section to better reflect legal (and political) reality.Apodeictic (talk) 09:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Righteo, as promised and as a lawyer (of the non-Bush variety) I've re-written the position with respect to the law of succession in Australia. It's a bit longer than what was there before but it should be more accurate. Two things need to be said.

(1) I kept the original reference to the argument about covering clause 2 (which I don't think holds much water -- but hey Wikipedia is meant to be NPOV so I'm happy for it to stay as long as people can read the counterarguments) but there's no link. Is it meant to be a reference to the Toporoski piece that was cited in this Discussion thread? If so, whoever knows about that essay can fix up the reference.

(2) The stuff about the "Queen" unilaterally revoking the Australia Act, Statute of Westminster and even the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act went. Even though it was referenced it wasn't a sound argument I have to say. Unfortunately a lot of things get published that are just plain wrong. The person's understanding of how the law works is wrong. The "Queen" doesn't have that kind of power, not even under the Colonial Laws Validity Act. Now an argument could be made about the UK Queen-in-Parliament doing this, ie the Westminster Parliament unilaterally repealing the said Acts. If that's what the person meant (but it WASN'T what he said) then we can include such an argument as a theoretical possibility and provide three counterarguments as follows:

(a) in practice unthinkable; parliaments are constrained by political reality in the laws they make and you can't turn the clock back over a hundred years and think the British Parliament can behave as if it were still the heady days of Empire;

(b) assuming the Westminster Parliament were to attempt such a feat, you are still left with the question of the *effect* of such a repeal. Would it have effect of removing the laws from the books *in Australia* or would it only have the effect of removing the laws from the books *in the UK*? I suggest the latter, even if an Act of repeal purported that it had effect in Australia. That is a *British* court in applying *British* law may feel compelled to read the statute as saying the Australian Constitution has been repealed (i.e. is of no effect) in *Britain* and would in any case brought before them under *British* law be compelled to decide the case on the basis that the statute has been repealed. That still leaves open the question of the effect of the repeal on *Australian* courts applying *Australian* law. And while they would no doubt accept the view that the Westminster Parliament can repeal its own Acts (including teh Commonwealth of Australia Act), it does not follow from this that they would find such a repeal to have an effect in Australia under Australian law.

(c) You have to be aware of the reality that laws have to be enforced and ultimately enjoy the assent of the people. Parliament can purport to make any law it likes but ultimately a law needs to be applied by the courts courts. Similarly, courts can purport to interpret and apply laws. But ultimately orders or the court need to be enforced by officials -- i.e. people. At the end of the day even if the Queen (whether it's the Queen of the UK or the Queen of Australia) is legally sovereign she only is so because the people accept the rules that she comes up with by Acts of Parliament and other subordinate legislation. But this situation can easily break down. If the British Parliament today tried to repeal the Australian Constitution we would possibly be approaching such a situation. Do you think Australian courts and ultimately the Australian people would simply accept this? Let's just assume for the purposes of argument that such a repeal took place *and* had effect under Australian law (which I'm fairly certain it wouldn't). What then? Well either we slavishly follow the legal rules, that is: turn back the legal clock to 1900 and try to deal with all the absurd consequences of that (such as the High Court of Australia never legally existing and being unable to sit in judgment of the case; all laws of the Australian Parliament for the last 107 years being null and void etc etc etc); or we come up with a new political justification for the existing constitutional and legal order. I would strongly suggest that it is the latter that would occur. You can't just turn back the clock to 1900 as if nothing had happened. Life in Australia would continue to go on as it had done, people would accept the political status quo and adopt a new reason for it such as saying that the Australian Constitution is still in force but now because of the assent of the Australian people rather than as a statute of the Imperial Parliament at Westminster. Or they'd simply come up with a new constitutional settlement. Constitutions, ultimately, are political not legal. The legal rules mean nothing when the constitutional settlement loses the support of the people. Whatever happens, you can bet your bottom dollar that *no-one* (the Australian people, politicians, judges, lawyers) would accept a return to the legal situation of 1900. They'd come up with something new to fill the void.

Interestingly despite the presence of the "monarchy" Australia has one of the most "republican" constitutions in the world. The monarchy only exists in Australia because the people haven't exercised their constitutional right to abolish it. Australians take it for granted that the way to alter a constitution is by a direct vote of the people in a referendum. However, when you start looking at the Constitutions of other nations such a situation is comparatively rare. Politicians the world over generally don't like the idea of power to amend the constitution directly resting with the people. I'm not a politician and I happen to like it very much :-) Just look at what's happening in Britain right now. The Government is afraid to call a referendum on the Euro-treaty because they fear the voice of the people. Anyway, enough said.Apodeictic (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's great that this article finally has someone going through it and dissecting the opinions of the lay lawyers. I, for one, find your edits very interesting, as well as your command of the English language. The article suffers from statements that look like opinions. But we can't be sure, because they aren't sourced. One thing, though. Would it be possible to supply some references for some of the legal interpretation stuff?--Gazzster (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I'd be interested in your opinion that the Queen exercises the Royal Prerogative vicariously through the GG. This is found in 'constitutional duties'. I was under the impression that she has only one prerogative; that of appointing the GG. All other executive powers belong to the GG by right. She can perform other functions of the GG, but by Letters Patent.--Gazzster (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

In time I will try to supply some more references. Please don't be too hasty and take the stuff down because it's not sufficiently referenced. I've dedicated a lot of time to doing what I've done so far. My ability to contribute to this article is probably reaching an end though. I've progressively edited sections 1-6 (but there are still a few more things that I may put my hand to). Beyond section 6 the material becomes distinctly less legal and I'm less knowledgeable in these areas. Some of the legal stuff about the constitutional problems of Australia trying to alter the law of succession is in one sense "opinion". In the end it depends what you mean by opinion. It's certainly not "fact" because there are no "facts" in this regard. To be blunt we're dealing with speculation. But the trick is to come up with the most reasonably informed speculation. No-one knows for sure what the situation is with respect to the Cth or the states trying to alter the law of succession or the effect of the Commonwealth becoming a republic and the states staying monarchies (or vice versa) because when the Constitution came into effect these scenarios were simply unimaginable. But now they're not -- but they've never been tried before. So we just don't know. The best you can have in this regard is the "opinions" of lawyers who can apply their existing knowledge of the law to reason analogically on what might be the outcome if it were ever attempted. If that's an "opinion" in your book then there's no escaping that what I've written is opinion. But importantly they're not just my opinions. What you want (and what I hope I have given) are reasonably informed legal opinions. I suspect that if I dedicate the time to it I can find exactly the same kinds of arguments published in books and scholarly journal articles. Hopefully in time I'll get around to this (and maybe even improve on or even change what I've already said). But like I said, that'll take a bit of time. I have a few other things on my plate at the moment (such as writing my PhD thesis).

I have to say that the article was actually pretty good before I got to work. Some of the legal stuff about the nature of the monarchy and "the Crown" is pretty darn hard to get right if you haven't formally studied law (and even plenty of lawyers aren't too good on this stuff because it's so far removed from the day to day reality of legal practice and to be honest there's probably a latent republicanism among most Australian legal academics which affects the way constitutional law is taught). So as the Americans are prone to say "kudos" to whoever wrote the original stuff. There were a few obvious legal "Canadianisms" as well which I've fixed up. There may still be one or two more Canadianisms that I need to think about a bit more before "Australianising" them :-)

As an initial response to your question about the prerogative I would say that the problem you've outlined was NOT said by me. It was already part of the article (written by someone else) and I haven't yet got around to tinkering with that part of the article :-) In time I may do so. But I'm not really sure what I want to say about the Queen and the GG in relation to the exercise of the prerogative. But in answer to your question I would say that you need to draw a distinction between the person in whom the prerogative inheres and the person by whom it is exercisable. Maybe it seems like a fairly artificial distinction, but this is I think the proper starting point. As a matter of legal history the royal prerogative inheres in the person of the sovereign. It does so by nature of the office of sovereign. Part of being the King (or Queen regnant) means you inherit a whole bunch of "kingly" prerogative powers that emanate from your "kingly" status. As I'm sure you're aware there was a big bunfight in England between "Crown" and Parliament and the result of the 17th Century Constitutional settlement arising from the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution was that the King and his powers exist subject to Parliament. The Royal Prerogative continues to exist but it is limited and importantly can be abolished by Parliament. The starting point for Australia is that the powers of the Royal Prerogative inhere in (and are exerciseable by) the Queen of Australia as part of her status as Queen. This then is subject to three things: (1) the Constitution, (2) the Letters Patent establishing the Office of GG and (3) and Acts of Parliament altering the Royal Prerogative. From my reading of the Constitution and the Letters Patent for the GG the Royal Prerogatives (well anyway all the remaining ones that haven't been abolished by parliament) continue to inhere in the person of the sovereign but most of them are exercisable (exclusively) by the GG. But as I said, I may give some more thought to this section. Thanks for raising the question. It's a good one.Apodeictic (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful replies and attention to this article. Keep going! Cheers!--Gazzster (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Change article

I've been wondering for some time if it might not be better to re-title this article as Monarchy in Australia and format it in a similar fashion to Monarchy in Canada. The title Queen of Australia, as well as the opening (if incorrect) sentence here seems to imply that this page is about either the title "Queen of Australia", or only about Elizabeth II as Queen of Australia, and not about the institution of the Crown in Right of Australia (Australian Crown), which extends before the current Sovereign's reign, and may exist after she is gone.

This might make for a more cohesive article on the evolution of the Crown in Right of Australia where issues like the laws outlining the line of succcession could be covered in a section, similar to how the same topic is covered in Monarchy in Canada. --gbambino 18:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with such a change. The Monarchy in Canada is an excellent article and would be a good guide for the evolution of this article. It would be particularly good to chart the evolution of the Australian Crown, showing that it as the one Imperial Crown, changing into an Austrlian Crown independent of others, and mention of the argument that each State has its own Crown. Dpd 22:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Patriation

This paragraph:

Australia gained full independence as an autonomous constitutional monarchy when the constitution was patriated under Prime Minister Hawke in 1986, making it Australian law rather than an act of the British parliament that required amendment in both jurisdictions. (See Australia Act 1986)

implies that before 1986 alterations to the Constitution required "amendment in both jurisdictions," as if it were analogous to the situation in Canada under the British North America Act. This is not correct. The Australian people have always been able to amend the Constitution by referendum without reference to the UK Parliament. The paragraph needs to be reworded to avoid this suggestion.

Further, "patriation" is a horrible Canadian word which has no currency in Australia and should be avoided. The Australian Constitution was always "patriated." Adam 04:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This whole article is being repatriated to Canada. Note the spellings and canadian references like first minister --Dlatimer 14:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, yes, much of the text here was "patriated" from Monarchy in Canada, as that article is a good template to work from. I don't know everything about Australian constitutional history, or language (though first minister is pretty self-explanatory in whatever country), so please make corrections and alterations as necessary. --gbambino 16:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

1954 Tour

I wonder why the external link to the 1954 tour site at http://www.um.com.au/1954/ was removed? It's clearly relevant and also one of the few websites on the Internet related to the Queen of Australia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.152.162 (talk • contribs)

Because it doesn't add anything to the article. Xtra 11:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be relevant to Royal tour of Australia, 1954, an article someone should write. Adam 11:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is relevant to an article on the Monarchy of Australia to have the option of looking at a historical Royal Tour of Australia. It is silly to have a separate article on it as who is that specific in their searches I knew very little about the Queen of Australia until I read this article and a link to a tour would add to my knowledge.

The tour directly lead to the Royal Powers Act of 1953 to enable HM QE2 to perform various Acts in the Australian Parliament during her visit. See: Reserve_powers#The_Commonwealth_of_Australiapetedavo (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Act of Settlement

There are several articles called "Act of Settlement". You should link to the article that you are talking about rather than to a disambig page. Arctic Gnome 17:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanx, Arctic. Maybe you yourself would like to find the right one and link to it. Slac speak up! 22:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Queen of Australia (x2)

I'm inclined to think "Queen of Australia" ought to be re-established as an article, since it is not really the same subject as "Monarchy in Australia." I also think this article has given rather too much scope to monarchist fantasies. I will attempt a rewrite and separation of the two topics when I get time. Adam 14:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is definitely part of "Monarchy in Australia". Whether there is enough to say about it for separate article is another question. I agree that this article leans towards monarchism, but Adam has still never answered my questions on why he puts seemingly undue importance on the 1973 Act, which did nothing but change the style of QEII's titles. JPD (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The institution of the Australian Monarchy is larger in scope than the Queen herself. Hence, this article covers the shared and individual aspects of the Crown, as well as its history, legal, cultural, and constitutional role, and the debate on the Monarchy (though, that's covered more in depth on other articles).

Adam should certainly point out any "fantasies" that are currently in the article. But, he needs to first be aware that something that goes against his republican beliefs isn't necessarily fantasy. --gbambino 15:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Royal tours

Royal tours of Australia is a very interesting subject which deserves an article of its own - at the moment there is too much detail at this article, which is getting off-topic. Adam 03:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There isnt too much detail, this is the only good source of info on the Queen of Australia that I have found, much better than Governor Generals website or Buckingham Palace one. Make it bigger not smaller.

Official Buckingham Palace webpages specifically devoted to Australia

Editors might want to see this section of the Buckingham Palace website, it covers pretty much the subject matter of this article, and its authoritative. There's a pull-down menu above the flag for links to more Australia-related pages. I'll refrain from adding it to the External Links since I don;t know the significance of the links already there (to avoid accusations of bias). 202.180.71.156 08:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Queen's powers

I've made some changes to the article. It was giving the impression that all power resides in the Queen and is delegated to the Governor-General as her agent. This perception is incorrect, as the Queen's powers under the Constitution are very limited, and the Governor-General's powers are significant and given to him alone. There are very few examples of actual delegation of powers, and these may be found in the Letters-Patent. --Pete 23:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Queen not equivalent to Crown

It is a nonsense to equate the terms Queen and Crown. Typically the term "Crown" is used for the official person of the Commonwealth or State, rather than the Queen.

I also note that the Constitution does not require approval by both houses of parliament for a constitutional change. Only one is required. And despite what it says in the Constitution, the Governor-General has taken the position that he must be advised by the Prime Minister on such matters, and if the Senate alone passes a constitutional amendment bill, he cannot give assent. This was settled in the early years of the Commonwealth. --Pete 16:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give you the first two, as the sections do seem to speak specifically about the Queen and her particluar position. However, the third one - "At this point there was a downplaying of the Crown..." - pertains more to the institution rather than the person.

As for any constitutional changes, am I wrong in thinking that whatever is passed through the House of Representatives moves to the Senate for their approval? --G2bambino 17:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The big problem with using the word "Crown" is that it is ambiguous - many readers will see it as referring to the crowned head. In fact I have noticed that the term is often misused by people who should know better. Mark McKenna springs to mind. Far better to use more specific terms.

Legislation may be introduced in either chamber and there are procedures (such as a double dissolution) for passing legislation not passed in the other. Typically the Senate reviews bills introduced in the Reps.

s128 is the relevant section for constitutional amendment and I quote a portion:

But if either House passes any such proposed law by an absolute majority, and the other House rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with any amendment to which the first-mentioned House will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the first-mentioned House in the same or the next session again passes the proposed law by an absolute majority with or without any amendment which has been made or agreed to by the other House, and such other House rejects or fails to pass it or passes it with any amendment to which the first-mentioned House will not agree, the Governor-General may submit the proposed law as last proposed by the first-mentioned House, and either with or without any amendments subsequently agreed to by both Houses, to the electors in each State and Territory qualified to vote for the election of the House of Representatives.[2]

This has been tested in 1914, and though it is unclear whether the bills were in fact rejected or failed to pass the Reps on the second occasion, the Governor-General of the day took the position that only the Executive Council could advise him. --Pete 00:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Alteration of constitution

I think the lengthier description of what is necessary for a change to the constitution was better, as the shorter version did not at all imply it was only talking about the "first instance", but about what is needed for a constitutional change. I also fail to see how "specifically impacted" is an unfair summary of the meaning of "No alteration ... or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law." However, none of this is really relevant to this context, so I will try to change the text accordingly. JPD (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Cultural importance

Re this: Over the course of her reign, the cultural importance that Australians attach to the monarchy as a British institution has declined. Instead, the monarchy in Australia is seen as a purely Australian institution. The federal and state governments now recognise and promote the Queen's role as monarch of Australia as separate to her position as Queen of the United Kingdom.

The monarchy in Australia is indeed seen as a purely Australian institution, but by governments, constitutional lawyers, Wikipedians, and many other Australians who are educated in these matters. However, my experience is that a significant number of ordinary Australians still regard her as the "Queen of England". Many of them aren't even aware we have a Constitution, much less know what's in it, and haven't the faintest idea there is such a creature as "the Queen of Australia". Whatever objections they may have to the continuing monarchy tend to be based on us having a queen who lives in another country, reigns over that country, and because of our historical tradition, also reigns over Australia. They haven't made the distinction between the "Queen of England" (who lives in England), and the "Queen of Australia" (who also lives in England, and happens to be the same person as the Queen of England). What we can say about this, I don't know. Any ideas? JackofOz 03:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If governments, constitutional lawyers and educated people are aware of this distinction, then the bases for their awareness can presumably be verified. It is useful to keep in mind the Wikipedia:Five Pillars, especially pillars #1 (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia) and #2 (neutral point of view). The ordinary Australians I mix with (western Sydney/Mountains) seem to be able to make the distinction that you say is not being made. I think if "we want to say something about this", then you will need establish that this is really an issue at all, and cite some reputable sources that prove (or disprove) your assertion. Perhaps more of your significant number of ordinary Australians need to be directed to reading Wikipedia? I guess I'm saying that I'm not convinced that this is really an issue at all. Thungarra 13:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the text Jack objects to, partly because it is a sweeping statement that is hard to properly verify, however true it is, but mainly because I think it is adequately expressed by the surrounding text, which is less likely to be objected to. JPD (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Dablink

THarkuncoll, please do not edit the dablink without discussing it here first. I reverted your edit.--Gazzster 23:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The above applies to everybody - whether you think you are simply correcting grammar or making more substantial changes. I reverted the edit. DirectEdge 10:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Canadian edits

Some of the copy-pasting from Monarchy in Canada is at best POV-pushing. Where the new statements and wording are not completely wrong (I don't think the Australian parliament really did pass an act regarding the abdication), they are still using language and ideas that are not commonly expressed in Australia, even if they are in Canada. It really doesn't seem appropriate. JPD (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Then correct what is wrong. I was only expanding this article to meet what had been added to other articles elsewhere. It is a work in progress, not something set in stone. --G2bambino 14:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously it is a work in progress, but trying to make it match the other articles is not necessarily a step in the right direction. Please stop assuming the Australian situation is the same as the Canadian situation. JPD (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I never made such an assumption. Please stop assuming what I assume. --G2bambino 15:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether you are personally making such assumptions or not, taking text that that is sourced from specifically Canadian sources, and dumping it in this article without any sources, is implicitly making such an assumption. It just isn't appropriate. JPD (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What, specifically, are you talking about? If you have specific concerns, then they can be addressed. --G2bambino 16:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I was in the process of addressing the more obvious specific concerns, and have done so. I am still disturbed in general at the approach of taking blocks of text from articles about other countries, which may have introduced other minor problems. I believe terms like "state opening" and "speech from the throne" could be used in Australia, but it is telling that virtually all uses of the terms on the Australian Parliament website are referring to Britain or Canada. JPD (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Read through the sources and perchance you'll find they do refer to Australia; or, the information therein will apply to Australia due to the parallels that do exist amongst the Realms due to the Balfour Declaration and Statute of Westminster. If the source is inapplicable, then remove it. I know that some stuff here will need distinctly Australian sources, but it will take time to find them. --G2bambino 17:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mention Canadian sources that you had included, I mentioned text based on Canadian sources, that you included in this article without any sources, although there were a couple of places where your text implied the parallels were stronger than is necessarily the case. However, while on the topic of Canadian sources, I can see that the source used for the states section does refer to Australia, but firstly, is the comparison with Canadian provinces relevant to this article (the difference is not to do with the monarchy) and secondly, if relevant, could it be phrased in a way that doesn't assume the reader is familiar with the Canadian situation?

Yes, some of the text I inserted I removed the Canadian source; I did this with the thinking that the point most likely has an Australian parallel and thus an Australian source could hopefully be found. However, if there are no sources, or the fact is indeed different in Australia, then the text can be changed. I see you've done some "Australianization" of my expansion and added {{fact}} tags where no source is provided, which is fine. I think these can be dealt with in time. --G2bambino 15:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I still think that including a point that "most likely has an Australian parallel" is a pretty poor way to build up this article, but as you say it is a wiki, so let's focus on the specifics. It is undoubtedly true that the government of any other realm cannot advise the monarch on Australian matters, but to me saying "Effective with the Australia Act 1986, no British or other Realm government" implies that before the Australia Acts, other governments could advise the crown on Australian matters, which is not true. The previous sentence makes it clear that no non-Australian governments can be involved, so I don't see what purpose any reference to other realms would serve, even if reworded to remove this implication. JPD (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Let me see if I can re-word the sentence in question; this will affect other articles as well. --G2bambino 17:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Australian monarchy

Since there's a British monarchy article, should we move this article to Australian monarchy? (or is that too much bother, concerning re-directs) -- this suggestion is for all the 'Monarchy in xxx' articles (Commonwealth realms). GoodDay 20:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, what say you all? GoodDay 20:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If nobody's commented in over 2 1/2 months, I don't see why you shouldn't just go ahead and do it. Obviously there's little objection. --G2bambino 20:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wanting to change it to Australian monarchy, I accidently changed it to The Australian monarchy. Now it won't let me change it to Australian monarchy (not even after I reversed it to Monarchy in Australia), I need help. GoodDay 21:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Australian monarchy already exists; it's a redirect. Would the answer not then be to paste everything from here to there and make this into a redirect? --G2bambino 21:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose, but now it doesn't match Canadian monarchy (I just moved it). GoodDay 21:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

How does it not match? Australian monarchy matches Canadian monarchy matches British monarchy. Seems fine to me. Maybe Nat can help, as offered below. --G2bambino 21:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I can change it due to my sysop tools...so if its needed talk to me... nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 21:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 21:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the move, Nat; but, currently the article is Australian Monarchy and the talk is Talk:Australian monarchy. The latter is correct; the article should have a lower-case "m" for "monarchy." --G2bambino 21:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC) N/m. You fixed it. Cheers. --G2bambino 21:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect photo

The photo in the infobox is not of the Queen "in Right of Australia". It was taken on her state visit to the USA in May 2007, for which she was acting on behalf of the United Kingdom. TharkunColl 12:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That makes little sense - HM is always the Queen in Right of Australia regardless of which country she may be presently acting on behalf of, just as she is simultaneously always the Queen of Her Other Realms. Remember that the Realms are in personal union with each other, and therefore the Queen does not have multiple personalities which she must switch between. Please don't start your hairsplitting arguments again.DirectEdge 21:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Title format of Commonwealth realm monarchies

A discussion dealing with deciding on the title format for all articles relating to the monarchies of the Commonwealth realms is being conducted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty if you are interested. — AjaxSmack 00:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The disambig on top of the article

I think the disambig note at the top of Monarchy of Australia basically repeats the first sentence in the article and is unnecessary and distracting from the text. Comments on this are welcome at Talk:Commonwealth_realm/monarchies#Disambiguation_links. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The dab clearly does not repeat the first sentence, and serves its own purpose anyway. It was decided in a very lengthy discussion about a common dab at the head of all Commonwealth realm monarchy articles that each would be consistent and take the form presently here. If you want to change this one you'll have to discuss a change all across the board. --G2bambino 16:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Queen Victoria first Monarch of Australia

Could someone please explain to me why Queen Victoria is the first monarch of australia in the list? Did she become Queen upon signing the "Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900"? If Britain ruled Australia before this time why didnt Victorias forefathers make claims to Australia? Im rather confused.. The article isnt esecially clear... Thank you. --Camaeron 16:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Australia didn't exist before January 1, 1900. --G2bambino 17:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that's a good trivia - Victoria, the longest reign in the Britis Isles history & the shortest reign (21-days, January 1-22; 1901) in Australian history. GoodDay 18:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That's 22 days ;-) Of course, G2bambino means Australia as a constitutional entity didn't exist befroe 1 Jan 1901. JPD (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh of course, sorry I think I was having a daft moment. Im holding a talk at school on the Australian Monarchy after all! Thank you so much! == --Camaeron 19:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Queen Victoria created Australia with the Royal Commission of Assent 9 July 1900 (UK) when she assented to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)and appointed the first Govenor General with Letters Patent constituting the office of Governor-General 29 October 1900 (UK)Petedavo ^{talk contributions} 00:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

G2, please tell us why it should be explained in the opening sentence that Monarchy of Australia = Australian Monarchy, and a citation provided in evidence? Isn't it rather like explaining that my black cat is also a cat that is black? --Gazzster (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Ignore my request in the edit summary; I did not see you'd already done what I asked.

Have you read the guideline I linked to? More directly: a subsection of that article states:

• If possible, an article title is the subject of the first sentence of the article; for example, "The Manual of Style is a style guide" instead of "This style guide is known as ...". If the article title is an important term, it appears as early as possible. The first (and only the first) appearance of the title is in boldface, including its abbreviation in parentheses, if given. Equivalent names may follow, and may or may not be in boldface.

Though these guidelines are, of course, not set in stone, what is presently in the lead sentence here conforms to this instruction. Proper titles are often followed by other ways in which to refer to the subject; this article is most certainly not an anomoly for doing so. --G2bambino (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Your argument for doing it seems to be that it conforms to the guidelines. It may do so, but is that sufficient reason for this absurdity? Do you really think, in the spirit of Wikipedia, you need to do this? Do you really imagine that a reader would want to know that Australian Monarchy = Monarchy of Australia. Even more inane is providing a citation to prove it!--Gazzster (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Calling it an absurdity seems like a bit of an overreaction. If something is known by more than one appelation, why is it not in the interest of Wikipedia's users to supply those different terms, especially at the head of an article on the specific subject? I thought that's the whole point of the guideline for opening sentences: "Equivalent names may follow..." --G2bambino (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Howabout we delete Australian monarchy, from the opening line. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

To GoodDay: bloody good idea. But that's for another day perhaps. To G2: because what we are talking about does not have two names! We are talking about an inversion in the word order with a genitive replacing an adjective. If the Guatemalan Owl, if such a beast exists, is called the Owl of Guatemala, does that mean it has two names? Really, it doesn't take a citation to demonstrate that the worder order can be inverted. It is sheer pedantry.--Gazzster (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! Why say two things that have exactly the same meaning and almost the same construct? Anybody reasonably conversant in English will know that the construct "Australian Monarchy" can be interchanged with the construct "Monarchy of Australia" without creating ambiguity. "Parliament of Australia" and "Australian Parliament" is another example. I could understand if it were, say, "United Kingdom Security Service, also known as MI5," because there is some ambiguity in using either term alone, but saying "Monarchy of Australia, also known as the Australian Monarchy" is ridiculous. DirectEdge (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As you see fit, then. I merely put forward my - in my opinion, sound - reasoning. Obviously others don't agree. --G2bambino (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Origins

A balanced edit, G2. My concern was that your previous edit gave the impression that federation was a unilateral act. It was initiated and formulated by the colonies. Victoria only gave the assent to the Act of federation.--Gazzster (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)