Talk:Governor-General of Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Governor-General of Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Order of Australia

I found this photo [1] of Michael Jeffery wearing the Order of Australia, but he apears to also be wearing the former Knights Star... is this some kind of special badge worn only by the Governor General ? Dowew 02:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd need to check, but I suspect it's the badge worn by the Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Australia, which is a job the G-G has ex officio. -- JackofOz 06:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chief Scout

I understand that the G-G is always appointed Chief Scout of Australia. Well, almost always. I seem to remember Bill Hayden declining the job of Chief Scout because it meant swearing allegiance to God, and he is an atheist. Apart from that exception, it's virtually an ex-officio appointment. What can we say about this in the article? JackofOz 11:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the description of the ceremonial role could be more detailed than simply "patron of charitable institutions". There are many positions like this, including Prior in the Order of St John, etc. JPD (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added a new Patronage section, including relevant cites for the Chief Scout job and Bill Hayden's declining the office. Disclaimer: I have no associations with the League of Rights or what they stand for, but it's the only cite I could find on Google. If anyone can come up with one from a less controversial organisation, that would be good. -- JackofOz 00:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Role of GG

I've taken a look at the lead and added a source (the GG's own website). While the Governor-General is undoubtedly the representative of the Queen, he performs most of his job in his own right. The old wording made it sound as if he was just the Queen's Aussie agent, which is a long way from the truth. --Pete 17:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inserted Internal Links and Removed Websites

I have inserted Internal Links in this article and removed websites where there were Page not found or Not on this Server notices. Kathleen.wright5 10:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats all well and good, but there are now unreferenced quotes that need to be re-referenced. I'll see what I can do, but any help would be appreciated given the nature of the task. DirectEdge 11:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
You've also tried to link "representative". This is problematic, as the G-G is not a political representative, nor an agent. At Federation, he was the representative of the British Government, and saying he was the Queen's representative was a polite way of putting it. But after the Statute of Westminster, he no longer represented the British Government, and High Commissioners were appointed to the various dominions. That left the G-G as the monarch's representative, and that involved awarding honours, receiving ambassadors and a few other ceremonial things. His real powers are given to him in his own right and have nothing to do with the monarch. --Pete 03:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
That's an interesting argument, and undoubtedly disputable, but I think we can agree that the link on "representative" is not helpful. However, I don't think linking to "Queen Victoria" is helpful either. The aim of a link in that context shouldn't be to make a point about constitutional arrangments in 1901 (the sentence is written in the present tense, after all)- it should link to the article most relevant to understanding the current situation. The GG is (still) appointed by the current Sovereign, so it would seem the best article is actually Monarchy in Australia. JPD (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the link. While I'm aware that the meaning of the Constitution can alter without the words changing - if we look at Sue vs Hill we find that the UK somewhere along the way became "a foreign power" - the actual text of the document is quite clear on who "the Queen" is, and it's the British Queen, her heirs and successors. Maybe I'm being too much the pedant, but what happens should the Queen die and we change the link to point to King Charles III? Wouldn't our readers be entitled to think there was something going on under the covers that we weren't telling them? --Pete 16:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't really see the problem - the article Monarchy in Australia deals exactly with the various meanings that "the Queen" in the Constitution has held, and should continue to do so unless/until that aspect of the consitution is changed. It's a more helpful link than Victoria, Elizabeth II or Charles III. JPD (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Monarchy in Australia is fine. That's better than pointing to any particular monarch. --Pete 18:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reserve Powers

In the reserve powers section it is stated that the Governor-General has the reserve powers explicitly assigned to him by the constitution and he exercises them on ministerial advice. This is incorrect. The whole point of a reserve power is that it is exercised without ministerial advice, i.e. the Governor-General acts on his own initiative. The powers which are expounded in the Constitution are just normal heads of power which are exercised on ministerial advice in the normal course of government. This section needs to be changed to recognise what reserve powers are. Due to the fused nature of the Australian Legislature and Executive, the definition in the reserve powers article of reserve powers being exercised by the executive without reference to any other branch of government is not entirely correct. This is the case in most parliamentary Westminster systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.44.60 (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Style/Infobox

I would like to remove the style "Right Honourable" from the box at the right, as Australian Governors-General are no longer appointed to the British Privy Council. The style, "The Honourable" would only be used by a GG who had been a Minister of the Crown or a judge. The current G-G, Major General Michael Jeffery does not hold the style "Honourable", neither did the previous G-G, the Right Reverend Peter Hollingworth.

Does anyone know how to edit the box?

Anglicant (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have edited {{Infobox vice-regal}} to remove the Right Honourable style for Australia, although I think it would be better to completely redesign the template so that styles were entered for each article. I had also already left a message on the template's talk page concerning the badge which is incorrectly described as a crest, but noone has replied. JPD (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone has sensibly fixed the info box to identify the G-G's "badge". Anglicant (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
They have fixed the box so that it is sensible in this case. I don't think they fixed the box sensibly. It would be much better to allow the caption to specified at point of use, rather than incorporating a one-off special case in the code. As it is, we still have silly things at Governors of New South Wales. I might get around to rewriting the infobox at some point. JPD (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffery's "resignation"

We should not treat this as a resignation in the normally understood sense of the word. I've given my reasons at Talk:Michael Jeffery#Resignation?. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)