Talk:Republicanism in Australia/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Strategy of Continuous Dispute

After many revisions, as of 2007, this article presented neutral information about Republicanism in Australia - the major turning points and policies. The main arguments for and against were in one section and the rest was neutrally written. Two monarchists have decided that it would benefit their political interests to have this article in continuous dispute on wikipedia. --Lawe (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

There are a lot of unattributed statements in the article, such as "Repulicans claim" and "Monarchists claim". These phrases can also be distracting when trying to read the article, as they are in just about every paragraph. Strictly speaking, these all need to be attributed to some particular person or group, or else rephrased to eliminate that type of wording. I hope this can be addressed without an ugly weasel-word header at the top of the article, and fact tags at the end of every sentence. From viewing older versions of the page, a lot of improvements have been made, and I hope the good editors who have addressed those problems can make some headway with this one. - BillCJ (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree. The unattributed statements applying to republicans in general are appropriate where there is agreement by republican groups as evidenced across the source material. I am sure editors would pick up on contentious material if it were there. --Lawe (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The various so-called "unattributed statements" have been attributed to The Road to a Republic and backed up by the major political speeches. Problem fixed! --Lawe (talk) 08:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"If at all"

Removed the following:

"if at all." Ref Kelley, Paul; Shanahan, Dennis; The Australian: Rudd to turn back boatpeople; November 23, 2007

The newspaper uses the words "if at all" to refer to a range of possible agenda items for a new Labor government. It is not a quote from Keven Rudd. On the republic, the article said:

"Mr Rudd said a referendum on Australia becoming a republic was "not a priority" and he could not see it happening in his first term. "The republic is not a priority," he said. "I doubt therefore we would see any action on a republic during the first term."

The PM consistently uses the same carefully constructed phrase. "No action" covers a great deal. He has not changed position or contradicted himself or Labor policy. --Lawe (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The source states that Rudd said there would not be a republican referendum in the life of this parliament, if at all; it means nothing that the referendum is mentioned along with two other issues. This is an acknowledgement on Rudd's part that he has no affirmative plan for a republic referendum to happen in the next parliament, or the one after that, which is an important point to consider in the current status of the debate.

Further, saying Rudd "acknowledged" the importance of becoming a republic infers that the importance is a given fact for everyone which Rudd is accepting, which exposes a bias. It is his opinion that a republic is important. --G2bambino (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This explanation confirms the problem. Wikipedians would prefer to read the PM's actual position and statements, not what G2bambino tells us what he/she thinks was said and what it means. Living in Canada, G2bambino just parrots what is written in a sensational fashion on the norepublic blog. This sort of spin doctoring helps nobody. --Lawe (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

G2bimbino's first revert edit summary: "Sorry, a direct quote is not a misquote". In the next summary: "I see now it's not a direct quote, but still valid and important". Why did this happen? The norepublic site presented it as a direct quote. --Lawe (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Attitude of Australians (moved from article to here)

1

Many Australians believe becoming a republic is imminent, some even installing themselves as the President of the future Republic of Australia. Most credible of these is the well respected Mr. President, who took power in a bloodless coup that went unreported by the media, and whos first term of faux-governance has been reigning supreme in the Republic since September 2006. To this day there is speculation that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is unaware his position does not exist in the new Republic, although Mr. President is a long-time Rudd admirer who has said Mr. Rudd would be welcomed into a position in his cabinet. The centrist Mr. President has enjoyed the overwhelming support of the population with soaring approval ratings since his inauguration as a result of policies rich in empathetic values and the principle of equity. A full strength cabinet has been installed to assist the President, who is often occupied with vigorously pursuing an expansion of the Republic's strategic US alliance with future President of the United States Barack Obama. The two men are said to share a strong bond that Mr. President says is one that "only a future President could understand".

2

One of the most important factors in this issue which needs to be recognised is the attitude of the Australian people to politicians as a group. Some years ago, when politicians were compared to used-car salesmen, the used-car salesmen complained at the invidious comparison. Many people delight in the thought that the Prime Minister holds his office during the pleasure of Her Majesty's Representative, and can therefore be dismissed at will. Again, many others love to watch the members of Federal Parliament at the opening of a new parliament, when they all, including the committed republicans, swear allegiance to Her Majesty. The persistent failure of the political elite over the last 107 years to achieve amendment of the Constitution through referenda makes it unlikely that this change will come about soon.

Perhaps the best comment that encapsulates this attitude came from a Broken Hill miner, a solid Labor supporter, in 1992. At the time Paul Keating was Prime Minister, and John Hewson was Leader of the Opposition.

His comment was: "I would have to vote NO. What an opportunity to stick it up Keating, without having to elect Hewson."

[moved the above from article to here. I did not write it] --Lawe (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledged

The sentence in question is not a quote; so it can't be a misquote. That Rudd "acknowledged" some value to becoming a republic is purely the pov of the journalist who wrote the article being used as a source. To acknowledge something means recognising that which was pre-existing; thus, saying Rudd "acknowledged" any importance to Australia's becomging a republic implies that making the move already was deemed important and Rudd was just saying he now recognises that. Obviously some people think it is important, but plenty of others don't; so, though not a misquote, it's misleading and supportive of a particular pov to say Rudd acknowledged the importance of the move to a republic. --G2bambino (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The above assumes a black-letter uberlogical polity, where existence itself is redefined. Your update (now undone) is the rationalisation of an single anti-republic wikipedia user who does not comprehend the reasons why these ALP policy explanations are carefully worded as such. The sentence is faithful to the source material with good reason. Your update begs the question as to where is the direct evidence that Kevin Rudd holds this as mere "opinion" as you say he does?

--Lawe (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for not addressing a single point I raised. As for your question: the article cited is the evidence that Rudd holds this as opinion. Surely you don't think his personal feelings on a matter are more than just opinion. --G2bambino (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Your last comment was sarcastic and impolite. There is evidence now that blows apart your argument about personal opinion directly. Reported in SBS news: "Last week, when pressed on the issue by a former British MP at a forum in Brussels, the prime minister pledged Labor would not walk away from the issue because it was party policy, but had failed to make clear his personal opinion." [[1]]. This news story shows how ridiculous your change was. I could not have asked for a better a set of words to show that your reverts were just a case of either stuborness or the promotion of your political cause. Please leave this article alone and stick to something you know about. --Lawe (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

My, my; is it your nap time?

What you present still does not undermine the point that the "importance" of becoming a republic (note: not the debate on, but the act of becoming a republic) that is supposedly being "acknowledged" by Rudd, seemingly emerges only from a journalist's personal feelings, and no one else's. As far as I can tell, the point of this article is not to outline what either Phillip Coorey or Peter Hartcher think, and certainly not to ascribe any of their feelings onto other people. If it's to be said here that Rudd "acknowledged" the "importance" of becoming a republic, then it will be necessary to have sources that support the theory that becoming a republic actually is already widely accepted as important. I'm certain there are many Australians who would say it is not. --G2bambino (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your latest edit was a vast improvement. --G2bambino (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

How would you know if it was an improvement or not? Since you insist making ad-hoc alterations that cannot be supported by evidence, the information is now quoted. It is a shame that you wish to play these tactics. --Lawe (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Any possible ad-hocs aside, your ad-homs are rather pathetic. Is this how you normally deal with situations where you can't get your own way? --G2bambino (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the establishment of the Republic is part of the Labor policy platform. So he is bound by his own Party to acknowledge the importance of the question. Then there are various statements of the Prime Minister. In his visit to Britain this April he publicly stated that the issue remains open and should continue to be considered by Australians. This was widely reported both at home and abroad. It was considered especially important as he made the statement at the same time he was in audience with the Queen. At home he has made a number of statements intimating his support for the Republic. He has however publicly stated it is nopt a priority for his first term.--Gazzster (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Rudd's republican leanings were never in question. It was more a matter of a composition of words that implied Australia's becoming a republic was regarded as important by everyone beyond Rudd, when, obviously, that isn't the case. I think that issue is resolved now, though I still think it's funny that Lawe insists on using the words "life long republican" in regards to Rudd; there are other ways to point out his beliefs other than implying he was born with them. --G2bambino (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Openly" was used as a weasel word. Life-long does not mean born with. --Lawe (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What else does "openly" mean? Does one's life not begin at birth? --G2bambino (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Lawe and G2Gambino, perhaps you should be careful to avoid personal stabs at it each other. I realise the subjects on this page can elicit strong emotion. I have to agree that the word 'relationship' is ambiguous. What sort of relationship? I understand what G2 is saying: Australia would no longer be a member of the E2 club. OK, but is there is any reason to state that? I mean, isn't it self-evident? It's a little like saying, 'if George takes a bath, he'll be wet'. So perhaps the word is ambiguous because a reader might think, 'am I missing something here, what is the author trying to tell me'? --Gazzster (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation of the Statute of Westminster

According to Prof A. Twomey in 'The Chameleon Crown' p83 "In 1931 the British Government [as well as the states themselves] took the view that section 2 of the statute allowed the Commonwealth to repeal of amend British laws to the extent that the formed part of Commonwealth law, but not to the extent that they formed part of State law."

If there are any Canadaian monarchists wanting to add material to this page about Australia, perahps they could keep the basic constitutional facts in mind: Canada has provinces. Australia has independent states. --Lawe (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have made up a dispute that doesn't exist. The Statute of Westminster states quite explicitly that "no law hereafter made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to any of the said Dominions as part of the law of that Dominion," and that's all the article currently outlines.

Though it's not relevant to the issue, of course the Commonwealth parliament cannot amend state laws; they're completely separate jurisdictions. --G2bambino (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You are quoting the preamble. The effective section is 9. Everyone knows that the Westminister Act was limited to matters with a Commonwealth head of power. --Lawe (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did quote the preamble. I have now corrected the footnote so that it quotes section 4. The states have nothing to do with this, unless you believe that UK law still has effect in the states but not the Commonwealth. Perhaps you haven't heard of the Australia Act? --G2bambino (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

And of course the Australia Act 1986 took care of the anomalies of the law relating to the states. Long live Australia, the greatest nation on earth!--Gazzster (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

'Scuse me. Came over all patriot then.--Gazzster (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

My goodness this misses the point. The Unlike Canada, Australian premiers are able to directly advise the Queen. Twomey A (The Chameleon Crown, 2006) rightly says that it is not clear what personalities exist across the Australian federation, so the absence of an external succession law would open a can of worms - and the Australia Act would have not been passed by the states, if it tried to address this issue. --Lawe (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What relevance does this have to the discussion? That the abolition of the monarchy in the UK may or may not open a can of worms is of no consequence to the point that such a move would not abolish the monarchy in Australia. --G2bambino (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

How about: Australia - the most constitutionally vague nation on Earth --Lawe (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Not vague. Our constitution is one of the most thought out, clear, long-lasting and stable constitutions ever written. And without a drop of blood being shed. It survived the 1975 crisis. Not of course, that it could not or should not bear amendment. One of its strengths is that it doesn't need a monarch to function. The powers of head of state are vested not in a sovereign but in the Governor-general. Suppose the UK monarchy were abolished. It is unlikely it would continue in Australia. The nation would not collapse, because the government functions without a monarch anyway.--Gazzster (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Not so, actually. Executive authority is vested in the Queen per section 61. Also, it is the Queen that is one of the three parts of the Australian parliament, not the Governor General, per section 1. Once that figure is removed, the power and role must be placed elsewhere; it could be with the Governor General - i.e. president - but then, what guarantees are in place that he or she is not a puppet of the prime minister? In other words, you need a secure appointment or electoral process, which then changes much of the system that you, rightly, say works so well. --G2bambino (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This is purely academic but: it depends how the successor to the monarch is constituted in the UK. More than likely any future head of state of the UK would be declared regent over the Commonwealth realms by way of statute, enabling Britain to get around the Statute of Westminster 1931. Moreover because that person would be a regent, the Australian executive powers would be vested in the regent by virtue of them being a successor of the monarch.

If you're worried about puppets, perhaps a cursory glance at the office of Governor-General would help - they are, for all intents and purposes, a puppet of the Prime Minister. The only exceptions are Canada's King-Byng Affair and Australia's Whitlam-Kerr affair. Unless the puppet goes feral (usually under threat of dismissal, which was the case for Sir John Kerr) then they can't hold the Prime Minister to account. --Lholden (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the UK decides to do, it won't have any effect in Canada or NZ. Australia is a different case, where the succession is decreed to be governed by UK laws, not local ones. However, a regent is not a successor to a monarch, they are a stand-in. So, declaring a regent would not alter the line of succession in the least; the Act of Settlement would remain in effect until repealed, which the UK parliament cannot do without all the other realms' consent, meaning that the succession in Australia would still remain as always.

As for the GGs: they may appear to be puppets of the PM, but they're not. Nor is the monarch, who, as long as she remains a part of the constitution, stays ultimately responsible for ensuring governmental stability. I'm certain the Queen wouldn't want to get dragged into any constitutional crisis, but if there was a problem wherein the Governor General was legitimately contesting the Prime Minister's actions, yet the PM was advising the Queen to dismiss the GG, she would be bound to do whatever would ensure the continuity of government. Take that ultimate arbiter away, and, well... what happens in that hypothetical, but still possible, situation? --G2bambino (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That scenario almost happened in '75. But it was resolved within Australia, and in the aftermath the Queen said she would have been constitutionally powerless to act anyway.My point before: sure, the Queen is constitutionally part of Parliament, but her representative is, to all effects and purposes, constitutionally independent. There is only one odd, ill-defined and never tested constitutional power in which the Queen camn use her personal discretion. But all this talk about succession dopesn't really matter; for if the monarchy were abolished all we would have to do to ensure continuity of government was amend the Constitution slightly. Or make the GG some kind of regent until we did. But I don't think the UK would ever abolish unless they were advised all the realms were ready for it.--Gazzster (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

UK abolition was just a point I raised to illustrate that you could conceivably remove the monarch and hand constitutional legitimacy to a regent, which is exactly what would happen if Australia became a republic. In any case under the Regency Acts the UK Parliament could declare everyone in the line of succession incapacitated and remove Prince Charles as regent, replacing him with whoever the UK's new head of state is - do be doubly sure, they could also declare the throne vacant. Incidentally, this would affect New Zealand - see s4(1) of the Constitution Act 1986. As for Gavin's question, I think we all know the Queen will do what her Prime Minister tells her to do - to act otherwise would breach the basic conventions of constitutional monarchy - the convention of responsible government. --Lholden (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You said: Moreover because that person would be a regent, the Australian executive powers would be vested in the regent by virtue of them being a successor of the monarch. By the way I read that, you raised the hypothesis of a regent in the UK to show how Australia depended on the British monarch. However, to repeat myself, unless the UK repealed or altered the Act of Settlement, there would be no change in Australia at all. I'll take your word on it for NZ, though the situation would be the same as that in Oz.

Besides the question of whomever Gavin is, believe it or not, a PM can act out of his bounds. If he breaches the conventions of constitutional monarchy then the Queen may be forced to act against his advice; depends on the situation. Like I said, beyond the Governor General, the responsibility for maintaining the continual working of the constitution rests with the Queen. --G2bambino (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

<Apologies G2bambino, I'll use your user name instead... You said "Australia is a different case, where the succession is decreed to be governed by UK laws, not local ones." In that case (which is what I understood to be true), the UK Regency Acts apply. The Regency Acts can be amended independently of the Act of Settlement and Statute of Westminster - which is why I used the example. This is the argument Robert Blackburn puts forward in King and Country to argue Prince Charles could avert constitutional crises over legislation he doesn't like by having Parliament (in the UK) declare a Regency, with someone else appointed to grant Royal Assent. Amendments to the Regency Acts would affect Australia and New Zealand in that the monarch would be succeeded by the Regent. "Queen may be forced to act against his advice" - that only happens in cases where the Prime Minister has lost the confidence of Parliament, in which case the Queen is within her rights to Act. The convention holds that the Queen cannot act against the Prime Ministers' advice where he or she has the confidence of parliament. In any case, this is an academic discussion, because there's absolutely no precedent for the Queen to intervene in any of the Commonwealth realms - it's up to the Governors-General. I think the argument that the Queen would not act on her Prime Ministers advice - particularly in light of the Whitlam dismissal - is nonsense. First, the Queen would be bound by convention to implement the advice, secondly the Queen wouldn't want to risk appearing partisan by backing the Prime Minister over the Governor-General, and thirdly it would hardly be upholding the stability of government if the Queen allowed the Governor-General and Prime Minister to slug it out. --Lholden (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(To last post of G2)Not in Australia. The Constitution gives to the Queen only one personal power: to overturn a bill passed through both Houses of Parliament and signed by the GG. But, as I say, this power has never been tested, the constitutional limits of such a power have not been defined. Neither has it been settled under what circumstances she might be called upon to exercise such a power and upon whose advice. Beyond that, the powers of the executive are vested by the Constitution, not by the sovereign, in the Governor-General.In 1975 the Speaker of the House of Reps asked the Queen to overturn the dismissal of Whitlam. The Palace replied not that she would not intervene, but that she could not. The Australian GG is the sovereign's representative in the Commonwealth, but not her delegate.--Gazzster (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the constitution says otherwise, Gazzster. Besides, the Queen still retains the power to appoint or dismiss her Governor-General and Governors, which is specifically what I'm talking about; nobody else can do this for her.

But you're both right that such a situation has never arisen, and let's hope it never does. But, the possibility that it, or something dire like it, could happen is what an advocate for change has to take into consideration. In the absence of a relatively protected, non-partisan figure above the Governor-General, where would the paramount check against abuse of power sit? The monarch may exist one step more removed in the non-UK realms, but she's still there none-the-less, and remains responsible. --G2bambino (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's what the Queen's Private Secretary said:

As we understand the situation here, the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands of the Governor-General as the representative of the Queen of Australia. The only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and The Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution. Her Majesty, as Queen of Australia, is watching events in Canberra with close interest and attention, but it would not be proper for her to intervene in person in matters which are so clearly placed within the jurisdiction of the Governor-General by the Constitution Act.

I believe we could trust Australians to make the necessary constitutional precautions. It strikes me that monarchists have more faith in a foreign Queen than in themselves! Simply because a danger may exist, does not mean we should shie away from the challenge. It is not a matter of 'if its not broken, don't fix it', but rather, why get from A to B in a Cortina when you can get there in a Lamborghini. Her Majesty can hardly said to be 'responsible' when there is no occasion (save for the theoretical one I named) in which she could be called upon to exercise discretionary power.--Gazzster (talk) 04:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that response before. However, it pertains only the situation in 1975. I'm talking about something different.

It seems though, oddly enough, that you're almost complaining because the Queen has never had to act partisanly in any Australian affair. Do you wish for a head of state who would do so more often? It would seem to me that the litmus test of the system is that the reserve powers have rarely been called into use, and never has there been a scenario where it had to go all the way to the monarch. Regarless of what kind of car you're trying to get somewhere in, you won't get anywhere if it breaks down. --G2bambino (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is there's no way for the Queen to act in a non-partisan way. In the Whitlam example, had HM actually been able to restore the Prime Minister, that would've been seen as a partisan act. Had the Queen refused or agreed to remove the Governor-General, that would've been seen as partisan. So the monarch remains "above politics" and does not intervene... but this is a long way from where I started. Hmmm.--Lholden (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The Australian constitution makes a virtue out of being vague. --Lawe (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we have the same Constitution we had in 75. So what applies then, applies now. The GG is not the Queen's representative in the sense that he or she (At last! Later this year) is the personal delegate of the Sovereign. Unlike in other constitutional monarchies, the GG's powers are established a popularly approvwed Constitution, not by letters patent. And indeed this is what a committee tyo review the Constitution concluded during the premiership of Bob Hawke (1988, I believe). Yes, I'm happy that Elizabeth does not intervene in Australian politics (though she has intervened in state affairs, although no more, thanks to the Australia Act). But our Constitution was not written by a monarch; it was composed, written and democratically approved by the Australian People. And it was remarkable for the time that it was done so. The Founding Fathers actually had to fight the British government so as not to have a subservient Constitution. So we owe our liberties not to a foreign monarch, but to the Australian People.While the mopnarchy may have served its role, for which it deserves the thanks of Australia, why should we not go forward on our own, without the extraordinary fear that the car of state will break down as soon as we let go of mother's hand? There are many successful, stable republics: Switzerland, Ireland, Germany, France, Austria (which, like Australia, is a federation), etc. Do you really imagine Australia should still swear allegiance to a monarch in a 1000 years time. The 'we'll go down the slippery slope' without her scenario is fear-mongering which shows a groundless lack of faith in the Australian People.--Gazzster (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Same constitution, sure. But, again, I'm talking about a different scenario.

I don't think anyone's showing a lack of faith in the Australian people; rather, it's a lack of faith in the goodness of individuals. If we could trust all leaders to always do what is right for us, and not just for themselves, then we wouldn't need laws and systems to constrain them. I'm just wondering what happens when one takes away or changes the constraints; will they be as effective? I don't think republics necessarily are as sound, and certainly not better. --G2bambino (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the rub. G2bambino altered the summary of Gerard Brennan's testimony at the 2004 Senate Inquiry. Then he added "however..." followed by some generalisation about the Westminister Act as through it was ipso facto a valid response. G2bambino expects Wikipedia readers to imagine that an Australian High Court Chief Justice would fail to consider the basics of the Statute of Westminster when presenting his opinion before Senators. If there is a reputable response, certainly include it. Otherwise, this is just another attempt to obfuscate the article. --Lawe (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You should maybe see someone about your paranoia. --G2bambino (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please limit comments to discussing the article. --Lawe (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Follow your own advice. --G2bambino (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly respect your right to an opinion, and I know we are straying from the discussion. That said I find it difficult at best to believe that it enhances the dignity and well-being of a nation to have a monarch in perpetuity. You intimate the danger of tyranny in a republic without constitutional restraint. I agree. However, consider that monarchy does not work either, except it be restrained. It requires a thousand years of restraint of monarchy, not freedom, to make it work. And at the core of monarchy there remains tyrannous concepts:

• hereditary right, regardless of talent or suitability, and, in the case of the British monarchy, prejudiced against females and Catholics.
• Fundamental inequality between the sovereign and subject
• The absolute immunity of a single person from the equality of the law.

You say monarchists exhibit lack of faith in the goodness of politicians. That's very much an ad hominem argument that assumes no political movement could be trusted to frame a workable republic. And in any case, they show a retroactive faith in politicians being able to restrain the monarch's power. So what is the difference? Is monarchy better in principle? I wonder if there would be the same attachment to monarchy if the head of state of the UK were not a crowned sovereign, but a hereditary president for life withe the same constitutional restraints as she has now? I suspect much of this aversion for republics is sentimental.--Gazzster (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You misconstrue my words, Gazzster. I did not single out politicians in any way; I said we all have a lack of faith in the goodness of individuals, and then went on to specifically speak of leaders, not just politicians. I also don't personally speak on behalf of all monarchists, and my comments went beyond one end of a spectrum. As I said, a system of government, to function well and democratically, must constrain the ability of any one individual to abuse power for their own gain; the necessity of these limits exists for all forms of government. The question is, though, if one is thinking of change: which, if any at all, of the many variants works better? You speak of a millennium of restraint on monarchy as though it were a sign of shame, when, in fact, you point to just how successful is a Westminster system of parliament under a constitutional monarchy. In fact, most republics, including the US, have tried to emulate this system in some form or another, and thus, republics attempt to place power in the hands of the talented and suitable, have fundamental inequality between president and people, and no immunity of any one individual from the law, just as it is in a constitutional monarchy. To try to argue otherwise is to throw out red herrings; the only way they could be valid is if we lived in a world where the Magna Carta and all that followed never happened, and presidents of republics were the paragon of goodness and wisdom who ate and slept in the same manner as all the people they presided over.

I'm no political scientist or constitutional scholar, but, and though I will agree that tradition and heritage (which I take to be what you mean by "sentiment") plays another part in this discussion, it seems relatively easy to observe that constitutional monarchies are not perfect or indestructible, but do seem to strike a successful balance between the tyranny of the individual and the tyranny of the majority to the point where they cancel each other out. The apolitical nature of the sovereign, which can only exist due to their impartial selection process and position above the political arena, balanced against the inherently biased and self-interested exercise of power by the elected political representatives of the people, means that no one person can successfully covet and use absolute power to their personal advantage; at least, not without great difficulty. Replace the impartial monarch with a politicised president and the balance cannot help but shift; perhaps not much, but also, perhaps, enough to give one person an easier path to uncontested power, as has happened so many - too many - times in a number of countries over the past century. In these terms of the stability of the state, one system has proven itself to work, the others to be, well, either of a dubious track record or never tried at all. One then as to ask: for what reason would the move from the established to the lesser known be made other than to address idealistic and fashionable sentiment? --G2bambino (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry for misinterpreting you. However the example of the US constitution imitating a monarchy is not perhaps a good one. At the time it was written there were few models of a republic to draw upon. So it is understandable that they chose a system with a strong, single executive who was both head of state and head of government (if it was an imitation of a constitutional monarchy, it was an imitation of the administration of George III, not of the style of administration in the Uk today).Constitutional has had its role in the course of political evolution. And, in some European countries in which the monarch is identified with the nation, perhaps still has a role. But I do not understand the concept of the monarch being apolitical. The monarch is no such thing. He or she is obliged to follow the advice of the political party that controls Parliament. She has no choice. Even though she personally may not be involved in political ac ts she still executes them. And it is not even true that she ios not political in the personal sense. Consider the politics of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales? There is no such thing as an apolitical act. Every act every one of us do is politically motivated in some degree. And isn't the appointment of a GG a political act? The Queen plays no part; the appointment is entirely at the whim of the Prime Minister. And of course politics comes into consideration. So nom matter how a head of state is chosen, it cannot avoid becoming political. The fear of a political head of state is a red herring. Whether it be Queen or a viceroy, she and he already is. The question is, can the h of s be constitutionally restrained so that his or her powers are exercised justly, equitably, and at the service of the Constitution. --Gazzster (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The US constitution was brought up as it is a republic without a Westminster style of parliament or responsible government, yet still, in some ways, tried to emulate the system in the UK. Anyway, of course you are right that the sovereign in a constitutional monarchy normally follows the advice of his/her ministers, who are usually part of a political party and will thus tender advice that is tinged with their ideologies. But this fact doesn't make the monarch's political impartiality anything close to a red herring; the monarch does not appoint these ministers because he/she personally favours their political leanings. They are appointed because they have the support of the elected House of Commons (or Representatives, as it may be). This is done because the monarch's main duty is to ensure the smooth running of government, which also means that the ministers may be dismissed by the sovereign if they threaten that stable operation, regardless of what political leanings they may have. That is what makes the monarch in a constitutional monarchy an impartial figure: they do not affiliate themselves with, promote the tenets of, or depend on the support of, any political party. Thus, they carry out their functions of government - granting Royal Assent, issuing Orders-in-Council, making appointments, etc. - regardless of what party their ministers belong to, and, should the situation ever arise where their unilateral decision is required, they've no reason to act purely to favour one party over another. Of course, in republics the president is expected to do the same. But, as already pointed out, a president must be elected in some form or another, and an election means appealing to the sensibilities of one group of people over those of others, which, as far as I see it, and along with the fact that they must keep appealing to those who keep them in power in order to maintain their position, already tinges any executive decisions they may make with personal interest and party policy. That's not to say that I think this, amongst other problems, makes republics so fragile as to collapse into chaos after the first elections. But I do think the politicisation of the office of the head of state does create the potential for abuses that doesn't seem to exist, or exist as much, in constitutional monarchies, and history has given us illustrations that may support this belief. So, a republic may work, but does it work as well? If not, why move to the inferior system other than for the optics of it? --G2bambino (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a question of your own making, because it is still based on the assumption that a constitution with a non-hereditary, Australian head of state represents an 'inferior system'. I note your comments that a republic can work, yet you still seem to assume that it cannot work as well as a constitutional monarchy. The fear of politicising the head of state is, I maintain, a red herring. As I've noted, the appointment of the GG is, as I've stated, a political appointment. It's not supposed to be, but it is made by the PM alone (yes, I know technically it's a nomination). You cannot tell me that he has no political considerations in mind when he makes the appointment. And the GG is already our effective head of state. So what does it matter? The Constitution and constitutional convention does not give the GG, no matter what his or her political bent, any opportunity to exercise bias. If he is a Labor appointment, he is obliged to act upon the advice of the leader of Labor Party. If he is Liberal, he is obliged to act upon the advice of the leader of the Liberal Party.Having a Queen or no Queen would not change that. Neither need it necessarily change the manner of selection of the GG. The nominated might still by the PM. And indeed, that is one of the models put forward for a republic: simply ommit references to the Queen, who exercises no effective political authority in Australia anyway, from the Constitution. --Gazzster (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't make any assumptions, I asked questions and expressed some observations about partisanship that I think are important to the decision of whether or not it's worth any realm's time and money to stop being a realm. On the other hand, you, in order to maintain the belief that an elected president is no more partisan than a constitutional monarch, must continue to only see things through a limited scope. I'll repeat what I said above: the monarch need not act to favour themselves, any donors, or political party; when they follow the partisan advice of their ministers, they do so because it keeps government stable and working, and they may disregard their ministers' partisan advice for exactly the same reason. This applies equally to the appointment and dismissal of a Governor General, which means that as long as the sovereign exists as he/she does, there is a body above both the Prime Minister and viceroy where ultimate responsibility to ensure the working of government rests. I know that simply discarding that individual from the constitution was one of the proposals put out in the late '90s, but it was also one of the most inane. Having never needed to unilaterally exercise her constitutional authority is not the same as never being able to; the fact that it's not been done is a testament to the working of the system, not a reason to dismantle it. Thus, it's definitely no support for a system wherein a president could be put in and taken out at the Prime Minister's pleasure, with zero ability to do anything to control the abuse of executive power. I can't see how anyone could possibly argue that such a scenario would actually be better than what's there now. --G2bambino (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Why dispute over what's better monarchy or republic? GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, because, I imagine, one wants to make the best decisions possible. --G2bambino (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is continued at G2bambino's talk page if anyone wishes to participate.--Gazzster (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A zero importance relationship

There is no importance to QEII being Queen of multiple countries in any discussion related to the Australian republican debate. That is because these relationships are 100% through the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth itself is worth mentioning, but this zero-importance "relationship" is never referenced or yet alone debated. It is the inverse of claiming "we would join with the majority group of republican Commonwealth nations" (which is equally silly.) That is why it does not belong in this article, yet alone the introduction. --Lawe (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing the positions of Head of the Commonwealth and head of state. --G2bambino (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I appear not to be. Where is the ending of a relationship with certain countries. Where is the evidence that the relationship (eg between NZ and Australia) would alter at all? This is monarchist scare mongering. --Lawe (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, I don't even have to try and you get scared. The evidence that the relationship would change stands in the fact that there would be no more sharing of a head of state. Don't be frightened, it isn't rocket science. --G2bambino (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Aside from your own views and personal remarks, where is the evidence that the relationship would end? --Lawe (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The use of the term "relationship" implies that Australia's relations with the rest of the Commonwealth are based on the existence of a personal union (which exists in name only). There's no evidence to back such a proposition - indeed there's plenty to show that Australia's relationships with other Commonwealth members exist outside of the fact Australia is a monarchy (e.g. Closer Economic Relations with NZ, Closer Defence Relations with NZ, five powers agreement between NZ, Singapore, UK, and Malaysia...) --Lholden (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Australia has just as strong, if not stronger, ties, with members of the Commonwealth with republican Constitutions. And for that matter, with other states not in the Commonwedalth. The relationship with the USA, Japan, China or Indonesia, for example is more significant than that with the UK and Canada. Having the same monarch does not enhance Australia's relationship with nations such as Canada, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea. The sharing of the same Westminster-style government probasbly does facilitate diplomatic understand and co-operation, but international relationships are built up on the basis of national and international interests.--Gazzster (talk) 05:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are you all getting so confused? The sentence says the personal union(-like) relationship would end with the Commonwealth realms; not the Commonwealth of Nations. Anybody want to explain to me how any realm becoming a republic or instituting a separate monarchy would not alter the relationship between that realm and the others? Would the Statute of Westminster somehow continue to apply? I don't think so. --G2bambino (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not alter the relationship, because the organisation governing the relationship is the Commonwealth of Nations. Again, if you want to do original research do so in the appropriate scholarly journal. --Lawe (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

And where's the verifiable evidence to support your wild claims? They don't even stand up to the duck test. So, I sill await some explanation of how any realm becoming a republic or instituting a separate monarchy would not alter the relationship between that realm and the others. --G2bambino (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

And why not also wait for "some explanation" as to how this will not alter the relationship between Australia and Uranus? --Lawe (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, what you do with your own time is up to you. I'm starting to suspect, though, that you actually can't do what's been asked of you. --G2bambino (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the use of the term "relationship". It implies that Australia's relationship with other Commonwealth realms would be compromised by becoming a republic. As for evidence, look at the evacuation of Lebanon by the Royal Navy in 2006: the Royal Navy evacuated "British and Commonwealth citizens" - Brits, Aussies, NZers from Commonwealth realms and South Africans, Cypriots and Maltese from Commonwealth republics. There's also plenty of evidence that having a "personal union relationship" doesn't mean good relations with fellow Commonwealth realms - the UK put import restrictions on Australian and New Zealand products following 1973, then restrictions on immigration access to the UK, and is about to remove ancestry visas into the UK for those of us of British decent. The relationship, as is noted above, is of zero importance. So I suggest the sentence should omit the term "relationship", and should state:

"...thus ending the shared monarch between Australia and the other Commonwealth realms though maintaining a position in the Commonwealth of Nations."

This would be more accurate than using the term "relationship" --Lholden (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Where ever is the term "compromised" used? That seems to be only your personal addition. All that's being communicated here is one simple fact: Australia becomes a republic, it is no longer in personal union with the Commonwealth realms. Ending the personal union means changing the relationship. That's all. No speculation of whether that's good or bad, just a statement of obvious fact, and one you seem to recognise, as your proposed alternative just says the exact same thing in more words. --G2bambino (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the problem is with the term "relationship" and what it implies (hence the reason why 'compromised' isn't actually mentioned anywhere). It's hardly plain English to use a term with certain additional connotations to what's being communicated, and given that the personal union exists only in technical constitutional legalese, removed from political reality, to use 'relationship' only adds to the confusion around Australia's status as a member of the Commonwealth. --Lholden (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever does "relationship" imply other than an interaction between two entities? But, besides that, we didn't even need the word "relationship" until Lawe contested the existence of the personal union. Saying "thus ending Australia's personal union with the other Commonwealth realms" worked perfectly fine. --G2bambino (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

We must be mindful that this is the introduction to an article about Republicanism in Australia. This is an invitation to include list of "thus ending X, Y, Z and so on." and anything else G2bambino thinks up to devalue the article. --Lawe (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So you're suggesting removing all references to "personal union relationship"? I'm ok with that. --Lholden (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This is what G2bambino recently wrote on User_talk:G2bambino:

I should also add that it is poor form to remove a citation tag; clearly there is a still open discussion about the matter. The tag lets others clearly identify what the debate is centered on, as well as drawing attention to it so that others may weigh in with opinions or help. I suggest that you don't remove it again until the problem is resolved. --G2bambino (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

But here, G2bambino had difficulty with his own advice.--Lawe (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not the use of the tag, it's how you've done it: poorly. --G2bambino (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Lawe and G2Gambino, perhaps you should be careful to avoid personal stabs at it each other. I realise the subjects on this page can elicit strong emotion. I have to agree that the word 'relationship' is ambiguous. What sort of relationship? I understand what G2 is saying: Australia would no longer be a member of the E2 club. OK, but is there is any reason to state that? I mean, isn't it self-evident? It's a little like saying, 'if George takes a bath, he'll be wet'. So perhaps the word is ambiguous because a reader might think, 'am I missing something here, what is the author trying to tell me'? --Gazzster (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That's why I think "shared monarch" is more accurate. --Lholden (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This is more like: 'If George takes a bath, he is a buoyancy regulator,' with a reference to The effect of buoyancy induced lung volume changes on respiratory frequency in a chelonian (1974)' [2] --Lawe (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Justiciablity - act on Ministerial Advice

Why do republicans want to avoid discussion of the proposed amendment in 1999 and in particular the: prescribed Presidential obligation to act on ministerial advice; the President being instantly dismissable by the Prime Minister; or the uncodified "Reserve Powers" becoming justiciable?

Even the ARM today does not beleive in some of those things!

The republic bill was amended right up until its final hours in parliament?

121.216.232.15 (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've not met any Australian republicans who have avoided discussion on any of those topics. The information added should probably be in the article on the model itself. I note one of the amendments to the Bill in 1999 was to ensure that the Reserve powers were not justiciable (section 45a I think - will have to look that up - but it was made after the Cane Toad Republic was published).--Lholden (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There are several models republicans propose and thus an article called bi-partisan appointment republican model. It mentions the PM being able to dismiss the President, which was a major issue. Justicability was an esoteric issue, and was not in the NO case. I agree with that justicability should be added to the critique section of this article, but not sure how well I could write it NPOV, as I think this is an issue but most constitutional lawyers say it's nothing to worry about. Maybe Richard McGarvie (1999) could be quoted. --Lawe (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone has added to the article writing that the justicability issue was a reason that some republicans voted NO. The source Cane Toad Republic is a monarchist publication and was written before the election. I agree that justicability is an issue, but not in the NO case and not a vote changer for republicans. --Lawe (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Gerard Brennan

by section 2 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act ... so long as we retain the existing system our head of state is determined for us essentially by the parliament at Westminster. Gerard Brennan --Lawe (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

And your point is? --G2bambino (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Prescribed presidential obligation to act on ministerial advice

Generally speaking "dont give more powers to the politicians" is the whole thrust of anti-republican argument in Australia. That was a main theme of the No case during the 1999 republic debate such as it was. I have therefore added this to the article:

"Many republicans voted no because they did not agree with provisions such as the prescribed Presidential obligation to act on ministerial advice [40] and the President being instantly dismissable by the Prime Minister.[41]"

134.148.5.119 (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that many republicans voted no for the first of these two reasons? --Lawe (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhh....the winning no case went around telling people in 1999 the proposed amendment to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) would have given more power to politicians? Like the prescribed presidential obligation in s.59. And the President being removable with instant effect by an instrument signed by the Prime Minister. The proposed section 62 goes on to require that the Prime Minister seek the approval within 30 days of the House of Representatives for this action and there is no sanction should this requirement not be satisfied. The failure of the House of Representatives to approve the removal of the President does not operate to reinstate the President.

I think you could argue these provisions represent changes to the power structure of parliamentary executive government. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong but hasn't the High Court declared the Governor-General is not an automaton?

When Sir John Kerr asked Gough Whitlam what he was going to do when the money ran out in 1975 and Whitlam said "govern on bank credit" didn't His Excellency say he wasn't provide to sign the neccesary documents because the constitution says all money must be appropriated by act of parliament?

Im going to keep poking and prodding until the proposed s.59 is discussed in this article. Australia is the only country where history is written by the losers.

Thank God it is so hard to change the constitution!!!!

134.148.5.118 (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether supporters of a republic voted No on the basis of claims that politicians would be more powerful under the proposed model. I haven't yet seen any evidence of this. --Lholden (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In a telephone call with the executive director of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy I was told "giving more power to the politicians is still generally the best way to approach the issue" in relation to anti-republicanism.

Weren't you alive in 1999?

Didn't you hear people saying "dont give more power to politicians"?

Australia is the only country I know of where history is written by the LOSERS. It's pathetic.

134.148.5.118 (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but a phone call you once had with the director of the ACM isn't evidence that republicans voted No on the basis of your claims. Moreover, this page isn't a forum for your personal views. --Lholden (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Impeachment

What was distinctive about the proposed "first Australian republic" in 1999 was the lack of an impeachment process like every other republic has.

Lets state this in the article.

134.148.5.119 (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is true. Is there evidence? Every constitution around the world has different provisions, so why is this important? --Lawe (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

During the referendum I remember the winning no case saying the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 would have created the only republic in the world without an impeachment process. It was a big issue.

Gareth Evans said our President would have been the most miserable head of state in the world being instantly dismissable by the Prime Minister. As a safegaurd against arbtritrary dismissal the PM would have to seek the approval of the House of Reps within 30 days for his action. And here's the punchline. The President would have remained dismissed even if this resulted in a vote of no confidence.

This article is hopeless. Australia must be the only country in the world where history is written by the losers.

134.148.5.118 (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the direct opposite of what you said in the thread above. Rather than complaining about an article's quality, why don't you take a positive and constructive approach and actually improve it. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Republicans keep taking my changes out. Look the constitution requires the full text of the proposed amendment be produced BEFORE the vote takes place. That means the debate is as much about the principle of a republic as about the details of the model.

This is not my fault. Deal with it.

134.148.5.118 (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Who's saying anything is anyone's fault? Glib and vacuous ripostes such as "deal with it" not only get you nowhere, they also serve to betray the speaker's own issues. This encyclopedia works by consensus, and nobody gets their own way all the time. Every article is permanently a work-in-progress; it will never be finished to everyone's satisfaction, and there's always going to be work to be done. See if from that perspective and you'll have a much happier time here. Rather than label those who happen to disagree with you as "republicans" or "losers", please consider that other points of view are valid. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No actually I think history is written by the losers in Australia and a lot of people do.

Like the Australian newspapers that portrayed the result as "close" when actually the republic referendum was crushed. 6-0.

134.148.5.119 (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. There's always more than one way to interpret the result of a referendum, and no one way is "the right one", or for that matter "the wrong one". Going on state-by-state results, yes, it was 6-0 (although the ACT voted Yes, from memory), and that was the only count that mattered in the end. But looking at the actual numbers of people who voted Yes and No, it was a lot closer than that. It would have taken only a small percentage of people to vote differently to have changed the result. Given that, to say that 6-0 meant the republican referendum was "crushed" is somewhat hyperbolic. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful at this stage for the editor to (a) read Wikipedia policy and (b) get an account. --Lholden (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

When France last voted on the European constitution the No vote won by 55%. French newspapers reported that result as conclusive. Which a 10% difference is.

Once again the losers write the history in Australia. What tin pot joke of a country.

121.216.232.15 (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're welcome to leave any time (leave Australia, and Wikipedia). But nothing entitles you to vandalise my user page. The kindest construction I can place on that behaviour is immaturity. Nobody disputes the result of the referendum was conclusive. I'm glad to see you've retreated from the "crushed" intepretation, though. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I rang the ACM head office during the referendum campaign. They were only talking about what states they needed to win. The state count is the first level of the referendum process. There is not much scope for improvement on 6-0. Nick Minchin the minister most responsible for the referendum went on tv on referendum night and said: "This is overwhelming defeat for republicans".

Moving is not a bad idea. We might solve this "debate" by repatriating republicans to their countries of origin. You can go back to Ireland for a start.

121.216.232.15 (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were the one with a problem with Australia. Me, I love the place and would never criticise it in open forum, as you're wont to do. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As has been said numerous times, the editor should really read Wikipedia's policies (e.g. WP:POV) --Lholden (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind the country. Some of her institutions like the media leave a bit to be desired.

A six state hiding is not a close result.

121.216.232.15 (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No-one said anything about the result. Please read Wikipedia's policies. --Lholden (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The cost

Monarchists made a big deal out of the cost of change. Oridinary people on the street are aware of the cost issue. Its worth amention.

121.216.232.15 (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

User is blocked under a different IP address for Vandalism --Lawe (talk) 12:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The proposed amendment

The amendment agreed to at the constitutional convention was amendend before to went to parliament. It was amended during its time in parliament. The last amendment was made during its final hours in parliament.

I say we amend the article to mention this. You republicans like to amend, i'll leave it to you.

121.216.232.15 (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be important to you: you amend it. For myself, I have no idea what you're referring to.--Gazzster (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to the comment on Talk:Australian_republic_referendum_1999#No_more_power_to_politicians --Lholden (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

User 121.216.232.15 is blocked under a different IP address for vandalism --Lawe (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well im not blocked anymore so you dont have to worry about that.

Drawing attention to the prescribed presidential obligation to act on ministerial advice in relation to the non-reserve powers and the president being instantly dismissable by the PM is not vandalism.

There are plenty of computers in public libraries, I'll keep putting that info back in the article forever. 121.216.232.15 (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

While I support some of your edits, threatening to continuously revert others' moves will not get you far here. If you have reliable sources to back up what you're inserting, other editors (like Lawe) will have difficulty in opposing it. If he, or anyone else, continues to revert properly cited material, they'll be the ones in breach of the vandalism rules. --G2bambino (talk) 07:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Discovered that the individual concerned is evading a one-month block, so that has been reimposed. Orderinchaos 07:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Individual now goes by the user name of Steakknife --Lawe (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation of the Statute of Westminster (x2)

G2bambino writes that I am not engaging in debate, so he removes the original research tag and ignores the comments on this page. At the end of all this nonsense, directly quoting legislation to make a counter argument against the view of a former High Court judge expressed at a Senate hearing is original research. --Lawe (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've had a think about G2bambino's original research. The convention about a singular succession law expressed in the Statute of Westminster preamble makes sense only if we reject G2bambino's opinion about the same statute creating separate succession law for each dominion. Hence the item should be removed. Gerard Brennan (with 14 years on the High Court) does know more about this than G2bambino!!! --Lawe (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ignored the comments on this page? Though you insisted on re-inserting the tag time and time again, you failed to make any expression here for weeks. So, what's to ignore?

Now that you've finally said something, though: you've no evidence on which to base your assertion that the Statute of Westminster is being used as a "counter argument" to anyone's views. The SoW is being presented as what it is, a document that asserts the UK may not change the succession laws without the consent of the Australian government. That doesn't discount the claim that, currently, Australia defers to the UK for the order of succession to the Australian throne; it only clarifies that Australia does so by its own choice, not because the UK still has some kind of colonial control over the core of the Australian state. So, you haven't even any OR to claim. --G2bambino (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh this again. I'm not taking anyone's point. I only suggest that the Statute's agreement regarding the succession may be interpreted more than one way. That the UK may not change the laws of succession without the consent of Australia and the other realms may not necessarily be taken to mean that the laws are patriated into Australian law. It may suggest that Australia consents to be subject to UK laws as regards the succession, and the UK has in turn consented to consult Australia on any matter related to the succession. For the former, one may argue that a sovereign state such as Australia cannot be subject to the law of another nation.And so the laws of succession must be considered distinctly Australian. For the latter, it could be argued that the Acts of Parliament regulating the succession is a body of British legislation solely. The Australian Parliament has not passed any of those Acts into Australian law in the same solemn manner that it patriated the Constitution of Australia Act in 1986. But it may be that this point is even disputed amongst constitutional lawyers.--Gazzster (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"Oh this again" - yes this AGAIN! I agree with Gazzster. I disagree with G2bambino. Note the use of "however". Australia's choice is to continue with the UK succession laws or become a republic through the process of constitutional change. Does this makes Australia independent or not, or subject to UK law or not? It is not Gerard Brennan's point. G2bambino's opinion/counter-argument should be removed from the article. --Lawe (talk) 11:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to discern what your real objection is through all the ranting. If you don't agree to the use of a particular word, say so, and, perhaps, present something you think would be better. It might also be helpful if you could clarify where exactly someone's personal opinion is being presented; I certainly don't see it. --G2bambino (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. It is agreed then. --Lawe (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

G2bambino has made many changes to the article, but there are problems with the new edits, which is unsurprising. Just imagine how difficult it is for someone in Canada to access expertise and material on Australian constitutional law. Anyway, G2bambino's interpetation of the Statute of Westminister is not supported by references, primarily because it is not logical. He does not understand Brennan's point, nor the role of constitutional convention. Changes to succession law are a matter of convention because it has an untested, uninvestigated international dimension. This of course has nothing to do with republicanism in Australia, for which the Statue of Westminster presents no advantage or disadvantage. Republicans understand this is a matter to be democratically addressed by s128 of the constitution (as indicated by s15(3) of the Australia Act). The edits related to the Australia Act are also unsuportable with respect to the effect of s11 and s15. --Lawe (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Lawe (as we're talking in the third person, apparently) makes all sorts of unfounded accusations, as usual. In order to turn his hollow rhetoric into substantial commentary, he should point out exactly where original research has been inserted. Not vague ramblings about conventions and interpretations, but exactly what is original research. We await Lawe's response. --G2bambino (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A sourced statement is now included. The new information (albiet one opinion) appears correct. Then the word "however" is used. From that point to the end of the sentance is original. It contains an interpretation of the Statue of Westminister that is unsourced and incorrect. A problem is that the reference to law, is actually a reference to future law. The wrong assumptions are that: (1) succession is about passing a bill; (2) that the 1931 convention applies today as it did then - it probably does but it may not hold under all circumstances; (3) no request by Australia to adopt any UK succession law, because such law has already existed here for all our post-settlement history. --Lawe (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no word "however" in the section. --G2bambino (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

With the word "though", the new section is still incorrect. Sorry. --Lawe (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's removed now. --G2bambino (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I return G2bambino to my comments above. --Lawe (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I return Lawe to my comments above. --G2bambino (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What... you're five years old now? --Lawe (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Care to address the points? Or, are you just going to continue with the schoolyard tactics? --G2bambino (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You are in five edit wars with people as we speak. Dont get precious with me, mate. --Lawe (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfounded and as irrelevant to the issue here as the point that it's you who's gone off and involved yourself in another dispute I'm having with an equally obsinant and uncooperative individual, purely to irritate. If you want to drop the threats and act like a grown-up, feel free. --G2bambino (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You're involved in edit wars with multiple editors and still preaching. What hypocrisy!!! --Lawe (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Need I remind you who it was who went off and inflamed those disputes, solely for that very purpose? Exaggerated commentary about me is not going to get us anywhere; either you have a legitimate beef with the content of this article, or you don't. You've been asked to point out specifically what is original research, and you have not done so. --G2bambino (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Lying too? Hmmm. Could you be so exposed right now. --Lawe (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

So, then, you can't point to the OR in the Representing Australia section? --G2bambino (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I can, and I have. --Lawe (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, in case you haven't yet noticed, I don't believe you have; what I saw was a bunch of random opinions and speculations, not specifics. So, instead of simply repeating unverified statements, back them up; show me exactly where you explained what makes the claims OR. I've taken the liberty of highlighting below the text you have tagged as OR, and shown explicitly how it is anything but what you say it is. However, it remains anyone's guess as to why you thought it was OR in the first place; you simply won't say. --G2bambino (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no research to backup what you wrote about succession law. --Lawe (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So, we've gone from original research to no research; which is it, Dlatt? If we stick to your original accusation, you've still put forward a total of zero concrete examples of OR. If you continue to come up empty in this regard, the tags will eventually have to come off the article. --G2bambino (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Monarchists claim ...

Someone added "Who|date=June 2008", but I would understand that these sections present views widely supported and continously maintained by monarchists and leading monarchist groups and there is no need to provide specifics. --Lawe (talk) 11:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Primary Source Material

The article currently contains primary source material - legislation. According to the No original research policy, "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." This includes legislation.

Items based upon primary sources are marked using the tag.

From WP:PSTS: Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

• only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

Now, let's compare to its primary source the text of this article which you (Lawe) don't believe (highlighted):

Text in the article:

• The UK's laws of succession continue to apply in Australia, at Australia's request and, by the Statute of Westminster 1931, the UK cannot change the succession laws without the consent of the other Commonwealth realms.

Text in the sources:

• Section 4 requires the 'request and consent' of a Dominion before a law passed by the British Parliament will apply within the Dominion.National Archives of Australia
• No act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as a part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.An Act to remove Doubts as to the Validity of certain Commonwealth Legislation, to obviate Delays occurring in its Passage, and to effect certain related purposes, by adopting certain Sections of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, as from the Commencement of the War between His Majesty the King and Germany

In other words, the text of this article which you think is original reasearch is, by all definitions, that which "only make[s] descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and... make[s] no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source."

What's worse is that the above words from the sources are already directly quoted in the footnotes of the article, which leads one to seriously consider that you never bothered at all to read them. --G2bambino (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that you are reasonable or educated? Your comments, especially the personal comments directed against a number of wikipedia editors are evidence that you are not reasonable. What about being blocked and failing twice to have that block dropped? A reasonable person would have accepted that they made a mistake and waited the required period. --Lawe (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that your original research is also wrong as explained above --Lawe (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Your highlighted 'sources' are not about succession law. It is about passing an Act. Acts and law different things. Also they are a synthesis, which is also against wikipedia policy. These are very basic mistakes. --Lawe (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Address the argument, not the man. If I could ask both of you, what is the issue again? I've forgotten.--Gazzster (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in this case the problem is the man, because his argument rests on the reasonableness of the person. But I am happy to go over the issue with you. Wikipedia stops us from writing about legislation (primary sources.) According to G2bambino the succession law for the Australian monarchy is at Australia's request, because it passed the Statute of Westminster. Also the UK cannot pass a law changing succession without Australia's consent. G2bambino provides his interpretation as to what the Act means for succession law. The Act should have had no effect on succession law. These conventions were prexisting. Other editors have passed on G2bambino's methods, so it's just a matter of be patient. --Lawe (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. So you object to using a piece of legislation to interpret another piece of legislation: the Statute of Westminster used to interpret the Act of Settlement 1701. Yes, I think that's a reasonable objection. It is the role of the judiciary to interprete law. So if the Act of Settlement applies to Australia as a result of Australia making use of the Statute of Westminster to apply a British law, we ought to find a legal judgement that says so. I've no idea what the answer is, but, to play devil's advocate, if the Act of Settlement has been patriated into Australian law, it is no longer a British Act and the relevant clause of the Statute does not apply.--Gazzster (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no interpretation of anything; I made that abundantly clear in my analysis above. Lawe is simply trying to confuse issues with personal attacks and problems that simply don't exist. I can put direct quotes from the Statute of Westminster in the article, but, that really shouldn't be necessary; WP:PSTS allows for descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, which is exactly what the section already does. --G2bambino (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What part of the Statute states that the Act of Settlement is a British law which Australia has asked to be applied to Australia? (If I understand the issue correctly)--Gazzster (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

To answer that question, such a claim about the Statute of Westminster would first have to be made. In fact, the point of British succession laws (which include the Act of Settlement) applying in Australia is raised by two individuals: Gerard Brennan and Richard Toporoski. That this situation exists at Australia's request, and cannot be altered without Australia's consent, is what the Statute of Westminster clearly spells out. Unless there is some doubt that the Statute of Westminster still exists as an Australian law? I've certainly seen no evidence to give cause for that. --G2bambino (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's what I was asking. So the SoW doesn't state that. I know that the amendment of succession laws requires the consent of all the states. But where's the evidence that this exists at Australia's request? In other words, is this an instance of Australia requesting to be governed by a British law, or an example of a British law patriated into Australian law (ie, it is an Australian law)? I think that's what Lawe might be getting at? I'm challenging to test your claims, not because I diasgree with you. I really don't know what the answer is.--Gazzster (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we agree that according to the Statute of Westminster no one realm can change the succession laws without the consent of all the others; that is one issue, which seems settled. According to Toporoski and Brennan, it is British law that applies in Australia, and not patriated law identical to that in the UK; that is another issue, which seems settled. The third issue - associated with, but still separate to, the other two - is whether or not the British Act of Settlement applies in Australia at Australia's request. Granted, now that I re-read, yet again, the Statute of Westminster, it does specifically say that it is only acts of the British parliament passed after 1931 that can apply in another realm if so requested. Yet, by saying so, the statute is simultaneously affirming Australia's sovereignty, meaning that the law can no longer be imposed on Australia against its will. So, maybe "at Australia's request" isn't exactly the most accurate way to put it; it actually seems more a case of "due to Australia's complacency." The application of the Act of Settlement certainly wasn't forced on Australia, and that it retains effect in Australia certainly doesn't revoke the country's sovereignty - whether that be embodied in parliament or the sovereign. ;) --G2bambino (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. And might it be implied that British laws that apply in Oz before 1931 are by default considered Australian law? Tricky one. Sounds like the lawyers don't agree. Good point to avoid getting into.--Gazzster (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It might be, but there's no such argument being made in the article. It simply states that British law applies in Australia, that the British law can't be changed without Australia's request and consent, and that this applies at Australia's request. The only thing I can see any problem with - though it's minor - is the word "request." --G2bambino (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not so minor, I reckon. It gives the impression Australia has subjected itself to British law. Which may be true. And it may not. WE should avoid the word.--Gazzster (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But we do know that Australia is not subjected to the law by outside force; that much is true. So, how does one word that fact in the context of the section in question? --G2bambino (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"By outside force" ... what sort of nonsense is this? G2bambino has no expertise to argue this. When the argument is most obviously flawed, it is rationalised as "minor" instead of being incorrect. This shows why this is original research and why the prohibition on primary references exists. The line is clearly G2bambino's own interpretation and these arguments are imaginative. There are no proposals to change the Act of Settlement, so this is entirely speculation. Use of reference is incorrect as stated above. Please do not return the primary sources to the article. --Lawe (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I guess you weren't following along. The only thing that's questionable is how to describe how the law came to apply in Australia. That's a matter of terminology. Claims of OR have long been dispelled. --G2bambino (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your whole line of argument is orginal research. You have provided nothing to back it up. --Lawe (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

My arguments are no more original research than yours. But, our arguments aren't the point of the, well, argument. The content of the article is, and you've never found one shred of OR therein. So, without a base for your argument, it simply falls apart. --G2bambino (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The content of the article is required to be sourced from secondary sources. Please provide valid references --Lawe (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:PSTS says otherwise, as was explicitly pointed out to you at the head of this section. --G2bambino (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this another joke? WP:PSTS says the content of the article is required to be sourced from secondary sources. Please provide valid references and do not enage in edit wars. --129.78.64.101 (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet again: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia." I trust that's clear enough. --G2bambino (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That sentence is out of context - you are interpreting legislation. --Lawe (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is not out of context in regards to the bogus claim that "the content of the article is required to be sourced from secondary sources." With that out of the way, the matter of interpretation comes next, which was already sorted out above: WP:PSTS states: "to the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should... only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source." If there has been some interpretation beyond a simple description of what the law says, please explicitly spell it out here. --G2bambino (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That sentence remains out of context. This is your opinion nothing more. It does not even agree with the legislation. This is your view, nothing more and it cannot be backed up by a reliable source. If you want to include this material, do a PhD on it. --Lawe (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Afraid not. Again: please explicitly spell out what in the article goes beyond a simple description of what is in the law. --G2bambino (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Afraid so. The policy applies to your actions. Please provide a source to back up all your words that interpret the legislation in this unique way. --Lawe (talk) 07:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to take sides, but regardless of any editorial misdemeanours G2bambino may or may not have perpetrated, you're not being very clear. What exactly do you object to? This dispute has been going on so long that a casual observer (such as myself) could be forgiven for not knowing what it's about.--Gazzster (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that's what I keep requesting of Dlatt; he's claims there's interpretation, but hasn't yet been able to point to any. It would be of great benefit if he would, or cease and decist if he can't; either way. --G2bambino (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Gazzster. The onus is on G2bambino to provide references to support claims made. We don't let anyone write anything in wikipedia. I believe he will be unsuccessful, and I believe he knows it, hence the resort to edit-waring. According to the preamble of the UK Statute of Westminister in 1931 there was a pre-existing "constitutional position" that the empire would consult it's dominions if its succession law was changed. Leaving the matter in the preamble was deliberate. The legislation itself provides for each dominion to enact its own future laws independently. The Australian law in 1942 accepted sections 2 to 6, but not section 9. Australian states awaited the Australia Act, which has nothing specific about UK succession law. For this and a range of other reasons, if there was an attempt to change succession law, a range of constitutional issues may need to be reviewed and covered. Since such as change is not seriously contemplated, there's been no authorative investigation on how to do it. It is not even clear whether the High Court would even consider the issue justiciable. Dispite the complexity of the issue, and the historical propensity for these matters to be drafted with deliberate vagary, G2bambino can look at one line and wade in with absolute conviction just to contradict the view of Former Chief Justice Gerard Brennan, as a witness to a Senate Inquiry. In conclusion, no need to take sides as it is a complex issue. Just ask G2bambino to provide a proper reference, eg from an Australian constitutional journal post Australia Act 1986. I am 95% sure there is none. I am also sure his position is irrelevant to the both Australian monarchists, republicans and constitutional jurists. I am sure G2bambino will continue to argue his way with further "original research" (a polite way of saying amateur nonsense). --Lawe (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking to me, or just around me? It's just another added irritant to the task of communicating with you. Regardless, I'm utterly baffled when trying to figure out what it is that you are reading, because what you claim to see certainly isn't what's actually there. For instance, you say I'm "arguing" a point against Brennan, when, in fact, the clauses from the SoW that I highligted - and you've STILL to present the "interpretation" of that law you claim is in the article - don't oppose what what Brenan says at all; frankly, though it doesn't particularly matter to the article's content, I think the man is right about Australia relying on the UK parliament for succession law (though not about the necessity of a republican system to alter that). What they are is very relevant to the topic of Australia, the UK, and succession law. So, why are you fighting an imaginary foe? Doing so, and making trouble for everyone else, is what is nonsense here. --G2bambino (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi G2bambino - my "interpretation" is not in the article. Please provide a reference to backup your interpretation, which you keep reverting back into the article. --Lawe (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What? Please fulfill the request: present here the "interpretation" that you claim is in the article. With about nine requests for this all met by silence, it becomes easy to imagine you're just making the whole thing up. --G2bambino (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? The request has already been fulfilled at top of this section. --Lawe (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree

Yes, perhaps I grasped more of the discussion than I thought. I was discussing the ambiguity of the situation with G2Bambino, and it looks like he's agreed. There's no point getting into it, seeing that there has been no judgement (as far as I know), as you say. There seem to be opinions, but they can be no more than that. In present circumstances it's probably a purely academmic question anyway. If a succession crisis came, the Parliament of Australia might not necessarily feel bound by British law. We should maintains edits to avoid treating of the question.--Gazzster (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand, Gazz. To be clear, the section we're talking about specifically is: Former Chief Justice Gerard Brennan stated that "so long as we retain the existing system our head of state is determined for us essentially by the parliament at Westminster." (The UK's laws of succession continue to apply in Australia, and, by the Statute of Westminster 1931, the UK cannot change the succession laws without the consent of the other Commonwealth realms.) Where therein is the question you allude to? All I see is: fact: what Brennan says, fact: what Toporoski says, and fact: what the SoW says. Are you suggesting that the entire thing be removed, Brennan's musings and all? --G2bambino (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I thought what you wrote was sensible. Interestingly have just confirmed (to myself) that the section of the Statute of Westminster from which G2bambino quotes was repealed in Australian law by s12 the Australia Act. --Lawe (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It still applies in the United Kingdom, however. --G2bambino (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a revealing comment. But when will the penny drop? --Lawe (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

G2, I'm just responding to the case as Lawe put it when I asked.Perhaps you and Lawe don't understand each other.--Gazzster (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a case of "perhaps"; I haven't a clue what he's actually objecting to, and he just won't explain when I ask. Very frustrating. --G2bambino (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The tail wags the dog again. Please do some research and then write something based upon it. --Lawe (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

And you avoid explaining yourself again. Just for everyone's information: I've raised this issue at WP:ORN. --G2bambino (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Dlat, are you objecting to G2's edits based on your answer to me? If so, G2 doesn't seem to understand the relevance. I don't either.--Gazzster (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I am objecting to G2's edits, primarily because he is interpreting the constitutional sources directly, when he should be relying on secondary references as per wikipedia policy. If he follows the policy, then he will discover that he is unique in his views. If he continues to argue, then there is one issue after another to be raised, none of them he will understand. --Lawe (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

And yet he won't tell anyone what these supposed "interpretations" are. It's anyone's guess. --G2bambino (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see the comments at top of page. It's clear. --Lawe (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be specific about which comments at the top of the page. Better yet, repeat them here. --G2bambino (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Read what I wrote at the top of this section. Don't read the section written by G2bambino --Lawe (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What you wrote there has been dealt with and debunked. You have no proof of interpretations being made in the article, and never did. --G2bambino (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

[De-indent] A problem that never existed in the first place is a problem not to be bothered with. --G2bambino (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

A problem denied, is a problem never solved. --Lawe (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

See below. --G2bambino (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of questioned sentences

For everyone's benefit, I'm going to update the analysis I did earlier about the claims made in the article and the sources used to support them. First, to be clear on the validity of primary source material as citations:

[From WP:PSTS]: Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should: only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

Now, to the text of the article:

Statement in article: Gerard Brennan stated that "so long as we retain the existing system our head of state is determined for us essentially by the parliament at Westminster." Primary source 1: Official Committee Hansard, Senate, Legal and Constitutional References Committee, 13 April 2004, Sydney, p21 Statement in source 1: In other words, so long as we retain the existing system our head of state is determined for us essentially by the parliament at Westminster.

Statement in article: ...by the Statute of Westminster 1931, the UK cannot change the succession laws without the consent of the other Commonwealth realms... Primary source 2: National Archives of Australia; Documenting Democracy: Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 Statement in source 2: Section 4 requires the 'request and consent' of a Dominion before a law passed by the British Parliament will apply within the Dominion. Primary source 3: Parliament of the United Kingdom; The Statute of Westminster, 1931; 22 George V, c. 4 (U.K.); December 11, 1931 Statement in source 3: No act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as a part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.

Statement in article: ...by the Australia Act no act of the UK parliament can apply to Australia. Primary source 4: Parliament of Australia; An Act to bring constitutional arrangements affecting the Commonwealth and the States into conformity with the status of the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, independent and federal nation; Act No. 142 of 1985; 1; Queen's Printer for Australia Statement in source 4: No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to the Commonwealth, to a State or to a Territory as part of the law of the Commonwealth, of the State or of the Territory.

Original research accusations

[From Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#Republicanism in Australia]:

I have just reviewed the article, the section, the article history, the talk page, the quoted sections of the sources, and a few other relevant articles, particularly the one on the SoW. Like you, I remain somewhat mystified by the nature of the continuing complaint. I would make these remarks:

• The brief comment which has since been removed — "at Australia's request" — is the only thing I found which could be labeled as OR. For one thing, it took a term of art ("request and consent") from the original source and re-applied it in a vernacular context, creating a somewhat misleading impression. For another, it verged on synthesis, taking the SoW and applying it interpretively to other legislation. Lastly, it was highly unclear whether the SoW's "request and consent" applied at all to the body of law in question. However, you and Gazzster reasonably agreed between you that the statement was insufficiently supported and needed to go. With that removed, the remaining information is not OR.
• As a general point, the information would best be placed elsewhere in the article, and should be more fully integrated. I understand that it naturally complements the Brennan quote with other views of the direct importance of the UK Parliament to Australia's head-of-state question, but it doesn't really fit into a section called "Representing Australia" under the larger heading of "Arguments for change". It seems that a full, contextualized section on the legal dimensions of the debate might be necessary, and this would find its natural home there. I believe there might be less conflict with Lawe if this material were not juxtaposed with the Brennan quote, giving the appearance almost of a counterpoint. I understand, however, that it will be difficult to reorganize the article with his continued insistence that the material cannot be included at all.
• The statement on the requirements for changing succession laws (the UK cannot change the succession laws without the consent of the other Commonwealth realms) is not OR. As you argue, it is a correct and simple descriptive use of a primary source. Lawe seems concerned with the fact that there is no identical text in Australia's version of the SoW, but I don't see how it matters. As long as the UK has such a provision of the act in effect, there is plainly no necessity for the Australians to have a reciprocal provision.
• I'm not sure I understand the importance of the Australia Act here. Is it establishing anything not established by the SoW material? It seems only to rebut the statement of Brennan. Not clear on this.

Anyway, that's as much as I can figure out from this somewhat arcane dispute! Drop me a line if you need help mediating this on the talk page. Mr. IP «Defender of Open Editing» 05:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well G2bambino is cleared to quote legislation. So that must apply to everyone. Let us now include all this legislation in a contextualized section on the legal dimensions of the debate. --Lawe (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Quoting legislation isn't necessary. A simple description of what the legislation outlines is sufficient. --G2bambino (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It is no surprise that G2bambino has rejected the recommendations above. There is a statement that the material should not be juxtaposed. If G2bambino does want to accept the recommendation that he requested, then nobody else is bound by it either. --Lawe (talk) 08:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That is most certainly a misrepresentation of reality; i.e. a lie. I wonder, does your mode of dispute resolution only include misreading written words and hitting the revert button? Please stick to the facts. --G2bambino (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

How was the 48 hour block for edit waring? It should have given you some time to think about this particular question. --Lawe (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It was fine, thank you. Regardless, your response does not address the issue in the least; you misconstrued what was said in order to support your actions. Until you deal with the facts as we have them in front of this, this discussion will not go very far. --G2bambino (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can't accept the umpires decision ... --Lawe (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, do you mean your unique interpretation of the umpire's decision? --G2bambino (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I mean the umpire's unique interpretation of the umpires decision. --Lawe (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you and he do not agree on his interpretation of his decision. In fact, you are ascribing to him a decision he never made; he explicitly expresses a lack of clarity where you say he made a defitite call. --G2bambino (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Its unclear to you, because you disagree. What you call an explicit lack of clarity is what the rest of us call a politly-worded request. --Lawe (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

[De-indent] No, no lack of clarity on my part; I can see his words in black and white, right in front of my face. "I'm not sure" and "not clear on this" gives a pretty explicit message. --G2bambino (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And you say you are "not sure" too. But you stil continue to edit war? --Lawe (talk) 09:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about something else, which has long ago been removed. This is something different, and you should know that. I suspect you do. --G2bambino (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Your move to off-topic material was your choice, not mine. --Lawe (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Afraid not. --G2bambino (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I merely repeat that one cannot agree to half a solution. --Lawe (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If, indeed, there was ever a problem to have half a solution for. --G2bambino (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally problems require full solutions. --Lawe (talk) 09:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

[De-indent] Indeed, they do. So, where's the problem? --G2bambino (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is stated at the start of these sections --Lawe (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, another's mystification with what's being disputed is clearly stated at the start of this section. I guess the problem is that nobody but you can see a problem. --G2bambino (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is stated at the start of these sections --Lawe (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)